sixtyfour

THOUGHTFULLY DRIVING THE PORCELAIN BUS

A Column by John S Schroeder

May 17, 2003

There is a natural tension in our existence between the way things are and the way things ought to be. All of us sense it in one way or another, and all of us must learn to live in that tension. I personally think that that tension is an apologetic argument for the existence of God. It’s probably just a variant on Anselm’s ontological argument with a bit of the cosmological argument thrown in, yet one cannot help but think that if we can conceive of a "way things ought to be," that there is a source for that concept. Furthermore, to have that source must be in a position to know what ought and ought not to not be and is therefore a creator or designer of things. But I digress….

Everyday, we have to make decisions, big and small between the way things are and the way things ought to be. For example, you come out of the grocery store, you set a bag of groceries on the car trunk and the can of peas makes a slight mark on the finish of your car. Your car is no longer the way it ought to be. Do you drop everything and go get it rubbed out? Most people would not, most people would say the car does not have to be perfect all the time. Thus you have made a choice between the way things ought to be and the way they actually are.

The major cultural decline of the last half-century in America is, as far as I am concerned, in large part due to the fact that religion, and in particular Judeo-Christian religion has been removed from public discourse as the definer of the way thing ought to be. More importantly nothing has replaced it as a universal definer. As a society we no longer argue about how best to achieve a set of goals, we argue about what the goals are.

Each individual lives somewhere on the spectrum between where we are and where things ought to be. Those that live close to the side that is where things are are called pragmatists. Those that try to live where things ought to be are called idealists. Current American liberalism is a classic example of what happens when an idealist jettisons any source or authority for his or her ideals. I personally think that the failure to accept a source and authority for ideals is the devils work. I can think of little that has wrecked more havoc.

Pragmatists, interestingly, are usually the people in our society that get things done. The reason is pretty simple; to move a rock from point A to point B you have to accurately evaluate where A and B are and then determine the amount of force necessary to accomplish the movement. An idealist would probably, on the other hand, sit there for several days and make sure that B was the ideal destination. By the time the idealist ever did anything the pragmatist would have moved half the rocks in the world.

Let’s assume for a moment that we do not start our rock-moving race competition until the idealist as agreed with the pragmatist on the finish line. The pragmatist will still have an advantage because the pragmatist will have all possible tools and means at his disposal while the idealist will generally only be willing to use the "ideal" set of tools. The ideal set of tools is often not readily available, so while the idealist is at the machine shop making the ultimate crow bar, the pragmatist moves the rock with a branch he tears off a tree nearby.

Up until the last few years, most people in the church held the same ideals in terms of the ideal destination. That has begun to erode lately, but more on that in a second. However, for sometime, in fact really throughout history, many in the church have failed to see that the ideal applies not only to the destination, but also to the journey. The reason the church now openly argues about what is the ideal destination is because they have been so pragmatic on how they were willing to get there, that it simply eroded the goal itself.

This is why I get so nervous when people talk about the church having to make itself more relevant to our society and culture today. That very statement is letting go of an ideal. It is not a matter of the church conforming to society – it is a matter of society conforming itself to the church, which should, in turn be conforming itself to Christ. If we talk about conforming to society, we are losing focus on the ideal.

Of course, at this point the debate always digresses into a discussion of what elements of church life are really a matter of conforming to Christ and what is just window dressing. But that discussion misses the point. Christ is interested in transforming all parts of our life, not just some of them. Even asking the question says we have lost sight of the ideal, because the ideal is TOTAL immersion into Christ Jesus.

Having said that, I have no idea how to run a church that way. Yes, when the question comes up, we need to stop discussing and start praying, but we cannot pray forever, and usually after prayer there is no better consensus on what to do than there was before.

But here is what I do know. In moving the church forward, in answering questions that definitionally take our eyes off the ideal, we must feel a sense of grief. There must be some mourning. There must be an acknowledgement that with this decision, in this place, at this time, we are doing what we must, but we are doing less than we should. When we do not, when we cheer the decision, when we hype the move, we erode the path, and we erode the destination.

Life in a sinful world often places us in a position where we have to decide between two lesser options. But in so doing we cannot afford to not know that they are lesser options. We must know there is a still better way, and we must strive for that better way. Sometimes, we have to make the practical decision, but we can never lose sight of the ideal choice.

With Love,