Gravitational Cognisance:

Anyone who has watched cartoon will be familiar with characters walking off high places and continuing their progress in mid-air until they realise solid ground has gone as, looking down, the begin to plummet to the ground. We may find a parallel between Wile E Coyote and those who have lost the solid ground of their Christian faith. They continue walking as if they're on solid ground until something causes them to look down and then . . .  Whoosh . . .  Satan-like they plummet out our sight and are lost forever.

Some manage to never look down, they keep plodding on in the hope that they will have one of those Damascus road experiences or be hit by a bolt of lightning and so live out their lives of obedient drudgery when all it needs is for them to encounter and engage with their doubt! It is this that makes me think that doubt is one of the most excellent things we have in the arsenal of our faith.

And if doubt is one of our greatest gifts then one of the greatest curses has to be the loss of meaning that has been supposedly gifted to us by postmodernity. I say 'supposedly' because it has always been with us throughout all the ages. Those generations who have known the price of everything and the value of nothing, the many good men who have failed to act (regardless of the reason) and the valueless faith that imposes no standards to demands that we keep - this I that of which we speak.

The tension between getting all the good stuff (forgiveness, approbation, affirmation. acceptance, etc.) without having to believe 'all the ****!'* (absolutes, commandments, rules, standards, etc.) is an ever present reality. This is the bottom line for many and shapes and makes their faith life. No surprise because, when it comes down to it for we are like little children who want the sweeties but baulk at having to eat the cabbage (or whatever your dread vegetable happens to be), aren't we?

It is here that some cling to religion (rules and absolutes) whilst others turn to ritual (bells, smells and tat) and others still turn to inclusivity and freedom from restrictions (the 'God wants you to be happy' approach).

Whenever I encounter this area, personally or in others, I find myself coming back to Matthew 21.44 and the words that 'Whoever falls upon this rock will be broken and those upon whom it falls will be crushed.' Doubt needs to be be broken by recognising the thin air upon which the doubter is standing and, having acknowledged it, addressing and remedying it. Denial of doubt is death (spiritual and sometime physical too) and has no place in the Christian faith - we need to encourage doubt, for otherwise we push it underground to creep, cancer-like, behind the scenes just before we notice the weight-loss (and there are many emaciated Christians out there) that heralds the slide into being departed. Early prevention comes through checking for the signs and responding when they are found.

Have a look at your feet and see whether they are are solid ground or about to lead you into the plummet that is terminal decline.

Remember: Christianity demands that you do not leave your brain at the door! 


*A quote from one of those trendy clerics with which we are so blessed with these days!

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