Humility Respect

I’ve got values but I don’t know how or why!  (The Seeker, by The Who)

On a personal level, I make assessments of others, quickly, using two characteristics:
     1a.   Is he arrogant?
     2a.   Does he show contempt for others?
An affirmative to either puts a person on my “don’t trust” list.  Of course, with time, a person could earn trust.  The positive characteristics need to appear:
     1b.   Does he have humble behavior?
     2b.   Do his words and his behavior respect others?
This takes more time because a quick answer to either is unavailable.  Instead a consistent track record must emerge.  Not a perfect record, just consistent.

This approach has worked fairly well, and has also been a useful check on my own behavior.  At some point I realized that these core values ultimately have grown out of my faith, Christianity, and are rooted in me first by growing up in proximity to the lived example of my Christian grandparents, and finally through my own struggle and embrace of Christ and Christianity as an adult.  I then began to consider whether this might be peculiar to Christianity.  Put another way, are these two criteria inculcated as central components in another religion or worldview?

Instinctively I’d think that, while many other religions teach these values, they are not at the top of the moral hierarchy.  But there is a more important layer to be mentioned, which is how practitioners behave, whether or not the behavior aligns with the religion or philosophy.  One of the thorniest problems in assessing a religion (or world view) is acknowledging this relationship between doctrines and the reputation created by the practitioners and by the recognized authorities.  But even if this relationship is ignored, it arises anyway.  For example, assessment could be made strictly through analyzing doctrines, but the assessment will eventually meet with the problem of multiple interpretations.  An example illustrates this better than explanation could and corporations make for an easy source.  The first one to mind just now was the Campbell Soup Company.  On their website I found four driving values, and was surprised neither at there being four, nor what they are; most companies have these values, stated in different ways, often as a set of about four statements:

• Do Right and Be Real
• Seek the Power of Different
• Dare to Disrupt
• Own it like a Founder

Most of these conjure up good images and call forth inspiring ideas on what can be expected of the people who work at Campbell’s Soup Company.  But what do these values really mean?  To find out it’s best to have a look at the lived meaning, which can be very different than what the formal wording suggests.  The idea given by “Dare to Disrupt” has, for example, been valued at every company I have worked in.  But depending on the top managers, employees acquire a sense for just how much daring will actually be tolerated.  No matter what the statement says, how it is actually used in the workplace gives much more information about what it means than the written words.    In short there will be a right and wrong way to make a daring statement, to risk an idea, to push the boundaries.  These are the soft rules of behavior that link actual behavior to stated values.  And so it goes with the Campbell’s other values.  Soft rules of behavior.  This is the medium that manifests formal policy (rules, doctrines, teachings, etc).

So to assess a group fully ask:  do the soft rules create consistency between the formal policy and actual behaviors?  As it relates to my driving values, humility and respect, do the formal doctrines denote goodness, and at the same time do many practitioners, especially the leadership, behave without better than average goodness?  Or conversely, do the written beliefs denote a disrespectful or arrogant ethic, but at the same time do many practitioners and leaders behave with humility and respect for others?  These combinations vary by degrees and occur rather more commonly than not.

Consider two examples of Mormons and Roman Catholics.  On moral grounds I find the pursuit of virtue present in both religions.  Assessing practitioners, I find good examples of both, particularly with the committed practitioners.  In both religious bodies I have experienced the “lapsed” practitioner, and find them to be uninspiring.  Therefore, on the backdrop of this experience I lean more on the formal teachings of these religions in assessing them.  Having taken a similar approach with Judaism, Buddhism and Mohammedanism (as it was called in older times), I find less overall resonance with both criteria (at the same time).

Judaism, for example, values strongly the showing of respect for others’ dignity.  Christianity and Judaism share this teaching from Genesis.  Buddhism’s practitioners show a very strong sense of humility, and this would seem to be consistent with Buddhist teachings.  And while not disrespectful of others, Buddhism shows more of an apathy towards others rather than positive respect.  Mohammedans, on the other hand, have so strong a tribal quality as to override both my criteria.

So with this admittedly non-rigorous, cursory survey, I am simply saying what I believe, namely that the two things I value most belong to Christianity.  I think it true that I am a Christian in part because Christianity holds these values strongly, and that I hold these values strongly because I am a Christian.  Such is the relationship between teaching and practice, cause and effect flowing in both directions simultaneously.

What, then, is the conclusion?  These values do provide a lens for comparing other religions.  And from a high level I find two things: 1) Other religions have some good to offer.  2) Christianity has the whole, for which I am very grateful.