My father was not a harsh man; in fact, he was a quiet, gentle soul most of the time. His authority was not built on bluster, but on a few, uncompromising “rules of the house” that formed the bedrock of our family life.
These rules were crystal clear: Voices were never to be raised at the dinner table. Talking back to our mother was unthinkable. And certain language, deemed disrespectful or vulgar, would earn us an immediate penalty—a swift washing of the mouth with soap. We quickly internalized that certain conduct and language were simply unacceptable under his roof.
The scope of these expectations, however, extended far beyond the immediate family. We observed that if friends or neighbors violated these fundamental standards, they were not invited back. These rules applied equally to our parents’ social circle. My folks were not prudes—far from it—but they maintained an unwavering belief that every human being was entitled to a baseline level of inherent respect. As we matured, this became a crucial lesson: we were schooled to measure the character of our peers and other adults by how consistently and kindly they treated others.
This deeply ingrained lesson about “the rules of the house” leads me to suspect they have a spiritual counterpart in “God’s house.” God is often described as boundless in love and forgiveness. Yet, I imagine a subtle, divine discomfort—a celestial cringe—when a person who claims to speak for the sacred, especially a prominent leader, employs demeaning or hateful language, or treats any neighbor, regardless of their station, with dismissive disdain.
When a spiritual or community leader violates these profound, shared rules—what we might call the Law of Common Decency—it reveals a fundamental disconnect. They may be protected from a physical penalty, but the community is not powerless. We may not be able to wash out their mouths with soap, but we can, and must, refuse them the currency of our respect and support.
Our collective support is not a blank check; it is a covenant based on integrity and ethical conduct. When a leader’s actions or rhetoric contradict the very essence of love and respect they claim to represent, we have an ethical obligation to withdraw our endorsement. To continue to follow, fund, or elevate someone who actively disrespects the human dignity of others is to tacitly agree that the rules of decency do not matter. We must hold the standard high, recognizing that the integrity of “God’s house”—the community of believers and all humanity—is more important than the temporary platform of any single leader. By withholding our respect and support, we perform a necessary moral act, reaffirming that the foundational rules of treating one another with dignity are the true measure of a faith-filled life.
Leave a Reply +