Soteriology on a New Orleans Flatboat

One of the major debates in the New Orleans Katrina rescue operation is whether or not forced evacuations should occur. Some people seem determined to ride out the situation, perhaps hoping things will dry up any day and that they can begin the recovery process. But what seems more likely is that the water will continue its decline toward a state of festering sewage, that supplies will not be forthcoming, and that the whole area may need to be bulldozed in the end. If these holdouts stay, there is every chance that they will either die of starvation or pestilence, and for no worldly gain in the end. So, why is there a debate? Shouldn't these people be evacuated by force for their own good?

Perhaps the reason for the debate is because our society is so oriented toward individual freedom of choice and personal rights that we founder over principles of autonomy even in the face of the mortal consequences of some of those choices. For instance, permitting the choice of a homosexual lifestyle is a sure death sentence for a high percentage of participants, tolerating tobacco use is an invitation to cancer, and "choice" in the case of abortion is guaranteed to cause fatalities (for the infants).

To be consistent with modern society's principle of autonomy I suppose we must leave the hurricane survivors to their fate, even if it means certain death; for to violate someone's rights merely for the sake of their own good is a dangerous precedent to set in our libertarian culture. If we begin to concern ourselves with the good of the individual or what's best for society, what rights in our pursuit of "happiness" might we ultimately lose? No, we must sustain our slogan, "Give me liberty to risk my death."

On a slightly different note, it occurs to me that this situation is a metaphor for salvation. According to Christianity, all souls are ultimately in peril, even while things may presently seem safe and hopeful. The Christian missionary is like the boatman who passes by the house pleading with the resident to come to safety. It is his job to convince the stubborn occupant that his situation is dire and can only end in destruction. Some are persuaded, or even eagerly awaiting such a boatman to arrive (the Arminian "seeker" or the Calvinist "elect"); some are simply stubborn or mired in their delusion (perhaps they are unwilling to leave behind their cache of looted valuables, which represents the pleasures of this world).

Each Christian should be so convicted by the plight of unbelievers that he ought to man the "rescue boats," or at least participate in equipping and enabling those who are prepared to do so. The reason that the liberal Christian is seldom missions-minded is because they either do not believe that the situation is life-threatening (there is no judgment), or that there are other avenues of escape besides their own little boat (religious pluralism).

But this evacuation situation is even more specifically a metaphor for the Arminian/Calvinist debate. Should the rescuers depend, as Arminians claim, on the resident's free will to assess the danger and their autonomy to reject the offer, even if it may cost their life? Or should the rescuer compel the resident to evacuate by way of irresistible force, ala Calvinism? More specifically, Calvinism claims that the Holy Spirit, not the boatman/missionary, is doing the compelling, and that it is by way of a transformation of the heart such that the resident steps into the boat of their own renewed will. Even though it is more subtly played out, it still amounts to a forced evacuation. So, am I justified in thinking that whatever view one takes on the evacuation in New Orleans, that it ought to be consistent with one's view on free will vs. sovereign election?

Is the freedom of our will so sacred that God should allow it to remain unmolested even though it may mean our ultimate damnation? Or is it, in fact, a good thing if we can manage to convince people of the need of their rescue? Isn't salvation an intrinsically good thing that all would desire were they in their right mind and given proper knowledge?

Arminianism would seem to suggest that preserving the freedom of the will is a higher moral good than the ultimate rescue of the individual. But perhaps salvation is worth the meddling of God, especially if the very will itself has been transformed in order to enable it such that the person desires what they have received. It's not as though the rescued person is unhappy in a forced captivity.

At this point the Arminian might agree in principle but then object because God does not do this for all lost souls. If God is going to save, then why save only some? But does this objection warrant returning to the idea that it's better to let some perish according to their own will, even if in theory all may will to perish? Is it immoral for God to insure that some are saved, whether by their will or His?

What if it were the case that all that did not will to be saved were looters and criminals? What if they cursed at their would-be rescuers and drove them away? Would any of these deserve to be saved? Would it not be a matter of grace to, in fact, do so for any? Furthermore, what if their crimes were so bad that they were deserving of the death penalty? If God is not required to save any, then is He unjust if He saves only some? And if those who are ultimately lost are swathed in their own denunciations, and clutching the spoils of their own crimes to their bosoms, then where do we find grounds for injustice?

The analogy must fail at some points, but perhaps it is useful to provoke some thoughts on this historical debate. And, of course, I am not suggesting that those poor souls wishing to stay with their homes are moral reprobates, only that my analogy applies because they ought to evacuate.