Integrity is defined by the eleventh edition of the Oxford English Dictionary as “the quality of being honest and morally upright.” When we consider this definition, we are left to wonder whether there are individuals who can truly be described as persons of integrity. Would it perhaps be more accurate to say that persons display moments of integrity?
The run up to General Elections, in any country, tends to encourage persons to speak their minds on various issues and to express their personal views of various persons. It appears that while some persons use drunkenness as an excuse to speak their minds, others use the cut and thrust, generally associated with politics, as their excuse to speak their minds. In doing so, politicians, political pundits (even if self-appointed) and their families, are generally considered fair game. These persons are subjected to microscopic scrutiny and the integrity of their actions and motivations are carefully weighed.
In the realm of politics, it appears that integrity, like beauty, is primarily in the eye of the beholder. Actions which cause an individual to be castigated, for lack of integrity, are excused and explained away in relation to others. Past conduct is forgotten or forgiven in respect of some persons – but not in respect of others. Persons are blamed for the conduct of persons over whom they have no control, and for situations that are not of their making. Wrongdoing is explained away and sometimes supported for political gain.
The true display of hypocrisy in relation to integrity can be seen in our oral and written diatribes, as we assess the shortcomings of others. It is often clear that we are not ascribing to the biblical teaching which can be found in Matthew chapter 7 verse 5 – “Hypocrite, take first the plank out of your own eye, then you will see clear enough to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” Very often while we are denouncing others for their failings, ours are so well known that our denouncements are not given any credibility.
During this time of heightened politics, as we seek to persuade others as to who is worthy or not worthy of their vote, we should be very aware that the messenger will be subjected to some scrutiny. If the messenger and their message cannot sit comfortably at the same table then they both should be scrutinised to determine whether the issue lies with the message or the messenger. Very often messages are not supported, not because any real issue can be taken with the message but because the messenger’s actions are not in accord with the message and therefore reduce the sincerity of the message.
In recent months, Facebook has been replete with many postings promoting integrity in public office and denouncing actions that appear to fall short. I understand that there are persons who, though supportive of the content of these posts, feel unable to indicate their support because, in their opinion, the post lacks sincerity based on their personal knowledge of the messenger. Integrity must be seen in action to be credible.
Politicians and political pundits would be wise to consider whether their personal conduct can or will be viewed as promoting the ideals of integrity that they tout. In this regard, they would be well served to adhere to the words of the chorus of the well-known hymn “Brighten the Corner Where You Are”. The chorus reads:
“Brighten the corner where you are!
Brighten the corner where you are!
Someone far from Harbor “YOU” may guide across the bar;
Brighten the corner where you are!”
If we illuminateour cornersby the practice of integrity,our overtures to others to practice integrity are likely to be well received. There will be no plank obstructing our view as we seek to assist our brothers.
