Israel and the Politics of Bad Faith

 Funny how the world's only Jewish state, the one place where one of the most persecuted people groups in history can live safely and freely among their own kind, which has been surrounded since it's inception by those who hate it's very existence and who hate it's people simply because they were born Jewish, is the recipient of an endless and excessive string of blame and criticism for anything and everything it does to defend itself, frequently coming from those who claim to care most about victim groups and persecuted peoples. Observe carefully. This is a revealing. Some people are not who they claim to be and are not motived or inspired by what they claim to be motivated and inspired by. 

Paying Their "Fair Share"

 Whenever you hear certain people talk about the rich paying their fair share, you should ask them to define the meaning of the terms "rich" and "fair share". The politics of envy tend towards expansion. 

On Being a Single Issue Voter: Or Why Abortion is Still the Most Important Issue (To Me)

The refrain is repeatedly heard among evangelicals of a more progressive sort these days that "you can't be a single issue voter." Abortion is not the only issue, we are told, there are many other issues for Christians to be concerned about including such things as the poor and the environment. In principal, I agree with the importance of these other concerns, and with the notion that one should not be a single issue voter when possible. I can't help but wonder, however, about whether or not those who advance such a view have really, seriously thought things through. Often, the claims about the wrongness of single issue voting come off with a certain glibness or knee-jerk defensiveness, as if they were ad hoc justifications for a decision already made rather than the result of a careful process of reflection and soul-searching.

It seems to me that the question of whether or not one should be a single issue voter depends on the gravity of the issues at stake in a given election. Are the various issues facing us in a given election of equal moral weightiness? I'm convinced that they are not. As I have wrestled with and thought through this issue, I've become convinced that some issues are so big that they overshadow and perhaps even underlie many other issues. To fail to come down on the right side of these issues, is to fail to be faithful as Christians in our time and place. I am convinced that abortion is just such an issue for our times, and that, as such, it should take precedence over all other considerations in our decision concerning how to vote as Christians. In short, I believe that, in practice, we should be single issue voters. I'd like to attempt to explain why I hold this view.

First of all, I am convinced that abortion kills a fellow human being, one who is deserving of all the same rights and protections that those of us who live outside the womb enjoy. From a purely biological perspective, it is inarguable that from the moment of conception, a human life exists which, if unimpeded in its growth and development, will ultimately become a fully functional human being. If you are reading this, then you are one who was once a single celled fetus whose development towards adulthood was unimpeded. Furthermore, the Christian tradition has always affirmed the personhood of the fetus and has always considered abortion immoral and sought to stop it whenever possible. Richard John Neuhaus points out that, "From the early years of the Church’s life, Christians distinguished themselves from the surrounding pagan society by their refusal to abort or expose their children. And when, centuries later, they were in a position to influence public policy, their conviction that every human life was created and loved by God, and therefore ought to be cared for and protected by us, became the law."

One argument frequently heard from those Christians who wish to ignore or downplay the abortion issue in their voting is that killing in war and the death penalty are also immoral and that, therefore, a candidate who opposes abortion but who supports war or the death penalty is really no better than a candidate who is pro-choice but who opposes war or the death penalty. While at first glance this argument may seem to have some merit, I find it ultimately uncompelling. Without going into a lot of complex argumentation about the permissibility of killing in war or the death penalty (which space here does not permit), I think it suffices to say here that, even if these forms of killing are ultimately judged to be wrong (and all killing is tragic, even if it is not wrong), they still do not compare to the moral tragedy of abortion. This is because not only does abortion kill a fellow human being, it kills the most helpless and innocent human being imaginable. The unborn child in the womb is completely innocent of any crime against another and is in the most completely helpless and dependent position that it is possible for any human being to be in. It has no possibility, even conceptually, of escaping the fate thrust upon it by those who have power over it; it cannot run away, or hide, or argue on its own behalf.

If it is the case, then, that abortion kills a fellow human being, and not only that, but one who is utterly helpless and innocent, it seems to me that abortion is a moral crime of the highest order. It is not simply killing, it is killing the innocent and victimizing the most helpless among us. It is hard for me think of any issue that carries more moral seriousness than this. If throngs of our fellow human beings who exist outside the womb were being carried off en masse to be murdered, such as has happened in the past, I don't think there would be any question among us as Christians that this was the crucial moral issue of our times and that we must attend to this issue above all others. It seems to me then, that it follows from this that if the unborn are fully human in the same sense as the rest of us, and are, furthermore, the most innocent and helpless among us, that abortion must therefore be the crucial moral issue of our times, an issue which takes precedence over all other issues.

The reality of our present political situation, for better or worse, is that we live in a two party system, and that one of the two parties in this system tends to be far stronger on the issue of protecting the human rights of the unborn. This does not mean that the agenda of this political party is synonymous with Christianity, or that Christians should uncritically attach themselves to this party. What it does mean, however, is that given our limited choices and the moral seriousness of the issue at hand, we vote for those who adhere more closely to the historically Christian view on this issue.

Hope?

Why is hope such a difficult thing to hold onto? Why does it feel so much more likely that nothing will turn out like you want it to, that ultimately you'll end up disappointed, wounded, and broken-hearted? Why does it feel like some of us keep living the same bad scripts over and over again, no matter how many times we try to break away from them? Why does it seem that even when things start well and there's every reason to believe they'll succeed, that instead, they always find a way to go wrong, to fail, like it was some unbreakable law of physics? How do you stay hopeful when you've been wounded so deeply that it feels like your pain can consume the universe, when you feel like your heart is so damaged that it's beyond repair, when you feel like, despite your deepest desires, best efforts, and desperate prayers you cannot change any of these feelings or overcome or escape them?  I don't know.

Blue Collar Intellectuals by Daniel Flynn: A Book Review

Daniel Flynn’s “Blue Collar Intellectuals” tells the story of several prominent thinkers and writers of the mid-twentieth century who either came from working-class roots or who worked to make the life of the mind accessible to ordinary middle-class Americans.

He begins the book by offering a diagnosis of our current intellectual and cultural malaise, pointing out the prevalence of a vapid and vulgar pop-culture, a decreasing attention to reading and reflection among the general populace, an intellectual class that is more concerned with distinguishing itself from the world of ordinary people than speaking to them, and a shallow fascination with technological gimmickry even at erstwhile educational institutions. In short, the general populace is becoming dumber while the intellectual class is becoming more irrelevant to the life ordinary people live, and that is a bad thing for society. The people highlighted in this book did not see the intellectual life as a fashion accessory, but took pleasure in reading, learning, and thinking, and sought to share the joy they found in these pursuits with other ordinary people.

After the introduction, the book moves through chapters highlighting six public intellectuals including Will and Ariel Durant, Mortimer Adler, Milton Friedman, Eric Hoffer, and Ray Bradbury. The chapters contain a mixture of biography, highlights from the thought or writing of the subject, and Flynn’s own commentary. I was particularly excited to read the chapter on Ray Bradbury and it did not disappoint. I think the chapter I enjoyed and resonated with the most, however, was the one on Eric Hoffer. What’s great about a story like Hoffer’s and, for that matter, any of the characters in this book, is that it reminds you that anyone can develop a serious intellectual life just through taking the time to read and think. It inspired me to commit myself to more reading and writing.

Flynn’s writing style is straightforward without being boring, making the book an easy, enjoyable read. I appreciate the fact that he doesn’t engage in hagiography, but clearly shows his subjects as real people, both flawed and complex. If I had any complaint to make, it would be that occasionally Flynn throws a barb at intellectuals that comes across as unnecessarily defensive, even though I think much of the general criticism he directs at them is warranted. The book makes a good case for the importance of intellectuals who live outside the ivory tower and who seek to bring the life of the mind to ordinary people. I come from a blue collar background, and my own intellectual life was started by another blue collar intellectual of sorts, the late Francis Schaeffer, who played the same roll for many ordinary evangelical Christians that the individuals in this book played for mid-twentieth century middle-class Americans.

This book is important because at a time when our culture seems to be more and more inundated with mass media stupidity, and more and more people seem to devote less and less time to reading or thinking about things that matter, it serves as a reminder that the life of mind is not just some rarified club that only highly educated professionals can enter into. Anyone willing to devote the time and effort can participate in the great intellectual conversations of the ages. 

On the Need to Please Others

I have struggled my entire life with needing to please other people. At times this has placed me in situations of mostly unnecessary misery. I’ve really come to see this clearly in the past several months, which have been among the most acutely miserable of my life.

It all began just after I moved last September. I was working my first day on a new job, when I received a message on my cell phone from another potential employer. I had interviewed for both jobs on the same day and was almost immediately offered a job by the first. Now the second company was also offering me a job.

I thought the second company would be offering me a full time position with benefits, but the job they offered me turned out to be only a part-time position. I wanted to turn them down but felt almost obligated to accept the job offer from them, because I had told them I would rather work for them. To say no now would make me look bad. Instead, I ended up accepting the job from them, then attempting to work out a schedule that would accommodate both jobs. This was a mistake.

The next day, in part, I believe, due to the stress I put myself under trying to please what I perceived as other’s expectations, I became sick with a sinus infection. As I have already written about previously, in a former post, this sinus infection became a chronic illness that I am still fighting, although I am currently much better than I was for some time.

After two months, I finally determined, with the help of friends, that I should leave the second job, due to my chronic illness. I wrestled with this decision, in part because I was still concerned about disappointing other’s expectations of what I should do. I was afraid that some folks would see my quitting as irresponsible. Once again, I stressed myself out due to my fear of disappointing people. Thankfully, due to continued wise counsel from others, I stuck with the decision.

As time passed and I continued to be sick, I came to realize that even my failure to get better became an opportunity to feel I was disappointing other’s expectations. All of my friends and co-workers wanted me to get better and every time I saw any of them, the question of my health became a prime topic of conversation. I got tired of being asked how I was feeling since the answer was always negative. I felt I was disappointing other’s hopes for me by not getting better. This made me want to withdraw from people.

As I’ve reflected on this experience recently, I’ve come to realize just how deeply the need to meet other’s expectations controls me. I could give numerous other examples of this. I can’t help but wonder if it’s one reason that I like to spend so much time alone. Being alone, even when it’s painful, is often easier than being around people who you might upset or disappoint in some way.

So, the question that confronts me now is “Having become aware of this character flaw, what will I do about it?” It is easy to say that I will try to live differently, but it is difficult to break the hold of a mindset you’ve lived with your entire life. The short answer is that I don’t know, but I hope that I can begin to learn how to live my life without carrying the burden of having to please other people all the time. While making people happy can be a good thing, obsequiousness is not a virtue. It can paralyze us and inhibit us from becoming the people God has called us to be and from truly accomplishing what He has given us to do.

Reality vs Ideology

I recall my perplexity upon finishing Solzhenitsyn’s “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” for the first time. I knew that the book had won the Nobel Prize for Literature and I believed (and still believe) that its author was one of the true heroes of the 20^th century. I was interested in reading it partly because of its status as a work of great literature, and partly because I was interested in its critique of Soviet totalitarianism and ideology. When I finished reading it, I was confused because the book contained no explicit denunciations or critiques of communist ideology. Instead, in simple and straightforward prose, it told the story of a single day in the life of a concentration camp prisoner without ever making any direct commentary on the system that had led to his being present there.

What I recently realized, years later, is that that, in fact, is one of the main sources of the novel’s power. The critique of ideology present in the book is not in the form of an explicit theoretical treatise, but rather in the form of a simple exercise of bearing witness, in showing the reader a snapshot of what is, or was, albeit in fictionalized form. The character of Ivan Denisovich is not a cypher or a symbol of some larger ideal, he is exactly and only what he appears to the reader as in the novel's pages, a human subject attempting to survive and even thrive under conditions of ideologically imposed brutality.

The reason for this, I now see, is that the language of ideology is the language of theoretical abstractions. While theoretical language is an unavoidable and necessary part of writing and speaking, it is more easily detached from the reality of ordinary human experience and therefore, more susceptible to abuse. This is because formulating a set of beliefs about the way the world should be, always involves abstracting away from what is. The ideologue often becomes committed to this vision in a way that makes him or her impervious to the realities of lived human experience, attempting to force his vision onto the world at all costs. When given the power to force others to conform to its vision of how things should be, this fanaticism can lead to oppression and suffering.

It is easy to recognize the destructiveness of particular ideologies and the toll they take or have taken on human beings. Most of us recognize the evils of Nazi Germany or Communist Russia. What is less easy for some to recognize, is that even the critique of ideology can itself become ideological. In the words of Georgetown University professor Patrick Deneen, “Can the principled stand against a politics based upon the application of universalized principle avoid becoming universalized?” Or, as conservative thinker D. G. Hart observes when discussing the conservative critique of ideology,

Conservatism arose as a denunciation of theoretical (read: ideological) approaches to politics, such as the French Revolutionaries’ attempt to rationalize and even mechanize traditional French society. Of course, the temptation for conservatism is to respond with a rival theory of politics for the good society.

This leads us back to Solzhenitsyn’s novel. It’s strength lies precisely in its failure to provide a counter ideology to that of the Soviet system it exposes. It does not give us a theoretical tool that we can abstract and use to advance our own ideological causes. It simply shows us the human reality of life under an ideological tyranny. It presents us with a reality to which we must respond. This is the novel’s lasting power and genius.