On Renewing All Things

I was thinking about the debate over at Throne and Altar; the more I weigh the issue, the more it seems to me that whose who wish to change the world for the better must first aim at changing themselves, their close friends, and their immediate community for the better.

I'm still trying to nail down the reasons why this is the case, though, so the following list is a definitely a work in progress. Suggestions welcome. I'll probably post more about this in the future.

1. We must offer an alternative.

Ideas may have consequences, but no one cares about an idea that is not embodied, that may not even be possible, and whose practitioners would rather impose it on others before bothering to practice it themselves.

We have to show people a better alternative--an alternative that is necessarily embodied in a community--before we try to destroy what they have. If we do not embody our ideas, they cannot see such an alternative. No one will be excited by a worldview that destroys all the things they think are good, unless they can see the better goods that it offers them.

The most effective emissaries of any religion or worldview are those who follow it and love it and through which its goodness shines; and unless we follow and love ours, then there's no real reason for someone else to join us in it.

2. We must not fall into modern political categories.

If you say you wish to change the world for the better, and try to do so in a political manner, it is very easy to look at what is wrong with the world and say that one wishes to change that. But if you do that, you've defined the good as the absence of evil. But evil is the absence of good, not vice-versa.

Put another way--when we enter the political process, we have to define ourselves with reference to modern political issues: we've become the people who don't hold for universal suffrage, or lenient divorce laws, or human "rights" as generally conceived, or what have you. But we shouldn't define ourselves by reference to someone else; we should be offering a good that is indifferent to modern liberal society, one that even appropriates any true goods that it offers. We must offer a genuine alternative, not simply a new combination of the goods in the current political battle.

3. The political process is far too unsteady for transforming the world.

Why does this matter? Well, political progress comes and goes; it can be annihilated instantly with an election; it can be annihilated permanently with a revolution or a collapse. Goods pursued through the political process are fragile.

On the other hand, goods pursued in a strong community can endure such dislocations--granted that such communities can be crushed by such dislocations, but at least they have a chance. As the world changes, gemeinschaft lasts longer than gesellschaft; community lasts longer than society; families last longer than businesses and nations; religious communities last longer than think tanks trying to advance the ideals of the moral majority. Dominicans were teaching people long before the Heritage Foundation came into existence; the latter will probably die before the former.

4. The political process tends to be useful for short-term goals.

Politics works for short-term goals that do not require societal change. It doesn't work for long-term goals that require transformation. If you think this can be rushed, you're fooling yourself.

Those who have long-term goals--say, the gay rights activists--know this. That's why they try to change the culture before they change the laws.

I am, of course, not opposed to trying to slow the advance of liberalism, or doing what can be done--especially at the local level. But those who think that we should put our efforts into large-scale political action seem to be distracting us from where the real battle lies.

5. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."

And thus it has always been.

"Pursue ye first the kingdom of heaven, and all these things shall be added unto you."