I have not been able to give
this message proper thought. We are in the midst of having to decide to put our
oldest dog to sleep.
From the novel, In Pursuit Of The Proper Sinner,
Elizabeth George, Bantam Books (Random House), 1999, pp. 80; 271: This is a great, complicated, well-written
mystery set in England. The detective is a gentleman named Thomas Lynley. His partner
is a detective constable (DC) named Barbara Havers. She has recently been
demoted from a detective sergeant for an action, which saved a child’s life,
but violated all kinds of police chain of command protocol. Lynley had been away on a honeymoon when this
occurred. However, when he received the details of Havers’ incident, he had
agreed with her demotion and had assigned another DC to assist him in his
current murder investigation.
Since his newly-wed wife, Helen,
also new Barbara, they had a tiff over his support of the police reprimand and
his subsequent reassignment of Havers.
“Helen,
… there’s no place for friendship in a situation in which everything depends on
an officer obeying an order. Barbara didn’t do that. And what’s worse, she
nearly killed someone in the process.”
‘But
you know what happened. How can you not see ––“
“What
I see is that there’s a purpose to a chain of command.”
“She
saved a life.”
“And
it wasn’t her place to determine that life was in danger.”
…
She said, “I don’t understand this. How can you be so unforgiving? She’d be the
first person to forgive you anything…. You’ve bent the rules before. You’ve
told me so.”
…
He was beginning to get angry and he should have held his tongue. Why was it,
he wondered, that Helen could push his buttons in ways no one else ever could?
“Then I’ll ask you to see this as well. Barbara Havers doesn’t concern you. Her
behaviour in Essex, the subsequent investigation, and whatever medicine she’s
asked to swallow as a result of that behaviour and investigation are none of
your business….”
She
was as quick to anger as was he and just as capable of expressing it. “I’m not
that sort of woman. I’m not that sort of wife. If you wanted an obsequious
sycophant to marry ––“
“That’s
tautology.” He said.
And
that terse statement finished their argument. Helen had snapped, “You swine,” and left him [to gather the rest
of his luggage for an out-of-town trip back to the scene of the crime he was
investigating].
[Several
weeks later, back in London, Lynley tried to apologize to his wife.] He said,
“I’m sorry about the row, Helen. You were giving your opinion. That’s more than
your right. I jumped all over you because I wanted you on my side. She’s my
wife, I thought, and this is my work and these are the decisions that I’m
forced to make in the course of my work. I want her behind me, not in front of
me blocking my way. I didn’t think of you as an individual in that moment, just
as an extension of me. So when you questioned my decision about Barbara, I saw
red. My temper got away from me. And I’m sorry for it.”
Her
gaze lowered. She ran her fingers along the edge of the stool and examined
their route. “I didn’t leave the house because you lost your temper. God knows
I’ve seen you lose it before.”
“I
know why you left. And I shouldn’t have said it.”
“Said…?”
“That
remark. The tautology bit. It was thoughtless and cruel. I’d like to have your
forgiveness for having said it.”
She
looked up at him. “They were only words, Tommy. You don’t need to ask
forgiveness for your words,”
“I
ask nonetheless.”
“No.
What I mean is that you’re already forgiven. You were forgiven at once if it
comes to that. Words aren’t reality, you know. They’re only expressions of what
people see.”
Several things in this
back-and-forth reminded me of truisms from A Course in Miracles (ACIM). First,
I am never upset for the reason I think. Initially, Lynley was angry because he
believed Helen was ignorant of police protocol and thought friendship trumped
that. Then it became obvious to him that he simply wanted Helen to be on his
“side.” Secondly, Helen’s forgiveness of him because words are only expressions
of what people “see,” or perceive – and that’s not reality.
Although both Lynley and Helen
are still functioning from their egos, the movement of their thoughts in this
argument is very much an example of the truth of the Course. My perceptions are
of my ego – and they are not reality. I am to “see” the same Christ in others
that I see in myself: I am an already-loved eternal spirit. That’s what I am. That’s
what you are. That’s reality. What God loves is the only reality. All else is
fear and a nightmare created by my ego. When I forgive others because I see
them in myself, then the Christ in both them and me becomes a little more real.
As old-timers in AA say, it’s all about spiritual progress not spiritual
perfection.
As the introduction to ACIM summarizes:
“The opposite of love is fear, but what
is all-encompassing can have no opposite. This course can therefore be summed
up very simply in this way: Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal
exists. Herein lies the peace of God.”
Although these messages are
mostly for me, thanks for listening. As always – feel free to forward this
message to your friends, family, and those accompanying you on your spiritual
journey.
Don
#2 May 2015
Copyright 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment