Menu Close

Category: Faith Challenges

People of Integrity

 I have a great respect for people who are principled and uncompromising in their moral, political and religious positions, whether I agree with them or not, I consider them people of integrity. 

Which is why it is deeply disappointing and discouraging when they spread gossip, misinformation, untruths or even boldfaced lies to discredit their proclaimed evil, immoral opponents. 

How can such hypocrisy be justified?  I understand and often use rationalizations to justify such incongruity. Win at all costs … ends justify the means … whatever it takes … Each of us hold our ground because we believe we are defending truth. As some would proclaim, truth must prevail, whatever the cost. 

The problem is that when you decide to win at all costs you forget justice, kindness is a liability, and humility a fatal flaw. Phoenix Preacher

Evil and immorality are self condemning. Adopting evil and immoral tactics to attack evil and immoral opponents is also self-condemning. To employ such a strategy inherently renders us dishonest and unscrupulous. We are no longer restrained by integrity and are free to act without moral restraint.

I accept the possibility that many honestly believe they are spreading truth. However, sometimes it doesn’t seem to matter if an assertion is true. If it helps to defeat the opposition, whether it’s true or not is of no consequence. But, it is of consequence. Each time someone relies on untruths to demean, defeat  their opposition, they destroy their integrity and hurt their cause. Of course that’s not an issue if the objective is to destroy not redeem.

A single lie discovered is enough to create doubt in every truth expressed.

In this media dominated age of information overload we must do the hard work of discerning truth before speaking, posting or writing. That is no easy task, but if truth and integrity is important to us, we must. Until we learn to discern truth, perhaps we should adopt my mother’s revised admonition, “If you don’t have something true to say, don’t say anything.” 

I believe truth defeats evil. I am not optimistic that we have the courage  to pursue truth, regardless of the costs.  

The path of least resistance is our GPS default.
Truth is a road less traveled.

We need a Lion.

He [Buddha] tells the story of a hare disturbed by a falling fruit who believes that the earth is coming to an end. The hare starts a stampede among the other animals until a lion halts them, investigates the cause of the panic and restores calm. 

“Am I of the Truth?”

I am confident, if an audience, equally distributed between opposing factions, were asked, “Are you of the truth?”, it would be the only point on which everyone would agree.

As I observe continuing conflict and division in our society, it is fascinating to see each side claim truth. It seems to matter little if there is objective evidence to the contrary. Either side, when presented irrefutable evidence that their position is not true, often responds, “I don’t care about that, I know what is true.” I suppose there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence any longer.

Perhaps we are seeing the logical outcome of a relativistic culture Where knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute. I understand this possibility, but I am perplexed by our casual surrender of reasoned truth i.e. if A is true, B cannot be true. Honestly, though, I am increasingly aware that often A is not what I thought and neither is B.
So what does it mean when we say “I am of the truth”?

The following quote I came across this morning is challenging me to think about what is means to be “Of the Truth.”

“If you seriously ask the question, ‘Am I of the truth?’, you are of the truth. If you do not ask it seriously, you do not really want, and you do not deserve, and you cannot get, an answer! He who asks  seriously the question of the truth that liberates is already on the way to liberation.”

Of course Tillich is talking about more than factual truth, establishing what is verifiable by investigation. He certainly includes that. But he is after the deeper levels and originating sources of truthfulness that we might call integrity of character, authenticity in behaviour, consistency in values and ethical choices, an absence of cynicism, an aversion to lies whether spoken, implied or by self-deceit. All of these grow out of the deep subsoil of the soul, the accumulation over time of mistakes and missteps, of good decisions and unselfish choices, those moments of self-discovery, self-awareness and self-correction which are the often hidden work of the Holy Spirit in the conscience and at the well-springs of motive and self-knowing.

I guess the first question for me is: “Am I seriously asking, Am I of the Truth?”

“Distrust every claim for truth where you do not see truth united with love; and be certain that you are of the truth and that the truth has taken hold of you only when love has taken hold of you and has started to make you free from yourselves.” Tillich

The blog post in its entirety can be read HERE

Absolute Faith

Absoluteness and certainty are a hallmark of the moral and spiritual atmosphere of our culture, shaping every action and decision.  The subject of absolute faith has recently addressed by two of my “spiritual directors”, Richard Rohr and Richard Beck. I found them to be helpful, perhaps, you will also.


But one thing I took from this was a big fear I’ve now got about people of absolute faith. I always thought faith of itself was – could only be a positive thing. Everyone talks about the importance of having faith. Well, these guys had faith, absolute faith. And there’s one really desperately upsetting…ideologically, there’s one desperately particularly upsetting moment where – in the book – where I talk about how Himmler and Hoss most admired, as prisoners, Jehovah’s Witnesses. They pointed to them and said, see that faith? That’s the kind of faith we need in our führer – absolute, unshakable faith. (from an interview with Laurence Rees, Auschwitz: A New History)

faith.?Faith is a kind of knowing that doesn’t need to know for certain and yet doesn’t dismiss knowledge either. With faith, we don’t need to obtain or hold all knowledge because we know that we are being held inside a Much Larger Frame and Perspective. As Paul puts it, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then we shall see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known myself” (1 Corinthians 13:12). It is a knowing by?participation with—instead of an?observation of from a position of separation. It is knowing subject to subject instead of subject to object. 
Richard Rohr


It is amazing how religion has turned the biblical idea of faith around 180 degrees—into a need and even a right to certain knowing, complete predictability, and perfect assurance about whom and what God likes or doesn’t like. Why do we think we can have the Infinite Mystery of God in our quite finite pocket? We supposedly know what God is going to say or do next, because we think our particular denomination has it all figured out. In this schema, God is no longer free but must follow? our ?rules and?our? theology. If God is not infinitely free, we are in trouble, because every time God forgives or shows mercy, God is breaking God’s own rules with shocking (but merciful) freedom and inconsistency!

We do need?enough knowing?to be able to hold our ground. We need a container and structure in which we can safely acknowledge that we do know a bit, in fact just enough to hold us until we are ready for a further knowing. In the meantime, we can happily exist in what some have called? docta ignorantia?or “learned ignorance.” Such people tend to be very happy and they also make a lot of other people happy.  
Ricard Beck