Genuine Service? Oh Really!

Man's needs provide the opportunity for service and care.  The question arises then on what level do we provide that care? 

Prominent in the arena of social problems such as poverty, discrimination, fractured families, substance abuse, community problems, crime, and so many others are those who seek to provide answers.  Some through some government program or another.  There are those who believe their political party can "fix" these issues.  Some invest their hope and trust in a politician.  Oh, do not forget the community activists who think by marshaling people to some cause or another they can create change--generally they tend to produce more rebellion than results.

Time is the test of change and I am willing to wager that if you study the history of the above mentioned movements over the long-haul not much is different.  However, there is a much more successful "program."  It has been termed variously over the years--renewal, revival, repentance, etc.  It is so because it goes to the central core of the issues listed above, man's heart.

Any of a number of faith based change agents could be cited.  One example is the Teen Challenge Drug Program. Another is the Catholic Charity Hospitals.  How about those with Christians beginnings that though wandering still do lasting work in the lives of those they serve.  The Young Mens Christian Association (YMCA) and the Red Cross are but two of the many.

The point is that it is coming to a personal faith that changes one on the inside is the kind of change that makes a person different, such changes his family, such changes the neighborhood, such changes the community.  Go ahead and seek change--maybe you will succeed but if you leave God out of change, it will not long endure not will it change people in such a way so that the change remains over the long term.

As one goes about serving others in the various venues of life, unless one goes beyond simply meeting the symptoms which are the manifestation of the basic needs, there is no end to the meeting of the symptoms.  One must come a point at which one deals with the deeper issues that caused the symptoms.  As they say, to do otherwise is to “…put Band-Aids on cancer….”

One must have at least a moral framework for change but that is not enough.  If such change does not alter the religious-ethical framework of others, such change will be temporary.  The problem is that without such change on the part of the caregiver, there is little from which to lastingly serve others.  To have change other than mentioned is to do less than serve others.  

"Love Your Enemies and Others"

The normal "give and take" of a group of cops was running high.  The bantering turned to a class they had taken having to do with sensitivity and diversity.  As the subject began to shift as happens with people such as these I overheard  something that perked up my ears and I listened to hear all I could.

One officer said something to the effect, I do not have to like nor do I have to respect the person I deal with, but what I do have to do is to treat them with respect.  In the practical world of these cops when contacting the public, it matters little who the person is, their criminal history, their attitude, the officer's bias, how they treat the officer, and/or their demeanor etc.!  What matters is that they be treated with respect.

That overheard conversation along with a blog which spoke to loving your enemies, occasions the following thought.  When the one who follows Christ is commanded to love people such as one's neighbor, one's enemies, etc. such love may include any of a variety of feelings but it must go beyond those feelings to how a person acts and how the other is treated.  There was no indication that faith played much of a part in any of the officers at that table yet they spoke words people of faith needed and need to hear.  So here is the question.

Does love not require the one who would love to go beyond feelings in how he treats his neighbor and even his enemy?

The story of the Good Samaritan is a case in point.  The Samaritan man was an outcast, thought to be an inferior person of an inferior "mixed breed" race.  The person he helped was in all likelihood opposed to the Samaritans.  In fact that very day he could have chosen to not associate himself with the man, said something to defame the man, and most certainly seen him as unclean and undesirable.  The divide between the two races in general and if they conformed to those divides, between the two men ran as deep as the social mores of the two cultures.  There clearly was potential for discrimination.  There was precious little that would have united them--especially emotionally.

However, the Good Samaritan did love the victim, not in emotion but in his ethical actions--in his sacrificial actions.  That is the whole notion behind "doing good to those who take advantage of you!"   It is a volitional action not because of how one reacts emotionally but despite that reaction.  Love is an action not because of an emotion but despite the emotion.

With that understanding then love is an action born of volition and those decisions includes but not limited to the following.  It is...

To be patient toward and with the impatient person as well as being tolerant with the intolerant.  

To be gentle with those who speak and act in an hurtful and harsh manner.  

To not be resentful in reaction another's successes.

To patiently listen when tempted to boast and thus best another's achievements.

To demonstrate the highest ideals of character no matter the situation.

To be unselfish, not seeking one's own way in situations that would justify same.  

To be one who interacts not reacts to adverse treatment.  

To turn a blind eye and thus look beyond some mistreatment by another.

 ...and the list goes on and on.

This to say the least is greatly misunderstood by many.  So the sum of the matter is this.

To love is a volitional action and if emotional attachment is involved so much the better.

May we go forth as did the Good Samaritan and love in action not just in attitude and word!

"Discrimination and Imposition" CT5

Overview:  In this section of material, consideration will be given to the background and processes which underpin Discrimination and Imposition.  Within the following there is a comparison / contrast of the influence of ethics and morals.  If you have not read the comparison in a previous blog, it would be well to do so at this time.

The material covered will be in terms of Background Word, Attitude Words, and Expression Words (the actions that one takes based upon background and attitude).

BACKGROUND WORDS

As in any behavior, be it words or actions, there are antecedent processes which precede and give foundation to those things.  It is not different with words and actions with improperly discriminate and/or impose upon another.  

We begin with a quick look at the very basic elements that begin to set the stage for these actions.  This first section on Background Words is further divided into Unchangeable and Changeable.  That is there are some things over which one has no control and thus one cannot change those things.  They are Unchangeable.  On the other hand, there are those things over which one had control and thus they are Changeable.  There is an additional category which is a combination of both.

The Unchangeable is the category that contains those elements which a person cannot control or change.

Included are such things as one is born with to include race, gender, genetic qualities, etc.  Then too there are those processes over which one has no control such as aging, illness, or injury.

The Combination category contains the Comprehendable which is the category that contains those thing of which one become aware of with aging.

The infant without a great deal of choice gradually becomes aware of the world beyond his mother.   Thus in the infant years there is a low realization and low control over what to do with that realization.  As the child progresses through the various stages to adulthood there is more and more realization and control.  

Though one may have a high "intuitive" and thus realize on a spiritual-intuitive, social-intuitive, rational-intuitive, or some other intuitive level, there yet remains the matter of one's choice.  That is with realization comes the responsibility for making choices as to what one accepts and incorporates into his paradigms of life.  At this point the question of whether one makes those choices based on ethics or morals enters the decision making processes.

The Changeable category contains a two section breakout.  Included is Ethnicity and Culture.

Another way of looking at Ethnicity is that of identity.  The ethnic situation into which one is born is by no means ever unchangeable.  It may so in the early years when one is dependent upon family and/or sub-culture but with maturity comes the power to choose one's ethnic proclivities.  So as life progresses one's ethnicity is a matter of choosing what particular religious, racial, social, or national group one chooses for their identity.  It may include customs, language, idioms, mores, racial views, social views, and other elements of a social group to which one belongs or with which one wishes to identify.

The other element in the changeable category is that of Culture.  Again this category is in the control of the individual as they in the course of life make choices as to which thoughts to think, words and word combinations to use in communication, what actions are acceptable, what customs to observe, what beliefs to hold, what values to embrace and live out, and what social institutions to enter.  

An overall principle to keep inmind is that as a person matures, is educated, and matures the awareness of these things becomes greater and with increasing awareness comes the opportunity to make choices and those choices are the basis of change.  Attendant to that point is that as one matriculates through those processes, one becomes more and more responsible for the choices made.  Thus the importance of an ethical framework.

THE CORRECT OR INCORRECT ATTITUDES, WHY?

Now return to the question, by what values does one judge an attitude and attendant action to be correct or incorrect?  Consider the following chart and look to the central column.  There are two types of correct attitudes.  One is correct positive attitudes, that correctness is then based upon a value.  

The choice one has to make is which item in the right column is foundational to the establishment of the value?  The second question one must ask is how durable is that foundation?  As you by now, assuming you have at the very least perused previous submissions that the only durable foundation for a value is found in ethics.

ATTITUDE WORDS

It is at this level that we encounter words which indicate attitudes.  When those attitudes of the heart are based upon faulty information, less complete information, wrong information, and/or incorrect  values it leaves one in very precarious position as we shall later see.

What then are the attitudes of the heart which one must carefully keep consistent with right ethical values?  Remember, emotionally laden thoughts become emotionally laden attitudes.  Those attitudes then become expressed in the words one speaks and the actions one takes.  Those words spoken are not only heard by others if verbalized but also whether verbal or non-verbal act to keep one in those thought processes.  

It is therefore crucial that ethical standards be the banks within which those processes flow.  As well it is crucial that those same ethics function within those processes.  In other words, there must be an ethical underpinning, an ethical restraint, and an ethical content in the processes associated with attitudes.  

Remembering the question, What determines the standard for correct or incorrect? consider three words germane to the attitudes under study.  Also keep clearly in mind that these words are changeable and throughout one's life they do change!  Hopefully the change will always be guided by and toward an ethical foundation and process.

Conviction:  A firm belief held as proven.  Conviction can be rational but often there is emotion involved.


Ethical convictions are those convictions held based upon ethical truth.  Though they may be out of syn with the surrounding culture, sub-culture, and social situation, etc. they are those things that have stood the tests of universality, objectiveness, and transcendency and thus are considered to be durable.   These are those truths which are found to be revealed in the writings of Moses and elucidated throughout the remainder of Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

Moral convictions are those convictions held based upon one's understanding of the mores of the particular culture, sub-culture, and social situation, etc.  These are those things that may be but do not have to be held to be universal, objective, or transcendent.  This position holds that truth is not durable but ever in flux since social mores are always in flux.  It is the kind of truth that flexes with the addition of change.

What divides the two positions is found in the question, Just what assumptions or presuppositions does one bring to the discussion?  The implications of that question will be seen in some of the discussion that follows.  Another area of concern would be the validity of the information that one takes to be true.  As well there could be a question of the completeness of such information of which one is in possession.


Bias:  A bent or inclination to a direction of thinking.  Again there is a rational content but bias may contain more and greater emotional content.

The previous development of Ethical convictions versus Moral convictions would also apply here except that since this is a great deal less firm than a conviction, those things when applied to bias serve to guide as one processes and moves forward toward conviction.

Here again there is a dividing line.  Those beliefs and attitude--those biases that are being held and processed based upon ethics, would be more durable than those biases that are held and processed based upon morals.  Thus they would share some of the characteristics of and some of the durability of an ethical conviction.


Prejudice:  A premature and preconceived attitude or opinion usually negative based upon wrong assumptions, false information, or before all information is collected.  Since there tends to be less rational involvement, prejudices tend to possess a high emotional content.

Note that prejudice as is being discussed here is not possible if viewed from an ethical position.  That is to say that ethical truth deals a death blow to the whole notion of prejudice!  Not so moral truth.  Take for example the racial discrimination that was so prevalent in the 50s and 60s.  In particular take the South.  Such prejudice was correct according to the mores of that time and culture.  However, such was and continues to be ethically wrong and those of strong ethical character have always considered it to be so.

Should one have a prejudice that survives the ethical process it would then at the very least move that prejudice to being a bias.  As one processes bias based upon ethical truth then that which survives the process moves to become an ethical conviction.

EXPRESSION WORDS

While the outcome of unethical conviction, bias, and prejudice may be expressed in words, thus the title, the reality is that these things can be expressed in behaviors.  Consider the following.

Discrimination:  Any action that hinders equal access equal access to economic resources, educational systems, and/or leisure opportunities.

Each person every day makes decisions and those decisions call upon the decision-maker to make choices.  Most of those choices are rooted in some kind of discrimination.  The problem comes when such discrimination is based upon the unchangeable elements of one's life.  For example if one makes choices about another based upon that person's race, skin color, gender, or some other physical quality that is out of that person's span of control such discrimination is not acceptable.

On the other hand, if one makes choices that discriminate based upon an ethical position then, if you accept that ethical standards are durable and apply equally to all, such a decision though it discriminates and hardly be labeled, "discrimination."

That being the case discrimination founded upon universal objective ethical truth is a discrimination that is based upon truth and as long as it is applied equally and fairly in reality cannot be labelled discrimination.  However, should that same ethical truth be applied unfairly, applied based not upon behavior but according to race and gender, etc., such application would be discrimination.

The real problem for the moralist is using mores as the basis for discrimination.  This is so because of the non-universality of mores and thus the difficulty in objectivity.  Another problem in what has been termed reverse discrimination, that is making choices in favor of one person based upon that persons unchangeable elements, when such a choice excludes others.  Again, such may be morally correct but in fact is ethically wrong.

Imposition: Any word or action that thrusts one's will, opinion, etc. upon another without invitation to do so.

The question must be asked, what is the basis of one's assuming a right or even a responsibility to impose upon another.  For example, if one does so for ethical reason such as requiring honesty in the work place, such an imposition would be based upon durable truth.  However, that same imposition upon moral grounds could in fact create difficulties.

THE PROCESS

To this point consideration has been given to the basis and process that lead to discrimination and imposition.  From the diagram below, one can see that when the foundation and actions involved in these processes are based upon a foundation of ethical truth, there is a validity of such actions as result.  At times the term durable truth has been included in the discussion.

Also included in the discussion has been those trues which are based upon cultural or societal mores.  Since such can be unique to the social situation and has not stood the test of time, these values are much less likely to survive over the long-term.  As well, since ethical truth transcends the uncertainties of man's existence, such truth if properly understood, embraced, and practiced can provide a certain sense of confidence and hope in the uncertain moral environment of today's moral confusion.

"Ethics vs. Morals, An Alarming Shift" CT4

Tension is a part of the human experience.  From the moment of one's birth through the death experience, on some level and to some degree there is tension.  Some of that tension originates within and a great deal of that tension is from without.  It is impossible to avoid tension as we encounter conflict with other people, conflicts within our own bodies (illness, injury, aging), tension in sorting out opposing thoughts and ideas, tension which comes of confusion born of misunderstanding, and the list goes on and on.

Overview:  Within this posting attention will be given to an example of tension as culture and the individual is called upon to experience the tension of choosing between ethics and morals. Of course it is a choice between two competing ideas of truth.  It is the tension between social construct moral theory and its effects and ethical truth and its effects.

It is but one example of many that could be cited as to how a culture cut loose of its ethical moorings is adrift in a very confusing sea of often conflicting thoughts and thus tensions.  Indeed if one views ethical thought and behavior as that which allows for the function of society, indeed it is an alarming shift!

A Shift in the View of One's Choices

In a nearby area a government agency to meet certain requirements had a policy that all newly hired employees were required to attend a Sensitivity and Diversity class.  As a part of that class attention was given  the Parameters of Culture and to the three constituent elements of those parameters.

The three elements can be further divided along a person's non-choices and choices.  Such choices as one makes of course has a direct influence upon one's thinking, attitudes, and thus life-style.  The three areas for discussion were,

• What you are born with.

The question is this.  What is it that a person is born with that is unchangeable?  While modern medical science has made some change possible that heretofore has not been possible, there for most people are some very basic things over which one has no control.  

• What your are born into.

What characterized the family, sub-culture, culture etc. into which one is born.  What is the influence of those factors upon the individual. What is the likelihood that in the course of one's life one can change these things?

• What you choose to adopt into your life and lifestyle.

The final category for discussion centered upon those things that a person experiences along the roadway of life and chooses to adopt into his life.  

The question that needs careful thought and discussion is not only what fits in each of the categories but what is the possibility that change can take place.

The breakout of the three areas discussed.

First, consider what a person is born with in terms of those unchangeable elements of one's life.  Included in the area were one's gender, one's race, and one's physical qualities.  Except for some of one's physical qualities, these are the things which one is born and these are the things that do not change no matter how long one lives or how much one might seek change.

Certainly there are elements of one's physical qualities over which one has not control.  For example, one's genome, the aging process, the effects of aging, injury, and illness, etc.  Again this category contains those things that may be influenced by decision but cannot be changed by decision.

Basis of discrimination is centered in this area.  In the truest sense of discrimination, it is based upon those things over which a person has no control.  The examples would include, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, discrimination based upon impairment caused by illness or injury.  More about this below and in a later blog.

Second, consider what a person is born into or one's ethnicity.  This category contains those elements of one's life that are part of the early experience and hold some lasting, howbeit not permanent influence.  These are those things such as food preferences, one's sense of distinctiveness, language spoken, etc.  Generally these are those things that come as the result of one's experiences early in life, possibly continue throughout one's life, but can be changed as one gains the life experience that then provides understanding and with that understanding the opportunity for choosing to change.

Third, consider what a person chooses to adopt.  These are those things one chooses to include in one's life which come about because of some experience.  These are those experiences that lead to choice, either to accept or to reject.  These are those myriad experiences in life that provide one with the opportunity to choose wither to adopt or reject ways of thinking, attitudes, actions, and habits.  These choices come as one gains life experience.

Within this model, there is a strong emphasis upon being responsible for one's choices and while generally speaking, there is very little in life over which one has control, one can control his attitudes and actions and in that sense maintain some control over one's responses.  That control gives one the power to choose his course of action beyond what circumstance would seem to dictate.

The Contemporary View of One's Choices

More recently that same government organization has the same requirement that employees attend a Sensitivity and Diversity class, however, now the tone of the material presented has changed.  The following diagram represents not only a change in content but also in the moral/ethical philosophy that underpins the course.

What you are born with and ethnic experience


What you now see is in the current training course on Parameters of Culture is that there are no longer three elements but two and the unchangeable core has been broadened out to include more than before.  That is it now include not just race, gender, and physical qualities now includes what historically was on the level where one could choose to embrace or reject certain behaviors and attitudes.

Thus, included with race, gender, and physical qualities are ethnicity and sexual orientation as unchangeable or what one is born with.  Thus the number of items which now may be the basis of discrimination have been broadened.

This interesting point is that this diagram is more a reflection of the culture (mores) than was the previous which tended toward more of an ethical view.  Therefore, we might say with accuracy that this diagram is the result of social construct theory or a reflection of the mores of the culture.

QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

Why was there a shift away from the first diagram to the second?  Considering the model of ethics vs morals previously discussed in other blogs,

• Was there a change in the influence of ethical standards?  Why?
• Was there a change in moral influence? Why?
• Was there a change in the view of what constitutes genuine truth?  Why?

The reality is that there has been a change in what is viewed as genuine truth because the culture has come to accept morality or the mores of the culture over the standards as established by the ethical truths that have endured over the ages.  The outcome is that correct or incorrect action is viewed not based upon a universal standard but upon the values that the culture holds to be correct or incorrect at that particular point in time.

Is not the Law an example of ethical stability?

It can be argued that the Law is a stabilizing force in the above mentioned moral drift.  There are two caveats that need to be understood.  First, while that is largely true, it cannot be assumed that the Law always follows ethics.  For example the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade was more of a decision based upon the mores of the time than upon any common law, case law, or Constitutional Law precedent.

Second, there is an assumption on the part of many that if it is legal according to the Law it is legal according to the Scriptures.  Such as in the previous example is not always true.  Therefore, one must be very discerning when it comes to the Law and religious doctrine.  The extreme case would be found in Sharia Law and Constitutional Law.

Since the U.S. Constitution was framed by men who were largely Christian it reflects the ideas of the Judeo-Christian faith and since that Constitution strongly influences the Law, the differences between the Law and Judeo-Christian belief may not be readily obvious.  Therefore, discernment as to which laws are ethically correct is in order.

What is the influence of the shift upon the individual?


Listen to the words of one of the Post Modern camp who though within the philosophy has enough intellectual honesty to call it as he sees it!  Notice that this was written over 20 years ago.  One cannot assume things have continue in any other direction than his observation.

"With the spread of postmodern consciousness, we see the demise of personal definition, reason, authority...All intrinsic properties of the human being, along with moral worth and personal commitment are lost from view..." 

--Kenneth Gergan, The Saturated Self, (New York:  Basic Books, 1991) 

Implications For Faith

The unfortunate fact is that in a number of cases the local church congregation is reflecting the trends of the culture--in this case Post Modernism has brought about an influence upon the beliefs of and the resulting action.  While this charge may be made against "mainline" churches, there are a number of "conservative" congregations that have not escaped the trend.  The outcome is some form of a Post Modern god which bears little resemblance to the God that is!

This Post-modern creation of god is,

• A god without standards since to have standards would be to offend or discriminate.
• A god without truth since this god must be all things to all people and truth exclues
• A god without a character and a nature much beyond that of mankind 
• A god without choice in that it is a god who is supposed to be on call to grant every wish
• A god without theological distinctive since the standard is what the "faithful" can agree upon

To be sure there are other elements of this god.  To sum it up, it is as one person termed it, this is a "mush god."

A Closing Question

What then are the outcomes on the "street" level where most of us live, worship, work, serve, and play?

There are many outcomes especially those who are separated by more than one generation from the ethical standards of the WW II generation.  Among the outcomes one might expect are the following.  It should not be assumed that this is an exhaustive list.

• A degraded sense of personal responsibility 
• An ego-centric view of life
• An entitlement mentality
• A victim mentality
• A distorted sense of personal boundaries
• A sense of resentment over an unfulfilled sense of entitlement
• A notion of discrimination which is in fact false
• A short sighted view of life
• A loss of sensitivity to otherness
• A failure to value human life
• A tendency for an us-them gang mentality
• An ingrained sociopathic view which allows for deviant behavior
•  A mindset and attendant behavior which while viewed as morally correct is in reality ethically wrong.

The final thought is this!  This shift has been largely out of the view of most because it has been the exclusive intellectual property of academia.  However, such is no longer true as those philosophic influences have been taught to students who are ill equipped to examine the logic and content of the belief systems they encounter as undergraduates.  Those unexamined belief systems then become ingrained and as they go out into business and government they then come to influence others who are less equipped to question.