Where do you want to go?
It is crystal clear that society is changing. Perhaps it always has but most informed observers tell us that the change in America during the last 50 years is significantly greater than in any previous time in history. So, if in fact we are changing, it may be well to take a look at where we are going.
Many would claim that we’re headed in the wrong direction. Eric Blair, the English writer we know as George Orwell, apparently felt that we had hit bottom. He said, “We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” Nothing can be accomplished until society recognizes it has been going in the wrong direction. Change itself is not progress. Progress means getting closer to where you want to be. More often than not it involves a radical change in direction. To step backward after making a wrong turn is actually moving forward. C S Lewis writes that progress is to turn-about when walking in the wrong direction, and that “the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.” (Mere Christianity)
What is abundantly clear is that progress is impossible without a goal. If you don’t know where you’re going you will never get there. However, as a society we do not reflect on this crucial issue very often. There seems to be a scattered consensus that as a nation we would be better off if everyone could live more comfortably — have a better house, more expensive car, more money for things we want, etc. And the energies of many are directed toward that goal. Others have, for all practical purposes, dropped out of the race and are content to live on what happens to come their way.
My point of view is that as a society we are not finding contentment, not making progress toward something that provides satisfaction and builds a sense of self-worth, because we are headed in the wrong direction. When we make it to the top after a life time of strenuous involvement with the requirements of success, there is little or nothing of worth waiting for us. Of course, the Christian faith speaks directly to this issue. Knowing that there was no reasonable answer, Jesus asked, “What benefit is there if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?” (Matthew 16:26) Man was not created simply to accumulate stuff. In the deep recesses of his soul he finds no lasting satisfaction in anything short of fulfilling a spiritual destiny. God created us for fellowship with himself, so ultimately the only authentic progress is to move toward him.
I am aware that this sounds like a sermon, but it is intended as a valid observation about life. In my contacts throughout the last 90 plus years, it has been those people who have had the highest respect for the spiritual dimension of life who are most content and at peace with reality. No one has put it more succinctly than the French polymath, Blaise Pascal, who wrote, “There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus.” Goals exist to provide direction in life. The ultimate question is, “Where do you want to go?
The art of kissing
Marquis de Vauvenargues was of the opinion that “When a thought is too weak to be expressed simply, it should be rejected.” Ambiguity in simple prose is the result of the author’s failure to think clearly on the issue he is writing about, expecting the reader to clarify the issue. Among the naive this may come through as profound; among the nature it is recognized as intellectual weakness. After a lifetime of serious theological thought, Karl Barth told us that the essence of biblical revelation was, “Jesus loves me, this I know; for the Bible tells me so.” KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) is still the motto of those not ashamed to summarize their better thoughts in language that conveys. In his introduction to his commentary on Romans, John Calvin said that the best thing an interpreter can do is to make the meaning of the text clear and to do it with as few words as possible. He called it “lucid brevity.” Hopefully that is why this little piece is so short.
The sine qua non of friendship
It is interesting that while disparate world-views see the larger picture quite differently, a given quotation can often fit comfortably in both. For instance, Mencius a famous Chinese philosopher of the third century BC and a principal interpreter of Confucianism, believed in the unique goodness of the individual and that bad moral character was the result of society’s failure to exercise a positive influence on the individual. That is quite distinct from the historic Judeo-Christian position that man, although created in the image of God, chose to sin — the result of which was a basic flaw in human nature. Yet the Christian can agree wholeheartedly with Mencius that, “friendship is one mind in two bodies.”
World-views can be diagrammed as large overlapping circles. A number of ideals may be distinct to one or the other but at the same time there exist many that are common to both. As you would expect, issues that are central to a world-view determine where they stand in the diagram. Human nature is certainly one of them. Mencius believed that negative qualities in a person were the influence of society while the Christian faith teaches that, “it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come — sexual immorality, theft, murder.” (Mark 7:21).
But, back to the quotation, “Friendship is one mind in two bodies.” It is shared values that draw people together, especially when those values are religious or political. To disagree in those areas keeps any relationship nominal at best. At the same time there is such a wide range of common acceptance that individuals who hold fundamentally different principles are able to live in harmony and share a common life. While I may not agree with a man who honestly believes that government is the answer for society’s ills, there is no reason that I cannot enjoy a good football game or a good dinner with him. One of the goals of a democratic civilization should be to maintain a pleasant working relationship with all others of this broad point of view. It is only when one ideology attempts to force its point of view on others who are not persuaded, that serious conflict results. Unfortunately there are so many examples of this in today’s world. One would be the atheist’s concern that God have no place in discussions in the public square. Since the majority does believes in God, it would seem unfair to penalize them because a small minority claims to be offended. Of course the rights of that minority must be honored but not to the extent that the rights of the majority are over-ruled.
Genuine friendship is a wonderful relationship. I would hope that a respectful relationship between those of differing ideals can exist as well. A major step toward that goal is to treat the other as we would have the other treat us. Of course that is what the New Testament teaches as the Golden Rule.
Careful with words!
Margaret Thatcher once wrote that to her “consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.” No wonder she earned the title “Iron Lady”! Many would hold that consensus is the guiding principle of informed society. Isn’t that how people work together for the common good?
Giving her the latitude that comes with her “seems to be,” it is still remarkable that a major player in the Western world (Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990) would call into question a principle so widely accepted.
So what’s the problem (if there is one) with consensus? It depends upon what one means by the word. Most often “consensus” is used to denote the opinion of the majority. Two groups meet and, after discussion, release a “consensus opinion” that they will follow plan A rather than plan B. But the more basic meaning of the word is “general agreement or concord.” To have a consensus means to be in agreement. That is different. Dr. Thatcher’s concern was that people of differing persuasions often abandon their principles to arrive at what seems to be a “workable solution.” On a given subject, two political parties may well share a common goal but differ on how to achieve it. If they discuss the issue in an open and honest manner, both sides may come to see some practical insight on how best to solve the problem. Then, if they adjust their approach somewhat, they have not compromised their principles but have reached a consensus on how to arrive where they both want to be.
Since