THOUGHTFULLY DRIVING THE PORCELAIN BUS

A Column by John S Schroeder

August 3, 2002

As I write, I am on vacation. The wife and I are following the route of the original transcontinental railroad – and having a grand time. Perhaps the most striking thing I have seen so far is the lack of respect there is for that particular achievement.

We decided to make this trip because I read a book, (believe it or not I do that from time to time) and I was absolutely overwhelmed with what it took to complete that road. I had previously traveled sections of it, often unknowingly, and know how incredibly hostile the country crossed was. That territory was hostile to human habitation, and given the tools of the time (back labor) hostile to development. I wanted to travel it again and imagine there was no one around and no comfort and try to get a feeling for what it took.

We started our journey in Sacramento, California, where the Central Pacific Railroad started its eastbound journey. Within feet of the actually starting point now sits the California State Railroad Museum, an apt beginning we thought. As one enters the museum, they funnel you into a theatre where you will be treated to "a film on the transcontinental railroad." I thought that would be a great idea, until I saw the film. I was interested in surveying and engineering; I wanted to know about supply logistics and grading materials. One of the most fascinating stories of the whole affair was the use of dynamite and some of the first uses of the far more explosive, and less stable nitroglycerin, but that wasn’t in the film either. No, what I learned from this film, produced at taxpayer expense I might add, was the ethnicity of the various workers involved in the construction and operation of the railroad. I learned that porters and servers on the railroad were some of the first jobs available to free blacks. I learned that Hispanics work in the railyards a lot and I learned about all the wonderful inroads women are making, driving locomotives and such. What a waste of my time!

I honest to God do not care about the diversity of people that worked and do work on the railroads. I care that people do it, and I care that they do it well, but I don’t care if they are black, green, or yellow. Here is what I think I have figured out. All the attention that is paid to diversity today, whether in terms of gender, or race, or sexual ‘orientation’ is just another expression of the narcissism that is running amok in our society. The focus we have developed on diversity is not the opposite of the racism of the past, it is an attempt to leverage race (or gender or sexual orientation) into political power. It is about getting what is wanted, and that is about as narcissistic as it gets. The opposite of racism is a lack of attention to race not an overt acknowledgement of it. This is not original to me; I seem to remember some civil rights leader saying something in Washington about a dream when people will be judged "…not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." I know I am not the only person in America that remembers that speech. I also seem to remember some guy Paul saying; "…there is no Jew or Gentile…."

The point is fairly simple, race, or gender, or sexual orientation has become such a big thing in our society today because we have removed anything larger than ourselves from public discourse. That’s why MLK, Jr. got it, and we don’t today. He knew God and was not afraid to mention it in public. By acknowledging something larger and more important than ourselves, we gain the perspective necessary to see that race is just not all that important, that gender has a real purpose and differing roles in creation, and that there are rules about sexual behavior.

Now all of that is fine and dandy, it is just so much more political rhetoric out there on the web, there is no shortage of this stuff, and I am not being all that original to this point. My concern, as usual, is with the church. Much of this talk about diversity is making its way through the church. In the forefront now is the issue of sexual orientation. Even the newspapers are devoting much coverage to debates in the church on this issue. Because of the argument I have just made it gravely concerns me that in debating these issues so heavily and so strongly, the church is losing sight of its primary role in society. That role being to serve as the institution that reminds us all that there is something bigger and more important than our own petty self-interest.

The church filled this role rather admirably I think in the late 50’s and the 60’s in the debate on racial equality. Skin color really is insignificant and the church was key in pointing that out. However, because civil rights were the premiere issue for liberalism at that time, the church seems to have linked itself closely with liberalism in general, at least the mainline churches. Thus the other issues of liberalism now become issues for the church, and the church is rapidly losing its way in them.

As I have said, the church did great things in racial equality. I think it is 50-50 on the gender thing, women were probably too restricted in the past, but I am unable to do away with some of the scriptural restrictions on a woman’s activity, so I am unsure on the "total" equality thing. Sexual orientation is the current battleground and so far, most churches are holding the proper ground on that issue. Let’s step away from the specific issues of race/gender/sexual orientation equality for a minute, and look at a more general aspect of liberal thought. That aspect is the idea that all thought that is "old" is somehow tainted by that age and requires enlightenment by "modern" reality.

There are two objections that I have with this "maxim" as it is applied to the church. The first objection is that such thought assumes that things like the nature of God, the nature of man, and the relationship between the two is subject to change based on new developments. The second objection is the assumption that the new automatically discredits the old, instead of enhances it.

Let's consider the first objection I mention first. Has God changed over the centuries? If He has, He is no God that I want to worship. I thought the very definition of "God" was perfect, right, and infallible. If God changed, then it would mean that He was somehow incorrect or wrong, or at least incomplete before He changed and therefore fallible, and therefore something less than God. Has man changed? This is a much more difficult question. Certainly our capabilities have changed. Certainly we have learned more about creation. But that is not the question. Has anything in our core or essence changed? I don’t think so. For evidence, I offer to you the ancient world.

One of the oddest sensations I have ever had was when exploring the ruins of the "agora" in Athens, Greece. Everyone is familiar with the Acropolis and the Parthenon that resides atop it, but unless you have been to Athens, few know that the ruins of the active ancient city lie at the bottom of that hill. This is the place where people lived and worked and recreated. As I strolled down the main "street" and looked at the building and their various functions, I was overwhelmed by how similar life in ancient Greece was to current life. There were restaurants, gymnasiums, homes, offices, and places of work and places of recreation and places of worship. People did the same things with their days that we do now. Yes, they may have walked to their destination. No, they did not have cell phones. But by and large they got up, ate breakfast, went to work, maybe stopped at a bar or the gym on the way home, went to a play on weekends, and so forth and so on. Based on my experience I would say that man has changed little throughout time. His emotions and sensations, his needs and desires, his basic composition remains the same.

Has the relationship between God and man changed? Again, I have to answer this one with a "NO." Many people will disagree with me on this point, arguing that Jesus changed everything. I can't quite buy that. First of all, one must consider that given who God is, and given who man is, the relationship is very much defined by God, not by man. God is so much larger and more powerful than man, that man is reduced to responding to God, he can do little to make God behave in any given fashion. That being true, the unchangeableness of God discussed earlier must also apply to the relationship of God to man. Secondly, as I read the Old Testament, I see God doing the same things there that He does in the New Testament. God forgives and condemns, He relates and turns His back on. I do not see Jesus changing how God relates to man so much as He enhanced the communications. God's grace existed and was exercised in the O.T., but in Jesus that grace was communicated far more effectively than it could have been through the Torah. I think it is fair to say that the relationship between God and man has been improved, but "changed" is stretching a point.

No, I think that the truths of religion lie far more in the past than the present. We are not about "finding" truth; we are about "understanding" truth. To disregard older knowledge in favor of newer is to make God into less than He is.

With Love,