Distrust & fear as interpreters
When I was very much younger I used to
wonder why legal documents had to be so complex, specific and carefully
defined. I'm thinking of tax returns, property sales and purchases,
business ventures and such. I now realise that it's because life itself
is complex so it isn't a sinister plot to confuse us though there are
wise people who assure us that a vast amount of material could be
simplified to a profound degree and in the twinkle of an eye life would
be easier in some ways for millions.
But life's richness and complexity is not the only
reason we have the "fine print". We have fine print because people can
be shrewd and manipulative. Those who design tax-returns take into
account not only the honest people but the dishonest. Words are
multiplied and defined and the definitions are defined, antecedents are
tediously pointed out because whether we like it or not, we simply can't
trust everyone. ("Oh, I didn't know that meant…so I didn't…" Yeah,
right!)
I don't know if it's true or not but I know it's true
that I read that the shortest will on record is three words: All to
mother. (I'm also sure a good lawyer could find a point of vagueness in
that.) I do know some people, up close and personal, who say "yes" or
"no" and you can depend on that—and some of them are non-Christians.
Jesus said (John 14:2), "If it were not so I would have told you." Just
like that; calm as you like and fully expecting them to take his word
for it (but see 14:11).
Much of the difficulty in our communicating with each
other is not about the right words; it's about a lack of trust. We fear
each other, we think the others are out to get us or cheat us or
humiliate us so we make sure that every eventuality is covered by the
right formula of words. People of character and openness are dragged
into the "word business" though they need no legal documents or special
oaths to get them to keep their words (believers or non-believers they
take the words of Jesus seriously—see Matthew 5:33-37).
Distrust and fear deafen and blind us. Even innocent
things/people are dragged into the quagmire. A young girl rejects
society's dishonour and sleaze and wears a full-faced veil to indicate
this. She wishes society was better and she's living her life in a
morally upright way to help make it better. Her intentions are upright
but in a climate of fear and distrust the visible marker of her
intentions becomes a hindrance to the very thing she would like to
promote. Because of societal wickedness a girl's good is evil spoken of.
A wise and caring man though he fully accepts the girl's fineness of
character makes the point that a full-faced veil in a society shaped as this one is
sends the wrong signals and makes community cohesion more difficult.
His wisdom and good judgement is evil spoken of. So two people—a veiled
girl and a wise statesman—get it in the neck for doing the "wrong" thing
and words threatening violence and chaos begin to fly.
Extremists thrive on this—each extreme making its own
point; and they're able to promote fear and distrust even in moderate
people and so the infection spreads. A girl's upright behaviour gets her
in trouble—trouble she wouldn't experience if extremists didn't
flourish. So the very people who say they are standing for the girl are
placing her freedom to protest in jeopardy.
The problems humans face lie beyond the ability of
courts and discussion and social programmes—though we should engage in
them. We know this for sure: until society in general makes it clear in
all the ways open to it that extremism will not be nurtured or approved
decent and committed girls and wise statesmen will be accused of being
the problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment