National and Individual Character

Character trumps all else, which is why there is ample reason to be pessimistic about our national survival. We have decayed to the point in our national character to reach the condition of communal hubris. The barometer of this assessment was made obvious in the recent New York special election for its 26th congressional district. The results are in and the analysis is clear . . . the Democrat won on the strength of her position on the Medicare issue . . . that it should be “left alone.” The people have spoken. The opposing position in NY’s 26th district, as it is all across the country, is that Medicare (as well as Social Security, Medicaid, etc.) must undergo radical change or collapse under its own weight anyhow . . . and soon. Yet the “Hands Off Our Medicare” signs had their effect in this special election and are likely to render the same influence on the larger stage. What it ultimately means is that we probably are so deficient in the national character it takes to care enough about our children and grandchildren to protect their future that we are ready to doom them for our own current comfort and self-aggrandizement. I suppose it’s convenient to blame the politicians who pander to our basest appetites for not having the courage to herald truth and trust in the consequences of nobility. Yet, in the end, “we the people,” are the decision makers in a democratic republic and we have a way of insisting on what we want to hear and we have demonstrated that we don’t want to hear the truth.

A recent Time Magazine front page story was the controversy regarding Pastor Rob Bell’s new book, “Love Wins,” which proposes the theological argument that everyone ultimately winds up in heaven --- no eternal hell for bad people. The blogs and OpEd pieces and “Letters to the Editor” since the Time Magazine story was published have been voluminous. What is interesting to note, other than the expected tit-for-tat repartee, is the profusion of those taking the side of Rob Bell and the almost singular argument for holding this view . . . “A loving God would not condemn anyone to a permanent hell.” Never is there a suggestion that “a just God would never . . .” or “an almighty God wouldn’t . . .” or “an omniscient God could not . . .” make such a decision. And mostly absent from these sentiments, so absent that it’s obvious beyond astounding, is the notion of what a “Holy God” might determine. For understandable reasons we want our God to be loving and He is. In fact, 1st John 4:8 tells us that “God is love.” Yet, our naïve miscalculation is in not realizing that that’s not “all” He is. In fact, it’s not His central attribute. As great as His love is for us, that “He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever would believe in Him would not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16), God’s most principal and defining characteristic is His holiness. But we would rather God be held hostage to His great love for us that He would infringe upon His holiness to make the sacrifice of His Son of no purpose or effect. Great new for us who have sought out the escape clauses in the contract. Much like our hope with Medicare, we will insist on having our cake and eating it too . . . then avoiding the consequences of our decisions. The sad truth is we somehow expect that since we sincerely believe our own preferred doctrine we shall inherit what we desire rather than what we deserve. We are sincerely wrong.