One way Jesus taught and reinforced Kingdom values was by reinterpreting laws. In His interpretations, Jesus would emphasize to His listeners the spirit behind a law, instead of the necessity to blindly follow some rule without understanding why it was important. He often explained a law in terms of the fundamental, eternal truth undergirding it — such as the holiness of God — so His audience could see the law in a new light, and understand it as a reflection of righteousness instead of as a burden or yoke. “You have heard it said…., but I say to you….” was one common refrain in which Jesus would reinterpret laws.

Please understand that Jesus did not change Old Testament laws; He simply explained the foundational truth supporting them. To Jesus, not only was the spirit behind the law more important than the law itself, but it seemed people were as well. Recall the account of the woman caught in adultery, the need of His followers to break Sabbath laws so they could eat, or the Samaritan woman at the well.

To some degree, perhaps that is part of the massive popularity of Pope Francis. Did you notice that, amidst the 24-hour Pope-athon we have been privy to the past week, not once did Pope Francis ever change an established Roman Catholic teaching? But if you listened to many commentators, you might think the pontiff has completely changed the church’s stance on many issues. He has not. However, what he does do — even when addressing moral and church laws — is express them with such compassion that people, even if they disagree with the law or rule itself, feel that he reflects a loving God who cares for all people. And we are all naturally drawn to that. Thoughtful compassion is still a facet of Christian living that has not been mastered by many, and I am occasionally, if not often, among those who don’t meet that bar.

I was reminded of this struggle between law and compassion this past week when I came across an interesting news story from California.

Last week, at Huntington Beach High School, a fight broke out at lunch. Well, it really wasn’t much of a fight. One student was pummeling another student. The second student, who is seen on video attempting to thwart the blows with his hands above his face, is visually impaired — blind.

A crowd of students gathered. They encircled the two, but no one jumped in. Enter Cody Pines, 17. Cody, friends with the blind boy since the sixth grade, grabbed the bully and struck him once, knocking him to the ground.

Since then, a media frenzy has ensued. There have been accusations by many in the public that the school board was throwing Cody off the football team and suspending him from school because of the school system’s “zero tolerance” policy for violence of any kind. In fact, 83,000 signatures were obtained on a petition to keep Cody from being suspended.

Now, I do not know whether the petition played a part in the school board’s subsequent decision to think past their zero tolerance policy, which would have dictated punishment regardless of the circumstances. But, the fact is they did look to the spirit of the law, and they made the right call by not suspending this young man. Not only that, but now students understand this rule in a new light; perhaps so much that they will not be reluctant to jump in next time. The victim, who was treated at the hospital for facial injuries, would certainly appreciate that.

Good teachers and school administrators, which we have here in Effingham, understand that we model the behavior we want students to adopt. In this circumstance, the school board modeled an understanding of what the meaning is behind the law. If we want our students to do what is right, we must show them what that looks like in complex situations like this.

And “what is right” is not to be found in a simple adherence to rules, but rather in wrestling with difficult issues, always keeping in mind the spirit of the law and the compassion God wants us to show each other. Sometimes, the best thing we can do for another person is hold them to the law, and yet at other times a comprehensive grasping of the fundamental truth undergirding the law may lead us to a more compassionate resolution.

If we never get to the latter, the law may make us blind.