When we have Christ's forgiveness, love, and His gift of righteousness, we have
peace. We are no longer obsessed with having to prove ourselves to the world.
Instead, we grow in the assurance that we are beloved.
If we don't have this peace and assurance that comes through Jesus, we are
forced to find it from another source such as becoming a crusader for the good
of the world. When this idealism is driven by inner compulsion instead of
wisdom, the results are often costly.
Christian philosopher C.S. Lewis has observed that such idealism is often more
costly than purposeful criminality:
• Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than
under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes
sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for
our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of
their own conscience.
The idealism of a desperate conscience is oppressive. Why? Because its
primarily focus is not on the needs of others but on the needs of the self to
prove their worthiness and goodness in the face of their accusing conscience.
Consequently, they become Hitlers, Maos, Stalins, and Pol Pots who sacrifice
everything and everyone in their mad dash to prove their significance.
In contrast, when we are confident of God's love, we are freed-up to love
others.
Showing posts with label Idealism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Idealism. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 9, 2022
C.S. LEWIS, LOVE, AND THE OPPRESSION OF IDEALISM
Labels:
C.S. Lewis,
Idealism,
Love,
Self-Validation,
Tyranny; Lenin
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
DREAMS OF UTOPIA
Utopia is something we dream but never possess. I came to
this conclusion after tasting several utopic contenders - living in harmony
with nature, farming, vagabonding, and living on various Marxist kibbutzim.
One of them was Kibbutz Yehiam in the western Galilee, where
our daughter was raised communally for the first five months of her tender
life.
She made a hit with the attendants. She smiled at each as if
they were treasured friends. We would come for her each evening for two hours
after our work was done.
I was therefore thrilled to find Yael Neeman's account of
her early life in Yehiam. In "We were the Future: A Memoir of the
Kibbutz," she illuminated the kibbutz life that I had never perceived as
an outsider.
The preface provides an overview:
·
The kibbutz movement is one of the most
fascinating phenomena of modern history and one of Zionism’s greatest stories.
Several hundred communities attempted to live the ideas of equality, freedom,
and social justice by giving up private property, individualism, and the
“bourgeois” family unit to create an Israeli utopia following the Holocaust—the
only example in world history of entire communities voluntarily attempting to
live in total equality. However, for the children raised in these communities,
the kibbutz was an institution collapsing under the weight of an ideology that
marginalized its offspring to make a political statement.
The Marxist kibbutz movement, Hashomer Hatziar, represented
the most radical social experiment where all forms of "ownership" had
been rejected. Instead, everything was to be "owned" by the
collective - children, clothing, and even decision-making. Neeman explains:
·
Public and private issues were decided upon at
the kibbutz meetings, and committees were elected there. If someone wanted to
leave the kibbutz for higher education, the secretariat, the Education
Committee and finally, the kibbutz meeting decided whether he would go or wait,
and also, what he would study: Did the course of study he wished to pursue
correspond to what the kibbutz needed? If it didn’t, he had to adjust himself
to the needs of the community.
Even coupling with one specific sexual partner had originally
been disdained.
However, this perspective had been disbanded long before my
arrival in Israel. Eventually, human nature overtook this severe ideal, and
eventually, everyone settled down with their chosen spouse and were visited by
their biological children for between one and two hours every evening.
At the time, I had thought that this had been an ideal
arrangement, which allowed the parents to spend quality time with their
children. However, according to Neeman, the youth did not connect with their
parents. Instead, the parent-child relationship felt artificial and
uncomfortable.
This discomfort became magnified when the youth from a
neighboring kibbutz visited, necessitating the Yehiam youth to stay with their
parents for three days. About this Neeman writes:
·
Our parents’ close proximity seemed sick and
crazy, as if we were locked in an embrace with death...We could hardly wait for
morning to come.
In this Marxist utopia, there was no room for God or for
anything that might undermine Marxist purity. Neeman writes:
·
And not only did God not exist in Hashomer
Hatzair, but he was forbidden; he was an irrational, pagan obstacle to the
remarkable abilities and productivity of the sublime human being. God was a
vestige of the dark Middle Ages.
Anything that smacked of the bourgeoisie was disdained:
·
The [kitchen] workers called us [children] over
for a minute, quickly, so no one would see or hear them pampering us, and let
us taste the food. And they also asked us if it was good, fishing for
compliments because there were no compliments on our kibbutz. Applause at the
end of a performance was frowned upon too; that was a bourgeois custom.
Meanwhile, the children would sing:
·
We were born to the sun. We were born to the
light.
The vacuum created by the banishment of God had to be
filled, and the children "born to the light" had to fill it.
I hadn't been aware of this burden that the youth carried,
the weighty expectations placed upon them to fulfill their commune's Marxist
ideals. Nor had Neeman in her early years:
·
We were proud that we worked on Yom Kippur and
ate wild boar that we roasted on campfires. No circumcision ceremonies were
held on our kibbutz. No rabbi set foot on it to perform weddings. The dead were
buried in coffins, the Kaddish prayer was not said over them, and any mention
of the Bible was forbidden.
Later the vacuum would become oppressive. Meanwhile, the
ideal was accepted as the unexamined norm in the automatic way that lunch would
follow breakfast. Neeman reflects:
·
The boys and girls who graduated from the
educational institution [where they would go at age 12 on a neighboring
kibbutz] had been born on the kibbutz, had absorbed its values from the very
beginning, and had not been damaged by the bourgeois institutions of family and
education. They would lead the kibbutzim and the city dwellers, who came from
the various city branches of Hashomer Hatzair to fulfill their ideological
dreams in the kibbutzim, to a better world. During his years in the
institution, the new child would mature into a new man living on a kibbutz,
fully connected to and involved in the life of the country.
However, the ideal was never able to fill the vacuum. Neeman
reports that, once into their teen years, they began to be plagued by questions
of the meaning of life, which would not be satisfied by the standard kibbutz answers.
While they felt a debt to the kibbutz, it had a stomach that could never be
filled:
·
We worked out of a guilty conscience for a
system that would never be satisfied. We felt as if our conscience was a
biological, organic part of our body, like an invisible inner hump.
It was an ideal Neeman knew she could never meet. In this
regard, I found a recent interview quite revealing:
·
Nevertheless, her childhood memories are happy
ones. Contrary to popular characterizations, she said, separating children from
families was not an inhumane policy: “It was created from a belief that it would
make a better human being and a better family, After all, families are not so
ideal all the time. When we ex-kibbutzniks speak among ourselves about this
issue, we call it a paradox because most of us were really happy in this
strange arrangement. Yet none of us want our children or grandchildren growing
up like that.”
As a result, most of the kibbutz youth have voted with their
feet and have fled their utopia for the world of the bourgeoisie.
Time has passed its verdict on what seems to have been the
world's most successful communist/socialist experiment and has found it
wanting.
Time has also been ruthless with other communal experiments.
The 70s had been the heyday for communal living in the States. My wife and I
visited several, none of which can be found today. Nevertheless, in each
instance, it members had been convinced that they had found their permanent
home.
We had also spent time in the Longhouse in Borneo, where the
tribesmen live communally under their chief. They share games, singing, and the
communal connectedness of a large extended family. But once again, the youth
gladly give it all up for their own dream of an education, a city job, and
enough money to buy a pickup.
Why can we not find
utopia? Why is it only vapor that we cannot grasp and keep? Perhaps we can
understand this with the help of a couple of analogies:
A man saw a butterfly struggling mightily to emerge from its
cocoon, and so he helped free it. However, it died. Why? The butterfly needs
the benefit of the struggle to pump its liquids into its wings.
Similarly, baboons build stable communities through the
practice of grooming. However, grooming loses all its relevance without the
troublesome pests – ticks and lice. Without these predators and other threats,
the baboon community cannot survive.
Is it possible that we too require an assortment of threats
in order to prosper? To use an extreme example, perhaps we also need death. I
remember seeing a video of a woman recovered from the rubble of an earthquake, after
five days. The hugging and the tears of joy shed by the husband were touching,
to say the least. I wondered, “Had he been complaining about her the week
before?” If so, what had changed his disdain into joy? The prospect of losing
what he had had!
What would we be like if we lived in a perfect utopia where
there was no death and no loss? Wouldn’t we become callous and take every
relationship for granted or even as a burden? Would we have any room for
gratefulness and love?
Instead, it seems that there are many blessings that we
cannot yet handle, blessings that might destroy us. Perhaps all we can do is
just dream about a more perfect world. Perhaps we would again just spoil Eden
if we were there. Perhaps the door to this enchanted Garden will swing open to
us once we have been readied for it.
Labels:
Death,
Garden of Eden,
Idealism,
Israel,
Kibbutz,
Longhouses,
Marxism,
Utopia,
Yael Neeman
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
AUTHENTICITY
I like being authentically me. Why? I don’t like to expend
energy to hide who I am. It’s much more fun to be able to be transparent and
laugh at myself. It’s part of the liberty that I have in Christ.
Liberty? Yes! I don’t have to prove myself. I don’t have to
become the ideal person so that others will love me. Why not? I am really
convinced about the Bible’s truth that my life is no longer about me and my
trying to be somebody that I am not:
·
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no
longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the
flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Galatians
2:20; ESV)
This raises an important question – “What does it mean to
live authentically?” For the artist, this might mean letting our feelings hang
out. After all, aren’t we our feelings? Don’t they define who we are?
Perhaps, but not for someone who has the privilege of
serving Christ. Who then am I? I am a servant of the Lord before all else. Does
this mean that I am denying my feelings? Certainly not! But it does mean that
these do not define who I am. I am His and He is mine. That’s who I am.
Yes, I struggle with powerful feelings of anger and even
that horrid and sickening feeling of jealousy, but they are not essentially me.
My life in Christ is what is authentically me! Therefore, authenticity does not
require that I act-out, but that I live faithfully for the Truth, while I laugh
at my pettiness.
But what is the highest truth of someone without the Savior?
Themselves! Namely, their feelings! However, he cannot authentically live them
out without incurring rejection, even self-contempt.
How then can he live authentically and connect to others
authentically? He cannot. Instead, he must find a new face by suppressing the
old selfish one. Consequently, he becomes an idealist, a do-gooder to convince
himself and the world that he is good.
This is especially needful in the professional world where
he is hired to implement programs to help others, where he must wear
professional attire and manifest professional concerns, even as he carries a
concealed dagger.
While underneath, he is a carnivore, he must live deceptively
as an herbivore. Meanwhile, it is becoming increasingly clear to him that he is
living a double-life. He is not the herbivore as he presents himself. He finds
that the mask cannot be reconciled with who he truly is. He wants to believe
that he is a good and caring person, but it is becoming increasingly clear that
he is not. He is no longer able to believe in his life and what he is doing. Therefore,
in private, he cynically talks about “playing the game.” Cynicism becomes the
only glue that can hold these two conflicting identities together.
I am all for doing good, but why? If we wear a mask, a
deceptive front, to “prove” that we are a good and worthy person, holding forth
our resume of good deeds, we are living inauthentically and the real self will
continue emerge, to our chagrin, from behind the mask. It will not remain quiet
but will continue to demand stage-center.
How to control it and to live authentically? We have to give
the dark-side its own space. However, when it manifests, we can laugh at it and
take responsibility. It’s like a pit-bull we have on a leash. We can’t hide it,
and when it breaks lose to bite someone, we must take full responsibility.
However, we can be transparent about it, denying it the power to operate in the
darkness of denial.
“Out of the depths of the heart, the mouth will speak,” but
we can humble ourselves and apologize for its words. We can allow ourselves to
become accountable.
But how can we laugh at so destructive a force? How can we
accept its presence? This is to admit that we are not a good person. It is like
admitting that we are a pauper and not a prince. It is to surrender our good
feelings about ourselves.
Who can endure such a crash, a fall from such great heights?
We have to find our significance elsewhere, from above. Only when we are
convinced that we possess something more valuable than our self-esteem – a Savior
who has died for us and loves us despite our unloveliness – can we be authentic!
Besides, authenticity and self-acceptance pay great dividends – ability to accept others and even criticism, humility, other-centeredness, and non-defensiveness. By the grace of God, I can be who I truly am.
Besides, authenticity and self-acceptance pay great dividends – ability to accept others and even criticism, humility, other-centeredness, and non-defensiveness. By the grace of God, I can be who I truly am.
Sunday, October 9, 2016
ALINSKY: THE MAKING OF AN IDEALIST
Saul Alinsky (1909 – 1972) was a Communist and community
organizer who wrote Rules for Radicals.
He had also been the mentor to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Alinsky’s final interview, just before his 1972 death, was
quoted in the new film about his life, “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”:
·
“If there is an afterlife, and I have anything
to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell,” he tells Playboy
magazine.
·
“Hell would be heaven for me,” he explains. “All
my life I've been with the have-nots. Over here, if you're a have-not, you're
short of dough. If you're a have-not in hell, you're short of virtue. Once I
get into hell, I'll start organizing the have-nots over there.”
·
Asked why, Alinsky states, “They're my kind of
people.” https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-film-shows-a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing-still-a-threat
Why would the “have-nots” be his “kind of people?” And what
if they got a good-paying job that enabled them to climb up into the camp of
the “haves?” Would they no longer be his “kind of people?” Why would the
difference of a few extra dollars turn a friend into an enemy?
I think that there is only one way to understand this
rigidity. Alinsky was, as are so many others, driven by jealousy and hatred of
the “haves.” The Communists had hated the “haves” so much that they regarded them
as “parasites” which had to be eliminated.
However, we are all vulnerable to such feelings and are tempted
to hide them behind an idealistic framework such as a concern for the poor. Sadly,
when idealism is driven by these repressed emotions, it takes destructive
paths. Consequently, we no longer have the welfare of those we are trying to
help in mind, but our own disguised agenda. Just look at the 100,000,000
slaughtered by the various Communist regimes seeking to create their “workers’
paradise!”
The idealist and revolutionary, Mao Tze Tung, is reported to
have exterminated 45 million of his own people in order to create his ideal
society. How is it that this self-sacrificial idealist could have been the
inspiration for such horrors? I think it is because he was unable to confront
his dark-side, which, as a result took control of his vision.
Marvin Olasky, editor-in-chief of World Magazine, reported that, in 1957, Mao stated:
·
I’m not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7
billion people in the world; it doesn’t matter if some are killed. China has a
population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300
million people left. I am not afraid of anyone.
What can explain such callousness and blindness? Clearly, it
was not a concern for others that had been speaking, but his own hatred and
jealousy.
How can we guard ourselves against this fate? How can we
face our underlying darkness? We need courage. It was only the assurances of
the love and forgiveness of the Savior that enabled me to confront the truth
about myself.
Labels:
Communism,
Dark-Side,
Genocide,
Idealism,
Mao,
Repressed Self,
Repression,
Saul Alinsky,
Sublimation
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)