Those of you who are parents may understand when I say becoming a father helped save me from myself. Through the late 70s and into the 80s I had become pretty cynical about our culture and especially its leadership class. But as my children began to grow, it occurred to me that if they wanted to be cynical about the world they should have the right to earn it themselves. They shouldn’t inherit it from me.
Granted, you can find a share of cynics and pessimists in any generation, but in general young people are hopeful by nature. This helps explain why so many have flocked to support Barack Obama with his optimistic message of a new direction. But Obama’s wider popularity may stem from a loss of confidence in our leadership class and the basic institutions of our culture. Conservative pundit David Brooks, of the New York Times, says the failure of our leadership class will be the number one issue of the next election. I tend to agree. Mr. Obama is a skilled and inspirational speaker. But more importantly, because of his race, his youth and his limited time in office, he’s also is the candidate least associated with past failures.
In his column today, the Times’ Bob Herbert writes that up to now none of the candidates have laid out the vision for which the nation hungers. Until someone does, elections can be won but the bitter divisions within our nation will continue. Eventually, those divisions will lead America into decline. It is fair to estimate that a third of the country believes that modern liberalism is a failed philosophy. Another third believes the modern conservative philosophy is fatally flawed. The remaining third thinks both should be tossed on the scrap heap. However you figure it, two-thirds of the people believe the two philosophies which have defined our nation through the 20th century are now defunct.
Herbert writes: “There are moments in history that demand not just talent in a nation’s leadership, but greatness — men or women with the courage to dream bigger and the ability to convince others that those dreams can be realized.”
Finding that new dream, that new vision to inspire faith, is the challenge facing our political leaders — and our spiritual leaders as well — in this new century. Without that vision the election will still be won, but the nation will remain broken, church attendance will continue to decline, and spirits will not be healed.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Tolstoy's Cautionary Warning on Human Nature
I try to make tolerance of others number one on my ethical hit parade. I honestly do. And it’s not always easy, especially when dealing with people who have little respect for the concept. The liberal’s credo goes something like this: I can be tolerant of almost any personal freedom except the freedom to be intolerant. Making that exception seems justifiable, even logical. But like it or not, it leaves us in the same place -- being judgmental toward those with whom we disagree.
We, meaning we humans, have a tendency to assign black hats and white hats to the characters of our lives, whether they’re playing on the local, family or international stage. Avoiding hats in shades of gray makes demonizing our enemies and excusing our own behaviors easier. You could call it the “by definition” method. We are good “by definition” so what we do is good. Enemies, like various Arab peoples, get the opposite assignment. This is especially handy for fighting wars. Once the hats are handed out, we can be sure who’s right and who’s wrong.
Sometimes, when it comes to hat assignments, I talk a better game than I practice, which is not to say we should throw discernment on the scrap heap and declare all values equal. Of course not. God has pretty clear values and they’re spelled out in scripture if we’ll only look for them. But when it comes to divisions among political parties and the various branches of the church, it‘s good to remember no one is perfect. I recently came across a quote from Russian author Leo Tolstoy’s novel Resurrection that sounds a cautionary alarm for us all. Tolstoy writes:
“One of the most widespread superstitions is that every man has his own special, definite qualities; that a man is kind, cruel, wise, stupid, energetic, apathetic, etc. Men are not like that. We may say of a man that he is more often kind than cruel, oftener wise than stupid, oftener energetic that apathetic, or the reverse; but it would be false to say of one man he is kind and wise, of another he is wicked and foolish. And yet we always classify mankind in this way. And this is untrue. Men are like rivers: the water is the same in each, and alike in all; but every river is narrow here, is more rapid there, here slower, there broader, now clear, now cold, now dull, now warm. It is the same with men. Every man carries in himself the germs of every quality, and sometimes one manifests itself, sometimes another, and the man often becomes unlike himself, while still remaining the same man.”
To which we might all say, “amen.”
We, meaning we humans, have a tendency to assign black hats and white hats to the characters of our lives, whether they’re playing on the local, family or international stage. Avoiding hats in shades of gray makes demonizing our enemies and excusing our own behaviors easier. You could call it the “by definition” method. We are good “by definition” so what we do is good. Enemies, like various Arab peoples, get the opposite assignment. This is especially handy for fighting wars. Once the hats are handed out, we can be sure who’s right and who’s wrong.
Sometimes, when it comes to hat assignments, I talk a better game than I practice, which is not to say we should throw discernment on the scrap heap and declare all values equal. Of course not. God has pretty clear values and they’re spelled out in scripture if we’ll only look for them. But when it comes to divisions among political parties and the various branches of the church, it‘s good to remember no one is perfect. I recently came across a quote from Russian author Leo Tolstoy’s novel Resurrection that sounds a cautionary alarm for us all. Tolstoy writes:
“One of the most widespread superstitions is that every man has his own special, definite qualities; that a man is kind, cruel, wise, stupid, energetic, apathetic, etc. Men are not like that. We may say of a man that he is more often kind than cruel, oftener wise than stupid, oftener energetic that apathetic, or the reverse; but it would be false to say of one man he is kind and wise, of another he is wicked and foolish. And yet we always classify mankind in this way. And this is untrue. Men are like rivers: the water is the same in each, and alike in all; but every river is narrow here, is more rapid there, here slower, there broader, now clear, now cold, now dull, now warm. It is the same with men. Every man carries in himself the germs of every quality, and sometimes one manifests itself, sometimes another, and the man often becomes unlike himself, while still remaining the same man.”
To which we might all say, “amen.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
