David Brooks, the well-known columnist, has written an interesting piece on moderation and an argument in favor of moderates. As usual, Brooks offers trenchant insight into the nature of things and offers what I consider to be sound advice how to make things better. His column is descriptively worded: “What Moderates Believe.” On the surface it is an essay on politics, which is true. But as I thought about it, it also has further implications than politics. In some ways I also believe it works when applied to religion and spirituality. I would like to take that step with his ideas.
There are no secrets to what Brooks is doing, but the key to his ideas---and that which appeals to me---is his use of time-honored ideas like the classical virtues. To use the virtues works both in politics and religion. Since I have done a great deal with the virtues, it seemed obvious and natural to me. Let me focus on three aspects of the argument Brooks is making.
The first instance I cite has to do with the classical virtue, justice. From my own work, I know that justice is not always easy to achieve. For one thing there are different, legitimate criteria for justice. For example, in some cases the quest for justice is a quest for equality. We recognize this in equal opportunity and other areas like this. But in other instances, the standard for justice is not equality, but fairness. I think about my own two daughters and realize sometimes I treated them equally and other times my attempt was to be fair.
Brooks links justice to truth. This makes the situation even more complex. Listen to what he says about politics. “Truth before justice. All political movements must face inconvenient facts — thoughts and data that seem to aid their foes. If you try to suppress those facts, by banning a speaker or firing an employee, then you are putting the goals of your cause, no matter how noble, above the search for truth. This is the path to fanaticism, and it always backfires in the end.” It is interesting that he puts truth before justice, but I believe he is correct. And I think this works for religion, too.
The obvious trick is to decide what is truth? It is unfortunate that in religion, like politics, there are people on extreme ends of the spectrum who assume their position is the truth. And it is equally obvious both extremes cannot be true! Moderates are those folks who are in the middle and who recognize some truth in other people that may be a little different than where we are. A good example is how Christians see and deal with truth in other major religious traditions, like Buddhism.
I think Brooks’ instinct is correct. We need to figure out what is true before establishing what is just. For example, if I believe all humans are creatures of God, that truth dictates how I treat other people. It means they deserve to be treated with justice---equally and fairly---even if they are different than I am. This would lead to peace and tend toward avoiding violence. Of course, the other person may not treat me the same way. But that should not lead me to act contrary to my own principles.
The second focus from Brooks I want to introduce has to do with humility. He says, “Humility is the fundamental virtue. Humility is a radical self-awareness from a position outside yourself — a form of radical honesty. The more the moderate grapples with reality the more she understands how much is beyond our understanding.” I like how he describes humility as a radical self-awareness of the other. It takes humility to recognize I don’t know everything and I don’t understand everything. A little more humility would mean a lot less arrogance and probably violence. It is a good argument for some moderation.
The final piece I want to borrow from Brooks’ essay has to do with courage. Courage is another one of the classical virtues. In fact, I would suggest without courage, living with virtue is not likely. Listen to Brooks: “Moderation requires courage. Moderates don’t operate from the safety of their ideologically pure galleons. They are unafraid to face the cross currents, detached from clan, acknowledging how little they know.” It is easy to see how moderation fueled by courage links to what he said about humility and the quest for truth.
Using this perspective, I would argue that Jesus, the Buddha and all the religious greats were people of moderation. Their lives were lived in quest of truth. But there is no arrogance in their life or teaching. Every one of the greats I can think of were humble women and men. Certainly, their followers have sometimes taken the message in some unfortunate directions. There certainly has been too much mayhem in the name of religion.
But Brooks is correct. Moderation is not some form of milquetoast. It is principled and strong. But it is grounded in virtue. It calls us to live with a sense of justice. It asks us to be people grounded, which is a good way to understand humility. And it calls for courage. Moderates are not passive people. But moderates also are not crazy people. No one is crazy to live and act virtuously. In fact, we probably are crazy not to live a life of virtue insofar as we can.
Brooks has made a good case for moderation. And I think he would be supported by all the religious traditions and those of us who want to follow in faith.
There are no secrets to what Brooks is doing, but the key to his ideas---and that which appeals to me---is his use of time-honored ideas like the classical virtues. To use the virtues works both in politics and religion. Since I have done a great deal with the virtues, it seemed obvious and natural to me. Let me focus on three aspects of the argument Brooks is making.
The first instance I cite has to do with the classical virtue, justice. From my own work, I know that justice is not always easy to achieve. For one thing there are different, legitimate criteria for justice. For example, in some cases the quest for justice is a quest for equality. We recognize this in equal opportunity and other areas like this. But in other instances, the standard for justice is not equality, but fairness. I think about my own two daughters and realize sometimes I treated them equally and other times my attempt was to be fair.
Brooks links justice to truth. This makes the situation even more complex. Listen to what he says about politics. “Truth before justice. All political movements must face inconvenient facts — thoughts and data that seem to aid their foes. If you try to suppress those facts, by banning a speaker or firing an employee, then you are putting the goals of your cause, no matter how noble, above the search for truth. This is the path to fanaticism, and it always backfires in the end.” It is interesting that he puts truth before justice, but I believe he is correct. And I think this works for religion, too.
The obvious trick is to decide what is truth? It is unfortunate that in religion, like politics, there are people on extreme ends of the spectrum who assume their position is the truth. And it is equally obvious both extremes cannot be true! Moderates are those folks who are in the middle and who recognize some truth in other people that may be a little different than where we are. A good example is how Christians see and deal with truth in other major religious traditions, like Buddhism.
I think Brooks’ instinct is correct. We need to figure out what is true before establishing what is just. For example, if I believe all humans are creatures of God, that truth dictates how I treat other people. It means they deserve to be treated with justice---equally and fairly---even if they are different than I am. This would lead to peace and tend toward avoiding violence. Of course, the other person may not treat me the same way. But that should not lead me to act contrary to my own principles.
The second focus from Brooks I want to introduce has to do with humility. He says, “Humility is the fundamental virtue. Humility is a radical self-awareness from a position outside yourself — a form of radical honesty. The more the moderate grapples with reality the more she understands how much is beyond our understanding.” I like how he describes humility as a radical self-awareness of the other. It takes humility to recognize I don’t know everything and I don’t understand everything. A little more humility would mean a lot less arrogance and probably violence. It is a good argument for some moderation.
The final piece I want to borrow from Brooks’ essay has to do with courage. Courage is another one of the classical virtues. In fact, I would suggest without courage, living with virtue is not likely. Listen to Brooks: “Moderation requires courage. Moderates don’t operate from the safety of their ideologically pure galleons. They are unafraid to face the cross currents, detached from clan, acknowledging how little they know.” It is easy to see how moderation fueled by courage links to what he said about humility and the quest for truth.
Using this perspective, I would argue that Jesus, the Buddha and all the religious greats were people of moderation. Their lives were lived in quest of truth. But there is no arrogance in their life or teaching. Every one of the greats I can think of were humble women and men. Certainly, their followers have sometimes taken the message in some unfortunate directions. There certainly has been too much mayhem in the name of religion.
But Brooks is correct. Moderation is not some form of milquetoast. It is principled and strong. But it is grounded in virtue. It calls us to live with a sense of justice. It asks us to be people grounded, which is a good way to understand humility. And it calls for courage. Moderates are not passive people. But moderates also are not crazy people. No one is crazy to live and act virtuously. In fact, we probably are crazy not to live a life of virtue insofar as we can.
Brooks has made a good case for moderation. And I think he would be supported by all the religious traditions and those of us who want to follow in faith.
Comments
Post a Comment