There's always a bigger picture

It's often the case that we can find ourselves taking a position and making a stand and yet, standing back a little, can find that we are being duplicitous and are in fact (often in the light of our posturing) either naive, hypocritical or even just plain stupid!

A few years back, having put on a service to mark Holocaust Memorial Day, one of those present made a statement about the end of genocide, focussing strongly on the expression, "Never again!" Another person nearby joined the conversation and pointed to Rwanda and Cambodia as examples of genocide and asked how well 'never again' had done in the light of them. The response to this was, "Oh, we meant in Europe when we said it." Undaunted, and not to be shaken off, back came the question, "Isn't Bosnia in Europe?"

The reply stunned everyone standing within earshot of the speaker as they returned, quick as a flash, with, "But we meant Western Europe!"

The problem is that whilst we might be shaking our heads in despair at that story, many of us are still living in the same reality as our 'never again' person. We all have areas of duplicity that are fostered by self-serving desires and mindsets. Some are simple to see and others are cloaked in upbringing, tradition, inherited attitudes and cultural aberrations. Some are so clouded by prejudice and politics that we fail to see them and the fact that we cannot see through them either.

A couple of examples to fuel the conversations:

FAIR TRADE
The person who claims to be Christian and yet rails at the fact that the Christian shop stocks Fairly traded goods.

I met one of the people who fit this category in a Christian shop and they were asking why they should be paying more to help people in another country. "After all," they railed, "Doesn't charity begin at home? Why are we being asked to give money to them?"

Now I can't express the vitriol and venom behind the word 'them' in type alone but as we talked I found an inherited negativism for the 'them' from foreign lands. These turned out to be the same 'them' that, "Came over here and took our jobs, our houses and all those benefits!" Here before me was a really lovely person - a 'good' Christian - who was, surface scratched, manifesting something quite unchristian and rather distasteful.

THE 'GOOD' MEMBER
I found myself approached by a member of another church with a view to them gaining my support regarding what they considered to be abuse from their church leader.

The issue, as reported, was that one of the members of the church had been engaging in wrong (biblically, morally and possibly legally) activities. This had been reported to the leader with the response that it was none of their (the member's) business. This position was solidified by the fact that the other person was billed (by the leader) as a good giver and a longstanding member who had done much in the past. The final shard that pierced the heart of the complainant was the words, "You make sure you have your own house in order and stop looking at other people's lives!"

My response was that on the surface what I was hearing sounded very wrong, but I was hearing just one side of the argument and, as Proverbs 18 tells us, one side always sounds right until the other side is heard. I asked if there might be other perceptions, viewpoints and facts that could have been missed or misrepresented - to which the answer was a responding 'No'.

Two examples (I have hundreds) - both of which show how easy it is to be human and have stuff that lies out of the usual public view. We all have things that are in conflict with the laws of God and yet not only consider ourselves to be 'good Christians' but continue in that belief whilst nurturing and maintaining the wrong.

The key to being a 'good' anything (theist or non-theist) is for us, when we identify such a wrong attitude to address it. We must address it in ourselves and in others with acceptance, understanding and the same measure of love displayed at all times. We need to be open and honest with ourselves and others - this doesn't mean that we need to tell everyone, but we need to address the issues and seek resolution and reconciliation with God and between others. We all have to potential to fall, this is human, but the potential to cover our wrong attitudes and acts, this is sin!

We are called to be whole people - for this is what integrity is.

We are called to be honest people - for this is what Christ demands.

We are called to be people who bring unity through forgiveness, reconciling acts and love - for this is who Jesus the Christ, is.

Now, how hard can this be?

Where's that mirror?

Honesty, Integrity and truth!

One of the problems I have with the 'Integrity test' is the ease with which interchangeability of the words 'Integrity' and 'Honesty' occurs, for they are not one and the same. This is followed closely by the issue of context, an especially prickly issue in the wonderful world that is Christianity, and how sometimes doing what is wrong might well be considered to be right!

As I understand it, Integrity is about being a 'whole person' (cf. Integer - a 'whole' or complete number) and honesty is about being truthful. Two sides of the same coin, sisters who act as one but are not one and the same.

I recall a lecture on the topic of honesty, integrity and truth in which the question, "If a murderer comes to your door, and asks where your friend is, are you morally obliged to tell the truth? was raised with regard to Emmanuel Kant's attitude to truth and honesty. Kant's answer to this was a resounding 'Yes' even if it resulted in the death of the friend by foul means. In a nutshell Kant put forward the view that a lie (i.e. dishonesty) was always wrong regardless of the situation or outcome. There is no such thing as a 'good' lie (how many of us parent's have told their children that?) and eventually all lies will result in harm and wrong regardless of the reason for it. Truth is the only way. Contrast this with the struggles of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the issue of doing wrong to serve a greater good and his decision to support those who sought to murder a man (Hitler) to prevent the murder of millions.

Of course Kant could merely have answered that although he knew the whereabouts, integrity demanded that he remained silent on the matter! Integrity also meant that Bonhoeffer broke the rules in working to support the murder of a man even though it broke the rules - but he was still honest (and so maintained his integrity?).

Finding ten pence on the floor and pocketing it is not an entirely dishonest act but raise the figure to a tenner, fifty, a hundred and above and suddenly magnitude changes the situation! If one says, "Hey, I've found a fiver - that's handy," then where is the dishonesty? They haven't lied to anyone, not even themselves, and haven't acted to take someone's property so there's no theft from the person (I know someone will tell me it's stealing by finding) and so they are in fact 'honest' and probably would also consider themselves 'lucky' too! (But are they?)

Here's something to chew on:

Honesty deals with what is truthful - Integrity deals with what is right. I know honest people whose integrity is weak and I know people with little integrity and yet they are predominantly honest. Integrity demands that one is honest to the views, standards and opinions that make us who we are but honesty is, at a base level, recognition of that which is true and thereby may not always possess integrity.

My other problem is that of context. Consider question C: Driving faster than the speed limit. The obvious answer, as I understand it, has to be the three-pointer in that this act is 'sometimes' justified. My reason for this is the reality that the 'blue light' services (Ambulance, Fire and Police) often break the law in this area as they seek to discharge their duty (and if they have a collision whilst doing so are subject to prosecution too!). If we were to say 'never' then we would be lying (for who out there thinks a fire appliance should drive at thirty and keep in the stream of traffic when a house with people trapped in it is burning?). we could opt for a 'rarely' but the incidence of blue lights and the like says this isn't 'rare'. We could say always, but then everyone would be doing it!

Now the legalistic among us would undoubtedly say that that there is a line and should it be crossed then the person is wrong - but like Kant, if avoiding this wrong causes a death where can it be seen to be right? And yet if by crossing the line another life is lost (RTA as an example) then of course it can't be seen as right either.

The question of integrity and honesty also has to draw upon moral absolutes and as we become less of a Christian nation and as we reside less confidently upon our judeo-Christian heritage it is this that causes our attitudes, and behaviour, to weaken. This can be seen in the area of underage sex, extramarital relations and others.

Our society increasing works on a 'means justify the end' shifting morality and so it should come as no surprise that 'Lying in your own interests' is gaining favour. This too manifests in the attitude that the act isn't wrong but getting caught is and this, coupled with a desire for scapegoats and a bit of self-righteousness manes that attitudes harden towards those who 'take from us' i.e. Welfare 'scroungers'.

I'll leave you to do the thinking on the other questions (have fun):
A. Avoiding paying the fare on public transport.
B. Cheating on taxes if you have a chance.
F. Not reporting accidental damage you have done to a parked car.
G. Throwing away litter in a public place.
H. Driving under the influence of alcohol.
I. Making up a job application.
J. Buying something you know is stolen.

Some of these are obvious but others, taken contextually are perhaps as cut and dried as the words might make us think at first glance!

Pax

"I love God but Hate Church!'

The above billboard sums up a conversation I had with a church member this week.

They pointed to the St Paul's debacle and the Church's failure to do what everyone else saw as right. They railed at the 'fact' that the Church is more taken up with money than people, consistently missing the opportunity to act in a Christian manners doing the right thing and predominantly appearing to be bankers (I don't think that was meant to be a euphemism!) and financial types.

"I love God," they cried, "But I don't want anything to do with Church! I'm more concerned about me and heaven than being alongside a bunch of hypocrites, and worse still, being one of them!"

Now I don't know about you but I can remember when I thought, spoke and even acted like this lovely person. I didn't want to be part of any denomination I just wanted to follow Jesus and His teachings. I wanted to keep myself 'clean' and avoid the religious people. The problem was as I progressed further along this path (and I did for quite some time - about eighteen months) I found myself being more and more of a hypocrite in the way that what I said married up to who I was, and was becoming.

Then, one day it struck me that if I was someone who believed in Jesus and looked to His sacrifice on the cross to bring me and God back together then I too was 'Church'. This didn't mean that I bought into the hierarchy or applauded the excesses, weakness and errors or politely coughed and looked away when hypocrisy was on display, it meant that I couldn't live in isolation from other Christians and where two or more of us were together, we were Church. In fact even when I was on my own, being a bit Trinitarian, there were four of us and so Church was to be found in me alone. Not only that but because of this, wheresoever I went, basilaea, the Kingdom of God was to be found too.

I was to be the lampstand that was placed in the centre of things so that all might see by the light of Christ (Matt5 // Lk 8 & 15). I was to be part of the body that did the task it was called to do that the whole body might be fit and well and work as it should (1 Cor 12).

I'm sorry to say this but once you take Christ's hand and accept His offer of life then you are part of Church and if the institutional body that bears his name is getting it wrong, then we stand and speak out, we make our stand and seek to restore those in error (GENTLY!).

Christianity is not about condemning anyone but is about coming alongside, affirming, supporting and leading them to better things.

How we doing?

HS2 - Should the Church be involved?

Moving on from the London march today I am prompted to continue on a different vein. Office said (Harriet Monsell) and desk looking clear (it's all on the floor!), fresh tea on desk and a collection of tits, sparrows and dunnocks hanging from the feeders I am drawn to a letter which tells me that, "Churches and Christians have no place in protesting."

The focus of the protest to which the letter relates is that of 'HS2' (High Speed Two), a rail service which will provide a second high speed link from London to Scotland and one which threatens to cuts communities and houses in two.

* Leaders of industry in the region are saying that the cutting down of the journey to London by forty minutes will bring investment and business to the area.

* Ecologists and nature lovers tell us that the trains increase the carbon economy figures rather than reduce it as the trains consume three times the power of the slower existing stock.

* People can work in London and will be effectively working on the trains whilst they travel and so this is a win-win (unless you count the cost of those commuting into London leaving local workforces).

* Air travel from London to Scotland will be cut, reducing the carbon economy.

These are but a few of the issues and the question is, should the churches be getting involved in this issue. As chairman of the local churches together group I have asked this and the jury is out with many of the leaders. "we shouldn't be getting into stuff like this, it's not our business!" said one minister.

well I think they are wrong, for we are called to serve and support the communities in which we find ourselves, and this is a need which needs to be addressed.

Where I am I am finding ministers who have the attitude that we shouldn't engage in areas where there is difference of opinion and should avoid confrontational issues such as Palestine, Abortion, Homosexuality and the like. The problem with this is that if the minister's are so unsure of what they believe (or too cowardly to dialogue) how can we expect those to whom we minister to have any integrity, rational thought processes and ability to dialogue and debate.

1 Peter 3 tells us that we should be able to answer any who ask, telling them of the hope we have in Jesus.

Now if the ministers cannot do this, then what hope is there for the members?

Anyone fancy coming to a public meeting - details soon?

I love this blog, enables me to dialogue with the voices inside my head, the people outside it and the God who is everywhere.

Pax