David Anguish
Three news stories caught my eye recently, as much for the lessons they remind me of as for their content.
First is the story of the indictment of the airline maintenance company and three of its employees on charges of murder and manslaughter for improperly packaging the oxygen canisters which caused the 1996 ValuJet explosion in Florida. One hundred ten people died in that crash.
Second is the story of a junior Air Force officer who has been disciplined for objecting to sex-integrated assignments in the underground confines of a nuclear missile launch center. The man, a devout Catholic, believes that the assignment, which pairs a man and woman alone in the underground capsule, violates biblical teaching to avoid the appearance of sin. (Both the above are from The Washington Times, internet edition, July 14, 1999.)
Third is the story of the arraignment of a woman charged with helping to plant nail bombs underneath two police cars in California in the 1970's. The woman is alleged to have participated with the Symbionese Liberation Army, the terrorist group which kidnaped Patty Hearst and committed other acts of mayhem. What makes this story particularly interesting is the fact that the woman has been living for the last two decades in St. Paul, Minnesota where she is known as a churchgoing doctor's wife and mother of three teenage daughters, and as a woman who is known for her community involvement with local theaters, teaching English at a community center, and reading to the blind over the radio. (From The Los Angeles Times, internet edition, July 14, 1999.)
Legal experts and juries will have to sort through the legal issues involved in these cases. They intrigue me because of the spiritual and ethical issues they raise, not least of which is the reminder that what is legal may not always be moral. Let's suppose that the indictment in the case of the ValuJet crash is thrown out or that those indicted are acquitted. Does that make their actions right? Not even company officials who believe that the indictment was wrong and sets a poor precedent argue that. The employees were disciplined and will have to live with the consequences of their actions, whether or not they are convicted of a crime. No one - not even the case's prosecutors - argues that their intent was to kill anyone. But they acted irresponsibly and their actions had moral implications regardless of the legal outcome.
The case of the Air Force officer is both similar and different. His story also reminds us that just because something is legal does not make it right. But in his case, the matter is pushed to a different level. In some cases, e.g., abortion, the fact that something is legal does not mean that it is required. To refuse to support it may involve you in an uncomfortable position when you discover you are the only one at the water cooler who holds your view, but you usually risk little more than embarrassment for your convictions. But what will you do if your moral stance is deemed illegal? If standing up for what you believe places you at risk of being fired, jailed or killed? Just how committed to Christ are you? Cases like that officer's give us opportunity to examine ourselves about such things.
In the case of the woman charged with terrorist activities which took place twenty-five years ago, we are reminded that the old adage is true which warns, "your sins will find you out." That is not to say that we think she's guilty as charged - or innocent. That question must be left to the courts. But her case does stand as a reminder that what we do today matters. That our actions have consequences which may affect more than just us. And that no matter how far in our past an action may be, someone - perhaps only God - knows, and we will eventually be called to account for it.
Think on these things.