For centuries, indeed perhaps since the beginning of time, the human race has been in the grip of a paradox. A pair of contrasting, seemingly opposite yet equally compelling views has served to swing a pendulum back and forth at a rate that was too slow to be detected by the masses, and too fast to allow any significant stability.
On one hand, equipped with a sometimes faded but definite grasp of the tremendous power and abundance of the Deity, people have developed and held fast to great utopian visions of potential splendor. Here, in this pleasing dimension of economic hope and shared optimism, a vision of man emerges with our well intentioned hearts and talents developing and setting forth to bless all it touches with shared abundance. God is this way, so thus, are his servants. Gone are the days of fear and isolation. Great days lie ahead, regardless of who is supposed to do the finish carpentry, or how.
On the other hand, the chill of the wild, harsh environment is all too familiar to the survivors who have watched it take the weaker, and those unprepared for its blast, time after time. Dreams of abundance, and lofty ideals do little to stand against the oft stark face of reality. The industrious north feeds the overpopulating south, and the man who doesn’t learn to master the resources, and be self sustaining will be lost in the storm.
A paradox, of course, doesn’t really take hold until both apparent opposing arms can support their proposals. And, its interesting that the spiritual heritage of mankind can find a refuge, at diverse times and in diverse conditions, on either side.
The paradox leads us to wearing labels and being set at odds with one another. The conservative is self-minded and unrealistically promotes self reliance toward the downtrodden whose circumstances clearly call for the extension of charity, lest his refusal to share be the cause of their demise. The liberal is the wanton class envy advocate, seeking to enforce a distribution of wealth by authoritarian power, and denying the rewards of achievement. These railing accusations take hold and lead those whose minds are hardly mature, nor will their own, leading to the cleaving to one side of this paradox or the other.
It seems that, when this happens, the worst aspects of mankind's inadequacy is revealed. There is no small awareness of global financial problems currently. Recently, rioters in London burned and demolished properties in direct response to austerity measures of the government, seeking to avert irreversible economic decline and ultimately disaster. The facts of the present matter are not difficult to understand. Governments overspend, and banking institutions extend credit which becomes bad debt. An “idiots guide to global economic politics” would complete the task of summarizing the two perspectives on this, and reiterating our paradox of plenty. One school ultimately deems capitalism an evil to be dispatched with slow progressive socialism and the other identifies politicians who obtain popularity through promises which they seek to deliver through taxation as the corruption that edges closer and closer to economic impotency. The politics of State Capitalism, in a strange way merge authoritarian rule with state owned “independent” enterprises.
On the other hand “austerity cuts” are questionable in the minds of a relatively affluent society, leading us ultimately to ask whether going backward is even an option. Statistics show that there is, at least in the USA, as severe a divide between the prosperity of minorities and the white majority as ever, but at the same time, the general level of prosperity, even in depressed economic times shows the standard of living in the greatest part of the modern world to be better than ever even for the least privileged. The notion of privilege itself comes into question when, in the deeper gut of a generation, the ills of some are due to the excess wealth of the rest. At this point the “.... teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime” adage becomes a shallow rhetorical support for a lack of charity. Yet, is there no promise of reward for self-reliance? From Aeschylus to Sophocles to Emerson to Vince Lombardi, the notion that “"If it is to be, it is up to me." (WH Johnsen) is nearly universally believed.
There is no question that these opposing ideas area also present in spiritual dimensions. Spiritual abundance and selfless giving is a characteristic of God commended to any and all disciples. “Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. (Matthew 10:8). In fact, the divine gift has, perhaps without complete justification, led the very nature of love to be redefined as giving, in some cases. Conversely, there is undeniable scriptural instruction to advise and teach any individual the development of strengths and the just attaining of substance without undue reliance on a world that often does not yield fruit as easily as it does thistles.
How much is plenty? Again, we are struck with the need to stand on the other side of a line. “For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.” (1 Timothy 6:7-8). Don't envy! Yet, to the rich man, who was evidently unable to unburden himself and stand apart from his attainments: “Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.” (Matthew 19:21). Many a liberal has been apprehended, unable to divest himself of what calls undue wealth of others, and more than a few conservatives have been found less than willing to accept those whose fortunes are not as great with respect due another man.
Does this paradox have a resolution? Usually a paradox is really the outlining of a perspective that puts some facts, bit acknowledge as true, in conflict. Our perspectives are, indeed, the prescription for our prejudices. Even so, there are some practices that that would change the world for the better.
First, be aware that individuals have their perspectives shaped by experience. Two people brought into contact in conflict can find themselves quite comfortable friends, if they take the time to understand the backgrounds that underlay each others opinions, sometimes. While this may not be possible if one or both are bitter, or completely self-centered, mutual respect and mutual understand are joined at the heart.
Second, adapt shared and balanced principles: Give when there is need out of desire to bless another, but presume to supple you own need. And in attendance to this, always receive with gratitude, and be sure to ask when you have genuine need you cannot satisfy. Remember, self reliance is an ideal, but the realities of life make it possible and even necessary to create REAL relationships through the mutual satisfaction of needs.
Finally, avoid political convention and dogma. Large groups of people do join together to voice concerns, but that voice is almost always a strife that, while it may press for betterment, drags you a dimension where being at peace and in balance are at the very least, less likely. Conservatives can take delight in acting liberally without fearing that they will be an example of excess (after all, can there ever be an overabundance of love?) and Liberals can seek a personal life that gives an example of self-reliance, without hurting whoever learns that lesson.
A perspective of my fellow man as willing to improve, yet hopeful to provide another's needs is a very positive way for me to see, and makes for a better view of life in general. If its unrealistic, its only because others haven’t caught up yet.
