Wednesday May 3, 2006

Understanding Who Blocks Reform

by Pascal Fervor

At comment number 15 here at Eternity Road, Francis Porretto responded to a challenge. Being necessarily short because it appeared in the comments section, Fran's answer displayed more curmudgeonly quip than his normal erudition. However, that commentary segues well with a theme I'm working on and have not yet completed, [subsequently completed] on sacrifice, and I do not want to miss this opportunity to merge some of the best in the religious world's principles to the secular world's problems (something I have gotten from Fran in the past and have repeatedly urged him to do more). Think of this as a precursor to what, at number 2 of my own comments here, I expect to finish soon.

Matthew 19:23-24:

“Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel [rope]* to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

The critical questions here are why? and how does the context color this? The rich of Judea in Christ’s time were mostly morally compromised, either with the ruling elite of the priesthood or with the Roman occupation. But one can also legitimately suggest that Christ did not depend on that context—that He intended the statement to apply more widely than to first-century Judea. In which case one must ask: what about wealth would make it hard for a rich man to find salvation?

The answer is gluttony: the obsession with material things. Yet one can be rich yet not be a glutton, just as one can be fat yet not be an overeater. Riches themselves don’t condemn a man; they merely add to the array of temptations to neglect the life of the spirit he must face. Note how many of Christ’s parables feature rich and upright men, and ponder why He would have chosen such examples to illustrate his themes. Ponder also the Parable of the Talents, and the Parable of the Sower, and what they signify for the serious, respectful treatment of the things of this world.

Let me first define sins in secular terms: those thoughts and actions which propel us past sound principles (rules proven to lead to better consequences) due to the allure of other flashy or less demanding attractions. You know, behavior described by phrases such as “throwing care to the wind,” or the ultimate in rationalizations “we must be pragmatic.”

At the top of the reasons that the seven capital sins are called deadly, among which gluttony and greed are listed, is the harm the sins do to pursuit of the Cardinal virtues: prudence, temperance, courage, justice. Of these four, it is the last where that is solely about proper conduct with other men.

I contend that this passage from Matthew best applies to men who were morally compromised not just in Christ's time as Fran stipulated, but also in our own time and, indeed, throughout all time. And why? Because it is so easy to fail to pursue justice when confronted by the fear of loss of what one has worked so hard to acquire. Money displaces courage perhaps. But assuredly the very thought of looming sacrifices they themselves might have to endure – “For what? For whom?” – becomes so very hard for someone who has forgotten privation and the injustices that often accompany it.

See where I'm leading? Here is my answer to why a rich man finds it hard to find salvation: He blocks reforms to justice.

Why? Is he heartless and callous? No, not from the start. But why is it not clear how satisfaction with what he has is so easily accompanied by fear that reforms will put it all at risk? It is highly probable (unless he's deeply spiritual) that his circumstances makes it hard for him to permit changes. To the well-to-do, changes that do not work directly for him are suspect. And this is just the otherwise good man; leave aside the bad men who have other reasons for thwarting justice. Let it be understood, that in this thing at least – the thwarting of justice – both otherwise good men and bad men are allies.

Frequently, Fran, as we have discussed our nation's problems and what blocks reforms to them, don't we have a label for it already? Isn't this indicative of what is at core the problem of what we call Establishmentarianism?

Recall the closing lines of the Declaration of Independence? And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. Most all of these men had much to lose but were willing to do so. They understood sacrifice and were willing to do so. And we know they were opposed by many others. They might have called all of them as Tories, even those for whom nothing more than acceptance of continued “but not necessarily increasingly harsh” dominance of the Crown meant they could keep most of what they had. For the satisfied it became a question that made siding with the crown easier: “after all, who are the loyal subjects and who were the rebels?”

Now let's take the issue to the contemporary world. What is wrong with the Republican Party? Don't we almost all bemoan the party's dominance by the Rockefeller wing, the country-clubbers? That they are too far removed from the virtues of our great republic? Yet by virtue (!) of their wealth and influence, they demand that the party and its elected officials (and even “conservative” media pundits) veer from conservative principles on an increasingly regular basis: “you must be pragmatic (or your funding dries up).” Whose companies' pay for the ads that keep afloat the otherwise failing, statist propagandizing, mainstream media. Worse, through their foundations that live on past their lifetimes, they notoriously fund some of the most virulently anti-American Leftist organizations in the country. And those groups go on to fund and staff the Democratic Party which stands in opposition to us conservatives in every way imaginable, and well beyond reason -- into slander and worse.

From this unholy alliance of money and fear of real change comes travesties and illusions. Among the worst? Things and groups that have been granted the label Progressive are in actuality progressively repressive (e.g., government programs of every variety). Things labeled as Liberal are anti-liberal (e.g., speech codes and campaign finance “reform”). And their money also enables extortion and and paying scaremongers for screeds to help them keep control (e.g., the “urgency” of supporting the Establishmentarian's front Arnold Schwarzenegger over Tom McClintock (who would have challenged $billions in energy contracts) by enlarging the Bustamante Bogeyman). All because the well-to-do fear upsetting things as they are (“yes it's not good; but it's not necessarily increasingly harsh.”), or reversing ill gains (and the reforming of a system that allows them) as in the case of supporting which California governor? The one who might challenge questionable business/government energy contracts and practices or the one who didn't? And as if the cost of the contracts weren't bad enough, just look at what else the wealthy actor and Kennedy family member has gone on to promote in order to gain accolades from people who dislike him anyway -- the radical (redundant in California) Left. Californians are now saddeled with additional hare-brained environmental schemes and shameless counter-family promotions by the rich-man's choice for a governor simply because he committed not to challenge the system under which those rotten contracts were permitted. All as bad or worse than the principled Right had warned!

Is this phenomenon of the well-to-do the only limit to reforms? Hardly. But I am aiming to help get the rest of our world to understand what is limiting us. I believe Matthew 19:23-24 provides a good window on that. To that we cannot continue to live with a GOP party (please forget 3^rd parties!) that is too influenced if not totally controlled by that which that supports both parties because it suits their agenda (maintain the status quo at least) and serves poorly or badly the vast majority of citizens. I have no illusions. Challenging this system would require much effort and even sacrifice by us littler guys. Certainly more effort than we are currently exhibiting by waiting for the “party leadership to do it.” Because they aren't going to do it. Why? Because of the lesson to be gained by interpreting this passage as it probably was meant to be understood.

O.K. Fran? Can you please take it from here? How about the rest of you?

*[totally separate side note and not the intent of this commentary]: I may be going out on limb here, but I am not alone in seeking this correction. That camel is almost certainly a well-entrenched mistranslation from the Greek. It is unfortunate because the camel may add to the passage's meaning that it is impossible for the well-to-do to repent. For while a rope may be trimmed (repent, reform), a camel is simply inappropriate to a needle to begin with. However, Jesus was quite clear about the possibility for the most wretched of men to repent and ask forgiveness. Hence rope is aright with the idea of trimming our load in this world, while the use of camel, aside for making a terribly mixed metaphor, lacks any suggestion for repentance which is near core of the Nicaean creed. [end side note]