Radio talk show host Don Imus seems to be sitting in hot water – and based on his reaction the water may be hotter than he realizes. I don’t listen to Imus so I didn’t actually hear the unspeakably obnoxious comment he uttered. If I had heard it, I guarantee I’d be through listening to him or his program in the future.
Based on the transcript I read, Imus managed touse thoroughly inappropriate terms to insult the Rutgers’ women’s basketball team on the basis of both race and gender. His comments were despicable and inappropriate at best, and although many will probably dismiss them as “shock-jock talk” comments like this go a long way toward explaining why I find “shock jocks” execrable.
I’ll leave the rage and indignation to others, however, because whatlifts my eyebrow most – and what I’m here to discuss – isImus’ attempted “apology.” News sources across the Internet are printing an alleged quote wherein Imus says, “I’m a good person, but I said a bad thing.”
Let’s examine thatproposed realityfor a moment, shall we?
Imus’ statement suggests that he subscribes to the popular theory which says people are naturallygood, and that bad behavior is just that – a behavior which has no impact on or relevance to the character or nature of the individual engaging in the inappropriate act. An interesting theory, because it excuses just about anything. The fact that I am an insulting boor doesn’t make me a bad person. The fact that I kicked your dog says nothing about my character. And the fact that I murdered someone once, well, that was just a bad-hair day gone a little awry. It’s not really my fault, because I’m “a good person” on the inside.
Relativists love this theory. If everyone is good on the inside, then what happens on the outside doesn’t matter. Everyone can do what is right in his own eyes, and because we’re all good, what we do doesn’t really matter. Behavior is merely an overlay which does not and can not change the underlying reality of our goodness.
Unfortunately, the theory doesn’t reflect reality – whether or not you accept the Biblical idea of original sin and the fallen nature of man. Those who understand and accept the Bible as true knowmen are by nature capable of understanding “good” and “evil” but are predisposed to evil and therefore engaged in a constant physical and spiritual battle to pursue good and subdue evil impulses. Behavior is external evidence of the state of a person’s internal struggle – anoutward expression of an internal spiritual reality.”Good” behavioris a reflection of good winning over evil – just as “bad” behavior is an objective demonstration of surrender totemptation.
For those who refuse to accept the Bible, the truth is just as disturbing and not noticeably different. (Actually it’s more, but that’s a topic for another day.) If there is no God, no forgiveness of sin and no life after death, there is only “now.” There is only “this life, and what we do in it.” If the soul is not immortal, the body and its actions on this earth represent “reality.” And if that is so, theman who behaves badly is not in fact “good” – because the actions which represent who he “is” on this earth show him to be the opposite. You are what you do, for better or for worse.
In either case, actionsspeak more loudly than words. Those who behave nobly are fairly considered noble. Those who behave bravely are fairly considered brave. And those who behave like Don Imus are fairly considered obnoxious andthoughtless- no matter how loudly theybroadcast their “goodness” to the world. On this side of the mountain, that dog don’t hunt.
Good people can make mistakes. By the grace of God, they can be forgiven and they can change (Just ask SPaul). But claiming “goodness” while engaging in “badness” isn’t the way. Acknowledging the conduct for what it is, apologizing and taking steps tomodify both the behavior and the underlying attitude that made theerror possible-sorrow that leads to repentance and then to change- is the way to forgiveness. Holding yourself out as”a good person who does bad things” renders your apology virtually useless. “Good people” don’t need to change, you see. They just go on doing “bad things.” The fortunate ones eventually encounter a crisis that forces them to realize the falsehood of their former beliefs and make a real change. (Reality takes no penalty for high-sticking, and the misguided never seem to see it coming.) The unfortunate continue to cling to the “good person” myth until the downward spiral of their behavior (and spiritual states) render return impossible without a literal act of God. A God, in many cases, the “good person” cannot recognize and would claim (s)he doesn’t need.
When asked why he ate and drank with tax collectors and other undesirables Jesus replied, “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5.31-32, NASB)
Deceptively accurate words.
The “good person” has no need of Jesus. He is not a sinner. He has nothing for which to repent.
He has also never been born.
Those who claim to be “good people” while engaging in bad acts are not good people.”Good people” (if such creatures exist) would acknowledgebad behavior without attempting to use their “goodness” as a shield againstwell-deserved criticism. They would apologize with heartfelt sorrow and without excuse. They would eliminate the inappropriate behavior. In a word, they wouldchange.
Myguessis that this all blows over, and Imus “the good person” goes back to business – and insults – as usualbefore the ink dries on the tabloids carrying his nonapology around the globe.
Self-deception may change the color of the sky inhis world, but it doesn’t makethe real oneany less blue.
And for my part, I’d rather be a badperson struggling to be goodin the presence of reality than a “good person” behaving badly in the absence of the truth.
Trackposted to Pirate’s Cove, third world county, Jo’s Cafe, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
