Pessimistic idealism

The Christian view of the world is at once far more pessimistic and far more idealistic than the humanist atheist vision. We plainly state that, at least until Jesus comes, things will never be made right, there will always be poverty, suffering, cruelty and disaster. I suspect that many areligious people would agree, but they don't have a decisive story for it - rather, their narrative says that we are fundamentally good people and our mistakes are at most the product of other peoples' mistakes. These motifs profer hope - in facing and finding healing for our own damage, in doing better by others and by the environment, and in getting behind any small action or spreading movement that advances the societal good. The rhetoric is all about improvement and advancement - towards a shining, perfect goal.

For people with such a bright vision, everyday life (sometimes) rings an oddly discordant note. The same people who champion a kind world of mutual love and respect often cut corners in the little things, not thinking or caring how their actions might hurt the people around them. People freeload on their neighbour's wireless internet because they can get away with it and it will make life cheaper for them - the practical imperative of exchanging money for services received or the fairness of paying half their neighbour's bill of little concern. This is an easy example, and it is true that very often everyday selfishness is muddied by situations of real pain. So it is that women who wish they didn't have to have a termination (because at some level they recognise it's wrong), go ahead with it anyway because they're getting no support from their loved ones, only pressure. In a world full of hurting, wronged people, there is usually more at play than pure selfishness, but it's still there.

And it's not just that people make self-serving choices in the commonplace decisions that come their way. Alongside the championing of great, affirming causes, more cynical postures are taken. Someone will say they don't love termination and would never have one themself, but will advocate for the legality/liberality of the procedure because it will make a bad thing less-bad.

Why this inconsistency? Is it that humanists lie when they say they care about love and respect, dignity and flourishing? Or it is just that petty selfishness and deep hurts get in the way? Is it that the rhetoric doesn't even convince its advocates who, in their heart of hearts, know that people aren't really that good and the world isn't really that fixable, so you just have to patch it up as best you can, aim for the less-bad? Or are the sort of things I've mentioned considered of little import and influence, without knock-on effect on the grand goals? 

In contrast, the Christian says that the world is stuffed and will never in this life be made right.  So whatever good we might do, we never pretend to be working towards perfection. But strangely, in the small things, we are far more idealistic. We feel uncomfortable when someone suggests searching for non password-protected wireless accounts. While acknowledging it's not that big a deal, at the same time we know that it is. We care about being a bad citizen, about making our neighbour pay our way. And even on the (rare) occasions when there really doesn't seem to be any down-side, we still hesitate to do wrong, because it's wrong. 

Humanism is instrumental: If it doesn't hurt anyone, it's okay. (To which should be added: If it doesn't hurt anyone *too badly*, or if they're a corporate/government entity, it's okay - as well as: If it does hurt people, but it's already an entrenched practice and by accepting it we can make it somewhat better, it's okay.) The Christian vision says: If it's not okay, it's not okay (and I should add: If it's okay, it's okay! - we have positive things to say too!). Because we believe in a God who has everything in hand, we care less about results - that's his business. Because we have a God who calls things right and wrong and cares about how we live, we care instead about the nature of the deed. This makes it hard for us to rationalise doing wrong in terms of outcomes or external pressures. It matters what we do and who we are, even - perhaps especially - when we won't be caught and maybe no-one will get hurt. We don't always get it right, but we usually know it was wrong. We're more idealistic here.

It's because of this thinking that we reject the world-weary path of prettying-up an evil deed. We don't seek to make a bad thing a little better because that's just the way it is and what can you do. When we are at our best, we elect instead to fight for a different, better path. Of course this is tempered by the 'badness' of the thing - so Christians may give their support to safe drug injection places while at the same time pushing hard for drug rehabilitation. We agree that we're never going to be rid of the bad stuff, yet are convinced that the answer is to act well, to battle for what is right with whatever influence we have and the decisions that come our way.


This may all sound very smug and self-congratulatory, but that's not where I'm coming from. For as a Christian, I don't believe that people - including myself - are fundamentally good. What I do know is that we all make sucky, terrible, sinful choices - and that we can also choose to name this for what it is, be forgiven and given power not our own to embrace the right. The other thing I know is that the world won't always be like this - one day it will be made new.

"They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain

for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord

as the waters cover the sea." 

(Isaiah 11:9)