J’aurais pu…j’aurais du…

Ministerial Meandering

J’aurais pu…j’aurais du…

Aaahhh - the future conditional tense!  The tense of ‘ought’ and ‘should’ - the tense of obligation so beloved of people-pleasers, perhaps even their ‘raison d’être’ - (to stay with the French).  It is also the voice of guilt, the echo of self-denial and altruism, the sound of worthlessness rattling around in an empty wine silo.

I touched tangentially on value with regard to self last week, and I need to continue a little along that line today.  There are people that one meets who are clearly genuinely concerned for the welfare of others; I’d like to think that I was occasionally among their number.  There are others, however, who seem to be unsatisfied unless they have torn themselves emotionally and physically into shreds of discarded clothing, fit only for stuffing cushions or starting fires.

But then - perhaps that’s exactly what they are trying to do by their continual self-sacrifice - start a fire of guilt in others.  Perhaps the ability to make others feel uncomfortable by witnessing their praiseworthy discomfort and self-denial is what actually floats their boat.  Is there not an element of Uriah Heep in this attitude, which reeks of a certain hypocrisy?

“Ah, you’re an old cynic!” you might well say, but I would ask you to examine yourself carefully - as I have had to do - and ask whether there isn’t a certain satisfaction in being seen to be more charitable and giving of your time and goods than others - but only so long as others know it?  There are (of course) injunctions in the bible against such behaviour - and those which cover the practice of fasting as well.  We are encouraged, when fasting, to wash our faces and and anoint our heads (Matthew 6), and so appear to the world as though it’s just a normal day - not going around looking pale, haggard, and wan, complaining that you haven’t eaten in days.  I have to say that the practice of fasting has never been one that appealed to me!

But to go back to the self-sacrifice of giving; this also carries with it some instruction from Jesus in the same chapter of Matthew.  The goal is to avoid seeking human applause or validation; Jesus says, "Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.  So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honoured by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full”

So to return to my first paragraph, I would ask myself if the term, ‘people-pleasers’ is even correct.  Because is it not the act of giving that pleases the giver?  Is not the person doing the giving the one who is being pleased?  Does this then not become a selfish act?  If that is true, how then can one ever be entirely unselfish?

This is something of a conundrum or paradox, because the future conditional would then cease to have any power - or even exist at all - if ‘I could’, ‘I should’, and ‘I ought’, actually mean ‘I want to’.

I have no intention of untangling this today, but rather I plan to leave you to wrestle with it over the week - as I shall - and see if we can find some sort of solution that will sit more comfortably with us than the current bed of barbed wire.

Philip+