Character, Context and Who we Be

I have been reading a very interesting book called “The Tipping Point” over the past couple of days. Many things have peaked my interest from the book but in particular is the section that talks about character. In the book the author speaks of tests that have been done to see how much students would cheat. The tested all sorts of parameters with different kinds of tests, different stress levels and different levels of difficulty in actually cheating.

The results are very interesting because it points to the power of context over our behavior. No student was found to be a “cheater” all the time, and no one condition or stimulus could producing a cheating result - except a particular context for each individual student. I am still up in the air on my thinking with this, but their argument from the results is that character is shaped much more by the context then of “who we are” - or a much more volatile combination of the two than we usually like to admit.

Students definitely cheated, but in patterns that weren’t patterns at all - it was completely random. If a certain student cheated on a spelling test it didn’t mean they were more likely to cheat on a math test, it depended up too many factors to accurately predict with any sort of formula or generalizations.  But the way it is easiest for people to think about it is that either the student was a cheater or he wasn’t. We are much more comfortable explaining character as a part of personality (and as absolute),  than as a result of the influence of context, because it is just easier - and more convenient.

Have you ever lied? Of course you have, does that make you a “liar?” Have you ever had an inappropriate sexual thought about someone of the opposite sex? Well, you are breathing so I will guess you have, but does that make you a” sexual predator”, or an “adulterer?’ How does who you “are” find peace with what you do, especially when you are in a context that leads you to a decision that is “out of character?”

What I am getting at is that who we “are” is a much more complex question that the total sum of what we have “done.” The book goes on to speak that those of us who have a consistent character have achieved it from setting ourselves up to succeed by providing the right context. This leads to the reality that most of us (and Jesus points to this with the “eye plucking” verse) that continually fall into the same sin, are probably more intentional about it than we realize, because we know the context that will lead us to that point - but we haven’t avoided it.

This also changes how I love and connect with other people - especially the ones who have wronged me. Do I describe in my heart “who they are” by “what they did” to me in a certain context? I am not sure, but I think there is a level of wisdom and maturity that takes more into account than just the convenient world of absolutes we often paint people with. Is everyone a hypocrite and to be chastised -  or is hypocrisy part of the human condition that most accurately defines us as we move from one context in our lives to the next? I don’t suggest we embrace personal hypocrisy, but I would bet our disdain for it comes from our own struggles with wanting to “be” a certain person, but finding that we “do” differently more than we would like. Paul speaks to this in the familiar verse in Romans where he speaks to doing what he hates to do. Jesus also said to his followers, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

Complex for sure, and I figure there are those with the answers, but the question is what is most compelling for me - and the challenge it presents to my maturity and acceptance when I interact with others.

October 8, 2007 | Filed Under Leadership, Youth Pastor 

Comments

Leave a Reply