Fallacy of Novelty

I was on my way to pick up some pizza for dinner at Buddy's, the dutiful husband that I am, when I encountered an interesting tidbit of radio idiocy on NPR. The feature, a response from Justice Stephen Breyer, argues against the judicial philosophy of "originalism" (espoused by those like Justice Scalia) which in essence says we need to accept the meaning of the Constitution as the framers originally intended as the foundation for American jurisprudence--especially at the Supreme Court level. Breyer, on the other hand espouses a significantly more "flexible" (cavalier?) interpretive framework, making the Constitution fit the times we live in. In this model, a supposedly more "democratic" approach is taken, because the words of the Constitution are all subject to the interpretation of judges over the ages. What was good for one age may not be so any longer, and vice versa. This not only hearkens back to literary theorists such as Stanley Fish and Jacques Derrida, it also holds one tenent which is taken as a given and unassailable: the times they are a-changing.

I believe such a mindset is inherently invalid. It first bopped around as the mind child of the Enlightenment concept of Progress (which catapulted to even greater euphoric heights through early Darwinists). Then as we have had our illusions shattered by reality during the 20th Century, we got rid of our optimism, but still kept this vestige of chronological snobbery (a la C.S. Lewis) alive. We still culturally seem to accept this mumbo jumbo that human beings, as they advance technologically, morph (since we can't "advance" anymore--the idea of Progress is dead). We morph morally, politically, culturally, psychologically to the point that we aren't the same humans anymore. At least that's how the thought process goes.

Instead, I agree with the maxim, "the more things change the more they stay the same." I think Solomon summed it up well when he said, "There is nothing new under the sun." Why is human cloning such a big deal except that it really is rehashing the old-fashioned struggle of the inherent God-given dignity of human beings versus a supremely naturalistic view of humanity? New technologies make sinful pleasures more private and more ubiquitous, but they do not fundamentally change the nature of how people respond when faced with temptation and vice. So did the framers anticipate the affirmative action debate? They had their own version of affirmative action with the 3/5 compromise when the Constitution was first adopted. Today we are thankful for the 14th Amendment, which more justly rectified the problems of racism that have been around since Babel. But societies are run by people who are eternally caught up in these things called bodies. We cannot deny that we are human, and that there is a continuity in our human nature which does not essentially change even when there is flux within the culture at large. The sooner we grow to accept this, the sooner we can cast off the fallacy of novelty and realize that we aren't so different from our ancestors and our potential progeny as we pretend to be.

Thoughts on Numbness

One of my sidelines of study recently has been besetting sin and the provision of God's grace to overcome them. In my meditations I have come to realize a good number of people (most? all?) use a variety of sins as a means to numb themselves against love. While I wholeheartedly agree with the Augustinian view that we are trying to fill a God-shapped hole in our hearts with all manner of things, I believe as we come to realize certain areas of our lives are crying out desparately for the love of God (even the love of God as expressed through the love of others--spouses, family, friends, general philanthropic love) we are equally aware that even unconditional love requires a response that is more effort than we are willing to put forth to receive it. And how much more so is this the case when that love is convenantal--where there is returned expression of love and commitment to stick by love through thick and thin. So we take our little idols--TV, alcohol, jobs, video games, porn, constantly vying for the attention of others--and we attempt to numb ourselves. These numbing distractions serve to feign immunity against the hurt of lovelessness while simultaneously creating a barrier to satisfy our souls with the one thing that will: the love of God.

Now my wife Kelly has pointed out that sometimes the numbness is not even a conscious choice. And I have to acknowledge this often is the case. And many people do not know that they are in reality craving God's incomparable love. But I still believe in such cases we subconsciously count the cost--albeit with bad logic or incomplete information--and all we discern is that our current idols are easier to hold onto. They don't seem worth the risk. Better the devil we know than the sacrifice for an unknown quantity. Is it any wonder that people recoil at the Gospel? People say they want peace, redemption, success, fulfillment, and security--but they want it on their own terms. And I am not exempt from idol-chasing in those hidden areas of my life that no one sees, and that I myself am oblivious to until the Holy Spirit mentions them to me. Am I ready to relinquish my numbing idols and let God pour out His love in the dark places within? Even the places that sting? And can I help others be aware of the same conundrum in their lives without being a hypocrite?