The Radical Middle: part 1 of 2

One of my favorite books of the Bible to read at New Year’s is Ecclesiastes. I think a lot of people turn to it in January because of that whole chapter 3 thing, you know, "There is a time for everything. For everything there is a season…" turn, turn, turn. Actually, the Birds added that "turn" part to make it into a folk song, but God and King Solomon pretty much wrote the rest of it.

What I like about it is how bare-bones pragmatic the book is. Solomon tells it like it is, he doesn’t hold anything back, like in Chapter 7, verse 20, where he says "There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins."

What makes us all equal, is that at least sometimes every single one of us is selfish and short-sighted, everyone. Enough to separate us from each other, enough to separate us each from a healthy, loving relationship with God. Everyone.

Fortunately for us, as C.S. Lewis pictured in his children’s fantasy, "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," God sacrificed His Son, Jesus (as symbolized by the lion Aslam) so that we don’t have to remain separated from Him or each other. Unfortunately, He’s such a loving, patient God that He doesn’t force Himself on anyone and if we reject Him long enough, He’ll give us what we want and leave us alone.

But, self-righteous and short-sighted as we all are, most of the time, most of us think that that’s too simple. Either we accuse God of being worse than Hitler for letting so many people suffer and end up lost or we take it upon ourselves to become His defenders and enforcers, going around telling people why He hates them and what’s wrong with what they do and who they are.

That’s why one of my favorite verses in all of Ecclesiastes is Chapter 7, verse 18: "It is good to grasp on to one and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes."

In the history of the United States, two great philosophers dominated Revolutionary War era thought. Each represented opposite extremes on the issue of human nature.

Thomas Hobbes believed that in their natural state, men were constantly in conflict, each person battling for what they thought were their own best interests. He believed that the only answer was a strong central government to maintain law and order. Of course, he also thought that some people were bred to be better leaders, so economic class, if not royal blood lines should determine who got to participate in that government. In order for us to live in harmony, Hobbes thought that we all had to forfeit some of our rights to the state, so that the state could protect us.

John Locke, a prominent pediatrician, sort of the Dr. Spock of his time believed that everyone, no matter who their parents were, was born with absolute equal potential for intelligence, and for good or bad. Given the same opportunities, anyone could grow up to be a competent leader. He felt that every baby was a "blank slate." Needless to say, he felt that in order to meet common goals, all we had to do was to compromise some of our personal interests. He called this a "social-contract," you agree not to kick me if I agree not to punch you in the nose. Locke thought that we all had to forfeit some of our rights to the state, so that the state could help preserve the rest of our rights. Rights to life, liberty and property (Jefferson changed property to "pursuit of happiness").

These two points of view (which honestly have more in common than either Locke or Hobbes would’ve likely wanted to admit) are reflected throughout American society. We elect Presidents instead of anointing Kings, but we hold up athletes and celebrities as if they’re royalty. We claim that we’re all equal, but we’re constantly trying to climb the social ladder.

In Ecclesiastes 7, Solomon warns about trying to be overly righteous or overly wicked. He’s telling the reader that it’s bad idea to be too much of a libertine- giving free reign to impulse, letting anything go- but it’s just as much of a bad idea to be too into legalism- a control freak, not ever letting anything go.

Both Locke and Hobbes had some truth to their ideas, but neither was completely right. We need balance. We need to hold on to one, without letting go of the other.

Next week: Moderation in defense of liberty isn’t a vice either.