Having heard Krista Tippett’s Speaking of Faith radio program a few times, I couldn’t resist buying the book when I saw it in the discount bin at Borders.  The subtitle to the book, Why Religion Matters—And How to Talk About It, is an issue that’s been on my mind recently.  In traveling to many countries around the world, I have the opportunity to talk to a lot of people of different religious backgrounds: Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics, and atheists among others.  I enjoy talking about religion, but I have internalized the American adage that it’s something you don’t talk about in polite company.  So this book really caught my attention.

Tippett comes from a unique background as the granddaughter of a Midwestern Baptist preacher she was close to and the daughter of irreligious parents.  She moved away from religion in her teens and college years because it didn’t fit her intellectual paradigm, only to be pulled back to it later in life.  A few years ago she began her Speaking of Faith radio program where she interviews preachers and scientists, believers and doubters, poets and statisticians, all to get a wide variety of perspectives on religion.  These are great interviews because these people are intelligent people talking personally.  Even if you don’t agree with them, the environment is so judgment free that you get real feelings on a range of topics.  She also brings a lot of her personal life into the conversation.

The great meat of the book is, first, its emphasis of the importance of religion in the lives of billions of people, and how that can’t be discounted from a personal (micro) or geo-political (macro) perspective.  The second important emphasis is on the personal-ness of religion, and how we can share religion and talk about it as a personal thing, and that we should not feel imposing or imposed upon as personal and spiritual feelings and stories are shared.

It was a really good read that made me more willing and desirous to talk about religion with others.  It even made me understand my own internal faith better.

There were also some great quotes from the book:

Citing (but not quoting) Dietrich Bonhoeffer: “We’ve pushed God to the boundaries, he wrote, where the rest of our knowledge gives out.  We’ve consigned God to the gaps in our scientific understanding, to the wings of our action.  We’ve reserved prayer for when our best efforts fail.”

“[J]ust as worlds of human dignity flourished beneath the East[ern Bloc]’s surface of want, there were layers of human want beneath the surface of Western plenty that I was engaged in defending.  Communism crushed many souls, but it ennobled others.  Capitalism did the same, but with preferable, subtler devices.”

Quoting Luke Timothy Johnson from an interview: “The notion of scripture as being a cadaver that one performs an autopsy on—as opposed to a living body with which one danced—was stunning to me.”

“The human spirit eventually defies the best-laid plans of politics, and we can guess so little of the history before us.”

Quoting John Polkinghorne from an interview: “…God is not a god in a hurry. That’s clear. God is patient and subtle. God works through process and not through magic; not through snapping the divine fingers. And I think that’s what we learn from seeing the history of creation as science has revealed it, and I think that tells us something about how God acts generally. And, when you think about it, if God really is a God whose nature is best described as being the God of love, then that is how love will work. Not by overwhelming force, but by, if you like, persuasive process. So I think we learn something really quite valuable from that. Again, it’s an example of how religious insights about the nature of God and the scientific insights about the process of the world seem to me actually to be very consonant with each other. You can’t deduce one from the other, but you can see it and they fit together in a way that makes sense. They don’t seem to be at odds with each other, and I find that encouraging.”

Also from Polkinghorne: “[A] chemist can take [a] beautiful painting, could analyze every scrap of paint on the canvas, tell you what its chemical composition was, would incidentally destroy the painting by doing that, but would have missed the point of the painting. . . .”

“Science, like religion, is about questions more than about answers—questions and more questions that meet every new answer as soon as it is hatched.”

“[S]cience is neither innately concerned nor equipped to pose questions of ‘why’ or ‘what next’ in a moral, spiritual, or existential sense.”

“[E]ven the best answers of science and religion can become idols, blocking our view of the complexity of what it means to be human.”

Quoting Rainer Maria Rilke: “Love is perhaps the most difficult task given us, the most extreme, the final proof and test, the work for which all other work is only preparation.”

Quoting Thomas Merton: “One of the moral diseases we communicate to one another in society comes from huddling together in the pale light of an insufficient answer to a question we are afraid to ask.”

Citing Roberta Bondi: “God . . . sees us with a great deal more allowance for our humanity than we ever make for each other of for ourselves.”

Quoting Karen Armstrong from an interview: “. . . God is not just a bigger and better version of ourselves writ large, with our likes and dislikes, but a reality that is entirely different.”

Quoting Alexis de Toqueville: “. . . I am certain that [Americans] hold [faith and religion] to be indispensible to the maintenance of republican institutions.  This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.”

“A certain compartmentalization of private reverence from public activity . . . was not sustainable with human nature.”

Quoting Adam Smith: ““The poor man’s son, whom heaven in its anger has visited with ambition, admires the condition of the rich. It appears in his fancy like the life of some superior rank of beings, and, in order to arrive at it, he devotes himself forever to the pursuit of wealth and greatness. Through the whole of his life, he pursues the idea of a certain artificial and elegant repose, which he may never arrive at, for which he sacrifices a real tranquility that is at all times in his power, and which, if in the extremity of old age, he should at last attain to it, he will find to be in no respect preferable to that humble security and contentment which he had abandoned for it. Power and riches appear, then, to be what they are, enormous machines contrived to produce a few trifling conveniences to the body. They are immense fabrics, which it requires the labor of a life to raise, which threaten every moment to overwhelm the person that dwells in them, and which, while they stand, can protect him from none of the severer inclemencies of the season. They keep off the summer shower, not the winter storm, but leave him always as much and sometimes more exposed than before to anxiety, to fear and to sorrow, to diseases, to danger and to death.”

Quoting Yossi Klein Halevi: “You can’t outhate a fundamentalist.  They will win.”

“Kindness—an everyday by-product of all the great virtues—is at once the simplest and most weighty discipline human beings can practice.”

“[P]eople who bring light into the world wrench it out of darkness and contend openly with darkness all of their lives.”

“Our love for our children is often defined by the fact that we cannot spare them pain and save them; that we give them their freedom as necessary steps to creativity, wisdom, and love; that we raise them for the world they go on to create.”

There are more areas of influence than these two facets.  Among them are academia, media, church, community, and family.  All of these are VERY powerful forces.  Unfortunately they have been hijacked by the first two.

Academia has been marginalized as impractical.  “It’s all theory.”  Education has been turned into job training—for business.  Our culture no longer seeks education to better itself, but to better its chances in the marketplace and to better its earning potential.  Consequently, we are well-trained but poorly educated.  We seek easy answers and eschew tough questions.  We have lost the art of discussion and debate, and instead seek out “news sources” that validate rather than challenge our opinions.  In order for academia to regain strength, we must value a thinking education, not just job training or certification, as an integral part of the betterment of our culture.

The media have been turned into the business of entertainment; even programs that purport to inform feel they must sensationalize and “play to the audience.”  There are too few media outlets that make us think and give us unbiased information or make us take a hard look at our warts in the mirror.  Instead they distract us from what is really happening and what we must make happen in response.  They make us feel we’re too small to affect the world around us or that the problem lies with someone else.  We must 1) unplug ourselves and seek better sources of information, sources that make us think (books?); and/or 2) become our own media to the people within our circle of influence.

Religion has lost much of its influence in America.  Although more than 90% of Americans believe in “god,” few participate in organized religion, a tragedy in regards to social support systems.  But, thanks to government, churches don’t have to do these things anymore (irony alert).  They don’t have to “lift up the hands which hang down,” “visit the fatherless and widows,” feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, take in the stranger, clothe the naked, visit the sick, or go unto the prisoner.  The government does all that for us, right?  And so we lose sight of that other side of humanity, and therefore lose perspective on life itself.  We must take back the role of “pure religion” from the government, because we can care for our neighbor better than they can.

Community is a dead concept to most Americans.  We look to Washington and Wall Street for our needs to be met.  We expect individual solutions from people trying to spit into an anthill from 30,000 feet in the air.  Ironically, the more needs we have locally, the more we look to Washington for solutions.  Fat federal fingers don’t have the dexterity of local people, organizations, and functions.  Some of the best solutions to our most pressing needs are conceived and implemented at the local level.  We should all be looking for ways to solve problems locally and to pull back to the local level as much as possible.

The familyis under heavy stress.  Success in families requires selflessness, absolute commitment, time, and a very thick skin, all of which are in short supply in our culture.  Selfishness, pride, and a lack of integrity lead to unmended rifts, divorce, misprioritization of time, money, and emotional effort, an inability to communicate—all of which disintegrates the foundation of society.  None of the other six areas can compensate for the family.  We must put honor above pride, family above self, and integrity above success.

Only through equalizing these spheres of influence can we achieve the balance we need in our lives.

I just returned from seeing my children perform in a children’s production of A Christmas Carol and I had to write this. It has been on my mind since last Christmas season.

In Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol occurs the following exchange:

‘Forgive me if I am not justified in what I ask,’ said Scrooge, looking intently at the Spirit’s robe, ‘but I see something strange, and not belonging to yourself, protruding from your skirts. Is it a foot or a claw?’

‘It might be a claw, for the flesh there is upon it,’ was the Spirit’s sorrowful reply. ‘Look here.’

From the foldings of its robe, it brought two children; wretched, abject, frightful, hideous, miserable. They knelt down at its feet, and clung upon the outside of its garment.

‘Oh, Man! look here! Look, look, down here!’ exclaimed the Ghost.

They were a boy and a girl. Yellow, meagre, ragged, scowling, wolfish; but prostrate, too, in their humility. Where graceful youth should have filled their features out, and touched them with its freshest tints, a stale and shrivelled hand, like that of age, had pinched, and twisted them, and pulled them into shreds. Where angels might have sat enthroned, devils lurked, and glared out menacing. No change, no degradation, no perversion of humanity, in any grade, through all the mysteries of wonderful creation, has monsters half so horrible and dread.

Scrooge started back, appalled. Having them shown to him in this way, he tried to say they were fine children, but the words choked themselves, rather than be parties to a lie of such enormous magnitude.

‘Spirit, are they yours?’ Scrooge could say no more.

‘They are Man’s,’ said the Spirit, looking down upon them. ‘And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it!’ cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand towards the city. ‘Slander those who tell it ye! Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse! And abide the end!’

‘Have they no refuge or resource?’ cried Scrooge.

‘Are there no prisons?’ said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time with his own words. ‘Are there no workhouses?’

It is easy to sit back and criticize the government for either not doing enough for those who are in real need or for providing entitlements and creating a portion of society dependent on and enthralled to an entity of force. It’s like “shooting fish in a barrel” to complain that business is “heartless” and seeking profit at the expense of the worker.

Where does the responsibility lay? Is it the purview of religion to make sure there is no Want or Ignorance? Is it the isolated role of the education establishment to assure gaining of knowledge, guaranteeing that there will be No Child Left Behind? Do the specialists in the media have the role of informing, opining, swaying public opinion and in effect telling people how to think?

At whose feet does Dickens lay the problems of Want and Ignorance? At yours. At mine. Are there no institutions to solve the problems? Are there no schools to educate the ignorant? Why is ignorance persistently present? Are there no TV programs, internet sites, radio programs, newspapers? Are there no welfare programs? Are there no church programs to address the issue of want? The problems are yours and mine. The solutions will be found in how you and I see the world and our fellow inhabitants hereon.

How often do we find that we use the excuse that Scrooge does early in the book in an attempt to justify Jacob Marley’s existence on earth: “But you were always a good man of business.”? How often are we too busy, to involved in “working for that which does not satisfy” to recognize what we must be truly about here on this planet? True social leadership requires some degree of the following attitude:

“Oh! Captive, bound and double-ironed, not to know that ages of incessant labor, by immortal creatures, for this earth, must pass into eternity before the good of which it is susceptible is all developed! Not to know that any Christian spirit working kindly in its little sphere, whatever it may be, will find its mortal life too short for its vast means of usefulness! Not to know that no space of regret can make amends for one life’s opportunities misused!

When we choose to follow the path of statesmanship, social leadership, discipleship, whatever the term, we sign up for the burden described above. We understand that our responsibility is profound and hard. We don’t cast blame on others for the problems of society; we accept them whole-heartedly as our own and understand that only through our actions can these “children of Mankind”, Want and Ignorance, be transformed by lovingly nourishing each other and sowing knowledge and truth.

Action Step: Seek out those opportunities this year that will allow you to take responsibility for your true business. Remember: “Mankind [is our] business. The common welfare [is our] business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence [are all our] business. The dealings of [our trades are] but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of [our] business!”

The crowd stood stunned, some muttering, some building to angry talk in small groups.  The President resumed, “Are we a Christian nation?”  The crowd murmured.  He asked again, “Are we a Christian nation?”  The crowd reluctantly muttered a spattering of yeses.  “Even those of us who aren’t Christians agree that revenge in the abstract is wrongheaded.  Well, we’re not dealing in the abstract anymore.

“What is America?  It’s not really a place.  It has no geographical boundaries.  It’s a concept not only of freedom and opportunity but also of letting the better angels of our nature rule.  Our Founding Fathers knew that only a moral people could remain a free people.  So, what choice is before us?  Do we descend into revenge to satisfy our base and animal instincts?  Or do we truly honor the lives of the fallen here and at the Pentagon and in Shanksville by rising above.  They, I believe, are in a better place where they are gaining a greater understanding.  And I think if we listen to our hearts, they, and the divinity within us, will speak to us the peace and hope of rejecting revenge.

“We will follow the laws of the land in finding and trying those responsible for this, and we’ll do all we can to prevent any such evil in the future.  We will not forget our loved ones nor the pain we feel at their lives being taken, especially this way.  But we will show our love for them, not through reprisal, but through faithfulness to the highest ideals they shared with us. 

“We must not be vengeful.  It is not in the founding character of America.  Let us pray for the families of the victims, for the families of the terrorists, and for strength to reach higher and be better.”

Some of the people gather around the President and joined him in prayer.  Others stood watching, and still others walked away angrily decrying his words.

But his choice that day made a difference in the world.

Leo Tolstoy is perhaps the ultimate example of the late-in-life nihilist-turned-idealist. He is best known for his mid-life fiction, most notably War and Peace and Anna Karenina. He was early on somewhat of a determinist and nihilist but late in life began a study of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and came away a determined Christian, with significant misgivings regarding the Russian orthodox church specifically and organized religion and government generally. He wrote his thoughts in two books that were significantly suppressed by the Russian Church and the Czarist government.

Tolstoy’s main argument is that believing and proclaiming Christians don’t really believe Christ’s words…at least not in deed. Using the Sermon on the Mount, he argues for a doctrine of “non-resistance of evil.” Starting in St. Matthew 5:38…

38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

The question is, does Christ really mean that we are to turn the other cheek (not retaliate or defend ourselves with violence), that we are to not sue others (or even argue with them when they sue us), and that we are not to resist evil (submit completely without violence to the evil actions that others would put upon us)? Is this what Christ means? Is He serious about it?

Some may argue that sure, that’s the ideal, but Christ really doesn’t expect us to do it. But then these same people would argue that He completely expects us to be able to not fornicate or kill or steal or covet. Does Christ expect perfection? C.S. Lewis states: “The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command.”

As long as we justify that which is difficult by saying it’s idealistic, we will fall short of making any lasting changes in the world.

A few quotes from Tolstoy regarding this issue:

“All of us, when reflecting on the destiny of man, have been struck with terror at the sufferings and evils which our human criminal laws have brought into our lives–evils both for those who judge and for those who are judged…No man of feeling has escaped the impression of horror and doubt concerning “good” produced by the recital, if not the sight, of men executing their fellow-men by rods, the guillotine, or the gallows.”

Many of us have lost this sensibility because we see false death and suffering so much on TV and in movies and video games that perhaps we don’t feel that horror and doubt Tolstoy expresses.

He argues (quite convincingly) that the word “condemn” used in the Greek and “judge” imply a legal damning or using the civil and criminal court system and states that Christ’s injunction against judging and condemning and pulling the mote out really means that we shouldn’t take anyone to court in order to right wrongs.

“In the Gospels, every word of which we esteem sacred, it is said clearly and distinctly, “You have the criminal law–a tooth for a tooth; and I give you a new one–resist not the evil man. Fulfill this commandment all of you, return not evil for evil; always do good to all; forgive all.”

“And farther on we read, “Judge not;” then, in order to render all doubt impossible as to the meaning of His words, Christ adds, “condemn not to punishment by the courts of law.” My heart says clearly, distinctly, “Do not execute.” Science says, “Do not execute; the more you execute, the more evil there will be.” Reason says, “Do not execute; you cannot put a stop to evil by evil.”

“Now I understood what Christ meant when He said, “Ye have hear that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. And I say unto you, Resist not evil.” Christ means, “You have been taught to consider it right and rational to protect yourselves against evil by violence, to pluck out an eye for an eye, to institute courts of law for the punishment of criminals, to have a police, an army, to defend you against the attacks of an enemy; but I say to you, do no violence to any man, take no part in violence, never do evil to any man, not even to those whom you call your enemies.”

“I now understood that, in this doctrine of non-resistance, Christ not only tells us what the natural result of following His doctrine will be, but by placing this same doctrine in opposition to the Mosaic law, the Roman law, and the various codes of the present time, He clearly shows that it ought to be the basis of our social existence, and should deliver us from the evil we have brought upon ourselves. He says, ‘You think to amend evil by your laws, but they only aggravate it. There is one way by which you can put a stop to evil; it is by indiscriminately returning good for evil. You have tried the other law for thousands of years; now try Mine, which is the very reverse.’”

“Each of us gives the doctrine of Christ an interpretation of his own, but it is never the direct and simple one which flows out of His words. We have grounded the conduct of our lives on a principle which He rejects; we do not choose to understand His teaching in its simple and direct sense. Those who call themselves ‘believers’ believe that Christ-God, the second person of the Trinity, made Himself man in order to set us an example how to live, and they strictly fulfill the most complicated duties, such as preparing for the sacraments, building churches, sending out missionaries, naming pastors for parochial administration, etc.; they only forget one trifling circumstance–to do as He tells them…Nobody ever tries to fulfill His teaching. Nor is that all. Instead of making any effort to follow His commandments, both believers and unbelievers decide beforehand that to do so is impossible.”

Lastly:

“He [Christ] says, ‘You think to eradicate evil by your human laws of violence; they only increase it. During thousands and thousands of years you have tried to annihilate evil by evil, and you have not annihilated it; you have but increased it. Follow the teaching I give you by word and deed, and you will prove its practical power.’”

So what do I think about all of this? Is Tolstoy spot on with this non-resistance of evil stuff? It’s really only been implemented politically one time in the modern era and resulted the independence of India and laid the foundation for the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. I think that the only way that peace will reign on the earth is when a critical mass of human beings are willing to actually implement the simple teachings of Jesus Christ fully. As long as we ignore the difficult injunctions and instead take the easy road of violence, war and retaliation and vengeance, we will reap what we sow.

This book and the ideas of this man have greatly changed my personal point of view.  He was a significant force in the thinking of the 20^th Century.  But, like Christ and many other great teachers, many of his ideas are ignored or ridiculed simply because they are too darn hard for us “modern” people to implement.  We justify this to ourselves by calling them quaint and outdated, but really we’re just too lazy to act on them.

Below are some of my favorite quotes (believe me; I could have made it longer).

Personal Goodness and Betterment

“[M]orality is the basis of things and . . . truth is the substance of all morality”

“[I]t went against the grain with me to do a thing in secret that I would not do in public.”

“My hesitancy in speech, which was once an annoyance, is now a pleasure. Its greatest benefit has been that it has taught me the economy of words. I have naturally formed the habit of restraining my thoughts. And I can now give myself the certificate that a thoughtless word hardly ever escapes my tongue or pen. I do not recollect ever having had to regret anything in my speech or writing. I have thus been spared many a mishap and waste of time. . . .  Proneness to exaggerate, to suppress or modify the truth, wittingly or unwittingly, is a natural weakness of man, and silence is necessary in order to surmount it. A man of few words will rarely be thoughtless in his speech; he will measure every word.”

“I think it is wrong to expect certainties in this world where all else but God that is Truth is an uncertainty. . . .”

“To conquer the subtle passions seems to me to be harder far than the physical conquest of the world by the force of arms.”

“[F]orgiveness is more manly than punishment. . . .”

“[S]trength does not come from physical capacity.  It comes from an indomitable will. . . .”

“The tacit contributor is not exempt from the retribution which must fall . . . , for evil is wrought by want of thought, and all who help in the working must partake of its harvest.”

“True sacrifice lies in deriving the greatest pleasure from the deed, no matter what the risk may be.”

“The slightest deviation from the straight and narrow path mapped out here would bring us down the precipice, not because the cause is at all unjust or weak, but because the opposition set up against us is overwhelming.”

“In trying to realize the false dignity of a false education, we have forgotten the true dignity of manual labor. . . .”

“[K]nowledge which stops at the head and does not penetrate into the heart is of but little use. . . .”

“Even a single lamp dispels the deepest darkness. . . .”

“The only tyrant I accept in this world is the ‘still small voice’ within me.  And even though I have to face the prospect of being a minority of one, I humbly believe I have the courage to be in such a hopeless minority.”

“Strength of numbers is the delight of the timid mind.  The valiant of spirit glory in fighting alone. . . .”

 “Constant development is the law of life, and a man who always tries to maintain his dogmas in order to appear consistent drives himself into a false position.  That is why Emerson said that foolish consistency was the hobgoblin of little minds. . . . 

“[A] devotee of Truth may not do anything in deference to convention.  He must always hold himself open to correction, and whenever he discovers himself to be wrong, he must confess it at all costs and atone for it.”

“I have never made a fetish of consistency.  I am a votary of Truth and I must say what I feel and think at a given moment on the question without regard to what I may have said before on it. . . .  As my vision gets clearer, my views must grow clearer with daily practice. . . .”

 “True morality consists not in following the beaten track, but in finding out the true path for ourselves and fearlessly following it.”

“We perish through our perishable bodies if, instead of using them as temporary instruments, we indentify ourselves with them.”

“The modern or Western insatiableness arises really from want of a living faith in a future [resurrected or reincarnated] state, and therefore also in Divinity.”

“[S]ometimes we have to pay too dearly for [compliments].”

Responsibility to our Fellow Man

“It has always been a mystery to me how men can feel themselves honored by the humiliation of their fellow-beings.”

“[S]ervice can have no meaning unless one takes pleasure in it. When it is done for show or for fear of public opinion, it stunts the man and crushes his spirit. Service which is rendered without joy helps neither the servant nor the served. But all other pleasures and possessions pale into nothingness before service which is rendered in a spirit of joy.”

“My experience has shown me that we win justice quickest by rendering justice to the other party.”

“How heavy is the toll of sins and wrongs that wealth, power and prestige exact from man!”

“Happiness, the goal to which we all are striving, is reached by endeavoring to make the lives of others happy, and if by renouncing the luxuries of life we can lighten the burdens of others . . . surely the simplification of our wants is a thing greatly to be desired!”

“Loyalty to human institutions has its well-defined limits.  To be loyal to an organization must not mean subordination one’s settled convictions.  Parties may fall and parties may rise; if we are to attain freedom our deep convictions must remain unaffected by such passing changes.”

“I am loyal to an institution so long as that institution conduces to my growth, to the growth of the nation.  Immediately I find that the institution, instead of conducing to [this] growth, impedes it, I hold it my bounden duty to be disloyal to it. . . .”

“[Whilst] we may attack measures and systems, we may not, must not, attack men.  Imperfect ourselves, we must be tender toward others and be slow to impute motives.”

“[Self-rule] is to be attained by educating the masses to a sense of their capacity to regulate and control authority.”

“Those whom we regard as wicked, as a rule, return the compliment.”

“[D]o we not arrogate to ourselves infallibility when we seek to punish our adversaries?”

“I cannot picture to myself a time when no man shall be richer than another.  But I do picture to myself a time when the rich will spurn to enrich themselves at the expense of the poor, and the poor will cease to envy the rich.”

“The only real, dignified, human doctrine is the greatest good of all, and this can be achieved only by uttermost self-sacrifice.”

War and Force vs. Non-Violence

“Was not so much valor worthy of a better cause?”

“Brute force will avail against brute force only when it is proved that darkness can dispel darkness.”

“[P]hysical force is wrongly considered to be used to protect the weak. As a matter of fact, it still further weakens the weak, it makes them dependent upon their so-called defenders or protectors. . . .”

 “[All] terrorism is bad whether put up in a good cause or bad. [Every] cause is good in the estimation of its champion.”

“[As soon as] the subject ceases to fear the despotic force, the power is gone.”

“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary, the evil it does is permanent. . . .”

“History is really a record of every interruption of the even working of the force of love or of the soul.”

“A friend says that non-violence cannot be attained by the masses of people.  And yet, we find the general work of mankind is being carried on from day to day by the mass of people acting as if by instinct.  If they were instinctively violent the world would end in no time.  They remain peaceful. . . .  It is when the mass mind is unnaturally influenced by wicked men that the mass of mankind commit violence.  But they forget it as quickly as they commit it because they return to their peaceful nature immediately the evil influence of the directing mind has been removed.”

“The science of war leads one to dictatorship, pure and simple.  The science of non- violence alone can lead one to pure democracy. . . .”

“War with all its glorification of brute force is essentially a degrading thing. It demoralizes those who are trained for it. It brutalizes men of naturally gentle character. It outrages every beautiful canon of morality. Its path of glory is foul with the passions of lust, and red with the blood of murder. This is not the pathway to our goal. The grandest aid to development of strong, pure, beautiful character which is our aim, is the endurance of suffering. Self-restraint, unselfishness, patience, gentleness, these are the flowers which spring beneath the feet of those who accept but refuse to impose suffering. . . .”

“[H]uman nature will find itself only when it fully realizes that to be human it has to cease to be beastly or brutal. . . .”

“To Britain and the Allies [of WWII], . . . it is a marvel to me that you do not see that ruthless warfare is nobody’s monopoly.  If not the Allies, some other power will certainly improve upon your method and beat you with your own weapon.  Even if you win, you will leave no legacy to your people of which they would feel proud.  They cannot take pride in a recital of cruel deeds, however skillfully achieved.

“Even if you win, it will not prove that you were in the right; it will prove only that your power of destruction was greater. . . .”

“It is folly to suppose that aggressors can ever be benefactors.”

Means and Ends

“[P]ure motives can never justify impure or violent action. . . .”

“Means and ends are convertible terms in my philosophy of life.”

“They say ‘means are after all [only] means.’  I would say ‘means are after all everything.’  As the means, so the end.”

“If we take care of the means, we are bound to reach the end sooner or later. . . .”

“[T]he means to me are just as important as the goal, and in a sense more important in that we have some control over them, whereas we have none over the goal if we lose control over the means.”

“[O]ur concern is the act itself, not the result of the action. . . .”

“[One] man cannot do right in one department of life whilst he is occupied in doing wrong in any other department.  Life is one indivisible whole.”

Politics and Government

“Facts we would always place before our readers whether they be palatable or not, and it is by placing them constantly before the public in their nakedness that the misunderstanding now existing between the two communities in South Africa [or anywhere else] can be removed.”

“It rests with both [parties] to recognize that differences are not necessarily synonymous with superiority or inferiority and to patiently cultivate that spirit of self-restraint and toleration which . . . will . . . destroy the senseless rind of misunderstanding. . . .”

“It does not require much thinking to know that, under the operation of the brute law of force, the modern world is pressed down with the weight of misery and affliction, in spite of the vast system of organized Government and mechanical contrivances to make men happy. . . .”

“I should expect rulers to rule according to my wish, otherwise I cease to help them to rule me. . . .”

“[O]urs will only then be a truly spiritual nation when we shall show more truth than gold, greater fearlessness than pomp of power and wealth, greater charity than love of self. If we will but clean our houses, our palaces and temples of the attributes of wealth, and show in them the attributes of morality, one can offer battle to any combination of hostile forces without having to carry the burden of a heavy militia. . . .”

“It is as amazing as it is humiliating that less than one hundred-thousand white men should be able to rule three hundred and fifteen million Indians. They do so somewhat undoubtedly by force, but more by securing our cooperation in a thousand ways and making us more and more helpless and dependent on them as time goes forward.”

“[The Viceroy, Lord Reading’s] religious and moral views are admirable and indeed are on a remarkably high altitude, though I must confess that I find it difficult to understand his practice of them in politics. . . .”

“There is no conflict between private and political law.”

“Submission to the state law is the price a citizen pays for his personal liberty. Submission, therefore, to a state wholly or largely unjust is an immoral barter for liberty.”

“[W]e must refuse to purchase freedom at the price of our cherished convictions.”

“[A] government that is evil has no room for good men and women except in its prisons.”

“[A] government that is ideal governs the least.  It is no self-government that leaves nothing for the people to do. . . .”

“[T]hat nation will be blotted out of the face of the earth which pins its faith to injustice, untruth or violence.”

“[P]olitics bereft of religion are absolute dirt. . . .”

“[N]o special legislation without a change of heart can possibly bring about organic unity.  And when there is a change of heart, no such legislation can possibly be necessary. . . .”

“[Man] cannot be made good by law. . . .”

“Governments cannot afford to lead in matters of reform.  By their very nature governments are but interpreters and executors of the expressed will of the people whom they govern. . . .”

“I look upon an increase of the power of the State with the greatest fear, because although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress.”

“[D]emocracy and violence can go ill together.  The States that are today nominally democratic have either to become frankly totalitarian or, if they are to become truly democratic, they must become courageously non-violent.”

The book cites Allan Bloom’s assertion that America’s national books through its first 150 years were the “Declaration of Independence” and the Bible.  But somehow in the 1950s and 60s familiarity with these national books dropped off dramatically.  The problem this causes is immense—we no longer have these essential works as the foundation of our culture.  This begs the question: What has replaced them?

It seems that we don’t have any national books anymore.  What books do almost all Americans read in common?  I postulate that our new national books are not books at all, but are in fact movies and television.  Yes, it’s scary, but I think it’s true.  We watch them, quote them, discuss them in our social gatherings and at the water cooler.  Do we quote the Bible?  I think we, as a nation, quote the Bible very frequently, but we don’t know we’re doing it.  Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee used a lot of Biblical allusions, but he confused a lot of people with them because of our general biblical ignorance in America.

On the other hand, quotes from recent or classic movies permeate our daily language.  “Make him an offer he can’t refuse,” “Luke, I am your father,” “Tina, ya fat lard!”  We can give a detailed description of Jim and Pam’s courtship, but not Isaac and Rebecca’s faith-building first encounter.  We can name all the contestants on American Idol, but not half of the twelve tribes of Israel.  We quote advice given by Oprah, Dr. Phil, or Rush Limbaugh, but we don’t know the Sermon on the Mount—the best “advice” we could ever have for a happy life.  We can name more of the last 12 Heisman Trophy winners than we can the original twelve apostles.

So what?  What if we don’t all read the same books?  Can’t we all just read good books, or even see good movies that reaffirm our sense of right and wrong?  Yes, we could, if we talked about them that way.  But we don’t.  Instead of getting into the details of the morals taught in movies or TV shows, we call them “a triumph of the human spirit” or “a feel-good movie.”  Can you imagine a co-worker coming up to you and saying, “Y’know, I was reading in Genesis the other day about Abraham, and I was wondering what he was thinking as he took Isaac up the mountain to sacrifice him, knowing that his own parents had tried to offer Abraham as a sacrifice when he was young.  He must have had some real certainty of his commandment from God”?  I can’t.

What do we do about it?  Well, first we return to our national books.  When was the last time you read the “Declaration?”  Have you read the entire Bible (I know I haven’t) or your scripture?  Second, we need to move the current situation in the right direction.  We need to talk about those “triumph of the human spirit” movies in terms of right and wrong, good choices and bad.  What are the choices characters must make?  Why do they choose the way they do, and what are the results?  This is most important for children, especially when movies are not as explicitly didactic as Little House on the Prairie was (it’s also a good chance to talk to our kids and to give them a better understanding of our own values, our “family books”).

The concept of a national book is so extremely important.  It is a gathering place for the souls of our people.  Unfortunately, we as a nation have set our books down and not picked them up again.  It’s time to do so—in fact it’s past time.  Let’s do it today.

Well, you wonder why I always dress in black,
Why you never see bright colors on my back,
And why does my appearance seem to have a somber tone.
Well, there’s a reason for the things that I have on.

I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down,
Livin’ in the hopeless, hungry side of town,
I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime,
But is there because he’s a victim of the times.

I wear the black for those who never read,
Or listened to the words that Jesus said,
About the road to happiness through love and charity,
Why, you’d think He’s talking straight to you and me.

Well, we’re doin’ mighty fine, I do suppose,
In our streak of lightnin’ cars and fancy clothes,
But just so we’re reminded of the ones who are held back,
Up front there ought ‘a be a Man In Black.

I wear it for the sick and lonely old,
For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold,
I wear the black in mournin’ for the lives that could have been,
Each week we lose a hundred fine young men.

And, I wear it for the thousands who have died,
Believen’ that the Lord was on their side,
I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died,
Believen’ that we all were on their side.

Well, there’s things that never will be right I know,
And things need changin’ everywhere you go,
But ’til we start to make a move to make a few things right,
You’ll never see me wear a suit of white.

Ah, I’d love to wear a rainbow every day,
And tell the world that everything’s OK,
But I’ll try to carry off a little darkness on my back,
‘Till things are brighter, I’m the Man In Black.

Are we a Christian nation?  Saying so doesn’t make it so.  The only standard we can measure it by is how closely we adhere to Christ’s teachings.  Do we turn the other cheek, or do we fabricate a war?  Do we let them have our cloak also, or do we exploit weaker nations for money?  Do we love our neighbors, or do we try to send them back across the border?  What our government does is in our name and with our consent.  Anything we condone on our soil is a direct reflection on the Christianity of each member of this ostensibly Christian nation.

One of the greatest followers of the teaching of Jesus in the 20^th century was a small homespun-clad Hindu.  Gandhi loved the teachings of Jesus and extolled them regularly.  At the end of one of these occasions when asked why he wasn’t a Christian he replied, “If Christians acted more like Jesus, then I would be one.”

But instead, through our actions, we give both America and Christianity a bad name.  A nation of people who profess Christianity but don’t live it does not a Christian nation make; instead, it makes a nation of hypocrites. 

“Love thy neighbor.”  OK, that’s not easy, but not impossible, either.  But was Jesus serious when He said, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you”?  Was He being idealistic or did He just not understand “the real world”? 

Earnestly considering the true meaning and the ramifications of these passages and others like them from various religious and secular sources has been a turning point for many.  Mohandas Gandhi based his non-violent resistance “experiments” on the Bhagavad Gita, the Sermon on the Mount, and on the thinking of others, among them Leo Tolstoy who read and embraced the writings of Henry David Thoreau.  These thinkers, among many others, have made the leap from casual philosophical postulating to real attempts at applying these “idealisms.” 

Socrates died because he would not sacrifice his difficultly discovered truth to the political and social censors of Athens. He chose what he thought was right rather than “do the wrong thing for the right reasons.”  The most influential and permanent thinkers of history realized that means don’t lead to an end, but rather means are the end.  We are not the product of the destinations we have reached but rather of the journeys we have taken.  In fact, we are the destination of our journey.  And if the path we have chosen has taken us through the bogs and gutters of immoral, unethical, unkind behavior, such a path cannot lead us to a moral, ethical, and kind end.

The fearless path is the one that regards the means as the end.  It is not a shortcut.  As illustrated in these “lines” by Stephen Crane, the path is hard:

The wayfarer,

Perceiving the pathway to truth,

Was struck with astonishment.

It was thickly grown with weeds.

“Ha,” he said,

“I see that none has passed here

In a long time.”

Later he saw that each weed

Was a singular knife.

“Well,” he mumbled at last,

“Doubtless there are other roads.”

There are indeed other roads, but they don’t lead where we should be.  What is the end of man?  Is it mediocrity capped with a healthy retirement fund?  Or is it truth; goodness within and charity without?  As Gandhi said, “True morality consists not in following the beaten track but in finding out the true path for ourselves and fearlessly following it.”

This path is not a path limited to Christian thought, although Christ’s teachings definitively describe the path. So do the teachings of Confucius, Buddha, the Q’uran, and the Tao. All of these teachers of the path eschewed fear, allowing them to walk the road of truth, for it is fear that will deviate us from the path. The path to truth must be the fearless path.

This is the point of this blog.  Its authors hope to explore the fearless path, including its knives, in a pursuit to better each of us.  The authors are not giving advice; more accurately, we are sharing our own discoveries and difficulties.  We invite all to join us and help us along the path.