T(r)oy's Marbles

This is part of a series of posts pertaining to six convictions I wrote about a little while ago. Some folks expressed interest in knowing more about those conviction statements, so I thought I'd do a little writing/thinking about it. The thoughts that follow are some initial musings on my second conviction which has to do with the relationship between "who I am" and "what I do." To read the original six convictions I listed, go here. To read some thoughts on the first conviction, go here.

From there, you'll find links at the end of each post, taking you to the next link in the chain.

I hope this helps you in some way.

--Troy

On Being and Doing

Interpreting human nature can be tricky. Some weeks ago a small group of people met in my living room. We were discussing a particular issue as concerns the historical development of Christian theology. This particular evening we were talking about whether humans are intrinsically good or inherently evil, whether it is possible for us to freely choose good or whether we are destined to live in sin.

As we discussed the matter, the issue came up: “Every human does good things. Is everyone, by nature, totally depraved or does there exist some good in everyone?”

I don’t recall if more than one person shared this observation, but somewhere along the way someone responded by observing the fact that there may be a divide between action and intention. They didn’t put it in those exact words, but that was the gist of it. For example, someone can do a good thing, but that does not mean the deed flowed from pure intentions. One can not ascertain the state of a person’s heart by merely noting the actions one performs. See? Interpreting human nature can be tricky, because there may be a divide between action and intention.

That’s why I think Shakespeare is right when he states that even smiles can mask murderous intentions. And, somewhere in someone else’s story it sticks in my mind that kisses can also kill.

And thus the problem in question: there seems to be a gap between being and doing. The actions one performs do not necessarily represent the state of one’s soul accurately.

Thomas Merton describes the relationship between being and doing by likening our actions to a mirror, which is a mere reflection of our soul. This metaphor explains the “gap” we’ve noted between being and doing. It even explains the distortion we experience when intention travels through motive to action. Of course, what I actually say to my wife may not perfectly represent what my soul intends to express. I get it wrong from time to time. Sometimes my actions are a dim reflection of my heart. They give some idea as to what is going on inside me, but they lack some of the depth which my soul-intention possesses. Think of my action as a two-dimensional picture and my soul as something you can truly embrace. (By the way, it strikes me how, often, I think of my actions as more real, more tangible, than my soul! But this way of thinking about it turns that idea on its head!)

So, action reflects my soul, but somehow it is different than my soul. And, at times, there exists a close correspondence between doing and being; in those times, it is like looking at me in a clean, clear mirror. But, at other times, what I do does not closely correspond to what is going on inside me; in those instances, it is like looking at me in a glass that is either dirty, dimly lit, warped, or even cracked. Or, in some instances, the mirror makes us look better than we really are; somehow our actions have a way of hiding the deformity of our internal condition.

This notion of “close correspondence” or “dim correspondence” between action and intention is really getting at the notion of integrity. Do my actions closely correspond to what is going on inside me, or do they mask a hidden truth? In the first instance, we would say that such a person has “integrity”. That is, they are “whole, complete, put together.”

Thus, my conviction that “doing proceeds from being” is a statement touching on the issue of integrity, that what I do should closely correspond to who I am.

At any rate, let it be noted: ultimately there is a connection between what we do and who we are. It’s just that, in some strange way, we’ve gotten it all backwards. We’ve become more concerned with “how we come across to others” and less concerned with what we’re actually like inside. Some of us are aware that what we’re actually like needs some work, but, as long as we have others fooled, as long as we have a nice mirror for people to look at, we can go on deceiving ourselves that the flaw will go away with mere time. So, we go on, ignoring the fatal wound that needs to be dressed. And, the longer we go without seeing a healer, the more blind we become. Eventually, we lose all (in)sight, and we’re not even aware we need healing. This is when we lose touch with who we really are. And we forget ourselves.

You can see: we need to enter the upside-down kingdom. We need to get back to the country where being comes first, and doing proceeds from being. This is the place where, yes, our actions are just a reflection of our larger intention, but at least they are an accurate, clear reflection.

I can’t help but think of Ted Haggard here. He was a hugely successful pastor, but inside he was a wreck. But, as long as nobody knows what’s going on inside, as long as what I “do” has everyone thinking I’m a whole person, then what’s the harm, eh? Why does it matter that my action does not accurately follow from who I am?

I think we all know the answer to that. It’s a kind of death. It’s like hell. You literally cannot live with yourself, knowing what you know. And, eventually, it will come out. And others will know. You can’t go on hiding forever.

This is why I am convinced that “what we do” should always proceed from “who we are”.

Practically speaking, this means, if I am going to really be a person of integrity, I constantly need to keep coming back to one question: “Who am I?”

And when I’ve answered that truthfully (and only then) do I ask myself, “How then shall I live?”

There are so many dimensions to this concept. I think I’ll stop there for now, though, and we’ll look more tomorrow at how this principle practically plays out in many areas of life. For now, I hope this has been a good teaser.

To read the next post in the chain, click here.

journal | Comments (2) | June 13, 2007

Comments

Posted by: Sarah at June 15, 2007 11:55 AM

Posted by: Victoria Stembokas at June 18, 2007 09:00 PM

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: