Integrity

I want to begin by apologizing for anyone who slogs through my comments this week. Our administrative assistant--who is a wonderful person btw--was out of town for Thanksgiving when I began writing this. I also want to apologize for the length that this is likely to be. Though it may not seem it, I generally do try to stay focused. But this is liable to get long and trying. So use your judgment here. If you begin to feel exhausted or bored--or, if you find that my thoughts here make you want to like me less--then please go do something else. We live in an age that is devoted to superficiality. So while I am passionate and feel that my reading comments here are important, they're probably not important enough to trade for the patience of my friends.

Clarification: The word integrity is most often used as a moral qualifier. It references a measure of trustworthiness. However, I am pretty sure that this is actually a derivative meaning. The word fundamentally refers to the concept of wholeness or singleness, as in a chemical compound or solution. To have integrity means to be more consistent and less polluted. A person of integrity is solid in their constitution and understandable in their speech because they carry themselves and speak from a center that is whole.

I begin here because I believe that one of the best ways of understanding our world today is to note that it is seriously lacking in integrity. What I mean here is not merely that people do not tell the truth or that they have mixed motives and agendas. I mean, rather, that the very framework of our reality is severely polluted. Our society seems to be functioning out of corrupted center. It may have always been thus but if it has, I have not always been aware of it.

To explain what I mean here, I offer three simple questions to consider. To what extent are we being lied to by the powers? To what extent are these people aware that they are doing this? And to what extent do we, the people, care?

To what extent are we being lied to?
There are three ways to answer the first question. We are either not lied to; we are somewhat lied to; or we are considerably lied to. Certainly, some believe that everything that we are told by the powers (political leaders, economic experts, and the media) is true but this, it seems to me, is a small percentage of people--at least of the handful of folks reading this blog.

Most folks probably assume that there is some misrepresentations afoot. We may even believe that this is o.k. Perhaps we assume that our leaders have our best interests at heart so if they have to lie in order to protect or serve the larger good in some way, we can accept that. I am not in agreement with this philosophy but that is not even my primary concern at this point. I am rather wondering at what point somewhat becomes considerable. For sadly, it seems that we are seeing more and more evidence that much of what we see and hear from power these days is either a complete lie or some kind of derivative of a previous lie. (When I refer to the powers here, I am not talking merely about politics. I am referring to the entire structure: geo-political and corporate-economic.)

To what extent are these people aware that they are lying?
While the initial question is uncomfortable enough, the second is even more disconcerting. I do not want to belabor this but I do want those of us who are interested to think about the ramifications. You see, the assumption is that people in leadership positions know what they are doing. By this, I mean that they are the agents of the ideas that they present and the policies that they put into place.

In this regard, we might say that such leaders are people of integrity. Because even if we do not agree with them, they are still speaking sincerely from their own center. Or, to put it another way, we would trust that these people believe their own nonsense even if no one else does.

Of course, another possibility is that these people are intentionally lying. That they are either acting insincerely themselves or they are being coerced in some way to betray their own integrity. The examples here would be, first, a leadership that believes lying is expediently necessary for the greater good or, second, a proxy leadership that has been secured through blackmail or bribery.

There is actually a third possibility as well. It might be possible that these people have somehow already lost their integrity (their center). That it has been replaced by something else and therefore they cannot recognize their own lies.

A common way to think about this third example is to speak of a puppet. We have all probably heard reference to "political puppets." This is certainly an appropriate metaphor but I am thinking here of something a step beyond even that. I am thinking of people who may not even comprehend the ways in which they are being used by some other person or some other force. [If it is possible that leadership can be so completely compromised, then imagine the condition of those who are following...] This brings us to the final question.

To what degree do we care?
Some would say that the details are of little concern to the people--that as long as things are going well (or well enough), it does not matter whether or not our leaders are lying. This, btw, is very relevant to the current situation. For it seems that the greater constituency of our society is quite happy to allow anything to be done in its name as long as they can somehow see themselves participating in the benefits.

For example, when we read about things like war and torture, a denial of civil rights or national autonomy, we are numbed by the illusion that what we are reading about does not pertain to us. Someone tells us that these things are going on somewhere else and that because of this, our lives are somehow better. We then instinctively believe not only that the claim is true but that these otherwise negative images in no way apply to us--that because these other people are being warred upon and tortured and denied of civil rights, these things are somehow further away from us.

This is disconcerting and, I think, misunderstood. It is foolish to imagine that the wickedness that we let loose on the world will not someday arrive upon our own doorstep. And I fear that such a time is closer than many of us realize.

What is happening?
For some time now, the citizens of our society have been systematically scared into a state of compliance. And once scared, we have little energy to question laws that continue to reduce our freedom. So the great irony is that while we are being told that we are waging all these wars "for our freedom," the fact is that we are becoming less and less free. Therefore, through legally justified ends, we are circumventing moral questions and our society is giving way to tyranny. And because much of our society is thoroughly distracted (with anxiety, entertainment and hedonism), a lot of this is going largely unchecked.

Meanwhile, I sense that there are very real practical and humanitarian consequences for all of this. I am writing now mostly for my own clarification. I guess if I am willing to say some of these things out-loud, then I must actually be considering them. It is kinda like I am pinching myself and asking, "am I really seeing this?" It is a bit surreal.

So I offer my thoughts here to anyone who might be able to set me straight on all this. Tell me I am just seeing things. But first let me tell you what I am seeing...

First Case In Point--WAR:
Are we hearing these highly charged comments about Iran (or Syria or Pakistan or China)? Does it strike us as curious (dangerous?) that supposedly left-of-center politicians seem to have nearly identical ideas about Iran that supposedly right-of-center politicians have? Are we really to imagine that these men and women have spent hours and hours pouring over the facts and have come to this conclusion?

Our public leadership is now talking about Iran in the same ways that we have already heard people talk about Iraq and Libya and Afghanistan and other places. In the days in which I have been working on this, NATO has apparently done something in Pakistan as well. Do you or anyone you know really want to go with war with Iran? Oh, and China keeps coming up too... Where does all this love of bloodshed come from? Who is interested in this? And who is going to benefit?

I recently saw a video in which Michele Bachmann stated that Iraq should reimburse the US for the cost of the war there. An interesting suggestion given the apparent facts. Has it not been pretty much settled that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and that there were no weapons of mass destruction... So let me get this straight, we have someone running for a major office in this country who believes that it is o.k. to wage unjustified war, thoroughly destroy another country's infrastructure, kill hundreds of thousands of people, and then demand some kind of reimbursement for the trouble. Is this the world we now live in?

BTW, this is not partisan. Democrats and Republicans alike all seem wildly enthusiastic about violence these days. Meanwhile, average people are suffering greatly. Run a searches on what returning soldiers are saying about their time in Iraq. Remember when war used to be bad?

Maybe we can comfort ourselves with some nonsense about keeping us safe. But from what exactly...

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/congress-to-vote-next-week-on-explicitly-creating-a-police-state.html

http://www.infowars.com/senate-moves-to-allow-military-to-intern-americans-without-trial/

Second Case in Point--Banking Cartels:
There is a push to centralize Europe. It is coming from the global financial interests. There is also a more subtle interest in doing a similar thing with the U.S., Canada and Mexico. [Don't take my word for it. Do a little research on The North American Union and see what you think. BTW, I like Canada and Mexico, I just think stuff like this should be more open.]

In connection to Case in Point #1, the interest in both European and North American politics these days is driven by the financial world. I realize that it is cliche' to talk about the evil power of banks but it is getting harder to ignore that money is part of all this. Take a look at what is/has happened in Greece and Italy. Those are not haphazard replacement parts. Iceland might be the best example. The thing to think about here is how interest works (pun intended). Bankers do not do things out of the goodness of their hearts, Human Nature 101 suggests that people want things and they make deals that help them get what they want. And the more they get, the more they have to "secure." And the more people have to secure, the less tolerant they are with volatility.

Oh, and did you see this?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2011/11/bank-bailout-was-way-bigger-anyone-thought/45432/

In case you are tired of all the links, the number in the article is nearly $8 trillion. So what do all those people who were in such a hurry to crucify the Madoff family want to do with the people responsible here?

Third Case in Point--Repression:
This one is harder to see because things have been warming slowly--kinda like frogs in a pot. It is getting more obvious though...

http://current.com/community/93556545_time-magazine-changes-revolution-redux-cover-for-us-print-only.htm

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

There also appears to be a bill out there to give the authorities more power to control the Internet

http://insearchofsimplicity.com/tag/congressional-bill-to-limit-internet-use/

Not long ago, someone sat me down to tell me about some of the things that I am doing wrong as a pastor. Several of her points were helpful and I appreciated this person's courage to speak with me. However, one of the things she noted was that I had made some reference to politics in one of my sermons and she didn't like this.

I wasn't sure exactly what she meant because although I certainly do address worldly issues, I make it a point to avoid anything that might be construed as partisan. I do this because I don't want to give people an excuse to ignore the help that I am trying to offer them. That... and I am actually doubtful that we even have a two-party system anymore.

Anyway, the truth is that social commentary been an important part of theological and spiritual work for as long as people have believed in God. Just about every person who is referenced in the Bible is there because he/she had something to say about the world around them. And it was generally not favorable.

In this way, saying that politics and religion don't mix is a statement about a natural tension that exists. It is probably a healthy tension given that both of these strong arms of human civilization have, at times, abused their power.

In Jesus' parable of the Great Judgment, the nations of the earth are brought collectively before the throne of God. I do not know whether the judgment will have anything to do with our regional or national affiliations, but just in case, I would prefer to go down as being a part of a peace-loving and just society.