HUMILITY AND DAVID BROOKS: THE WAY UP IS THE WAY DOWN

 

If we are a product of our culture, then it is important to know how our culture has influenced us, and how we can counter this often-hidden influence.

The New York Times columnist, Jeff Haanen, May 13, 2015, had asked columnist David Brooks what it would take to build character in a 'Big Me' culture. Brooks answered that our culture has taken us in the wrong direction:

·       We’ve encouraged generations to think highly of themselves. In 1950, the Gallup organization asked high-school seniors, “Are you a very important person?” Back then, 12 percent said yes. Gallup asked the same question in 2005, and 80 percent said yes.

·       There are surveys called “The Narcissism Test” that ask whether respondents agree with statements like, “I like to be the center of attention because I’m so extraordinary,” or “Somebody should write a biography about me.” The median narcissism score has gone up 30 percent in 20 years. Our economy encourages us to promote ourselves with social media, to brand ourselves and get “likes.” In theory, we know humility is important, but we live in a culture of self-promotion.

For decades, believing-in-yourself has become an unquestioned mantra. It has been touted as a cure of all of our psychological problems. Psychologist Roy Baumeister has extensively researched the relationship between high self-esteem and performance and now questions this mantra:

• For three decades, I and many other psychologists viewed self-esteem as our profession’s Holy Grail: a psychological trait that would soothe most of individuals’ and society’s woes. We thought that high self-esteem would impart not only success, health, happiness, and prosperity to the people who possessed it, but also stronger marriages, higher employment, and greater educational attainment in the communities that supported it. http://imaginefirestone.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/RethinkingSelf-Esteem.pdf

However, Baumeister now acknowledges that subsequent studies have failed to validate this assumption:

• Recently, though, several close analyses of the accumulated research have shaken many psychologists’ faith in self-esteem. My colleagues and I were commissioned to conduct one of these studies by the American Psychological Society, an organization devoted to psychological research. These studies show not only that self-esteem fails to accomplish what we had hoped, but also that it can backfire and contribute to some of the very problems it was thought to thwart. Social sector organizations should therefore reconsider whether they want to dedicate their scarce resources to cultivating self-esteem. In my view, there are other traits, like self-control, that hold much more promise.

Because of the constant drone of cultural affirmations of the cult of self-esteem, what had once been unquestioned has now been exposed as fallacious:

• There are now ample data on our population showing that, if anything, Americans tend to overrate and overvalue ourselves. In plain terms, the average American thinks he’s above average. Even the categories of people about whom our society is most concerned do not show any broad deficiency in self esteem. African Americans, for example, routinely score higher on self-esteem measures than do European-Americans. 

Building self-esteem might actually be digging ourselves into a hole. However, we should have understood this before. In all other respects, we know that when we proceed with inaccurate data – whether it’s a matter of driving a car or laundering clothing – there is generally a price to pay. The washing machine can ruin clothes better washed elsewhere. Why wouldn’t the same principle also pertain to how we understand ourselves!

Brooks mentions Dwight Eisenhower who had accurately assessed that he had an anger problem and, consequently, was able to guard against this weakness.

Whatever we manage well, we must well understand. This should include even ourselves. We too need the humility, the presence of mind, to understand ourselves and our limitations.

However, humility does not come naturally. It is painful to confront our weaknesses and failures. Brooks, who calls himself a “cultural Jew,” maintains that true character, characterized by humility, require grace:

• You may be able to build character and greatness through disciplined effort, but I don’t think you can experience the highest joy without grace. Nor can you experience tranquility. That only comes from gratitude, the feeling that you’re getting much more than you deserve.

If we are not to believe in ourselves, then we must believe in Another – One who can fill the gap left vacant as we begin to see ourselves as we truly are and as our self-esteem plummets. In fact, believing in this Other frees us from obsessively trying to prove ourselves, as the Apostle Paul declared:

“Yes, all the things I once thought were so important are gone from my life. Compared to the high privilege of knowing Christ Jesus as my Master, firsthand, everything I once thought I had going for me is insignificant—dog dung. I've dumped it all in the trash so that I could embrace Christ and be embraced by him. I didn't want some petty, inferior brand of righteousness that comes from keeping a list of rules when I could get the robust kind that comes from trusting Christ—God's righteousness.” (Philippians 3:8-9; The Message Bible)

STABILITY, IDENTITY, AND PERMANENT VALUES

NYT columnist David Brooks thinks that the social pressures governing life on American college campuses are overwhelming:

·       "When a moral crusade spreads across campus, many students feel compelled to post in support of it on Facebook within minutes. If they do not post, they will be noticed and condemned." (NYT, 3/15/16)

Brooks is convinced that the social pressures are greater when the standards are always shifting:

·       "Everybody is perpetually insecure in a moral system based on inclusion and exclusion. There are no permanent standards, just the shifting judgment of the crowd. It is a culture of oversensitivity, overreaction and frequent moral panics, during which everybody feels compelled to go along."

Brooks believes that the college student can find a greater measure of stability by basing their identity on values that are “more permanent”:

·       "If we’re going to avoid a constant state of anxiety, people’s identities have to be based on standards of justice and virtue that are deeper and more permanent than the shifting fancy of the crowd. In an era of omnipresent social media, it’s probably doubly important to discover and name your own personal True North, vision of an ultimate good, which is worth defending even at the cost of unpopularity and exclusion."

However, on today’s college campus, imbued with moral relativism (MR), this has become difficult. For one thing, MR is attractive for the very reason that it is dangerous. It tells the students that they are in charge – the captain of their own ships. They can decide what is right for themselves. If it feels right to them, no one can objectively tell them that it is wrong. Consequently, the college campus celebrates any and all forms of sexual expression.

Brooks understandably ennobles that idea of finding “standards of justice and virtue that are deeper and more permanent than the shifting fancy of the crowd.” However, he wrongly associates these “more permanent” values with finding “your own personal True North.”

He is sending out contradictory signals – double messages. While on the one hand, he seems to recommend basing our values on what is objective and unchanging, but Brooks then suggests that we have to find our own personal subjective values. If our values are subjective, they will be as flimsy and impermanent as the university values that he derides. Also, they will be no less vulnerable to social pressure than the values they already possess.

Instead, in order to stand against the social pressures, we need to know that our values are objective, coming from above, and therefore are unchanging. It is only when we know this that we can stand against the tsunami of peer pressure and public opinion.

If we are going to resist persecution, it is not enough to know that we are standing upon our own “True North.” Jesus had recently suffered the worst imaginable death and His disciples were brought before the governing body – the Sanhedrin - that had earlier turned Him over to the Romans and demanded His death. Besides, these Apostles were also uneducated men, but when they were commanded to no longer speak of Jesus, they surprised the Sanhedrin with their courage:

·       But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.  And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” (Acts 5:29-32; ESV)

The Apostles were able to withstand the threats and pressures because they were convinced that they were standing upon God’s own “True North,” not on their own values or fleeting sense of dignity.

THE BUSINESS OF THE CHURCH AND THE CULTURE WARS

Should we, the church, continue to fight against social innovations – the culture wars? This conflict serves to polarize society and bring contempt on the church. In a New York Times editorial, David Brooks argues that the church should focus on issues where it can make a positive contribution:

• Put aside a culture war that has alienated large parts of three generations from any consideration of religion or belief. Put aside an effort that has been a communications disaster, reducing a rich, complex and beautiful faith into a public obsession with sex. Put aside a culture war that, at least over the near term, you are destined to lose.

Brooks instead proposes:

• The defining face of social conservatism could be this: Those are the people who go into underprivileged areas and form organizations to help nurture stable families. Those are the people who build community institutions in places where they are sparse. Those are the people who can help us think about how economic joblessness and spiritual poverty reinforce each other. Those are the people who converse with us about the transcendent in everyday life.

The church has been discredited in the eyes of the West. Perhaps we must regain that "right to be heard" in ways that Brooks suggests. Perhaps we need to tweak our strategy. Besides, loving our neighbors and even our society is a high biblical priority.

However, we must not disparage our fundamental calling – loving God. And how are we to love God? By abiding in His Word (John 14:21-24; 15:7-14)! This entails being a light to the world, exposing injustices and destructive practices that others do not want exposed.

But isn’t our conservative program already painfully obvious to the world? Haven’t we already made ourselves odious to the very people we are trying to love? Perhaps we have already shed enough light into the darkness. And perhaps we need to apply our energies elsewhere, as Brooks suggests.

Certainly, we have to proceed with a balanced biblical approach, and this includes works of mercy. However, we cannot abandon our calling to be counter-cultural, exposing the sins of the world (Eph. 5:11).

Brooks is advocating for a nice and socially acceptable church, and many churches are listening. They too are tired of the culture wars and the scorn directed against them. They jealously observe the successes of the seeker-sensitive churches, which have toned down their message in favor of one that is willing to live with the prevailing culture.

They attempt to avoid public disdain by avoiding those conflicts that we are "destined to lose." However, there is a price to be paid. Initially, the Gospel could not penetrate the South with its anti-racial-slavery message. The evangelist soon learned, however, that he could make inroads if he simply left certain sins out of his message, but such an omission came with a high price tag - an unbalanced gospel and the Civil War.

During Jim Crow, the church wanted to remain relevant to the culture and failed to preach against sin.

I had attended a seeker sensitive church and an associated home fellowship group. We thought it proper to be "nice" Christians, offering only words of encouragement, never those unpopular words of correction. However, my wife and I silently watched as the brethren made shipwrecks of their faith.

Now I see that we had not fulfilled our Lord's calling. God had explained this calling to the Prophet Ezekiel:

• “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the people of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked person, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade them from their ways, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood." (Ezekiel 33:7-8 NIV)

Many churches have taken Brook's recommendations to heart. Even if they haven't extended membership to non-repentant gays, they are no longer speaking on controversial subjects like sexual sins. However, their silence speaks volumes to the brethren, especially to the church youth. It tells them that sexual sin is not an important topic.

In this artificial vacuum, the only voice that is heard is the voice of decadence that informs the world that sex should be enjoyed as casually as a hamburger.

This silence betrays both society and church. It also declares the church guilty before its God, as the Apostle Paul suggested:

• "Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of any of you. For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God." (Acts 20:26-27 NIV) 

Had Paul not communicated the essentials of the faith, he would have stood guilty before God. We, therefore, have no choice but to abide in the light of God's Word. Failing to do so would make us blameworthy.

A church (or even a parent) must preach the Good News as well as the bad, words of approval as well as words of disapproval, words that are popular and words that will be met with scorn.

It is inevitable we will be hated. Jesus warned that this will happen. It doesn't mean that we are doing something wrong. More likely, it means that we are doing something right:

• “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also." (John 15:18-20)

Jesus also warned us that our blessedness does not depend on the blessings of society:

• "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew 5:10-12)

Nevertheless, we are to be peacemakers. Yes, we need to be a light on the hill, but we needn't be strident and antagonistic, but instead always humble, respectful, gentle, and faithful to our Savior.

Nor can we take social approval or the size of our church as an indication of God's favor:

• "Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets." (Luke 6:26 NIV)

What then must govern our lives? From where must our commendation come?

• “These are the ones I look on with favor: those who are humble and contrite in spirit, and who tremble at my word." (Isaiah 66:2 NIV)

The approval of the world is not a good indication of God's approval. Instead, the world is fickle. We are darned if we do and darned if we don't. If we speak against society's hypocrisies, we are darned. When we don't, we are also darned.

The churches in Nazi Germany were largely "nice" churches. They supported the social order and failed to meaningfully protest against the Nazis, and this failure earned them the ire of the world.

Brooks understandably points out that we have lost the culture wars and have suffered marginalization, but is this the main point?

Will the Real Islam Please Stand up

Many Westerners cling to the myth that there is a good Islam and a bad Islam, and it just depends on how we interpret the Koran and the Hadiths, and not what these writings actually teach. One friend asked me what I thought about a David Brooks column on this subject. Here’s my response:

I have major problems with David Brooks’ analysis. He fails to engage Islam and Koranic writings, the self-professed rationale for the deeds of the terrorists. Instead, of engaging the real problem, Brooks launches into psycho-speculation:

• A beheading feels different because it reveals something about the minds of the killers. The journalist Lance Morrow once wrote that “evil is often happiest when it operates in the autonomy of the gratuitous.”

This represents the Western avoidance of dealing with Islam as it is. Instead, this is what the Koran says:

• [Surah 47:4] “So when you meet (in fight…Jihad in Allah’s Cause) those who disbelieve smite at their necks [behead] till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them; i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time for) either generosity (i.e. free them without ransom) or ransom (according to what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection.] But if it had been Allah’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost…”

• [Surah9:5] “Then kill the Mushrikun [Polytheists and Trinitarians] wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for then each and every ambush. But if they repent and offer prayers perfectly and give Zakat, then leave their way free …[9:29] Fight against those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

• [Surah 4.89] “They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back [from Islam], then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.”

ISIS has taken their script right out of the holy writings of Islam, and they claim as much! However, Brooks and other Western commentators will not take them at face value.  Instead, Brooks prefers to dream about a “superior version of Islam”:

• But, ultimately, the Islamists are a spiritual movement that will have to be surmounted by a superior version of Islam.

Those who defend Islam claim that the many violent Jihadic verses are just a matter of interpretation. This is very idyllic but unrealistic. While everything must be submitted to a process of interpretation, this doesn’t mean that any interpretation is as accurate as the next. In fact, when we study Shakespeare or any literature, our aim is to determine what the author meant, not what interpretation we find more pleasing or more “superior.” However, it is quite clear what Mohammad and his followers meant – bloody Jihad, and, sadly, ISIS, al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Shabaab all got it right. That’s why they are getting all of the recruits.