[Dialogue] {Disarmed} Re: Secondary Ethics

Tue Aug 28 06:41:24 EDT 2007

This a fascinating dialogue with some very relevant practical implications.  I am learning from the diverse viewpoints being expressed.  With, for me, this new light on the issue please allow me to take one more (at least) stab at it.

  In order for there to be some "context" for the ethic out of which I live, and to avoid the "situation" ethic which regards every situation as self-contained, and since I will in the end, as John suggests, stand accountable to all for all, I must begin with some kind of public declaration.  The first part of that is a statement of (1) my vision for the world and
  (2) my commitment to bring it to fruition, i.e. my purpose or calling or vocation.

  The second part of the public declaration, which is informed by the first, is (1) a statement of the values which I hold as foundational and (2) the principles out of which those values direct me to live in day-to-day relationships.  Without a public declaration of the vision and purpose and the values and principles, there is no integrity, primary or secondary.  And it is in light of this declaration that I become accountable to all for all.  This is also what distinguishes me (it does not make me better or worse, just different) from the Bushies, the evangelical right, etc.

  Now comes the rub.  Secondary integrity comes into play when, in the context of the vision and purpose, my foundational values come into conflict with each other and to say "yes" to one or more values I have to say "no" to others.  This is what Bonhoeffer would describe as the choice between "wrong and wrong."  There are thousands of historical examples of this: Bonhoeffer's part in the attempted assassination of Hitler, Truman's dropping the A bombs on Japan, Kennedy's failed Bay of Pigs invasion, Rosa Parks' refusal to move to the back of the bus, saying what you have to say to get the well funded, etc.

  When the chips are down and the accountability comes, there's no way to come out with clean hands, no way to avoid guilt, as John said, or to stay clean and reverent, as Marshall suggested.  And the accountability goes on for centuries.  Even I will not know if I made the right decision and there will inevitably be second-guessing and self-doubt as to whether I've been true to myself, i.e. my own vision and calling, my own values and principles.  The only way to endure this and live another day is through humility (which is the opposite of arrogance) in the face of my guilt, gratitude for my freedom and for that which put me in this "humanly impossible" situation, and compassion for all those in all places for all time who are effected by my decision or indecision and my action or inaction.  In other words, total dependence on the grace of God.

  Just as a side note, when you put this in a corporate context, as in the case of the O:E, where we all covenanted to a common "rule" (meaning we have more or less the same vision and purpose, values and principles), then we hold each other accountable.  If ever the covenant begins to disintegrate it could be because the internal accountability failed. 

  Randy

"jlepps at pc.jaring.my" <jlepps at pc.jaring.my> wrote:

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

---------------------------------
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070828/b2a65d3e/attachment-0001.html 