If you have been watching the news lately then you are aware of the scandal regarding a certain congressman who was caught "sexting" to multiple women thus being publicly unfaithful to his pregnant wife. The debate rages over whether this dirty weiner-dog should step down from his position or not; once caught, he also proceeded to lie about the whole thing until he couldn't keep up the charade any longer. Several moral elements of the debate have really caught my attention and thus my fingers went to the keyboard once again.
First, I remember the day when being a politician was considered a noble profession. It was similar in its expectations to any of the other noble professions, like doctor, lawyer, or clergy. There was a inherent level of trust that was placed upon the shoulders of the person occupying that position. This is not to say that all professions should carry some degree of morality. However, trust is paramount because in these professions individuals make themselves vulnerable to the ethics and morals of the person who performs that duty; this is true on a municipal level like a politician or at the personal/physical level such as a physician. One fundamental characteristic of that trust is truth-telling. Noble professions demand that the professional says what they mean and mean what they say; the greater good depends upon it. As a doctor, when I examine someone and document it; my findings should be true and not altered to benefit me and not the patient. Somehow culturally this is changing; we have dropped our standards when it comes to politicians. Or is it just politicians? In our cultural minds eye, we somehow believe it is possible to be a good congressman, president, or statesman but not morally ethical in other areas of our lives such as fidelity or truth-telling. How did this happen? I remember the day I graduated from medical school the entire class took the Hippocratic Oath. The first vow taken is that " I will do no harm." This promise inherently has someone's else best interest before your own. How is it possible to separate the two?
I will suggest it is not. They go hand in hand. How one sets his moral compass and to what standard he or she compares himself cannot be separated from how that person conducts them-self in their profession. Period. If a person is willing to cheat on their spouse, or commit any other obviously sinful act, then who can say emphatically they are somehow trustworthy when it comes to their "noble profession"?
"The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." Romans 13:8-10
Along these lines I have often struggled with the idea of patients who are self-confessed Christians, especially those in ministry, who choose to go to a non-Christian doctor. Now I do understand sometimes there are issues of competence and specialization and one might have to go to the most skilled for their particular situation. I also think God can use Christians to witness to non-believers in these situations. But when these are not issues, and particularly when there are choices for physicians who are both competent and believers, I would think a Christian would want a doctor with a known moral compass, especially when it comes to issues of life and death. This is quite a touchy situation and I have always tried to be respectful of how people choose their physician; however, lately this has really bothered me and this scandal helped me figure out why. In some ways, I think the two issues have similarities.
A few days ago Chris Matthews, a reporter on MSNBC, made the comment that the infamous congressman would have to be removed because if not it would hurt the democratic party too much. He said that Christian conservatives, "culturally backward, you could say" would never tolerate him like they would in New York. Okay Chris, at first this Christian conservative might be inclined to pull off my big hoop earrings and get ready to throw down because in the South..."dems fightin' words"! But when I thought about it, I think I don't mind being called culturally backward. Really what he is saying is that as Christians we are not socially forward thinking and thus moving along in the direction society is going...which is tolerant of this type of behavior and willing to separate the personal behavior from the moral obligations of duty. Know what, Chris? I'll stay "backward" in my thinking and keep using my moral compass "Jesus" as the direction this ship should be sailing. Without a firm compass to stay on course, as Christians we will subtly drift. It's the natural pull of our surroundings. You have to fight to stay in the right direction. Every day we are presented with choices or directions. How we vote, choose our friends, and our professional relationships are all examples. When our daily choices don't reflect our professed beliefs, there is a disconnect between our theology and our reality; before you know it your ship has sailed into hostile territory where you didn't intend to navigate. God wants a church and people who are genuine in all their affairs, both seen and unseen. Here is what the bible says is the direction our culture will continue to move in as we draw closer to Christ's return:
"There are difficult times ahead. As the end approaches, people are going to be self-absorbed, money-hungry, self-promoting, stuck-up, profane, contemptuous of parents, crude, coarse, dog-eat-dog, unbending, slanderers, impulsively wild, savage, cynical, treacherous, ruthless, bloated windbags, addicted to lust, and allergic to God. They'll make a show of religion, but behind the scenes they're animals. Stay clear of these people. " 2nd Tim 3 MSG
Enough said.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
fantastic entry! I miss you and LOVE your words of wisdom. <3
ReplyDelete