The scenario is one any parent is familiar with: one child has inadvertently harmed another. There was no ill will. There may not have even been an awareness that harm was done or that they were involved in any way whatsoever. Their ignorance may be genuine. Their heart may be good. But they still — without meaning harm bowled their kid sibling over (or whatever)…… their actions still resulted in harm. And there is still responsibility they bear for the harm they caused, even when it was not intended and even when they were not aware of it at the time.
This lesson is not an easy one to learn. We more easily understand the idea of personal responsibility we can see malice of intent. It is easier to connect the dots when we are conscious of all the connections that led from action to result (i.e., when we realize immediately the results of our actions). But when the “feedback loop” of responsibility or morality is longer (or never fully closes), it becomes harder and harder to see — and accept — our responsibility in the harm that others experience.
Theologically, this is part of what is meant by “systemic sin.” When the intent of actions is more valued than their results, the results of the collective society’s actions will become increasingly harmful to those most easily harmed. Those who are “well meaning” and “morally upright” perpetuate systems that harm others over and over again, and they do so with little–to–no social consequences, because they are not seen as responsible for what results from such a society. The system itself seemingly self-perpetuates, though this is in fact an illusion: the system is in fact carried forward by the multitudes who focus on the goodness of their intent instead of the harm of their life’s consequences.
Practically, we have just seen this play out in the Supreme Court decision of Louisiana v. Callais. The majority opinion, penned by Justice Alito, explicitly names that “In short, §2 [of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the section under question] imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race” (p.26). But, as the dissenting opinion of Justice Kagan states, “the State’s intent is not what is supposed to matter in a Section 2 suit” (p.75).
Ibram X. Kendi responded with the following statement: “The Court… reaffirmed the myth that intent — not outcome — determines if a policy is racist. A myth widely believed by Democrats opposing today’s ruling and Republicans cheering the decimation of the Voting Rights Act. The history of racism conveys that policies should be defined as racist based on outcome. Intent can be hidden — lawmakers will hide their intent to suppress Black political power when they try to eliminate majority Black districts. This unjust outcome can’t be hidden.”
Today I’m reminded of Jesus’s words in Luke 12:1b–3: “Be on your guard against the leaven of the Pharisees — I mean their hypocrisy. There is nothing covered up that will not be uncovered, nothing hidden that will not be made known. Therefore everything you have said in the dark will be heard in broad daylight, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be shouted from the housetops.” (REB)
Peace+
Pastor Michael