[Dialogue] {Disarmed} Re: Secondary Ethics

Sat Aug 25 16:30:59 EDT 2007

Very eloquent Justin. You say it well.  I wish I could be as philosophical. For me it is hard to differentiate primary, secondary, tertiary integrity.  There is only integrity.  You just know what it is when you see it whether it is Bonhoeffer, Neiburr, Matthews, or Epps.  

I just finished reading McCullough's biography of Harry Truman.  After he had stepped  down as President he went to Europe and London to receive a honorary Doctorate at Oxford (he only had a high school education) and afterwards he was speaking in London and said:

 "And -- least of all --let us escape from this modern idea of the mass psychologists that we should be guided not by what we honestly believe is wise and right, but by some supposed reflecting of what other people think of us.  I am ready to give up the complexity of propaganda, with its mass psychology, in favor of Mark Twain's simpler admonition:

"Always do right.  It will please some people and astonish the rest."

That was spoken by a man who had to decide whether to not drop the Atomic bomb and potentially kill hundreds of thousand of people in an invasion or drop it and kill as many as that.  Who would ever want to make such a decision.  He also brought the war in Europe to an end, set up the Marshall Plan,  stopped McArthur from going into China, was the first President to propose Medicare, and was the first President to speak to the NAACP despite the fact that his family came from Kansas and were from the South.

I have never told the the Human Development Demonstration story to anyone and not had an "astonishment response" as Truman said.  Sure we made mistakes along the way.  We were inveritably in a position of between a rock and a hard place, especially as to the committments we made and the money it took to make things happen.  When you take the kind of up front risks especially the economic risks we took  and accomplish what we did (essentially with a group of people that have built in fear of finance) the results were unbelievable.  I would put those results up against any like organization at that time.  It only comes from taking a faith stance that says that the only way change in community  happens anywhere is when you enable people to make change for the better happen for themselves.  This is and was the only way you respect your fellow man and demonstrate authentic primary integrity.  That is, by making it possible for them to dig their own well.  I don't mean to say that the ends justify the means.  However, at the same time as George Lakoff said in his writings, "Very few things in this world present themselves as being "always absolute."  More often we are talking about relative arrogance, integrity, and rightness.

Grace and Peace

David Rebstock  

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: jlepps at pc.jaring.my 
  To: Colleague Dialogue 
  Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 8:17 PM
  Subject: [Dialogue] {Disarmed} Re: Secondary Ethics

  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: 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 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 
      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 MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "discover.aol.com" claiming to beMailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "discover.aol.com" claiming to be AOL.com. 

    _______________________________________________
    Dialogue mailing list
    Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
    http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net

    Be a better Heartthrob. 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> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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: 269.12.6/971 - Release Date: 8/24/2007 2:59 PM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070825/d7024fcd/attachment-0001.html 