During the latter part of the 20th century and the early part of the 21st, multiple news sources accented many failures of public men and women who were supposed to be models in both their personal and professional conducts. Celebrity athletes, heroes for many, were guilty of wrongdoing from murder to private/public carnality. Greed marked numerous CEOs and Wall Street business moguls, contributing not only to an economic downturn in the country but also besmirching their professions. Several priests and ministers, widely recognized as men of God fell under temptations of sex and ostentation. Exceptionally ugly were sexual depredations related to pedophilia. Some clergy, politicians and business persons, including men of high rank, went to jail for illegal activity. Some teachers and care-givers were found guilty of mistreatment of those under their care – especially related to the young and the aged. The story can be expanded, but the point is made. Persons who were expected, because of their calling and status, to act in legal and moral ways, were found to be self-centered, and without concern about personal duty to themselves and their professions – duty to self-integrity, to society, and to God.
There are two large areas related to life models. One is personal. Heroes are heroes in giving up themselves. We honor them for what they are regardless of their fields, ages, faith, education, or whatever. We admire Lincoln, or Washington, for what they were to society, even in controversy about their faith in God, which, if they held faith in genuine belief, comforts us in our total regard for them. But they have human responsibility to their fellow mankind in any event. Mankind was created to be decent, with integrity related to natural life, even if failing in devotion to God.
The second is social, that includes profession. To act badly in a personal way inevitably reflects upon the social context of what one does. The priests and ministers who succumbed to sexual temptations, and were found out, not only hurt their own reputations, but respect for professions they represented. In spite of everything Scripture and the Church have to say about appropriate sexual conduct, persons violating vows and principles cast shadows over the integrity of an institution. Persons living on logical margins simply turn away, and may fault the whole church for the personal violations of some clergy and laity. This is a common problem in other fields as well. We know that numerous men and women have opted out of the privileges of marriage because, as they point out, so many marriages are ugly and abusive. They are little persuaded that abuse is not a part of marriage, but a part of some individuals who are married. The Psalmist was concerned that his conduct should not reflect badly upon God, or upon himself. When it did reflect negatively, he confessed his sin, and was made acceptable. (Psalm 51) In Psalm 69 his concern was not about his reputation, but God’s. It is awesome that my conduct influences others in determining God’s reputation for them and for a general population, a population that may know only a little about me or God. God holds me responsible for the attribution factors in my life performance. Those factors are significant for good or ill. Scary, isn’t it? Yes, it is, but with God’s help through Scripture, prayer, and the care of God, we can make it. There is an important factor that may be missed by the general public. God is most concerned about his children – those identified with his name found in redemption. They are called upon to be representatives of his purpose, and account for performance. My integrity makes me take responsibility for deviation from the standard, and not attach failure to some institution. The church is not responsible for me. The church serves, inviting us to be better persons even in nature’s context. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020