Skip to main content

Punish or discipline?

One of the things I like to do is read the “Odd News” sections of various websites. After all, the deliberately odd seems preferable to the unintentional farce that is American politics right now. Seriously, folks, when they told us in Civics that “anyone” can be president, that wasn’t a challenge to see how we could scrape the barrel. Do we really want to choose between the Democrat’s political dynasty in the Clintons or the Republican Reality Realty guy in Trump? 300 Million people, 180-200 million easily over 35, and this is the best we can get?

Anyway, not out for a political bloodbath today. Instead, take a look at this story: Switched at Birth. TL:DR? Two friends discovered that 41 years ago, they were switched at birth in a Canadian hospital. This is the second case of switching kids from that hospital in that era. Now, that is a bad thing. And it is even worse if it was related to neglect because it was a hospital run by the government for the Cree Nation. (Not going to take too big of a shot at government run hospitals…)

What I want to take note of is that now, 41 years later, the government is investigating what happened and the families involved are suggesting there could be criminal charges involved. 41 years later, how many people are still working at that hospital? Maybe the 16 year old kid who started as a mop-boy is now the chief of facilities maintenance, but he didn’t mix up babies. What good does it do now? Is it not a little late? To get the facts cleared up, the what went wrong straightened out?

Now, before I go further, I do think some investigation is warranted. And some effort should be made to make sure there have been no other mistakes waiting 40 years to be uncovered. But if this hospital is like any other in these days, they have already adopted rules and guidelines to prevent this happening again. Any holes found in 40 year old procedures are likely irrelevant. It’s like figuring out that “211” would be quicker to rotary dial in case of emergency than “911.” Does that make a difference now?

Not really.

We are often this way, though. We spend so much more time figuring out what went wrong so that we can find someone to blame than we do trying to move forward in the first place. We do this in churches, where we will hold someone responsible for a plan going wrong 20 years ago to the point of hobbling them for what they should be doing now. We do this in life—how many times does one half of a married couple hold on to “what went wrong” 10 years ago? Yes, your husband screwed up a repair job. He may have learned. Yes, your wife may have fallen off the roof last time she fixed the leak—maybe she’s developed a better sense of balance.

The point is: many mistakes and errors should be corrected as quickly as possible, but hand-wringing decades later does very little good. Take a look at history. We can learn from what happened that led to World War 1, but we can’t undo it, can we? Why punish the Serbs today?

Set it aside, if possible, and fix the problem. Then move forward.

Now, a note before you go: some things need dealt with, no matter how long it has been. There is no sunset on issues like abuse—just because it was decades ago doesn’t mean we should not deal with it now. Likewise if there is a continuing problem, like we see in some issues of equality in our nation. We need to openly discuss them.

This is more about lesser things—or the desire to jail octogenarians over the mistakes of youth. It’s about our unwillingness to separate true intentional harm from mistakes. Punish intentional harm; discipline mistakes that they can be learned from.


Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: The Heart Mender by @andyandrews (Andy Andrews)

The Heart Mender: A Story of Second ChancesEver read a book that you just kind of wish is true?  That's my take on The Heart Mender by Andy Andrews.  It's a charming story of love and forgiveness, and it's woven into the historical setting of World War II America.  For the narrative alone, the book is worth the read, but the message it contains is well worth absorbing as well.However, let's drop back a minute.  This book was originally published under the title Island of Saints.  I read Island of Saints and enjoyed it greatly.  Now, Andrews has released it under a new title, with a few minor changes.  All of this is explained in the Author's Note at the beginning, but should be noted for purchaser's sake.  If you read Island of Saints, you're rereading when you read The Heart Mender.  Now, go ahead and reread it.  It will not hurt you one bit.Overall, the story is well-paced.  There are points where I'd like more detail, both in the history and the geog…

Curiosity and the Faithlife Study Bible

Good morning! Today I want to take a look at the NIV Faithlife Study Bible. Rather than spend the whole post on this particular Study Bible, I’m going to hit a couple of highlights and then draw you through a few questions that I think this format helps with.

First, the basics of the NIV Faithlife Study Bible (NIVFSB, please): the translation is the 2011 New International Version from Biblica. I’m not the biggest fan of that translation, but that’s for another day. It is a translation rather than a paraphrase, which is important for studying the Bible. Next, the NIVFSB is printed in color. Why does that matter? This version developed with Logos Bible Software’s technology and much of the “study” matter is transitioning from screen to typeface. The graphics, maps, timelines, and more work best with color. Finally, you’ve got the typical “below-the-line” running notes on the text. Most of these are explanations of context or highlights of parallels, drawing out the facts that we miss by …

Abraham Lincoln Quoted by Jesus! Mark 3

Mark records a curious event in his third chapter (link). If you look at Mark 3:25, you'll see that Jesus quotes the sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. After all, one of the highlights of the Lincoln years is his famous speech regarding slavery in the United States where he used the phrase that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." This speech was given in 1858 when he accepted the nomination to run against Stephen A. Douglas for Senate, but is still remembered as the defining speech regarding slaveholding in the United States. I recall being taught in school how brilliant and groundbreaking the speech was, how Lincoln had used such wise words to convey his thought. Yet the idea was not original to Lincoln. Rather, it was embedded in Lincoln from his time reading the Bible. Now, I have read varying reports about Lincoln's personal religious beliefs: some place him as a nearly completely committed Christian while others have him somewh…