... the Land of the Free 2023

America, the land of opportunity; a noble nation setting the example of true freedom, God’s gift to the world ...

... or so many have said.  People in the United States now find themselves in a struggle, a scourge of irrationality, manufactured deceptions, and a contempt for truth that has been decades in the making. It follows the decline of an involved citizenry and an increasing distrust of government. We’ve watched as ideological extremes have brought hostility and division and a plague of disinformation. 

White nationalism has returned along with fear mongering, unchecked bigotry, and an emboldened culture war that violently looms over us. Our collapse into irrationality shocked the world, and it still watches, wondering what effect it might bring. Our mocked democracy weakened as our leadership moved on to language empty of any meaning. Our historical memory of governance, of ethics, of justice and responsibility, all discarded. With little opposition, power players took on the workings of a dis-information machine characterized by a disregard for the truth, often accompanied by primitive taunts and threats from the highest office. 

What we are witnessing is not simply a political project. Objective truth is viewed by many as a liability, and ignorance as a virtue. Common sense education is similarly regarded with disdain. Words are reduced to noise. Traces of critical thought persist only at the margins of the culture as anger becomes the primary organizing principle of American society. Moral values have been replaced by simple competition, division, and personal interests. 

We watched as false accusations were made by those knowing that the public would easily be seduced by emotional exhortation and sensationalism, all of which mimics the celebrity culture and reality television.  

State and federal courts dismissed as unproven more than 50 lawsuits of alleged electoral fraud presented by the president and his allies.  There was no evidence.  U.S. election security officials (representing the investigative work of thousands) have said the election was “the most secure in American history”, yet with our ever-increasing flood of information and our over-stimulated lives, it appears we no longer have the time to mature into informed thought. Half of us chose to accept the false claims while ignoring the reasoned analysis and evidence. 

Change continues. It has a price. Truth and objectivity are gone from public discourse. Quite simply, the US is a house divided and partisan disagreements run deeper than ever measured. At the personal level as well, we are unreasonably divided … willing to abandon decades of relationship.  Even the church finds itself wounded, broken ....

Can we live in this world without being shaped by it?  Must we allow ourselves to be dragged down in the quagmire?  How might we choose a higher standard than this which we've seen?  What specifically is the right goal?

Furious Freedom

What Do I Know/Hope/Believe?

Grappling with what we know and believe and with what we hope yet to understand ... well, it can be a difficult struggle.  

Fortunately, we have science and math and facts we can prove.  That only helps with the first part of the struggle, though.  

That first part, it's perhaps like cleaning up the house, organizing things into their proper place, each in an appropriate cabinet or drawer or closet.  We can sit and relax or gaze out the window at our sensible and predictable world.  We understand it, so we don't need to worry.

Okay, that's just the ground floor.  Upstairs, there are questions without such easy answers.
     --We know the universe began, but as best we can tell, it began from absolutely nothing. It sprang into existence without a cause or origin, and science has no answer.
     --It's the same with the origin of life. We know life covers the earth, and we understand many the processes. Science tells us it was just a coincidence that life began from the chemistry involved a few billion years ago, but the honest ones admit we have no idea how that happened.
     --Then there's our consciousness. We think, we choose, we learn and change, but neuroscience has struggled to find anything other than a deterministic process, like a computer and its program and its inputs. Science acknowledges no free will, no personal control, we're just a result of what was before.  The complexity of our awareness is far beyond what science can explain. That's where it ends.

Upstairs, there are things we know and much more that we don't.
     --We know we exist, that we have a choice in who we become despite what the science offers.
     --We know the rules of society, and we can see that those rules are imperfect.
     --We have moral awareness when we stop and think about it, but even then, we can stumble over our own imperfection.  

It gets harder. 
     --We've known since we were children that God is there, and we've held on to that, or we've pushed it away. 
     --When we heard about how he loves us, we almost understood.  When he offered us true freedom, we could see just the edges of it. 
     --We find ourselves walking uneasily, stepping from this rock of faith to that one as we make our way along. 
Science offers little help with such questions.

Every honest believer is at least partly agnostic, understanding that there are some things which cannot yet be known.  And there's perhaps a reason behind that.  What would we do if an audible alarm sounded every time we sinned, or if He regularly and visibly stepped into the room to instruct us?  If we were pressured like that, would there be any real virtue in our choice?  Would there be any genuine freedom to acquire our own identity, our own purpose, our own principles and values?  I think that we must turn to Him from an honest and open heart.

So, downstairs and up, science and faith, we're reminded that being a rational adult can be difficult.  Except we become like little children ....  the older I get, the more clearly I see why He would have said that.

One idea changed the world ...

  It was 1970 when economist Milton Friedman declared, “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.” Company leaders, he argued, should be entirely concerned with making money for shareholders, not with their businesses’ environmental, social, or broader economic impacts. He wasn't alone in his thinking, and as influential players got on board, it changed the way the world's economies operate.

As our nation changed, few were concerned that the direction was opposite the one they'd heard in their hearts as children. Churches offered no counterpoint despite the clear words of their founder.

It has been an interesting fifty years. Corporations, particularly in the financial industries, had no interest in making the world a better place, and the cost has been stunning. For those of you who are new to this world, the trends you see are neither noble nor beneficial. The competition among nations is led by a powerful few, and our persistent global warfare is primarily economic with progressively less moral constraint.

The first purpose we were given was to steward this world. The second included instruction for us to care about others besides ourselves. To do so, we must consider each other in our decisions, our plans, and every path chosen. But ... do we?

The culture we face is harsh for many. We're living in a classist society that has had stunning impact on the lower economic strata and minorities. Our national economy and governance are an elitist venue.

20% of our children live in poverty today. Their parents struggle with having enough food, with health, with safety, with quality education for their kids.

Despite the good intent of many to defend the poor and oppressed, national trends have been problematic, and most of us, particularly on the far right, are unwilling to hear the cries of those who suffer and are abused.

The poor work harder than the rest. Two jobs are the norm for parents if they can find work, and none of them chose to live in such distress. It was and is done to them, and escape is unlikely.

We perhaps cannot change the world for all, but we can for some. We can speak for the unheard, we can speak the truth to those who have yet to see. We can do so from a different heart, one that considers others in our decisions, our plans, and every path chosen. As we should.

The Extraordinary Opportunity Ahead

Religious practices alone aren't a solution.

The 'moral' requirement is a heart issue,

not just simple rules.    No one is fully

constrained by rules, as we've seen,

and industry's play for profit has

no discernable moral standard.

John Adams wrote in 1798 about the extraordinary opportunity ahead of us as a nation. He added the caveat that if we became like other nations, soiled by iniquity and extravagance, "... this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world, because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion."

  

In his letter he warned that in the absence of such constraint, avarice, ambition, and revenge (or galantry) would "break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net."

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Where on our timeline might we find this tipping point?    

A More Dangerous Enemy

     Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed- in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.

     If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, that it is in essence not an intellectual defect but a human one. There are human beings who are of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid. We discover this to our surprise in particular situations. The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect, but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or that they allow this to happen to them. We note further that people who have isolated themselves from others or who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals or groups of people inclined or condemned to sociability. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem. It is a particular form of the impact of historical circumstances on human beings, a psychological concomitant of certain external conditions. Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or of a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. It would even seem that this is virtually a sociological-psychological law. The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other. The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence, and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like that have taken possession of him. ... Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil....

     Yet at this very point it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until then we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person. This state of affairs explains why in such circumstances our attempts to know what ‘the people’ really think are in vain and why, under these circumstances, this question is so irrelevant for the person who is thinking and acting responsibly. The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity.

     But these thoughts about stupidity also offer consolation in that they utterly forbid us to consider the majority of people to be stupid in every circumstance. It really will depend on whether those in power expect more from people’s stupidity than from their inner independence and wisdom.

-Dietrich Bonhoeffer, from ‘After Ten Years’ in Letters and Papers from Prison

Emphasis added.  Taken from a circular letter, addressing many topics, written to three friends and co-workers in the conspiracy against Hitler, on the tenth anniversary of Hitler’s accession to the chancellorship of Germany… Bonhoeffer was hanged by Adolf Hitler in 1945.

Toxic?

     Toxic Intellectualism: just for the few following the conversation.

Dr. Kristen Du Mez is an engaging speaker and prolific author, a believer, a wife and mother, and a thoughtful academic.  We're looking at  Jesus and John Wayne,  A Modern Church History of Toxic Masculinity, and others.

Dr. Du Mez has said, “ ... the ideals of Christian manhood were drawn from popular culture, not from deep biblical exegesis.  The fear was real in the hearts of followers, and it was actively stoked by religious leaders, by evangelical men in almost every case to consolidate their own power.”

Now note the two positions she offers regarding ideals about manhood:

1.       The ideals came from popular culture, not from biblical content. 

2.       The ideals were fear-driven and a deliberate play for power by leaders and evangelical men.

The first (1.) is partially true and somewhat defensible.  The secular world did and does influence the church.  It has always done so, and we must understand the conflict.

The second (2.) claims a simplistic motivation imbedded in the millions of evangelicals and the popular voices among them; fear-induced self-advancement, self-benefit, self over others. 

While Dr. Du Mez’s historical narrative is somewhat correct, her attributions of motive, often implying a measure of malicious or wicked intent, are each individually troubling. 

Thinking:  A centerpiece in our thinking is in how we interpret the actions of others.  When control is out of our hands, we assign responsibility (or blame) and all to often, a motive.  

Attribution theory explains how we interpret the behavior of others.  We want to understand and be equipped to respond.  On that path, we tend to ascribe a single mindset to groups of people based on the category in which we have placed them.  In doing so, we attribute a simplistic motivation which, while it may have some minimal relevance, is always incomplete and inaccurate.

For example:  Bob hired his friend Charles to work with him on a project.  At a meeting with others, Charles is harshly critical of changes proposed.  Bob thinks Charles is unreasonable and begins to regret having hired him.  David, who was in the meeting, is thankful Charles had the courage to speak up, because the proposal had troubled him as well.

Two people in the same situation, and they attribute different motivations for Charles’ behavior, unreasonable vs. courageous.  They’re both wrong in this example.  Charles wasn’t concerned what others thought, he was just offering his objective thoughts on the proposal, just doing his job the way he saw it. 

Charles’ behavior was the result of years of experience.  Was he unreasonable?  Was he courageous?  Or was he just working through the issues?  Was there a motive?  Of course, but it will be spread across those preceding years of learning.

Expand the venue:  Majorities in both parties are concerned with the increasing divide between the parties.  Each blames the other.  Each believes the other party is less moral than their own, less reasonable, and lacking in basic principles.  Each believes the other is pursuing unethical goals and is deliberately avoiding essential truths.  Each has attributed deliberate immoral motivation to the other party and its participants.

Du Mez describes every word and choice by Billy Graham (more than one hundred references) as politically formed and delivered, and she offers no acknowledgement of any good done or intended by him.  She doesn’t mention the careful message he offered and the openness he offered to others.  She mentions the scandals associated with religious leaders and the unreasonable support they were afforded by some conservatives.  She doesn’t mention the hundreds of evangelists, pastors, and teachers who, across those same years, spent their lives drawing others to God.  We’ve known them, and we’ve seen the personal sacrifices they made, the good that was done, the truths that they spoke, and the lives that were changed.  We’re aware of the millions that were pulled back from a worldly selfishness and refocused on God’s calling.  To reduce all of that to some flawed motivation supporting a cultural trend is an interesting illustration of toxic intellectualism.

Interim Conclusion:  Let’s go back to Dr. Du Mez and her various attributions of motive; is she accurate?  When she assigns a motive to a category of individuals, her chance of getting it right is 0.00%.

In her epilogue to Jesus and John Wayne, we arrive at the purpose for her narrative.

“... understanding the catalyzing role militant Christian masculinity has played over the past half century is critical to understanding American evangelicalism today, and the nation’s fractured political landscape.  Appreciating how this ideology developed over time is also essential for those who wish to dismantle it. What was once done might also be undone.”

Agreed, with this one caveat; Dr. Du Mez describes white evangelicals as having collectively abandoned true faith in favor of a preferentially corrupted version of God’s call, while in fact, there have been millions across those years who honestly and sincerely gave their lives to God.  We’ve known so many who were magnificent examples of grace and mercy, of sacrifice and love, of willingness to serve for the good of others.  Leaders and followers, pastors and teachers, mothers and fathers who, however imperfectly, labored to find His truth in their day.  They learned, they changed, and they changed the lives of others.  They brought us forward in our understanding of God’s good heart and purpose for us all. 

The author’s thoughtful purpose is clear from beginning to end, to clarify our view of Our Father and his ways.  Dr. Du Mez, in her analysis, hopes to serve well, just like the many whose motives she attributes so inaccurately.

A perhaps more helpful conclusion to such a discussion might be found in Paul Johnson’s A History of Christianity.  

“Of course human freedoms are imperfect and delusory.  Here again, Christianity is an exercise in the impossible, but it is nevertheless valuable in stretching man’s potentialities.  It lays down tremendous objectives, but it insists that success is not the final measure of achievement. ... We must bear this in mind when we consider the future of Christianity in the light of its past.  During the past half-century there has been a rapid and uninterrupted secularization of the West, which has all but demolished the Augustinian idea of Christianity as a powerful, physical and institutional presence in the world.  Of St Augustine’s city of God on earth, little now remains, except crumbling walls and fallen towers, effete establishments and patriarchies of antiquarian rather than intrinsic interest.  But of course Christianity does not depend on a single matrix: hence its durability.  The Augustinian idea of public, all-embracing Christianity, once so compelling, has served its purpose and retreats – perhaps, one day, to re-emerge in different forms.  Instead, the temporal focus shifts to the Erasmian concept of the private Christian intelligence, and to the Pelagian stress on the power of the Christian individual to effect virtuous change. New societies are arising for Christianity to penetrate, and the decline of western predominance offers it an opportunity to escape from beneath its Europeanized carapace and assume fresh identities.”

He ends with , “...our history over the last two millennia has reflected the effort to rise above our human frailties.  And to that extent, the chronicle of Christianity is an edifying one.

We’ll want to remember as we continue our cultural analysis that we’re looking at imperfect people just like us, folks who hope to get it right and to leave a meaningful legacy in the lives of those they know and love.