When Rights Clash - Part the Second

The Prooftext

Being human the reality is that we all make choices and have our own positions on a number of issues. Some Christians, naively it seems, think that the Bible is the source of concord and yet, many of us know that it can also be the source of discord thanks to the way we read it, interpret it or make it support our own position.

We have the heresy that is prooftexting whereby passages are taken and used to support our position and, having done this, make our righteous stand on the basis of the 'warrant of Scripture'. The problem is that all too often we find the passage used is taken out of context and so the reality is that we make it say what it never intended to say! Let me give you a safe example (i.e. I'm not using the Bible and I'm avoiding any of the amazingly contentious subjects that cloud our otherwise sunny days!):

One of our children once comes to me and asks if they can go outside and play in the park. My first response is to ask what Mum has said on this issue, for wisdom comes with experience ;-). The reply for said child is that, "Mum said I can go and play." Assured that I am acting in agreement with 'the Mummy', I (the'Not the Mummy') let them go.

The Mummy returns from somewhere or other and asks where number n child is. I reply, feeling assured that I am on safe ground, that they have gone into the wilderness to encounter adventure. The Mummy vanishes for a moment and them returns to tell me that they weren't allowed to go until the bedroom has been tidied (and of course it has not been).

When child is retrieved from the park they tell me that indeed the Mummy did say they could go out and when I point out that the words 'after you have cleaned your bedroom' were omitted, they merely answer, "But she did say I could go out!" Now she did use the Mummy's words, but they were presented out of context. Had the Mummy not returned before the child had been, gone and returned to the bedroom all would have appeared well, but of course would not have been. This is the curse of the prooftext and sadly, it is not restricted to children and playgrounds but can be found in the actions and theologies of many on all sides of many issues.

So here is a little plea on behalf of my employer:

1. If you want to hold a view that is contrary to that which appears to be Biblical please feel free to hold it, just don't twist the words to justify your decision for it confuses the sheep, and don't expect everyone to approve - they won't!

2. When you make a point please make sure that when using any source you do so with integrity and should you rely upon some form of 'having fixed the hermeneutic' (this means looking at the when, who it was written to, why it was written to them (and why then), the sociological, historical, political and any other reality in place at the time of writing, the intended audience and the authority of the person what writ it!) please make sure that it is not skewed to assist your own argument.

3. If you find something with which you disagree then engage with the words and dialogue with the writer (or speaker). Look at what they say and judge their sources and supporting material. Our society engages with ad hominem far too willingly (I know, I do it as well - I might be trying to be physician here but I recognise that I am also a sufferer). Issue a rebuttal and hope that a surrebuttal returns through the ether. This is dialogue and is healthy, constructive and Christian. (well it should be - if you can do wit you can also opt for the wonderful world of rejoinder and surrejoinder, which is much more fun but also potentially more barbed).

Happy Saturday

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