Giving Away One's Word!

What does the giving of one’s word mean?

Without integrity of word and behavior it is impossible to check man’s descent into chaos.  This would be true of the individual as well as the culture!

At one time one’s word once given and due to a man’s character was as real as truth.  It was in that time that a man did not need to execute a contract because a man’s word meant something.  It was his sacred duty to keep his word and so “A man’s word was his bond.”  Said another way he held himself in the bonds of his word.  Such was so unless released by the other party.  It was an issue or personal ethics.

Often one carried out his word; it was viewed as his sacred duty because it spoke to his personal reputation and his honor.  Thus a man even at great personal cost, loss of material wealth, or even loss of his own life, could be counted upon to do what he said he would do and behave as he said he would behave. 

Sadly in today’s culture one is beyond naïve if he does business on a handshake.  Recently I was in a meeting in which it was decided that the group would purchase a series of products at an agreed upon price.  It was moved, seconded, and passed.  There was no contract only a verbal agreement that the product would be produced at a certain price point. 

The product arrived and then it was revealed to the group that there were additional “set up” charges.  It was moved, seconded, and passed that we pay the additional charges.  There were two dissenting “no” votes.  The reason I so voted was based solely on the fact that there had been an agreement and that the other party had made an agreement and then did not perform according to the agreement.

How one keeping his or her word has changed.  Today if one feels that he inconvenienced or feels that the costs involved are too unfair, such a person seeks to be divested of any responsibility to carry though with his commitments.  He may blame circumstances and comfortably believe he is absolved of such responsibility as his word has established however in making the decision and in giving himself such permission, he does incur another consequence that may ultimately be more costly and inconvenient.  Indeed it is a character issue!

The simple truth is that for one to act outside of his word gives practical expression to the moral fiber of his heart.  It very clearly suggests a life and belief system which is void of such things as trust, honor, honesty, respect for others, and personal integrity.  To gain such a reputation is a consequence and a cost much higher than any inconvenience or material loss that may accrue.

The business community is littered with failures neither because of quality nor craftsmanship but because a man would excuse himself from keeping his word.  Such a decision is not without consequence in one’s own life and in the lives of those he contacts.  We found such to be so in a home project—a kitchen remodel in which the cabinet installer just could not seem to keep his word.

Is it any wonder that we live in a culture that is unraveling?  Some years ago I formed a “handshake” agreement with a service manager to have certain work done on my car at a certain price.  All was well and good until I got the bill.  Later I found out that he did the same thing with others and that he was dismissed from the position by the owner.  The sad part is that someone else hired him in the same position and so he went on deceiving other unsuspecting customers. 

The question we all need to consider is this.  What does it mean when we give our word to another?  Is it a gift that can be counted upon or is it a gift that will be taken back?  Your trustworthiness is based or we might say finds its foundation in your answer!

"The Inconvenience of God!"

Could one argue that atheism is a "religion" of convenience?  Religion?  Yes, it is so because it has all of the qualities of a religion—a common belief, doctrine, adherents, meetings, and activists.

Convenience? While there are many atheists with high moral standards, there are fewer with ethical standards, and many more who have come to embrace the belief because they find divinely established ethical standards to be inconvenient.  For them God is inconvenient, not inconceivable, just inconvenient.

These are those who understand that to believe in some form of God will require accompanying ethical behaviors.  For them one’s self pleasuring tendancies and other behaviors are inconvenienced by such ethical behaviors as God required and requires.  In that sense they are to be respected for at least they do not pretend something they are not--an argument often pointed at people of faith in their ethical/moral struggles.

Continuing that thought, at this point the athiest has company for there are those who believe in some form of God—a God that they have redefined to fit their moral proclivities.  In either case, it is much easier to redefine God or to rid one’s self of God than to rid one’s self of a penchant for various pleasures and conveniences that are outside of God’s standards.

The problem is that, just as the Apostle Paul wrote to the Church at Rome, there is internal evidence that has been “hard wired” into each person.  Such gives testimony to each that “there is a God and that God is there.”  However, when life style choices make an ethical God inconvenient, it is easier to intellectually get rid of God.

Then too, to defend the athiest’s position requires more argument and even more faith than to take the leap of faith necssary to decide to believe in God.  It is far more simple say, "God is!!!"  However, at that point the issue becomes, if God exists, what will He require?

An accompanying thought for those of faith is this.  "Since you believe God exists what does He require of you?"

"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.

“Cultural and Personal Chaos”

The lesson of the Frog And The Kettle is that imperceptible change into danger can take place and in doing so exert its influence until it is too late to escape the consequence.  Such is the case in Western culture.  Living as we do in the midst of change, a change which is sold as “progress,” most are not aware of the influence upon the individual.  Since most have no historical standard by which to judge past cultural influence and thus establish a baseline, the changes of a culture degenerating toward chaos is unobserved.

It is not culture alone for any and every system known to man is in this downward spiral into chaos.  People in general as well as the social systems that they comprise move imperceptibly toward chaos, moral and otherwise.  Why do we not see this to be so?  Reference the Frog In The Kettle and the imperceptible changes taking place around him along with our lack of historical connection and it is not hard to see why people are unaware.

People collectively and individually do not recognize the influence of cultural mores which surround them and thus influence them in the day to day of life.  The whole notion of relative truth, no universal societal standards, and other elements of a “secular society” exert pressure upon all and either the individual conforms or tempts the possibility of sanction.  Such sanction can be either quiet and subtle, direct and overt, or somewhere in between. 

Then there are those who are trapped by what they do not recognize and in their blind  ignorance go merrily about the day to day of life.  In either case conformity, proactively or tacitly, is to place one on the slippery slope of cultural and of personal chaos.  As one regresses down this path; national, cultural, and personal resolve are lost.  As well, one struggles in his efforts to find his true identity, a sense of competence, security, confidence, and well being. If there is any nagging sensitivity to such being the case it is most often dismissed as the irrelevant influence of bygone and outdated ethical influences.  Eventually such nagging sensitivity though there, is unfelt as if gone.

Who is the one who would tempt sanction?  There are two categories to be considered today.  One such person would be the one obsessed with the notion that he possesses unique “special truth.” Such special truth is held to be superior to all other “truth.”  Such an one assumes that their special “truth” entitles them to “special behavior” and thus they think and behave outside cultural mores and even outside of universal ethical standards. 

This mindset can be found in religion but is not confined there.  The same mindset can be found in certain elements of the political discourse.  Of course such thinking and behavior very often justifies deceit and the disenfranchising of others and thus contributes to the slide toward cultural chaos.

Another one who would tempt sanction is the one who believes and lives by universal objective ethical standards.  Such an one, though not perfect, does seek to live in harmony with God’s truth as revealed in the Scriptures.  This is the one who most often exceeds the standards set forth by relative truth and thus is not just uncomfortable but an anathema to those whose morality does not rise above their own proclivities and physical desires—those descending into chaos, national, cultural, and personal. 

This last person and gatherings of same are the exception to the great slide downward.  In fact instead of degenerating into chaos, these are those who though not perfect enjoy the benefits of regeneration.  They indeed are those who makeup sub-cultures and cultures that also are the exception to the downward spiral.  Such is only possible when faith is interjected into the system be it national, cultural, or personal.

"Ethics vs. Morals"

ETHICS VS. MORALS: R.C. Sproul, who may be heard on a local radio station, in a series of messages discussed the different between morals and ethics. He points out that “moral” comes from the word “mores” which is the cultural or sub-cultural standard of right and wrong. The word “ethic” on the other hand is a more transcendent word, not influenced by the culture or the subculture. His concern is that we have blurred the distinction between the two.

For example, in Roman culture it was morally acceptable to abort babies, and to put children born with birth defects along females babies out in the weather to die of exposure. However, Christians governed by ethics would go out and pick up those children and care for them and raise them. One culture lived by morals, the other by ethics.

Leaving religion out of the argument for a moment, notice that the Roman Empire declined and eventually disappeared. Notice as well that the Kingdom of Heaven, populated by people of higher ethical standards and attendant behaviors lives on.

One set of people were governed by the morals of those around them. Others were governed by the ethical standards of the eternal Word of God and the eternal God of the Word. This brings about two questions that we do well to prayerfully consider.

1. “Am I living by God’s ethics or the cultural/sub-cultural morals around me?”

2. “Are the people from whom I take my thought, attitude, position, and behavior cues, living according to God’s ethics or the cultural/sub-cultural’s ideas of morality?”

When criticized as being outdated and irrelavent take heart brothers and sisters. The individuals, peoples, organizations, churchs, institutions, and yes, countries (e.g. the USSR) that are morally relevant, if they are not in decline soon will be. However, those who live by the Word of God and the God of the Word—those of Christian ethic will live on.