It's sometimes hard to find the right balance between
steadfastness to truth and tolerance of people's limitations and failings. This
is the consequence of living in a fallen world in which nothing is as it should
be. Certainly nothing is perfect. But that doesn't mean we can compromise with
truth. We cannot step it down to a lower level in which worldly concerns are
allowed to have an influence because if we do we will find the lower will soon
take over completely from the higher which will then only be seen in the light
of the lower. For it is always easier to slide down than climb up. Introduce a
corrupt element into something pure and good and very soon the whole thing will
be corrupted.
At
the same time, we cannot insist on perfect conformity to truth for everyone. We
must present that as the reality and not lower standards to accommodate
weaknesses but we must be understanding of those weaknesses and not expect that
everyone should become perfect immediately. After all, we wouldn't expect this
in our own case and we would hope to be given some leeway on those occasions
when we fail to live up to truth.
I
have an example in my case. The Masters who taught me were totally
uncompromising in their presentation of what truth was but they were always
sympathetic to my failures to match up to it as long as I was making serious
and sincere attempts to do so. The ideal never budged or was reduced from what
it was but the attempts to reach that ideal were not condemned if (or, more likely, when)
they fell short as long as they were real attempts and not half-hearted
excuses, the result of succumbing to personality defects or laziness.
Here,
then, we have the answer to our problem of how to reconcile a refusal to
compromise truth with an individual's difficulty in living up to it. It's all to do
with motive. If that individual is making whole-hearted attempts to go as high
as he or she can, there are no grounds for criticism. But if that person is
refusing to acknowledge truth because of the sacrifices such an acknowledgment
would demand, either to their way of life or to their ideology or to their
prejudices or to their ego or whatever it might be, then condemnation is right
and proper.
Naturally
this should be right condemnation done for the right reason. Glass houses and
stones come to mind here as does the question of whether the condemnation is
coming from one's own ego or a genuine love of God and desire to spread truth
in a world that is generally hostile to it. One has to look at one's own heart
and reason for condemning. But, supposing the motive is right, then it is a
service both to God and to humanity to point out where truth is improperly
observed. In fact, it's not just a service. I would say it's a duty.
Nevertheless,
the person one should be the hardest on is always oneself. You have to get
yourself in order before moving on to others. Not perfect order but you do have
to apply the rule of just condemnation to yourself first and foremost. And when
you do condemn you must do it with the idea of advancing truth not just to vent
your irritation or anger. There is surely such a thing as righteous anger but
it can be distinguished from the other sort by the absence of hatred. Our
condemnation of the false ideologies in the world must be mixed with compassion
for those in the grip of these ideologies. That can be hard when these
ideologies have so much purchase in the world and truth, apparently, so little. And when many of those who propagate untruth do so because of untruth within
themselves. Nonetheless that doesn't alter the fact that if we wish to fight on the
side of righteousness we have to do so righteously. With passion, of course,
but also with compassion.
It's
not easy but it must be done!
No comments:
Post a Comment