Yesterday a friend made a very apt comment in reply to one of my Facebook comments. He wrote:
But did God mandate that Big Government be the answer to this? As a retired legislator I know put it, speaking from over a decade of experience in office: “Big government, big business, big labor – all bad.” (He could have added Big Finance, I’m sure.) Aren’t we called to think differently about the problems facing humanity, in light of the Gospel? You of all people should know the problems with Big Government, and how it hinders a truly humane economy. Why accept the false dichotomies the world offers?
My answer is that I actually agree with him in theory. But, in practice, I still live on this Earth and I end up having to make choices. It is called choosing the lesser evil. Now, if you go on the Internet, you can research and see how there are people who write about how choosing the lesser of two evils is still evil and that therefore you cannot make a choice. Or even they write about how this is a false concept. But, the concept is an old concept that has stood the test of time. You find it in the book, “The Imitation of Christ” where Thomas á Kempis writes:
“If you say that you cannot suffer much, how will you endure the fire of purgatory? Of two evils, the lesser is always to be chosen. Therefore, in order that you may escape the everlasting punishments to come, try to bear present evils patiently for the sake of God.”
The Reformer, Martin Luther, expresses much the same thing when he talks about “sinning boldly” and that we take not the path of glory to Heaven, but rather the path of the Cross. There is a long Christian history to the idea that, in this life, very few things that we choose are pure good. Even Saint Paul appears conflicted, at times, whether it is better to marry or to stay celibate. Certainly, he participates in this lesser of two evils approach when he says in Corinthians to, let her marry for it is better to marry than to burn. This is clearly a lesser of two evils approach from a man who actually appeared to believe that celibacy was the “best” option.
I saw a blog that I liked that argued that, all too often, we are more idealistic than God. We talk about not soiling ourselves by staying away from certain circumstances. Meanwhile, God gets involved with a self-aggrandizing younger brother (Joseph), a man who steals an inheritance blessing (Jacob), a man who passes of his wife as his sister (Abraham), a murderer (David), etc. That is, if you read both Old Testament and New Testament history, you will find that God often chose men and women in less than pure circumstances, and even put up with some of their grievous sin for the sake of future gain for the Kingdom. If you want to see how this horrified some of the believers, read the Book of Habbakkuk and see how the Prophet replies when told that God’s plan is to send the Assyrians to wipe out the 10 northern tribes! One of the Prophet’s responses is that he cannot believe that a God who cannot tolerate sin could possibly be involved with those heathens. Habbakkuk was wrong and God was involved with those heathen.
We live in a world in which Satan is still more the master of humanity than God is. We live in a world in which we must choose the lesser of the evils all too often. So, my answer to my friend is that, in practical terms, increased government intervention may be the only solutions to some of our problems. There was even a time when President Nixon imposed wage and price controls because he had to stop the economy from burning out of control. I do not advocate Nixonian controls. But, I have to work with reality, not with supposed utopic plans. I am called to think differently. I am called to evaluate all things in the light of what is God for humankind, more specifically for Americans. And, to do that, to engage the world, I must often follow the lead of Thomas á Kempis and Martin Luther. I must sin boldly and I must choose the lesser of two (or multiple) evils, “… in order that you may escape the everlasting punishments to come … .”
At what point is it better to declare that there is no lesser evil and both are intolerable? That it’s better to choose a third option of working towards a better alternative. Is that being idealistic?
Jason, more than one Christian group has taken that option. For instance, the monastic movement began as a rejection of the Christianity in the big cities that they perceived as having gone lukewarm. Various of the Anabaptist groups, such as the Amish and Old Order Mennonites have chosen to withdraw from the world. The old Bruderhof movement was another such attempt to withdraw.
In history, personages such as Bishop Samuel Wilberforce worked against slavery. In many ways, the Underground Railway was a clear rejection of both the pro-slavery group and the accomodationist group. They engaged in civil disobedience.
Teddy Roosevelt, at the beginning of the 20th century, withdrew from the existing Republican Party structure in order to form The Progressive Party, nicknamed the Bull Moose Republicans. But, by and large, there have not been many successful third party attempts.
But, here is the problem. All too many idealistic people at every election choose to either not vote or to vote some party that they know has no traction and will not even get a seat in Congress. They keep themselves “clean” by essentially making no choice. The danger is that by not becoming involved in any way that will bring meaningful change, they may very well be taking votes away from precisely the lesser of two evils and allowing the greater of two evils to be elected.
Having said that, Martin Luther’s statement about sinning boldly reminds us that regardless of what choice we make (one evil, the other evil, or idealistic disengagement), the choice we make will not be perfect. Even if you make the choice to not make a choice, that in itself is a choice. And, since it is probable that whatever we do will be imperfect, it means that whatever we do will have some element of sin in it. Now, this is sin in its broadest definition, not in the sense of willful and intentional sin. And, some theologies say that it would not be considered sin precisely because it is not willful and intentional. Yet, St. Thomas á Kempis reminds us that all our choices are somehow tainted by the sin which so freely indwells us.
Or, as old-time bartenders might have said, “pick your poison, please.”
Thank you Father. I agree that we should always engage and withdrawing is rarely the answer. I suppose the big question is how best to engage. It’s always a hard call to choose between pure principle and practicality
And, I do not have a good answer for that. Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing an evil, and that is never comfortable for a Christian.