The Priest in silence is no doubt in what we might call "a pickle." The decision he is forced to make at the end of the book is one i truly hope i never have to make. On one hand, he maintains his faith and doesn't give in to the torture, and has to live the rest of his life knowing that the other christians were killed and he could have prevented it, and on the other hand, he publicly renounces his faith but in doing so saves the lives of the other christians. Now, the debate arises of whether what he did was right or not. If we looked at the situation biblically, then it would seem that what he did was wrong. All other things excluded, he publicly committed an act of denial of his faith. I would assert though, that if it was his life that was on the line, then what he did would absolutely be wrong. As christians, we are called to value our faith in Christ above our very lives; " to live is Christ, to die is gain." An important point to make however, is that he did so on behalf of other christians, an ironically Christ like act. He took the burden of that sin upon himself to save the others. Does that make certain forms of sin permissible if it is to the end that others may live? I'm not entirely sure i would say yes. If that question were to be answered yes, then by extension, a good enough end can indeed be justified by wrong means.
On the other hand, one could easily argue that that was not the priest's place to intervene. Although it seems callous and selfish, if he were to have allowed the other christians to suffer, then he would not have denied his faith, but at the expense of others. Some would say that this would have been the right decision because his chief concern should always be maintaining Christ as the utmost purpose and priority in his life regardless of all other circumstances. But then again, this option seems like he would have been allowing others to suffer and even die only so that he could remain without that sin, a seemingly selfish act.
The central question dealt with here is this: is it right to remain without sin and in doing so cause others to suffer and even die or commit sin so that others may live?
Truth be told, i have no idea what i would do, hence the title of this post.
p.s. I commented on Mallory's
This is a difficult question, and one that I believe every Christian wrestles with at some point in their life. I remember the first time I thought about this question was in my high school youth group, after discussing the hardships Christians experienced during Roman times. I would like to tell myself that in that situation I would hold fast to my faith, but if we are being truthful, I could never live with the knowledge that I caused the death of other people. I know that if I was really in that moment I would do what I could to save the lives of others, and ask God for forgiveness later.
ReplyDeleteI've been struggling with this too, It's the infamous concept of 'kill one, save a thousand'. I've always had problems with this. If you were standing at the airport terminal with a gun on September 11, 2001, and you knew what those men were about to do, would you pull the trigger? Would you watch those men die by your own hands so that the people on the planes, and the ones in the towers and the Pentagon would live to see sundown? Would you kill them, knowing they were going to die anyways so that countless others would go home to see their families? Their children? Again, I don't have the answer to this. Maybe it's what you personally deem is right. Maybe it's not murder if you're saving the lives of others? But what others? how many others? These are questions we have to personally decide, or, like me, leave undecided.
ReplyDelete