Street Seens: Living with Doubt
Pontius Pilate’s question to the man, Jesus, presented to him as one suspected of a crime, is as provocative now as it was when he asked, “What is truth?”
It continues to be an anguishing question; one that Jeff Flake, the retiring U.S. Senator from Arizona, similarly asked as he left a grueling day-long series of interviews surrounding the issues clouding the Supreme Court appointment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. The Senator lamented that absent more thorough exploration by ones whose profession is investigation, those who had survived the exhausting day would likely be condemned to live indefinitely with doubt or uncertainty.
As a believer in the primacy of conscience, I felt the pain of Senator Flake’s dilemma. It would be unrealistic to expect a principled person who believes that truth is not simply relative, to live, indefinitely, with the deep discomfort of doubt. Unresolved questions, especially ones with significant ethical implications, are a burden that haunt and ultimately paralyze the man or woman of honor. Opinions vary, but doubt is a condition that the person of good conscience would find unacceptable to adopt as a permanent or even semi-permanent condition. Especially if means are available to resolve those doubts.
In Pilate’s case, he seemed to have escaped the threat of bullying from Rome or other outside forces. He concluded after hearing Jesus’ response to his question and declared, surprisingly quickly, that he found no reason to believe that the man was guilty of a crime.
Legend enshrined in scripture refers to the fact that Pilate was brought a message, via his wife’s servant, warning him to have nothing to do with the condemnation of “this just man.” The suggestion is that he took her message seriously. Unfortunately, Pilate did not go the extra mile to stand between the accused and the local authorities to whom he abandoned him, thereby becoming the model for one who washes his hands of his chance to intervene on behalf of justice. Pilate washed his hands in a “golden bowl,” opening the way to be complicit in politically motivated torture and death.
Though dramatically less weighty consequences were at stake this week, the model for principled commitment to truth and fairness shines through the tangle of opposing forces complicating a seemingly straightforward exploration of issues. And so does the skill to find a narrow path leading to conciliation versus rigid and unyielding tribal conflict. If there is a victory to celebrate today, it is the courage to recognize that an inescapable long-term prison of doubt is no place to which people of good will should be sentenced.
Another familiar phrase offers the following consolation. “You will know the truth and the truth will make you free.” And that comes to life in a context that balances price with value. Truth may be there to be found, but it is a costly treasure that rewards only a great-hearted search that balances a rich combination of honesty, humility, and respect.
If that is not a disproportionate reward for rejecting a life clouded by doubt, I’d be hard pressed to find a better one. Friday morning’s unexpected turn of events was aptly described by a legislator who is a veteran of the 1991 Anita Hill hearing. She characterizes the current outcome as demonstrating the gorgeous messiness of democracy. If healing the high decibel discord of today’s politics comes down to the choice between doubt and messiness, I’m all for messiness.
