Who is the good man?

I actually began this post 10 years ago, but I've often thought about it and I think it's time to finish that thought.  I've been a huge fan of the reality TV show Survivor since the first group of castaways were "marooned" in Borneo way back in the spring of 2000.  I find the show a fascinating window into human behavior and I am entertained but also challenged by what it takes for one person to outwit, outplay, and outlast all the others.  The rules of Survivor are not the rules we live by outside of the game, but that in itself provides unique insights into how we make decisions, how we relate to others, and what our values are.  Twenty-five years of watching Survivor, watching the hundreds of players battle it out with only 46 people managing to win the game, I've come to notice a particular type of player.  A player who has lessons for those of us in the real world. I call this player the good man (or woman--but often it's a man):

Sometimes "good people" can cause the most damage.  In the Gospels, the one group that Jesus seemed to reserve the harshest criticism for were the so called "good people."  He had great patience with sinners, outcasts, misfits.  But it was the good people that got Him really worked up.

During the 30th season of Survivor, titled Worlds Apart, which aired in the spring of 2015 (when I first began this post), one of the contestants emotionally destroyed another competitor.  The aggressor was a guy who was known by all to be open-hearted and friendly, a nice guy.  A good person.  Indeed he and his wife grew to be internet celebrities through their viral videos that showcased good-natured people with a sense of humor and a zest for life.  And this was the persona that Will Sims brought to the show and maintained for much of the season. 

Will Sims II, Survivor: Worlds Apart (Season 30)

But another deeply unkind side of Will reared its head late in the show when he lashed out at another competitor, reducing her to tears.  His brutal dismissal of Sharin as a worthless individual who no-one loved, liked, or cared about came as a shock to the other competitors and was especially devastating to Sharin considering her lack of family and a history of abuse growing up.  It was as awful as anything I've seen on television and I found it uncomfortable to watch.   Several times Will had the opportunity to back off his harsh attack and make amends, and each time he chose to double down and stand by his statements.  Even at the after show, which aired months after the game had been taped, when presumably he would have had time to think, reflect, and perhaps soften his stance, he was still defiant in his attack on this woman. What was Sharin's crime?  She dared to question Will's integrity.  She challenged his "good person" persona, and suggested a generous act on his part was duplicitous and insincere. And his response proved her right

No one thinks of themselves as villains.  We are all the hero in our own story, and everyone views themselves as basically a good person.  Maybe not perfect, but you know, decent.  And yet it can't possibly be true. Some--if not most of us--are kidding ourselves.  The Bible would suggest that we all are. Every one of us is prone to selfishness, pride, unkindness and even cruelty given the right (or should I say wrong) circumstances.  And I wonder sometimes if, given this reality, maybe the least good people are the ones who proclaim their own goodness, the ones who drape themselves in the mantle of hero, who wear the badge of integrity, honesty, goodness boldly.

Besides Will, it seems like some of the more problematic players in Survivor history have been those who insist that they are above the regular riff-raff who play the game.  While others might muck around in lies, duplicity and backstabbing, they are playing a more noble game, operating at higher moral level than those around them.  Of course there are exceptions to this.  Russell Hantz is probably one of the worst people to ever play the game and he didn't pretend to be a hero. He relished his role as a villain. But Russell... you saw him for what he was.  It's the good guys--specifically the self-identified ones, the "honesty and integrity" players that stick in my craw.

Joe Hunter, Survivor 48

In the most recent Season, #48, we had Joe, a fireman who took the "honor & integrity" approach to a whole new level.  In many ways Joe was exactly who he claimed to be--a compassionate, caring person who put his whole game on the line to be a support to another player who needed it.  I admire that. But when it came to the game, Joe had a high standard of honor and integrity that in fact boiled down to something a little less admirable--a demand for absolute loyalty. I recall one scene in which he reprimanded one of his allies, Kyle, for making choices that that Joe felt did not meet his standard of integrity.  Kyle chose to protect himself in the game at a cost to Joe's advantage.  Joe's sanctimony dared to scold Kyle for acting in a way that helped himself, but more importantly cut across Joe's plans. Kyle went on win the entire game, while Joe came in third with just one vote. Joe is coming back for Season 50, so it will be interesting to see how he chooses to play this time around.

And then there's Tom, arguably one of the most dominant players ever to play the game of Survivor.  Kai and I have been rewatching some old seasons of Survivor this summer as we prepare for Survivor's epic 50th season airing next spring.  We are rewatching (or in his case watching for the first time) old seasons so we can pick our favorites among the returning players.  Our eyes were on Stephanie LaGrossa Kendrick who will be competing in 50 but of course you couldn't miss the winner of Survivor Palau, Tom Westman. 

Tom Westman, Survivor: Palau (Season 10)

The guy was incredible--a challenge beast, a sharp strategist, a charismatic leader who earned the admiration of most his fellow players. In short he was a shoe-in to win, and he did. Tom didn't lean as heavily into the "integrity and honor" ethos. He did in fact mislead some of the other players. He did in fact woo in players without any serious plans to honor the commitments they believed he'd made to them. His catchphrase was "I'll do as much as I can," which meant I'll stick with you until it's no longer useful for me to do so.  He did however, have an internal code of ethics which every player--at least the effective ones--bring into the game and stick to so that they can sleep at night and be at peace with themselves.  Tom had a handful of people who he'd decided he would not betray.  They'd go all the way to the end and then "duke it out like men."  When Tom realized that one of his allies, Ian, maybe wasn't going to stick to that code his response was ruthless.  It wasn't Will Sims level ugly, but it was unpleasant. Whether he realized he was doing it or not, Tom leaned hard into emotional manipulation, guilting Ian for betraying the code, for failing to be a "man of honor."  Like Joe he punished Ian for failing to act against his own best interests for Tom's benefit. I don't see a lot of honor in a stance like that. And unlike Kyle, Ian--who was younger than Kyle and perhaps more in awe of Tom--folded.  He ended up offering to quit the final immunity challenge, giving up his shot at the million dollar prize and requesting Tom take Katie to the final two instead of him--all so he could "earn back Tom's respect."   And Tom, magnanimously agreed, saying that he would have always considered Ian a friend no matter what he did, but yes this gesture earned his respect as well.  Well, that response didn't earn my respect. 

To me the truly honorable thing to do would have been to say, "Ian, if you step down that's your choice. But I have to do the honorable thing.  That's my code.  And if I feel that you are the most worthy opponent [and Ian was by the way], then I will take you to the final two and we will duke it out as men just like I said we would." Instead, Tom happily accepted Ian's repentance and waltzed to the final with Katie where he handily defeated her in a 7-1 vote.

I'm sure Tom would disagree with my analysis of what happened.  Of course he would.  We all would.  Because we all like to think of ourselves as the good guy. 

But being a good person isn't about whether other people live by our code of honor.  It's always and only about whether we are ourselves are living up to it. In Survivor, I've noticed that "honor and integrity" players tend to have another quality that gets overlooked--strength.  "Honor and integrity" is the refuge of the physically dominant player--one who can also dupe others into feeling wrong if they move against them. It's hardly fair or honorable.  There's no integrity in it.  When we dub ourselves the good person, we tend to judge others weaknesses by our strengths.

So what, then?  Should we not aspire to be people of integrity and honesty?  Of course we should!  We just don't need to advertise it.

A good person doesn't need to proclaim their goodness.  They wouldn't think to--because they are aware of the ways they fall short.  I can name many good people, people I deeply admire and respect, and not one of them would thing to label themselves that way.  They don't claim to be good people. They just are.

"As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one....there is no one who does good,

    not even one." 

                          --Romans 3:11-12

"Therefore let him who thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall."

                          --1 Corinthians 10:12