[Dialogue] {Disarmed} Re: Secondary Ethics
jlepps at pc.jaring.my
jlepps at pc.jaring.my
Fri Aug 24 23:17:52 EDT 2007
There may well be some telling arguments against secondary integrity, but
the least effective one (and the one most clearly heard in this discussion)
is that avoiding it and maintaining "primary integrity" keeps one innocent.
In this world, innocence is not an option. The only question is what will
I be guilty OF! So, in the example Marshall eloquently posed, the question
is will I be responsible to the villagers of Maharastra or to the potential
donor with whom I am talking. Either option leaves one in a state of guilt,
so one has total freedom as to which choice to make.
The ideal of living a clean, pure life ("brave, clean, & reverent") can
be achieved only if we have a limited responsibility (& freedom), that is,
if there are some things for which I am NOT responsible. But that's a
dehumanizing illusion into which we often fall. The fact is, we are
responsible to God for the World, not simply for keeping my delicate little
hands clean.
You want to know who is responsible for Iraq? Here I am. For global
warming? It is I. For Darfur? Blame me. For Poverty? Same. Now obviously I
cannot handle all of them, so guilt, real guilt, is my situation. Did we
think the doctrine of Original Sin was made up as a Freudian rational by
sex-starved priests? No, it's a description of our human situation.
Which means that grace is welcome, indeed. If we assume that innocence is
an option, then grace becomes little more than politely overlooking my
rather minor lapses of etiquette or protocol. No, the ancient worthies (and
our contemporaries) had more in mind: grace is permission to live in the
midst of unrelenting responsibility and guilt.
Now back to the Maliwada well. We did what we said we would do. The well
is there and anyone who contributed could go see. And so are many others.
The fact that every dollar raised for it didn't get there is a fact of life
in fundraising. Often as much as 50% of charitable funds raised go to the
fund-raising organization ("administrative costs"), and our track record
was far better than that.
But those factors don't remove our guilt for pitching a well that was
already dug, i.e. violating our immediate relationship. And, of course, our
guilt for consequences that may have come from that violation. As I said,
guilt is our state of being. But we chose to live out of the grace that
surely abounds, secondary integrity and all.
John Epps
At 03:52 AM 8/23/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>No disrespect intended for Marshall, but his reasoning regarding the well
>in Maliwada makes him a prime candidate to be Karl Rove's successor. I
>too was a part of the "sell the well" activity, in my case the well in
>Bayad, not Maliwada. The practical problem with that is, in the face of
>short term gain, the funding sources sooner or later discover you have no
>integrity, i.e. you do not do what you say you will do, the funding dries
>up, and the reputation follows you around the world.
>
>But the moral problem is in the assumption that appears to be behind a
>group of elites believing they know what's good for everyone. "You don't
>have the ??? (big picture, vocational commitment, spiritual depth, or
>whatever) to know what's needed, but I do, and I'll tell you whatever I
>must to get you to do what I've decided you need to do. I'm a 'spirit
>person' and you're an ass, the 'donkey on the bridge,' an
>'infidel.'" From this kind of "elitism," the approach becomes coercion
>and manipulation from a "subject" to an "object," an "I and it," rather
>than persuasion between two "subjects," an "I and Thou." (Buber) In time
>this infects your internal relations as well (elitism within the Order)
>and the whole system becomes corrupt as in Nazi Germany or what this
>country begins to look like after nearly eight years of Bush's thinking
>the American people don't have the sense (or whatever) to be trusted with
>the basic freedoms afforded under the Constitution.
>
>I think Marilyn is onto something when she compares primary and secondary
>integrity to Bonhoeffer's understanding of responsibility. For
>Bonhoeffer, responsibility was not a choice between to be free OR to be
>obedient, but to stand in the tension between the two. When you collapsed
>obedience and stood only on the freedom pole you were the "irresponsible
>genius."
>
>So with intergrity--it is not a choice between primary OR secondary, but
>to stand in the tension between the two. When you abandon primary
>integrity for a perverted version of secondary integrity, you become
>Bonhoeffer's "irresponsible genius." Maybe it plays out this way. If I
>have decided that digging a well in Bayad (or Maliwada) is the "necessary
>deed" and I can't persuade you to see it that way so that you provide the
>funding (primary integrity), then I don't become "dissuaded" by your
>argument and end my quest. Instead, if I believe it's really necessary, I
>go find someone else who will see it my way and commit to pay for it
>(secondary integrity.) History will decide if it was indeed necessary.
>
>I agree with Dick. I have pondered for a long time that we did often
>operate from a perverted understanding of secondary integrity and that it
>did hurt our effectiveness externally and our morale internally as an
>Order. I'm glad we're talking about it now. Perhaps some more "fools"
>will "rush in" to participate in this conversation.
>
>Randy Williams
>
>Marilyn R Crocker <marilyncrocker at juno.com> wrote:
>To: <mailto:dialogue at wedgeblade.net>dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:07:58 -0400
>Subject: Re: [Dialogue] {Disarmed} Re: Secondary Ethics
>
>Dick et al,
>
>My understanding of "secondary" integrity (as opposed to the rules, regs
>and legalisms that,for me, represent "primary" integrity) is that which
>guides one's actions in accord with the "necessary deed" -- the freely
>responsible action (cf Bonhoeffer) which I've never found is a simplistic
>cop out, but rather the result of complex, prayer filled discernment.
>
>I would be interested to know more about your thinking, Dick, that led you
>to conclude this was our movement's most serious perversion.
>
>With appreciation for the resources you bring to our "virtual" collegium
>room table,
>
>Marilyn
>
>Marilyn R. Crocker, Ed.D
>Crocker & Associates, Inc.
>123 Sanborn Road
>West Newfield, ME 04095
>(207) 793-3711
>
>On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:23:34 EDT <mailto:KroegerD at aol.com>KroegerD at aol.com
>writes:
>
>
>Here is a link to the subject not from the spirit movement.
><http://ezinearticles.com/?A-Model-of-Ethics-for-Womens-Development&id=654252>http://ezinearticles.com/?A-Model-of-Ethics-for-Womens-Development&id=654252
>
>
>On golden pathways a google search delivered only a speech by Mathews in
>Korea. ( below )
>
>good luck with that!!
>
>In my words, secondary integrity means doing whatever is necessary,
>telling story ( even if it is totally untrue) in order to ger 'er
>done. In my opinion, it was our movement's most serious perversion, and
>ultimately did in the spirit movement as an organization.
>
>Dick Kroeger
>
>Global Priors Council
>e all-new
><http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982>MailScanner
>has detected a possible fraud attempt from "discover.aol.com" claiming to
>be<http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982>
>AOL.com.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Dialogue mailing list
>Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>
>
>
>Be a better Heartthrob.
><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48255/*http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/_ylc=X3oDMTI5MGx2aThyBF9TAzIxMTU1MDAzNTIEX3MDMzk2NTQ1MTAzBHNlYwNCQUJwaWxsYXJfTklfMzYwBHNsawNQcm9kdWN0X3F1ZXN0aW9uX3BhZ2U-?link=list&sid=396545433>Get
>better relationship answers from someone who knows.
>Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
>_______________________________________________
>Dialogue mailing list
>Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.2/967 - Release Date: 8/22/2007
>6:51 PM
LENS International (M) Sdn Bhd
5th Fl, Tower 1 Wisma MCIS
Jalan Barat
46200 Petaling Jaya, Selangor
Malaysia
on the web at <www.lensinternational.com>
email: <jlepps at pc.jaring.my>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070825/da3f0969/attachment.html
More information about the Dialogue
mailing list