Buddhism and Wisdom (and Lawyers)

As I wrote yesterday, I am in Malibu, where I am participating in the annual conference of Pepperdine Law School’s Nootbaar Institute on Law, Religion, and Ethics.   The theme for this year’s conference is Wisdom Law and Lawyers.  I was very excited about this conference and not only to escape the winter cold of the Twin Cities or because some of my good friends are among the other speakers.

Yesterday morning began with a wonderful keynote address by Jonathan Burnside, who spoke about the relationship between law and wisdom.  The first panel of the morning addressed Practical Reason, Wisdom and the Law.

I spoke on the second panel of the morning on the subject of Religious Traditions and Wisdom.  My talk addressed the Buddhist understanding of wisdom and how that might speak to issues of law, lawyers and justice.  Specifically, I addressed questions such as: What does Buddhism teach about the nature of wisdom?  How, if at all, do those teachings relate to, or perhaps enrich, a Christian understanding of wisdom?  And how does a Buddhist understanding of wisdom impact our view of the law and the legal profession?

One of the reasons I was excited to be part of this panel is that, by and large, the study of law and religion is a field that has been dominated by discussions focused on the western religious traditions. Theologians and legal scholars have devoted attention to law and religion in the Christian, Jewish and Islamic contexts. Only recently have some scholars started focusing on law from a Buddhist perspective. (Indeed the first comprehensive book on Buddhism and Law was only published last year.)

One of the the points I made in my talk is that Buddhism embodies a preference for resolving conflict in a way that recognizes the interconnectedness/ interdependence of all beings. Rebecca French, who has devoted significant attention to Buddhist conception of law, suggests that the US legal system, which tends to produce winners and losers, gives “little thought” to the interconnectedness of people and how the decision affects all the individuals involved in the case.” In contrast, she writes, “Buddhists believe that you can’t have closure in a case unless all parties are in agreement with the decision, and unless the whole network of people affected by the case is compensated. From this process, you have a social catharsis; you have a feeling that society has been healed.” The Dalai Lama, speaking at a program on law, Buddhism and social changes several years ago, spoke of the need to employ reconciliation and mediation before going to court.  While I don’t think this is the only, and maybe not even the most important, thing Buddhism contributes to how we think about law and justice, I do think it is something worth thinking about.

I hope to share some more thoughts about the conference in subsequent posts.

Advertisement

Pause Before Ranting or Gloating

Some people believe that the United States is sliding toward American theocracy. Others claim that the country has been mortally infected by a godless secularism.

Some of the people who hold one or the other of those views have some well-thought out reasons for their positions. Many others, however, believe it because they have read someone else’s only-minimally-partially-accurate account of something or other.

I’ve been reading a lot of commentary in the news the last two days about the Supreme Court’s decision Monday morning in the Hobby Lobby case, which involved whether a Christian family-owned closely-held corporation could be compelled under the Affordable Care Act to provide coverage for certain forms of birth control that operate as abortifacients.

Sadly, much of the commentary on many popular on-line sites is being written by people who neither read the Supreme Court’s decision nor have any understanding of the legal issues involved in the case. Whether one likes the result or not, the reality is that the decision, which was decided on statutory and not on constitutional grounds, was fairly narrow in scope and is probably a correct decision as a matter of statutory interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 statute that had broad bipartisan support and that was signed by President Clinton.

I don’t want to here get into an extended analysis of what is incorrect in the various reports I’ve read of the opinion. My primary point here is simply to suggest that before anyone either jumps up and down with joy over the opinion or wrings their hands in agony – they read the Court’s opinions and/or talk to someone who understands what the legal issues were and what the Court actually decided.

Some Tough Teachings

In yesterday’s Gospel from St. Matthew, Jesus told his disciples that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Perhaps so, but in the Gospels we hear today and for the next two days, it is clear that Jesus understanding of what the law requires is a bit more demanding than the disciples’ prior understanding.

You have heard it said, you shall not kill…but I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment.

You have heard it said, you shall not commit adultery…but I say, do not even look at another with lust.

You have heard it said, you shall not take a false oath…but I say, do not swear at all.

The disciples had understood the letter of the law they had been taught. But it clear that in Jesus’ eyes following the letter of the law is not enough. Instead, he invites fulfillment of the spirit of the law, fulfillment that is much harder for us than following the law as it had been taught through the prophets.

Not actually killing another is easy, but are there many of us who have never experienced anger toward another? Not actually entering into an adulterous relationship is easy, but are there many who have never looked another with lust? Not taking a false oath is easy, but isn’t is quite easy for a swear to come out of our mouths. This past year I gave several RCIA talks on the Ten Commandments and this was a major thrust of our discussion. Meeting the literal language of the commandments (do not kill, do not steal) is fairly straightforward; living in accordance with a fuller sense of what each requires is a different matter.

Following the spirit of the law as articulated by Jesus is not easy, but doing so is clearly what we are asked to aspire to. And so I think of the words on the plaque on my study wall: “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me,” and I pray for the grace to fulfill the law as articulated by Jesus as well as I can. Hopefully a little better today than I did yesterday, and a little better tomorrow than today.

Interpreting the Law in Judaism

Yesterday was the first part of a two-part Mid-Day Dialogue on Faith on the subject of Interpreting Scripture and Ascertaining Religious Law. Our speaker yesterday was my friend Rabbi Norman M. Cohen, the senior rabbi at Bet Shalom congregation in Minnetonka, who I have mentioned in several previous posts.

Rabbi Cohen began by talking about our need for law. In Jewish thought, because there is and always will be a tension between the good inclination and the evil inclination – an ongoing battle for the human will – we need to pay attention to and follow the teachings of our tradition as they can be found in the evolving system of law. He then talked about how the evolving development of Jewish law.

There was so much packed into Rabbi Cohen’s talk, but let me highlight only two thoughts. First, is the misconception that Judaism is the religion of the Old Testament and Christianity the religion of the New Testament. That phrasing, he suggested, runs the risk of a philosophy of triumphalism which suggests that “Christianity’s beginning marked the end of Judaism,” as though Judaism is “the roots, the purpose of which is only to provide sustenance for the tree that grows above it.”

Instead, he suggested, the better image is that or “roots nourish[ing] more than one tree growing out of that fertile ground, Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity…both of which developed in the centuries following the Roman’s destruction of the ancient Temple.”

The second has to do with interpretation of the Bible. Judaism is a dynamic religious system. Rabbi Cohen talked about the ancient rabbis who adopted a creative approach to Biblical understanding and interpretation. “They insisted that every text, every sentence, every word, and eery letter has various potential levels of meaning, all of which are valuable and precious, but none of which should have claim to be the sole explanation.”

This has the obvious implication that a literal reading of the Bible can never yield full truth and also provides a response to those who poke fun of Bible stories that can’t possibly be literally true to modern minds. Giving the example of Gulliver’s Travels, in which we easily see both a fanciful children’s story and a story with deeper levels of sophistication and meaning, Rabbi Cohen suggested that to “summarily dismiss certain Biblical stories, ideas or concepts indicates only our inability to appreciate the many layers of meaning intended by Biblical redactors.” I think he is quite correct in saying that we “often grant them less respect than we do Jonathan Swift. And it is we who are the poorer for our missing the opportunity to see beyond the superficial meaning of the text.”

At the second session of this program, which will be on March 28, Rabbi Cohen will return for a dialogue on the issue of how we read the Bible and ascertain religious law that will include me and my colleagues, Mark Osler Fr. Dan Griffith. (UST Friends: feel free to join us even if you missed yesterday’s gathering; just let Bethany Fletcher know you will be there, since lunch will be served.)

Beyond the Law

Recently, I read an article by a well-known Catholic writer that expressed delight that the UK bishops had just re-established the practice of no-meat on Fridays. The bishops imposed as an obligation on faithful Catholics in the UK that they abstain from meat on that day or, if they are vegetarian, that they abstain from some other food.

The writer talked a little about the spiritual benefits of abstinence, and then added that, despite recognizing the benefits, it was difficult for her to sustain the practice on her own. Thus she applauded a requirement that would aid her in engaging in the practice by creating a community of people also engaging in the practice.

I was reminded of the article when I read on one of the tales in Peter Rollins’ The Orthodox Heretic on the plane down to Oklahoma City the other day. The book, about which I’ll write more when I’ve finished reading it, is a series of parable-like short stories, each accompanied by a commentary.

One of the stories is titled The Third Mile. The tale concerns Jesus’ teaching that if one is asked to carry another’s pack for one mile, one should carry it freely for two miles. (Parenthetically, I had not realized that the genesis of that teaching was the law that required that if a Roman soldier demanded it, a citizen must carry his pack for a mile.) It recounts that over time, a small band of believers looked forward to carrying out this duty as a way to demonstrate their adherence to Jesus’ teaching. “The leaders would frequently refer to the teachings of Jesus and emphasize the need to carry a pack of the Roman soldier for two miles as a sign of one’s faith and commitment to God.”

When Jesus happened to pass through the town, the believers were excited and anxious to hear his praise for how well they implemented his teachings. Instead, Jesus said

“Dear brothers and sisters, you are faithful and honest, but I have come to you with a second message for you failed to understand that first. Your law says that you must carry a pack for two miles. My law says, ‘carry it for three.'”

In his commentary, Rollins invites us to consider the possibility that the Scriptures are less interested in giving up “concrete ethical answers that can be turned into some religious code of conduct,” than in “inviting [his disciples] to enter into a life of love that transcends ethics, a life of liberty that dwells beyond religious laws.” Love, he suggests, “always seeks to do more than what it demanded of it.”

This story and commentary helped me articulate what bothered me about the suggestion that the US bishops follow the lead of the UK bishops in re-establishing a requirement that Catholics abstain from meat on Fridays. If Jesus invites is living in excess of the law, going beyond the basic requirements, then pushing for increased requirements doesn’t help us to live the life we are invited to. “Force me to do this thing which is a good thing for my spiritual growth,” does not strike me as something Jesus is interested in.

Where Is Our Focus?

In today’s Gospel from St. Mark, the Pharisees stop Jesus as he is passing through a field with his disciples, who are picking heads of grain. Why are they disobeying the Sabbath law?, they ask Jesus. From this and various passages in the Gospels, we get the picture of the Pharisees always on the lookout, always watchign out of at least the corner of their eyes trying to catch Jesus and his disciples doing something that is contrary to the law.

Not only do we all know people who behave like the Pharisees (think of the people who sit in church ever-ready to spot a liturgical abuse they can report to the bishop), but we all sometimes have the tendency to act in the same way. How many times are our eyes focused, no on the task at hand, but on what someone else is or is not doing that we might be able to criticize? or that might make us look or feel better than those with whom we are comparing ourselves?

Let me be clear – I’m not saying there are not things that need correcting and we do have an obligation of fraternal correction of our brothers and sisters. But, we can get so wrapped up in checking out what the people around us are doing that we lose focus on our own task of discipleship.

The temptation to Phariseeism can be a strong one and we would do well to be mindful lest we find ourselves giving into it.

Human Precepts or God’s Law?

I’ve continued to reflect over the past week on a point I made in connection with the memorial of St. Scholastica last week – the idea that not all of our human rules are to be viewed as sacrosanct.

Jesus makes the point even more strongly in a passage from Mark’s Gospel that we listened to recently. Jesus chides the Pharisees, telling them Isaiah had them in mind when he wrote, “This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.” As an example, Jesus pointed to the contrast between God’s command to “Honor your father and your mother” and the human rule that allowed one to refuse to support one’s mother and father by declaring what might have gone for support qorban (dedicated to God), claiming that by such rule the Pharisees, “nullify the word of God in favor of [their] tradition] that [they] have handed on.”

Not all rules that claim to honor God in fact do so. The ultimate test of any human rule, regardless of by whom or by what claimed authority it is promulgated, has to be whether it is consistent with the law given to us by God. The simplest way to frame the test is to ask: does the rule lead to greater faith, hope and love or not? Is the rule consistent with what Jesus proclaimed as the most important commandment, that we love God and love one another? If not, it is no rule worthy of being followed.

As I reflected on this, the prayer that spontaneously arose from my heart was a prayer for wisdom and humility. I prayed for wisdom in being able to distinguish between those rules that are consonent with God’s command and those that are not, and that I have humility in my efforts to do so, recognizing that I may need help in coming to that determination.

Alternative Formulations of the Golden Rule

My friend Frank recently pointed out to me that the Jewish formulation of the “golden rule” is phrased in the negative, in contrast to the Christian formulation. Whereas Jesus says in Matthew, “Do unto others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets,” the Jewish formulation (via Hillel) is, “That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow. This is the whole Torah and the rest is commentary; go and learn it.”

I spent some time contemplating the two lines in order to determine what difference, if any, it made to phrase the rule affirmatively, as Jesus does in Matthew, or negatively, as Hillel does.

It didn’t take too long for me to conclude that there is an enormous difference in the two phrasings. If one visualizes a scale from negative 100 to 100, with negative 100 representing hate/bad/sin and 100 representing love/good/virtue, it seems to me that the negative formulation of the golden rule doesn’t do much more than get one to zero; effectively, it says, don’t be bad. The positive formulation, however, is much more likely to move one along the positive side of the scale. That makes the negative formulation a lot easier to live up to.

The reason for that seemed clear to me as I reflected on each statement, especially when I made the reflection personal, by asking in the negative formulation: what do I not want others to do to me; what in the behavior of others towards me make me unhappy; and in the positive formulation: how do I like others to treat me; what in the behavior of others towards me makes me happy?

Asking the negative versions of those questions doesn’t yield much that encourages positive behavior on my part. The negative version seems to me to function more as a check on a particular potential (bad) act than anything else.

However, asking the question in the positive sense has a much different effect in term so encouraging virtuous behavior. If my reflection leads me to identify (as it did during my reflection) that “I’m really touched when someone does something unexpectedly kind for me,” that has the potential to impel me to affirmatively look for some opportunity to do some gratuitous unexpectedly nice act for another that I might not otherwise have thought to do.

Having said all that, what also seemed clear from my reflection was that looking at the two formulations of the golden rule together gave me a much richer sense than looking at either one alone. I’m not entirely sure that I would feel so strongly about the broadly positive nature of the affirmative formulation of the rule had I not been looking at it alongside the negative formulation.

Is It Lawful to Cure on the Sabbath?

In today’s Gospel from St. Luke, Jesus is dining on the Sabbath at the home of a leading Pharisee. When he sees a man suffering from dropsy, he asks the scholars and the Pharisees whether or not it is lawful to cure on the Sabbath. When they say nothing, Jesus heals the man and then says to them, “Who among you, if your son or ox falls into a cistern, woudl not immediatley pull him out on the sabbath day.”

We see many examples in the Gospels of such encounters between the Pharisees and Jesus. Over and over again, Jesus chastises their adherence to the letter of the law in circumstances where such adherence runs counter to the commands of mercy and love. Having said that, Jesus is also clear at various times that he has not come to abolish the law.

I happened to read the other day a passage in Saint of the Day, edited by Leonard Foley, OFM and Pat McCloskey, OFM, that I think does a good job of expressing what Jesus so often tried to convey. The authors write:

Legalism can suck the life out of genuine religion if it becomes too great a preoccupation with the letter of the law to the neglect of the spirit and purpose of the law. The law can become an end in itself, so that the value the law was intended to promote is overlooked. But we must guard against going to the opposite extreme and seeing law as useless or something to be lightly regarded.

Our task is to walk a middle ground between ignoring the commands of the law and following the letter of the law so slavishly that we ignore love and mercy. Doing so successfully requires that we act with the wisdom of the Spirit.

Upping the Ante

Today begins three days of Gospels from St. Matthew in which Jesus ups the ante, so to speak.   Yesterday, He told his disciples that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.  But in these three passages, His explanation of what the law requires is more demanding than the disciples’ prior understanding.

You have heard it said, you shall not kill….but I say, do not even be angry with your brothers and sisters.

You have heard it said, you shall not commit adultery…but I say, do not even look at another with lust.

You have heard it said, you shall not take a false oath…but I say, do not swear at all.

The discipes had understood the letter of the law they had been taught. But it clear that in Jesus’ eyes following the letter of the law is not enough. Instead, he invites fulfillment of the spirit of the law, fulfillment that is much harder for us than following the law as it had been taught through the prophets.

Not killing is easy, but are there many of us who have never experienced anger toward another? Not commiting adultery is easy, but are there many who have never looked another with lust. Not taking a false oath is easy, but isn’t is quite easy for a swear to come out of our mouths.

Following the spirit of the law as articulated by Jesus is not easy, but doing so is clearly what we are asked to aspire to. (I phrase it that way thinking of my friend Greg’s comment in his homily of yesterday morning that the Jesus’ law should be seen, not as something that must be satisfied to obtain salvation, but as an gift that guides us in living an authentic life.) And so I think of the words on the plaque on my study wall at home, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me,” and I pray for the grace to fulfill the law as articulated by Jesus as well as I can. Hopefully a little better today than I did yesterday, and a little better tomorrow than today.