Making Sense of It
To many of us the outcome of Tuesday’s election is incomprehensible. In multiple ways, it doesn’t make any sense. But if forty six years of life’s puzzles have taught me anything, it’s that when you’re inundated by the incomprehensible, it’s time to focus for a while on what is clear and certain.
Often enough the incomprehensible starts to make sense somewhere in that process.
Maybe you don’t need what follows, but I did. Just passing it along.
Four things that are still true after Tuesday
1. God is perfect and unchanging.
For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob. (Mal 3:6)
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. (Jas 1:17)
2. God’s plan is on schedule and unaltered.
In the days of Hezekiah and Isaiah, Sennacherib imagined that his seemingly unstoppable sequence of victories was due to his own genius and might. God set the record straight.
Did you not hear long ago How I made it,
From ancient times that I formed it?
Now I have brought it to pass,
That you should be
For crushing fortified cities into heaps of ruins.
Therefore their inhabitants had little power;
They were dismayed and confounded;
They were as the grass of the field
And the green herb,
As the grass on the housetops
And grain blighted before it is grown.
But I know your dwelling place,
Your going out and your coming in,
And your rage against Me. (Is 37:26–28)
Tuesday’s outcome really surprised and disturbed a lot of us. It didn’t surprise or disturb God at all.
3. The human race is weak and wicked.
I really am a believer in American exceptionalism, though what follows may not seem to fit the mold.
If you take all the societies and civilizations that have risen and fallen over the centuries and imagine looking at them from thirty thousand feet, they all look a lot alike. If you imagine how they look from, say, the Moon, they’re even more alike. And if we observe them through God’s lens, so to speak, the range of quality between the lowest of nations and the best of nations—or between any nation at its best and that same nation at its worst—isn’t very dramatic.
Of course, here on the ground the differences between the best and worst societies are pretty huge—and they do matter. It’s just that even when a society reaches the best point any human society can reach, God is not going to be impressed, and for good reason.
I keep going back to Genesis 11 these days. Human society got all high on itself, declared it would do what had never been done before (Gen. 11:4), and eventually convinced itself. Then they started saying they could do absolutely anything and convinced themselves of that, too (Gen. 11:6).
For the benefit of all societies thereafter—as well as their own—God gave them a lesson in humility (and in the folly of dreamy-eyed collectivism, frankly). By confusing the languages, He exposed to the ages the true foolishness and weakness of all human societies—even the best of them.
Consider a very different context, but the same principle:
Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked— I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. (Re 3:17–18)
If a church of Jesus Christ could be in that condition, we have to conclude that every human being and every human society that has ever existed has been wretched, poor, miserable, blind and naked—or worse.
This reality doesn’t call for abandoning the “culture war” or abandoning efforts to improve the morality of our society—but that’s a topic for another day. What this truth does demand of us is that we step back, take a deep breath, and realize that if we could snap the USA back to whatever idealized age we like tomorrow morning, we’d still discover that the country is full of bad policy, full of stubborn social problems, and—not coincidentally—full of sinners.
Individual sinners or nations—it doesn’t matter; they both utterly fail to bring about the redemption and transformation they truly need. They require rescue by the Redeemer who is “not of the world” (John 17:16).
4. The end of the story is glorious.
Here’s the end of the story—or at least, an especially sweet part of it:
Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!” And the twenty-four elders who sat before God on their thrones fell on their faces and worshiped God, saying:
“We give You thanks, O Lord God Almighty,
The One who is and who was and who is to come,
Because You have taken Your great power and reigned.
The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come,
And the time of the dead, that they should be judged,
And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints,
And those who fear Your name, small and great,
And should destroy those who destroy the earth.” (Rev. 11:15-18)
The rise and fall of rulers and civilizations—even our own eventually—has zero impact on how the story of life on Earth ends, beyond this: all the weak and foolish and clumsy (and sometimes evil) empires that came before it make the final Kingdom look that much better by contrast.
To some, this is an argument for ignoring policy and public morality entirely. Others of us say, not so fast. But as important as it is to draw the right conclusions from these four truths, this might be a good time to set aside inferences and implications and just revel in the certainty of the premises.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 9 views
What does “far right” mean?
I had a conversation recently with a friend who sees the horizontal axis (right-left) as the greed-generosity axis. In another conversation he seemed to see it as the big-business vs. laboring-individual axis.
So to him “far right” = greedier or more corporate and “far left” the opposite.
Both these show no awareness at all that anything happened in the world before the 19th century.
The problem we’ve got on a large scale is folks not defining terms clearly. In reality, conservatism is completely dependent on the principle (along with others) that people are greedy and need regulating. Where it parts company with Liberalism is in
(a) not believing social institutions/society as a whole cause the greed
(b) believing that the best set of regulations we’ll ever devise will fail to adequately prevent greed
(c) rejecting the notion that greed happens among the regulated but somehow not among the regulators.
Liberalism seems to think that instances of greed in government are anomalies while cases of greed in business are inherent in it.
Conservatives know that greed is everywhere and is at least as much a problem in government as it is among the governed (and that, therefore, good policy harnesses this universal human trait rather than naively and vainly trying to change human nature).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I think your friends definition or characterization of far right and far left is grossly oversimplified, and seems to be a stereotype of one who tends to be leftward leaning. In terms of conservatism, there are all sorts of different types of conservatism and I am not really interested in an academic debate about what is or is not conservatism. I am primarily interested, at least in this thread, in the current state of the Republican Party. When I say they have swung very far right as a party, what I mean by that includes a denial of modern science (global warming and evolution to name a few, based primarily on a ‘conservative’ view of the Bible as completely literal/historical/’factual), a quite negative rhetoric towards social issues such as homosexuality, and a seeming denial that the federal government can do anything good.
I have never heard the term conservatism associated with the idea people are greedy and need regulating. At its core, conservatism is about retaining traditional institutions, values, and concepts.
In terms of your ideas about how conservatism departs from liberalism, I think you are as uncharitable to liberalism as your friend was to conservatism or the “far right.” I don’t personally know a liberal who thinks social institutions/society as a whole causes greed, except that many of these institutions are run by greedy individuals who tend to be greedy as a group as well. I also don’t know any liberal who thinks the best set of regulations will adequately prevent greed. On a practical level, liberals tend to understand the need for regulations because people are greedy and there is inequity in the world. And I’m further unaware of a liberal who thinks greed only happens among the regulated, but not among regulators.
I don’t know a single person, to be honest, who thinks instances of greed in government are anomalies. As to your final point, I don’t know any liberal who is trying to change human nature through policy. They are, as you said, trying to harness our sinful traits.
Aaron,
I’d suggest reading up on the roots of conservatism. Rule of law has always been a central concept. Adam Smith—who is famous as economist but was actually a moral philosopher—saw human beings as being irremediably self-interested and that, therefore, the best path for government is to arrange incentives for moral behavior. Trade offs to mitigate the problems that arise from human nature. Even in his economic theory—though it emphasizes a natural order that emerges in the market—Smith has a high view of law to ensure honest transactions, protect property rights, etc.
There is actually no free market unless the participants are reasonably confident that they are safe, that they will be able to keep what they trade for, that they will not be cheated, etc. (The reason true conservatives are so anti-regulation today is that they understand no amount of regulation can change human nature or eliminate greed—and that if societies continue to add law beyond a certain point you have diminishing benefit from that and eventually counter-benefit. More becomes a hindrance rather than a help.)
For understanding conservatism, I highly recommend anything written by Thomas Sowell on economics or political philosophy, but A Conflict of Visions is my current favorite. Russel Kirk’s Conservative Mind is great as well. A fun quick read in recent times is Jay Richard’s Money Greed & God.
If you’re more inclined to go to original sources, I’d start with Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmond Burke, though Hobbe’s work (previous century) has a whole lot of conservative principles in his mix also.
The roads that diverged into today’s Right and Left (in the Western world) really began their routes in the Enlightenment.
The reason there are so many “kinds of conservatives” today is that few have any context going back further than the 1980’s, a few less have some context going back to the 1950s, but fewer yet are aware of the course-setting political thought of the 18th century.
[amazon 0061900575 thumbnail]
[amazon 9659124112 thumbnail]
[amazon 0465002056 thumbnail]
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Andrew,
One of the greatest faults of the West is overly categorizing and creating false dichotomies. There is no inherent dichotomy between education/civilization and the Bible. There is no reason to assume the opposite of education/civilization—i.e. ignorance, superstition, and anarchy—are biblical. Unfortunately, however, when you create these dichotomies you can understand why many Western-thinking liberals reject the Bible. When the “Right,” who claims exclusive ownership of the Bible, tells them we should reject modern scientific discovery, education, etc., they can certainly be pardoned, if they have not been trained outside Western thinking, for rejecting so-called ‘biblical’ principles.
What I have said is not a rejection of the Bible, but a rejection of your interpretation of the Bible. That said, I am in complete agreement the Bible has a pessimistic outlook on human behavior. But the logical conclusion of that outlook does not mean the Bible rejects education or civilization, which in our own times we can see has had a positive effect with respect to things like racism. While racism still exists, we have progressed far ahead of where we were in this country only decades ago.
Furthermore, with respect to the Bible and cynicism, I would argue the Bible is no more cynical towards any group of people than it is to “God’s people.” From the very beginning, Israel sins and behaves as bad or worse than the nations. There are countless stories throughout the Bible teaching this important lesson. And then in the New Testament, you have the same thing, which is the reason most of the Epistles need to be written in the first place. We should learn from these things, which were written for our salvation, and be hesitant to be triumphalistic.
Aaron,
Thanks for your comments in the post above. There is not much I would disagree with in that post. However, I would note that when I read Adam Smith I do not hear much of anything the same as what I hear coming from “conservatives” today. You have given some good reasons for why that is the case, and I appreciate your recommendations.
I also would recommend reading this article, from a professor at Boston College: http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2012/11/after-romney-republican-soul-….
Aaron, you’ll find that just about everybody who frequents this site has a view of the Bible that, for convenience, I’ll call traditional. For us, the approach commonly (and usually derisively) today termed “literal” is a given.
Not coincidentally, people who approach the Bible this way are usually conservative in political philosophy, though most consistently so on the “social issues.” For us, the Bible could not possibly be more clear that homosexual behavior is wrong and self-destructive (both individually and socially), that marriage is man and woman, that killing as-yet-unborn infants is murder (there would be much more variety on how Scripture speaks to economics, immigration, and lots of other issues.)
We simply see no way to take the Bible seriously—and retain continuity with our Christian forbears—without accepting these as givens. Likewise with creation (though a few see room for some kind of creation-evolution synthesis, most of us are young-earth creationists).
Some here might be willing to debate these ideas a little, but they are mostly assumed.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Andrew, interesting you mention education and crime. One of the fascinating things I’ve been reading about in Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions is how views diverged in 18th century regarding what causes the problems we usually term “social problems” - crime, poverty, war, etc.
The radical new idea at the time was the one we’re still seeing expressed on the Left today: human nature is basically good and simply needs to be freed from the ignorance, superstition and irrationality of the past. So there you go… education and rehabilitation.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion