Monday, March 23, 2009

Marcus Einfeld: Why 'I'm Basically Honest' is the Basic Human Lie.

Right now, I'm watching Four Corners, about Marcus Einfeld. All related to his comment "I lied, but I'm basically honest." This Post is a repeat of what was said in this sermon on Sunday. I am watching a man who needed to 'come to himself'. It is astounding. Here are my comments:

_________________

Like many, I’ve been puzzled over the Marcus Einfeld saga. Sent to jail for a $75 speeding ticket!

In 2006, Marcus Einfeld was caught speeding. That itself is not newsworthy. But this is: He then wrote a 20 page statement saying that someone else was driving the car; a person who had been dead for 2 years. In other words, he perjured himself. He lied under oath.

Everyone has been thinking: Marcus – what were you thinking?

He is a former Justice of the Federal Court of Australia; a President of the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission; a ‘National Living Treasure’; a pillar of society. You might even say: 'An Older Brother' in Jesus' Parable of the Prodigal Son.

So why throw that in a $75 fine? He mustn’t have been 'himself'.

And yet, I think that the Marcus Einfeld story is the human story. It’s my story. That is, I have an outward persona. And outward me. A ‘me’ I want you all to know. An honourable me. An employable me. A proud me.

And there is an inner me. A ‘me’ that I don’t tell you all about. A 'me' that struggles with pride; and various other stumbling and bumbling acts. A 'me' that my wife can tell you about. And my God too.

I’m not a dualist – a word which means that there are two selves. No – I am one whole person. But I like people to know I’m OK, while at the same time, I know that I am deeply flawed. And more, the outward me is not a lie. I’m not pretending. Just as Marcus Einfeld is not pretending about his work as a judge.

It’s just that the ‘me’ I that I present is not the complete picture.

Now, this is very important: Think about Marcus Einfeld. Is he an older brother? Or a younger brother? Is he basically, a good guy who’s served his country well? Or a scoundrel who has deserves his pigsty?

What do you think?

My take: He is an older brother who now has been given the opportunity to perhaps realise that he has been a younger brother all along.

His crime may feel small That is: he sped a little; and told fibs about it. But this week, no one really believes that.

Why? Because his lie was declared in the one place that lies can’t abide:

The court.

To let go of his crime is to say that justice never matters; that telling lies in the court is fine, as long as it is small. No. He struck at the very fabric of civil society.

Does anyone really think that his past goodness can erase the current crime?

Ben Aveling Alexandria wrote a letter in the Herald:
Bruce Hulbert writes that Marcus Einfeld is not a threat to society. In what way is actively and repeatedly seeking to undermine the rule of law not a threat to society?
It is the same with God.

You may be good; you may have been honorable. I hope so. I really do. But the one place where sin cannot abide is with a Holy God. We know that lies can’t stand in an Australian Courtroom. So why do we think they stand before a Holy God?

We are all bent on self. Incurvatus in se. But we serve a Lord. We serve a Messiah, whose love for this broken world is vast. He is not Incurvatus in se. He is bent on loving the world which does not love him back.

We just have to be honest about not being honest.

________________

Anyone else care to reflect on the Incident?

________________

4 comments:

Edmo of the No Blog said...

I found his statement at the beginning, when they were rehearsing the Day of Atonement 'songs', also very insightful. Paraphrased: I'm always seeking atonement - Hopefully, God will accept my efforts.
The other interesting thing, reflective of the human predicament, was that he was prepared, once cornered, to admit his sin, but when questioned about the other occasions when he has apparently dodged a fine (including using the same woman as an 'alibi'), he was most evasive and determined not to concede error. Downright stubborn. Again, a paraphrase: Yes I did it that one time, but not all those other times that look the same.
I remember when I was a child once I ran through a friend's plate glass window, shattering it into pieces and getting midly cut up. I ran home and for no good reason, insisted on telling my parents that I had fallen. NAturally, the truth came to light, but even then, I insisted that I had indeed fallen, as well as destroyed my friend's house. All I could think of during the interview was how much like me Justice Einfeld is.

gbroughto said...

I also found the 4 Corners interviews intriguing - particularly at the end, where he was upholding the rule of law, and the interviewer insightfully fed back "that sounds like Jusitce Enifield speaking? Where was he, when these events were taking place?"

There was a brief pause, the eyes averted, and then this:

"Good question. Where was he? Gone! He had gone."

Fits beautifully with your sermon and his inability / unwillingness to "come to himself" at the key moments of either the original transgression or of repentance.

I was left with the impression that his "admission"was in order to "cut a deal" so that other transgressions would not see the light of day (or in court / the media). That's the real tragedy.

BTW, I'm not confident that 2 years imprisonment for a Jew and former Judge is easily justified... it will be a horrendous sentence to serve going by my limited exposure to the prison system!

Paul said...

I don't know what politics lurked behind this whole affair. Maybe he had angered too many people. Sometimes enemies get made when you come to believe too much in your own magnificence. I do know though that once in a deep hole, its usually a good idea to stop digging. If the Four Corners thing was an attempt to preemptively rehabilitate a tarnished reputation, then it failed miserably. I saw an arrogance in him that still hadn't really understood just how great his fall was. This saga also left me wondering whether our Zionist overlords have not achieved the same level of control of Australia's institutions as they have of America's.

bartik said...

Nice post Moff! I too have found this whole case intriguing. For one, what the heck was he thinking?! And 20 pages?! A dead alibi?! All for a $77 fine?!
The only thing I can come up with is that such utter carelessness implies that getting-away-with-it is common course. My bet's that he thought he could get away with anything.
The question ringing in my head is 'what else is going on?'