Years ago I was an engineer working at NASA. There were many amazing aspects to my job but the events of these last few days brought to mind one of my dullest experiences there. I was part of a team developing hardware which could be used to repair damage to the Space Shuttle while on orbit. As we neared the end of this project we had to make sure that our hardware fit all the standard NASA requirements for tools used in space and if it didn’t we would need to try to get waivers for the requirements we couldn’t meet. One of our final tasks was to demonstrate how our equipment met the requirements for hardware used in space. While that doesn’t sound terribly exciting, it also doesn’t suggest tedium. But tedium it was. I remember a meeting that lasted hours in which we debated the nuanced meaning between the words “will” and "shall.” The nuance was important because the requirements we needed to meet used both terms seemingly interchangeably. What we then had to do was find the right nuance to the words “will” and “shall,” so that our hardware met the requirements as smoothly as possible. We defined the terms to our own advantage. Which is stronger, will or shall? Which denotes an absolute and which is more a suggestion? These were the questions that kept us busy for the better part of a day. Blech.

This debate was dragged from the recesses of my memory lately as I listened to a variety of experts and pundits weigh in on our political situation here in the U. S. of A. I’ve heard a lot of talk about the law and the legality of certain positions or options. I heard a number of people discuss what a certain politician could do from within his or her position. I heard many different commentators discuss the precedent or lack thereof of certain actions. The conversations were full of words like “can”, “able”, “legal”, “right”, “purview”, “shall”, “precedent”, “constitutional”. All are fine words in their own right. But there is one word that I have found distinctly absent in almost every political discussions I’ve listened to recently. This absence makes sense, for the word carries with it a threat to politicians and all in power. The word is “ought”.

“Ought” is dangerous word because it alludes to a higher standard. It even suggests a higher power. “Ought” points to an absolute Reality, and even hints at a shared understanding. The real danger inherent in “ought” comes with the realization that words like “can” and “shall,” and even “legal” and “constitutional” are all subordinate to it. Sure we can talk about all the things a certain politician legally can do. But how about what he or she ought to do? This can be a tricky nuance because it forces us to realize that legality is not morality, that courts are not the final arbiters of justice, and that the constitution isn’t a blueprint for Utopia.

“Ought” is a dangerous word because it points to something greater than our government, something more absolute than our precedents, something more moral than our laws. It points us toward a morality, a right and a wrong, that remains stubbornly independent of all our language of legality and purview. “You can shuffle ‘I want’ and ‘I am forced’ and ‘I shall be well advised’ and ‘I dare not’ as long as you please,” writes C.S. Lewis, “without getting out of them the slightest hint of ‘ought’ and ‘ought not’.” The language of “ought” disallows political loopholes, pandering, and schemes, because it acknowledges a code of ethics beyond politics.

Now, all the language about precedent and purview and constitutionality is important for the proper functioning of our government. But we must recognize that this language does not constitute our morality. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. We know this because adultery may not be illegal, but nearly everyone would agree that it is wrong. In fact, we could make a whole list of things that we ought, and ought not do. And a majority of people would agree with a majority of that list. But that list would not line up perfectly with any legal system on earth. Legality is not morality. Nobody ought to be aware of this more than Christians who worship a Lord that was legally tried, convicted, beaten and killed, even though he did nothing wrong.

I don’t expect our politicians to adopt the language of “ought" and “ought not”. But it ought to be the lingua franca of all Christians regardless of their political leanings. Otherwise, our morality and ethics have no basis beyond the politics of our time and place. And I hope we can all agree that that is not the way things ought to be.