“Crying Shame”

It’s such a tired game
Will it ever stop
How will this all play out
Out of sight, out of mind

By now we should know
How to communicate instead of coming to blows
We’re on a roll
And there ain’t no stopping us now
We’re burning under control
Isn’t it strange how
We’re all burning under the same sun
By now we say it’s a war for peace
It’s the same old game
But do we really want to play?
We could close our eyes it’s still there
We could say it’s us against them
We can try but nobody wins
Gravity has got a hold on us all
We try to put it out
But it’s a growing flame
Using fear as fuel
Burning down our name
And it wont take too long
Cause words are burning same
And who we gunna blame now?

And oh, it’s such a crying crying crying shame
It’s such a crying crying crying shame
It’s such a crying crying crying shame, shame, shame

By now
It’s beginning to show
A number of people are numbers who aint coming home
I can close my eyes it’s still there
Close my mind be alone
I can close my heart and not care
But gravity has got a hold on us all
It’s a terrific price to pay
But in the true sense of the word
Are we using what we’ve learned?
In the true sense of the word
Are we losing what we were?
It’s such a tired game
Will it ever stop?
Is not for me to say
And is it in our blood?
Or is it just our fate?
And how will this all play out
Out of sight, out of mind
And who we gunna blame?
On and on
It’s such a crying crying crying shame
It’s such a crying crying crying shame shame shame

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 or 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.

However, I completely dissociate myself with the means of those Frank Rich describes in the editorial. These means will lead to increased bloodshed and tyranny, less freedom and prosperity. These means are full of hatred, force, and violence than cannot be used to fix anything. These means are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus Christ that many of these “nuts” claim to espouse.

The environment we are in is similar to that in Athens during the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides describes it thus:

Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defence. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries. In fine, to forestall an intending criminal, or to suggest the idea of a crime where it was wanting, was equally commended until even blood became a weaker tie than party, from the superior readiness of those united by the latter to dare everything without reserve; for such associations had not in view the blessings derivable from established institutions but were formed by ambition for their overthrow; and the confidence of their members in each other rested less on any religious sanction than upon complicity in crime. The fair proposals of an adversary were met with jealous precautions by the stronger of the two, and not with a generous confidence. Revenge also was held of more account than self-preservation. Oaths of reconciliation, being only proffered on either side to meet an immediate difficulty, only held good so long as no other weapon was at hand; but when opportunity offered, he who first ventured to seize it and to take his enemy off his guard, thought this perfidious vengeance sweeter than an open one, since, considerations of safety apart, success by treachery won him the palm of superior intelligence. Indeed it is generally the case that men are readier to call rogues clever than simpletons honest, and are as ashamed of being the second as they are proud of being the first. The cause of all these evils was the lust for power arising from greed and ambition; and from these passions proceeded the violence of parties once engaged in contention. The leaders in the cities, each provided with the fairest professions, on the one side with the cry of political equality of the people, on the other of a moderate aristocracy, sought prizes for themselves in those public interests which they pretended to cherish, and, recoiling from no means in their struggles for ascendancy engaged in the direst excesses; in their acts of vengeance they went to even greater lengths, not stopping at what justice or the good of the state demanded, but making the party caprice of the moment their only standard, and invoking with equal readiness the condemnation of an unjust verdict or the authority of the strong arm to glut the animosities of the hour. Thus religion was in honour with neither party; but the use of fair phrases to arrive at guilty ends was in high reputation. Meanwhile the moderate part of the citizens perished between the two, either for not joining in the quarrel, or because envy would not suffer them to escape.

Thus every form of iniquity took root in the Hellenic countries by reason of the troubles. The ancient simplicity into which honor so largely entered was laughed down and disappeared; and society became divided into camps in which no man trusted his fellow.

The fear and distrust that permeate our political environment is disturbing. Is power to be distrusted? Absolutely, that’s why checks and balances in government are absolutely essential. Have some of those checks and balances been destroyed or ignored? Yes. So how do we go about fixing things?

We engage in the conversation, instead of angrily getting into a bunker mentality. We talk to those running for office and make clear our views and ideas in an appropriate and non-threatening, non-violent tone. We discuss options for changing the current political structures to sure up the checks and balances that are tipping.

But if you are convinced that the government is stealing your money by taxing you, have the guts to stop paying your taxes, as Henry David Thoreau did. If you are convinced that certain laws are unjust, violate them and spend time in jail to prove your point and bring others around to your point of view.

If you aren’t so convinced of your position to be willing to stake your own life non-violently, why are you willing to stake someone else’s life violently? There is nothing Christian about threatening violent revolution, or rebellion. If you disagree with what the government is doing so adamantly, stop cooperating with it. Don’t take Medicare or Medicaid. Don’t send your kids to public schools where they will be indoctrinated by “the socialists”.

But don’t ever take up a weapon of aggression (and even consider turning the other cheek in response to force) in order to make your point. Aggression has been tried in the history of the world, and it is the least effective method of changing things and in fact it can be argued that aggression doesn’t change anything.

So long as we allow fear to motivate our actions, it will lead us down the road to violence, oppression, war and tyranny; it also leads us down the road to bad legislation, poverty, and debt.

The reason for the American Revolution was that the American colonists had no representation, no say, in their government. However some may feel that this is the case today, our situation has not yet arrived at this point. Participate. Engage. Expand your knowledge base. Expand your circle of friends. Talk to people you disagree with or you think are different from you.

The forms are still in place. The dialog is still more free than in any other place. But please, please, do not buy into the fear-mongering, the hate-mongering, the idea that violence will fix anything. It will only enslave and tyrannize.

Too often I have heard friends and fellow Christians make the statements along the lines of: “I have to protect my two-year supply.” Or, “What if someone wants to come and take my food if things go bad? I need to be able to keep it to feed my family.”

That attitude is not one of faith or trust of love. It is one of fear. For the widow of Zarapheth to be willing to share her last bit of food with another required a sure step on the Fearless Path. I hope that if that time ever comes, I will have the trust manifested in the example of this faithful woman to fearlessly give of my substance, even more so of my need, to those who also need. I believe that those who choose this path will receive the natural, yet absurd (according to mortal logic) result, that my “barrel of meal [will waste] not, neither did [my] cruse of oil fail”.

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.

O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern impassion’d stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness.

America! America!
God mend thine ev’ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law.

O beautiful for heroes prov’d
In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
And mercy more than life.

America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness,
And ev’ry gain divine.

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears.

America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
And crowns thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea.

This song contains in it a recognition that America has, and will always have, flaws. Once we see ourselves as alway right, just because we are America, we will fall victim to that pride that destroys all people. However, if we look to God’s ways to mend our flaws, if we confirm our souls in self control, America will be beautiful again.

Additionally, we must be noble in our successes and divine in our gains. This country was established upon principles of self-government and faith; freedom and hope; equality and merit. Until we return to these eternal principles, all efforts will fail. Let us make America beautiful again, from the inside out.