Quarantine Thinking

Errors in thinking destroy lives. We realize that, on an individual level, when we see the unhealthy choices people make; ‘drowning my sorrow tonight is worthwhile’ is widely recognized as an action in self-destruction.

One of the major errors in thinking is ‘dropping the context’ in which a decision must be made. For a thought process to lead to a valid conclusion, the full context must be taken into account. That means immediate and long-range results. It also means narrow as well as wide-ranging ripple effects.

You would have to go far to find this principle exemplified better than in the public response to covid-19. Responses have been myopic, at best.

Obviously, care needs to be exercised in this situation – extreme care in the case of the more vulnerable. And that includes people understanding that being a carrier is not being a good neighbor. “Flattening the curve” is a valid medical concern.

However, fighting the virus is not the only input to this equation. For years, we’ve been told – correctly – that poverty kills. Whether it leads to people not seeking medical help when they should, or a burden of debt that makes one a slave to the credit card company, or whatever, poverty does destroy life (often slowly.) Where’s the discussion during this time of the tradeoff between the strictly medical viewpoint being pursued by those in charge and a broader point of view that includes the ramifications of the forced shutdown, likely leading to a recession or worse? Statism kills too, but I see almost no discussion of any limits the government should have on its actions during this time. The so-called empathetic response to the mandated economic hardships is bailouts – millions for the big business types, a thousand or two for the working man – as part of a trillion dollar response package by the Fed and Treasury. For years I’ve believed that the national debt was the biggest issue facing America. This will not make it better!

Unfortunately for us, politicians live by the motto of never letting a crisis go to waste. This virus has handed them a wonderful opportunity – and they jumped on it with both feet, turning a medical problem into a full-blown economic crisis. The stress of the formerly degenerating economic market has now been put down by a massive stimulus/bail out package and interest rates of zero. The spectre of a control economy is back, fanned by elites who have wanted that ever since the world wars showed how it could be done. It’s little wonder Sanders has dropped out of sight; he’s superfluous now.

The most haunting aspect of the discussion, however, is the unchallenged assumption underlying the many edicts, that government should have the authority to control our lives, jobs, and movements. It’s sad that the only real pushback to the draconian shutdowns was from the narcissistic hedonists on college break. We have morphed from a nation of responsible individualists to a nation of sheep, meekly following the latest rule.

The French economist Bastiat published a short story many years ago entitled the Parable of the Broken Window. To paraphrase it, a boy breaks a window, and the townspeople decide it was a good thing because now the hardware store and a contractor will see business to fix it. Bastiat’s answer was, no, you must take into consideration the unseen consequences as well. Now, the money going to restore the status quo will not be used to purchase new shoes the window owner needed. So after fixing the window, the owner is sitting where he was – a good window and worn out shoes – but minus the savings used to fix the window. And the shoe store is out of a sale. A fallacy in thinking led the townspeople to embrace a destructive action.

I’m afraid that is where we find ourselves today. We will be living with the consequences of our destructive actions well past this particular flu season.

On Being on the Board

I couldn’t help but think last evening of the difference between being “hard headed” and “hard hearted.” I am on the Board of a local non-profit. A Board member had resigned, and the Board was discussing the acceptance of the resignation.

Probable the most important characteristic this lady brought to the Board was a compassionate heart. She kept the “human cost” of all decisions before the Board at all times.

Now there’s no denying the fact that the Board must be hard-headed in many of its decisions. Money is tight, the rules are many, everyone has their own idea regarding the best means to our end, and we have a fiduciary responsibility to the donors. We need a ‘forehead of flint.’

But we need to keep in mind at all times that all decisions affect people – each with their own hopes, need, and desires. A soft heart that listens to them, and chooses the best outcome (for everyone) in human terms is, ultimately, the reason we are on the Board. Love for our “neighbor” is as important here as everywhere else.

May I ever keep that in mind.

Useless Salt

For many years, I’ve stood amazed at the complete lack of powerlessness of today’s Christian church. Whether talking about the political values supposedly endorsed by the church, or the ethical tenets espoused by Christians, or the views on truth and metaphysics once seen as true, the beliefs of Christianity are facing major headwinds recently. Indeed, it looks like Christianity is in full-bore retreat.

Why?

I’d like to propose three stances that have led us to today’s situation. All three boil down to one major issue – Christians have abandoned the manual put out by the Creator. There is a lot of power available when we play by the rules. But we’ve rejected the rules.

The first rejection was the rejection of the Dominion Mandate. Mankind was told to have dominion over the earth and its resources. Our role was to act as steward of the resources given to us, but that was rejected. The result was irrelevancy.

Second, the church has rejected the leadership role in philosophy (especially epistemology) that, at one time, set the foundation for the modern world. For years, the Bible was seen as Truth, with Theology being the Queen of the deliberative sciences. But arguing that ‘Jerusalem’ had nothing to do with ‘Athens,’ Christians turned over the pursuit of truth and its justification to secular philosophy and theology became narrowly focused. But secular philosophy could not come up with a justification for truth. So the rejection of philosophy was synonymous with the rejection of Truth. With no truth, Christianity had nothing of value to offer.

In a move parallel to the rejection of philosophy, Christians also rejected the Old Testament of the Bible, with its emphasis on practical points of justice and right living. The Biblical worldview provided the belief in an orderly universe necessary for science. It provided the legal support for private property that led to a flourishing economy. It puts constraints around people’s actions that led to a legal system upholding the dignity of each individual person. With the rejection of the practical points of the Bible, the tools of the Christian were thrown out. The result was powerlessness.

Irrelevant, powerless, with nothing to offer. That’s the price of rejecting the Bible as God’s word.

Inner/Other

One of the most prescient books I read in my college years was the book The Lonely Crowd by David Riesman. Its main thesis was that modern man can be divided into two groups according to their social modus operandi. One group Riesman called inner-directed; for them, social interaction is constrained by their tendency to acquire early in life an internalized set of goals. The second group he calls other-directed; they have a social character whose interaction is driven by their tendency to be sensitized to the expectations and preferences of others.

One of the characteristics of a great social theory is its power to explain. I have turned to this division time and again to help me understand people’s actions. Lately, for example, I was contemplating why I (a strong inner-directed personality) seem to find it easier to go against the group in a committee setting, pushing a different course of action than a friend who is more other-directed can.

Many times I’ve wondered how Christianity will fare in a world becoming progressively more other-directed. Persuade an inner-directed person of the truth of Christianity and he will go that direction even if he has to go it alone. But an other-directed person, who takes his cues from the crowd around him, will struggle terribly in a secular world. Does that mean the Church should modify its approach to winning souls to account for this?

And what does the rise of the other-directed masses mean for politics? Years ago I wrote the following in the margins of my copy of The Lonely Crowd: By using one’s peer group as the basis for establishing norms, one opens the door to ‘tyranny of the group’ [i.e. despotic peer pressure.] This way, people end up mimicking an elite, including their personal ideas and actions. That’s a good explanation for people’s actions, from the oxymoronic ‘cookie cutter individualism’ of the 60’s to the mindless mobs of today.

While it was considered a landmark study in its day, one seldom hears any reference to the work today. (The book’s actual thesis is much more involved and complicated than I mention here!) But I thank him for his proposed explanation for people’s ‘guidance system’ because it has helped me understand events in my life.