ADBC: 47 – How The Good, Right And True Could Matter To You

Here’s the premise of the conversation.

Previously in the conversation: When we were growing up, my brother was seen as the pessimist of the family. I reflect on that as a comparative statement, although I’m not sure if he regards himself to be much of a speaker of hope. His responses in the conversation reinforce his sense of engaging with the truth as it is, rather than what can be aspired to and hoped for. That’s apparent in most of his discourse on the role of the state and the people – it’s a typically coruscating takedown of the human condition, but check the ending for something even more remarkable. Excellent writing. Then there is a comprehensive deconstruction of a perspective on synchronicity and coincidence. It’s a stunning review and the sort of thing that makes you want him to review all your videos before you watch them as well as perspectives. Tremendous writing. Maintaining the standard of brilliance is the answer to his question on the role chemicals play in our lives and what our response should be to them. It’s not as though he’s playing to an audience and looking to appease them, he looks it straight as he can and gives a thorough exploration of the matter for our benefit. Man alive did I benefit. I believe you will too by checking his work by clicking here and then going on to share it with others.

My brother is not a lawyer, to the best of my knowledge, yet he certainly has a knack for questions that make it look as though you need to be careful to ensure that what you say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but that on oath. So let’s see how I can cope with this set of questions.  Here goes:

Q – Bro, some of my lifestyles, I know to be unwise, not beneficial. Yet I persist in those deeds. Sometimes there is no inner struggle when the time comes, I do them. Therefore I want to do those things. Please, in writing, analyse my issue, with your own if you have a similar issue, with or without potential realistic solutions.

This is a very important question to ask because it’s one I’m sure I could hear myself ask and some others as well. Here’s why it’s important. There are these three things – right, good and true. When we encounter something wrong, bad or false, understandably there tends to be a negative reaction and sometimes even a revulsion.

Not everything that feels good is right. Not everything that feels right is true. Herein is the issue. We can be mentally aware that something isn’t true, but because it feels right we’ll tend to go with it. Even more, if something feels good or has been of benefit to us in the past in our own selfish and self-centred way, it won’t matter if it’s right or true. We’ll be in a situation and feel the need to do that thing that is neither right nor true.

Why do we do it? Because we’re well-conditioned and we can easily rationalise it.

For example, the state of my teeth has led a dentist to suggest that it’s probably not in my best interests to persist in regular drinking of fizzy substances that will only deteriorate the teeth further. I hear that and understand that, I nod my head to reflect my understanding. And as I do that I’ll head to the fridge and help myself to another beverage that no doubt will have something fizzy in it.

I’ll only get serious about it under two conditions – one is when I feel the negative effects on my teeth (usually by that time, it’s far too late).

The second, I put it to you, is a key to addressing the issue and that is when there is a sense of conviction of integrity that says that if I’m someone who prefers the good, the right and the truth then I can look to take the steps necessary to concur with the advice given – just because it is good, right and true and that is my appetite.

The issue of having no inner struggle is usually down to the conditioning where it’s not a big deal anymore to carry out that which you know to be ill-considered and unwise. There can be other driving factors that help to rationalise that position. Factors such as believing in the uselessness of persisting with whatever is good, right and/or true in that situation either due to a fatalistic sense of it doesn’t matter and there’s no need to be bothered or due to a sense that it’s too late and not worth the effort.

It reminds me of a scenario where I heard ambivalence explained well. That scenario covered that aspect of conditioning where habits and responses had been well embedded to go after the unwise and even though there was mental assent to the wise it would be balanced off by that conditioning. It’s what makes me chuckle seeing some people go out of their way to do fitness regimes and then indulge in unhealthy foods and other habits that are detrimental to their health.

Some would say that because this is an issue of the mind it’s best to go into ways of reprogramming the mind. Get to the heart of what the issue is that causes the ambivalence and address that habit or reaction. Replace it with something else and be aware of the triggers that lead to following the path of the unwise. Allied to that there is something about addressing underlying feelings and thoughts on life that underpins that preference for the unwise. Expose that to the light of what’s right and endeavour to cultivate the appetite for what is good, right and true. Cultivating that habit includes aspects of reminding and enforcing the element of the good, right and true and holding that as the ultimate standard of life and demonising that which opposes that to build a revulsion to those things.

This is all time-consuming, though and if your old conditioning is well-entrenched it won’t take much to slip back into those habits.

What I find in the outline of the life of some of the biblical characters is how real they are. One in particular, funnily enough, called David, goes through an episode of sinning against God and the key to dealing with it was to acknowledge it for what it was not just to himself and those that he affected humanly, but what it did to His relationship to God. The aspect of the good, right and true divorced from God becomes an effort of self-determination and self-effort. When it’s aligned to God there’s a relational element that makes it more a case of what the actions and behaviours are saying about my relationship and understanding of who God is and what He wants. It’s not to say that I expect a bolt of lightning to strike me dead because I had that fizzy drink. It is to say that there can be an aspect of my interactions with God which can make relating to that fizzy drink something that doesn’t have to be my default.

It’s good, it’s right and it’s true because of that relationship with God and that can help with the sense of conviction and then the desire to gain His wisdom and strength to avoid that which is unwise and see the greater benefit in the primacy of the relationship with God to pursue more than what feels good or sounds right, but what accords to what is true and wise in the perspective of the loving and holy God that created me.

Getting that element is not straightforward. It’s very easy to fall into self-condemnation and loathing when you don’t even bother to feel a way about doing that which you know is unwise. Likewise, there can be a subtle acceptance and apathy to a situation because of the lack of lasting long-term change. All this, though, is remedied by the returning reference to the One who determines what is good, right and true.

There is a degree to which over time old habits can be replaced and old mindsets can also be ditched for ones that seek to pursue the good, right and true. There’s no need to put pressure on anything being long-lasting. All that’s required is for a mindset to be present for the moment in the present for the day. That’s sufficient. And when it doesn’t work out one day, it’s not about labelling ourselves as failures or that it’s not worthwhile. It’s about going back to that reference and receiving the right mindset for the good of your relationship with God that can truly benefit and help you live all round a life less likely to be critiqued for hypocrisy.

Man alive, I know about indulging in the unwise and giving into that and not even feeling bad about it afterwards. I know about it. The only thing that helps me is God. It’s not feeling guilty about what it does to my relationship with my wife, because living off guilt is relatively ineffective for me. It’s not feeling bad about what it might do in my standing with my children, because they’ll reach an age of responsibility for themselves and have already been given enough to know that any blame game they want to play will only backfire on them.

It’s about God because my life only has meaning because of Him – that which is good, right and true only has deep and lasting meaning even in the moment and the present because of Him. Failing to follow that which is wise in His eyes and following His instructions isn’t just detrimental to me, it’s messing up a relationship with Him. Thankfully, though, as God operates on the basis of mercy and grace as well as justice and holiness, He directs and corrects as He sees fit and if I submit to that, that’s all good. And right. And true.

Q – What are your thoughts on trying to change “the system” from the inside? Is it a fool’s errand? Or can it make a lasting and positive difference to the system? By “system,” I’m referring to the major societal institutions, be it government, medical, education, etc.

What a fascinating question.

Bible guy that I endeavour to be, let me consider a brief survey of the lives of those who God put in systems. Joseph had a positive impact on the Egyptian system in terms of setting up the necessary economic system to deal with an impending bad situation that would also have him in a strategic position to help his kindred. Did he have a lasting and positive difference to the Egyptian system – I don’t think four hundred years of slavery for his kindred would suggest that. Moses was in the Egyptian system and he ended up wrecking it to get God’s people released. That hardly had long-lasting effects on the system. Daniel and his hombres were a part of the Babylonian system and were certainly a force for that which was positive and Daniel continued that into the next regime. That was hardly something that had a lasting effect on the system. Indeed there’s something about what Daniel saw in his interpretation of a dream that Nebuchadnezzar had, which said something telling about the nature of systems. As I read it, the whole need for a big rock to be hewn out and mash down the image made up of the different parts is because essentially nothing other than the godly system is good enough to be of a lasting positive difference to how humanity should be governed.

As these systems are constructs of a world that rejects God and isn’t inclined any time soon to submit to Him and follow Him then however positive certain policies may appear the system itself will never veer from that human desire for control and the desire to state what is good. And those statements are usually in contradiction to the rule and authority of God.

That means we shouldn’t bother trying to change the system because it’s a fool’s errand, right? No point having a go because the good done in one area will be submerged by twenty-six nasty things that will be done elsewhere. That’s the approach, right? No.

Daniel and Joseph among others highlight how men of integrity can at least leave their mark in an organisation and on a system that can at least let others know that people of integrity can go through a system without compromising their integrity and can leave their mark. Moses also gives us hope that we can be effective in detonating some expressions of systems that are particularly obnoxious in their rebellion against God. More often than not, though, the deal is to plug into communities of people endeavouring to operate by the godly way of doing things that can feed you to remain a person of integrity when you’re in the system. Being a person in the system can lead you to at least express dissent to what is wrong and may lead you to be in a position to influence what is right.

It’s quite a monumental ambition to look to influence the system for good, especially when you’re made aware of what is scheduled to happen to that system and when there’s a viable alternative to pursue among those who are likewise inspired by the expression of that alternative.

You don’t have to endeavour to be a bible guy to see the ill-advised nature of pursuing a change of the system agenda. You look at history whether recent or longer to see that whatever glimpses of light are seen in brief snippets of what appears right and fair are usually snuffed out by those who benefit from a system that reflects the corrupt nature of humanity. The desire to change shouldn’t be one pushed from such a systemic perspective – it’s got to start at the personal level working in intimate relations and then you can see if it can be spread out to a close-knit community. Efforts to believe a system can operate in that way on a mass scale have been successful nowhere at no time because it depends on people prone to giving into forces that corrupt and corrode. It’s also why the concept of a nation based on religion tends to be mythical at best.

While you’re looking at history, consider the drives for revolution in different countries and how it certainly brought about revolution as defined by ending up in the position of injustice and subjugation to iniquity just with someone different imposing it. You can reliably leave it to people to look to effect change for what is perceived to be right (without adherence and faithfulness to God) and over time that to slowly corrode and transform into something despotic, despicable and destructive. Those who live in western liberal humanist democracies and think that we’re better than others are truly deceived in this outlook. Different for sure – better they are not.

Q – In your previous instalment, you wrote the following: “At this stage of my thinking on government and those that are governed, I believe that the government should be those responsible for ensuring rightful and righteous standards of living are protected and evil practices are duly punished.” Considering the habitual evil and injustice of government, where does this belief come from? Is it realistic? Is there evidence for this understanding of what government should be? Please provide backing for your view.

This question follows very well from the previous one, especially because of what I said in the previous instalment. Government starts with the individual’s capacity to govern themselves. Then there is governance in relationships determined by what is agreed or accepted between the parties as to how the relationship will be governed. The best expression for governance is arguably the family for there we have factors that suggest an arrangement of governance is necessary for the effective running of the family. There is typically an understanding that the parents are responsible for establishing the governance for the baby is not in the position to do so, indeed, the cultivation and development of that baby are dependent on the governance established. That dynamic changes over time as the child grows to become capable of greater interdependence and if they see fit independence and also as the parents move into stages of greater dependence on their offspring. The governance of the family is underpinned by core values of love, righteousness and justice.

That dynamic differs when it comes to larger groups of people and arrangements about how we live together and how we’re organised are delivered. At that level, we’re given a model of sorts to consider in God’s relationship with the people of Israel. Indeed, the family concept is apt in that relationship as well because God’s relationship was in ways like that between a husband and wife and also like a father and child. In that sense, God outlined conditions in which His people could be governed and exist under law. That model is one in which people submit themselves to God, especially in the light of His promise to them that they’ve seen in action in Him rescuing them from slavery. Of course, for that arrangement to work, however, requires the people to submit to God. And as that history outlined, that was easier said than done.

Yet, even if there’s no acknowledgement of God in the same way that there’s a rightful expectation of righteous governance of the family it’s right to expect righteous governance as they’re held accountable to a righteous God. Yeah, there are scriptural references that indicate that in what Jesus says about rulers, what Paul says about the church’s relationship to authority and what Peter instructs on the matter. All of these are founded on the concept of all authorities and rulers to a degree being held accountable to their rule by God. Whatever we may think about how they have their positions and what they do, my current thinking on the matter has them operating on the principle that they govern according to what is good, right and true. (Oh look at a returning triplet.)

As you rightly point out and as I stated earlier the systems of man, on the whole, are innately ungodly and support systems that have little to no regard for true justice and righteousness. They will be held to an account by a holy God. That’s my conviction. In the meantime, it’s because of that resort to what is good, right, and true that I can have that expectation. It’s not realistic to expect ungodly men to pursue what is godly. It is realistic to expect God to still judge by what’s right and godly and still look to Him to live by that standard regarding those systems often set up against Him. As those isolated incidents in scripture highlight, we can apply those concepts of righteousness, justice, mercy and the good in interactions with those systems that don’t always support it and come out right on our side.

That’s my current approach and perspective based on my understanding of what God puts forward in scripture. The position, I believe, can best be summed up in this way: I don’t place my trust in government. I do put my trust in God and get glimpses of what He desires from us in our interactions and governance at various levels and trust Him to enact that. I’m open to that position being critiqued and challenged further to see how it stands up to scrutiny but this is my stance at this time.

---

The conversation is refreshing and stimulating. It takes two for this to be the case and I acknowledge your pivotal role in that. Many thanks for that, bro.

Here are some questions for you:

Q – “There is a difference between what’s outlined in the Seven Laws and the way of wisdom.” Would you agree with this statement? If so, how would you state what makes something wise or not?

Q – Here is a video that could be suggested to be a part of the self-help/positive-thinking movement. Please review the video and share your views on what you’re aware of about the self-help/positive-thinking movement?

Q – “The pursuit of happiness is an unhelpful concept and should be replaced with something truthful to the purpose of life” How would you engage with this comment?

Do we want to be better men, Hesediah? We don’t think we’re the best men. But this conversation does give me the impression of an awareness of good and a desire to be good. That’s what I experience engaging in conversation with you and that’s as much about the questions you ask as it is the answers you give, dear Hesediah. Thanks for your time.

For His Name’s Sake

Shalom

C. L. J. Dryden