There is a debate about the
name of a public school in the Richmond area; for decades its name has been
that of a politician, a deceased government leader, who many say served
the Commonwealth of Virginia for most of his life and deserves to have a school
named after him. When others point out that he was a staunch segregationist and
fought integration and equality the response often is, “He was just a man of
his times, that’s the way people were back then.” Is the idea that a man or
woman was reflecting the attitudes and thinking of her or his “times”
justification for his or her attitudes, words, and actions – especially when it
comes to honoring the memory of people and therefore holding that memory up as
an example for present and future generations?
Regarding the above example,
let me first point out, that the above individual may have been “serving” the white
population of Virginia, but he was hardly serving the black citizens of our state.
Furthermore, he would have better served the white population had he not been a
man of his times and therefore had led the white population in moral and ethical
change; and this leads me to the heart of the issue: people who are products of
their times are not the people who should be honored, it is the people who
transcend and overcome their times that should be honored.
Now to be sure there are some
things in which being a product of one’s times is innocuous, others which are
amusing, others which are wrong-headed but not moral or ethical; but there
remain those which are matters of life and death, of good and evil, or of morals and ethics; these latter are the things
that matter. It doesn’t matter if someone believed there really was a bird
called a Phoenix which rose from ashes, or that the sun revolved around the
earth, or that swamp gases could make one crazy, or that travelling on a train
at high speed would change your molecular structure. These are not first-tier
questions, they are not life and death questions, they are not questions that
affect the basic moral and ethical and spiritual structure of our lives. One
can understandably be a person of “the times” in many things such as these
without approaching issues that touch on the core of human life. (Think of how
often dietary advice changes in our own “times” – smart people test the rats,
then they ask us to behave like rats, then they test us, then they test the
rats again, and then they ask to us change our behavior again based on what
they just learned anew – it is a cycle that doesn’t end – we are all people of
our “times” in many ways that don’t much matter).
Anyone can be a person of his “times”
– but great men and women ought to be people above their “times” in the things
that matter, and certainly segregation and equity and justice matter. If people
of their “times” honored a man of his “times” using the standards of their “times”
then we have an unexceptional honor given to someone by unexceptional people
using an unexceptional standard. If our standards have changed today for the
better, then we should ask how they changed and how we changed and what people
were the catalysts for the change and honor them. This is not changing history
or rewriting history, it is not about denying the past, it is, if anything, acknowledging
the sins of our past, including the grievous sins of the leaders we chose to
follow – their sins are our sins – perhaps that is why many of us are loath to
question them, perhaps that is why we’d rather not consider renaming a school.
When we take this argument
into the professing church we move from the civic to the eternal and in so doing
have the argument that a person was a product of his “times” cut more deeply
from beneath our feet – for the eternal by its nature is transcendent, the
Biblical is not a prisoner of time and space and circumstance, it transcends
all of these things for it spans the eternals. The earthly life of Jesus Christ
is a recurring statement and example that life ought to transcend the things of
earth and in doing so change the things of earth – change the hearts of men and
women. Those who follow Jesus are called to be not people of their times, but
people who change their times if possible, and if not possible people who live
in opposition to their times.
When Christian leaders of the
past have succumbed to fractured (and worse) moral and ethical thinking we
ought to not explain it away by saying that they were people of their times –
we ought to say that they sinned and fell short of the glory of God in those
areas. When the professing church has failed to articulate righteousness and
justice and failed to live in faithfulness to Jesus Christ and to its neighbors
then we ought to acknowledge the truth of the matter and use not their “times”
as our standard, but rather the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word.
When our own lives come to an
end and we stand before our Lord Jesus and our brothers and sisters, will our
lives be products of our “times” or will they be products of the transcendent Kingdom
of God?
No comments:
Post a Comment