Values and Fears
16 February 2006 by Gil
“All societies set some particular value at a premium and, in doing so, produce its opposite as an inevitable by-product. The value that is put at a premium by a culture will be that which is most necessary to sustain it, that which holds at bay its deepest fear and gravest danger.”
The preceding quote has been rattling around in my head for the past week. Regular visitors will remember Meic Pearse from earlier quotes so I apologize for referring to him again. I do so because I really think he’s on to something here. He’s attempting to analyze the difference between pre-modern societies and the contemporary West. Pre-modern societies feared anarchy and chaos so obedience to authority became the value that was prioritized. With a solid chain of command, violence and disorder would be minimized. So we see very authoritarian political structures emerging in societies in which most of its citizens are surviving at a subsistence level. This explains why ‘freedom and democracy’ are proving difficult to sell in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
The contemporary West, Pearse argues, places a premium on freedom and individual selfhood (the idea that we must be ‘true to ourselves’). The dominant fear is of any external authority imposing itself on an individual’s right to define who they want to be. This kind of value is only possible in affluent societies where people have the economic freedom to worry about things like ’self-discovery’. The recent cartoon controversy highlights the Western value of ‘freedom of expression’ over against the Muslim outrage at the disrespect that these illustrations demonstrate.
Pearse’s analysis strikes me as being fairly accurate. I think that we do value the things we do because they sustain us as individuals and communities. We also value the things we do in order to deal with perceived dangers and threats to our security. This is not necessarily a bad thing, in many ways it’s unavoidable. But it is important that we hold the values that we do for the right reasons. If hold a particular value in response to an irrational fear or an imagined danger then it seems to me that our ‘values’ will be misguided, warped, or maybe even wrong.
I have begun to wonder if this kind of analysis could be applied to the church. What ‘value’ do we place a premium on within the church? If our deepest values reflect our deepest fears, what fears and dangers are we trying to keep at bay with the things that we value? Are we dealing with real or imagined threats?
The value vs. fear argument was very apparent during the gay marriage debate. I think that there were many who were unsure of whether the church was making a stand based on a value (traditional marriage) or based on a fear. One of the main arguments made on the side of the ‘traditional definition of marriage’ was that of the slippery slope. I’m not saying that as Christians we shut up on the moral implications of homosexuality, and any other issue for that matter, but I too wonder whether we are engaging in these debates to protect our values or to knock down our fears. Good post Gil, seems to make sense why the West and the Muslim world cannot seem to see eye to eye on a lot of issues.
I think you’re on to something here Gil. As churches we do this continually. We build walls and name them “immorality,” “heresy,” “worldly” and attach punishments to climbing over them. We don’t often stop to think who’s on the other side, and that more often than not, Christ’s reach extended beyond the walls.
I think you’re on to something here Gil. As churches we do this continually. We build walls and name them “immorality,” “heresy,” “worldly” and attach punishments to climbing over them. We don’t often stop to think who’s on the other side, and that more often than not, Christ’s reach extended beyond the walls.
Thanks Nick for saying the things you did, I completly agree with you. You are a hot man!
Jared
What the church values more than anything is its adherence to morality. We are called to live holy, blameless lives so that others will praise our father in heaven but for some reason the church has forgotten that the only people called to adhere to morality is Christians. I don’t see God asking anyone who doesn’t acknowledge him to adhere to these morals. In fact we are told not to judge unbelievers. So why are we insistent on imposing our godly morals on society? Shouldn’t we rather live blameless and holy lives and let that speak for itself? Shouldn’t we rub shoulders with the ungodly and in so doing through our words and actions lead them to Christ and he will through the body of believers and through the Holy Spirit lead them to renewed minds and lives? What we fear the most is that society around us will corrupt our children, institutions, and ourselves with their immorality. We are torn with living in the world and not becoming like it. We’ve got it all wrong. Perfect love casts out all fear. Why do we fear? Because we do not love. And who do we not love? We do not love our neighbour or our God with all our hearts, minds, souls, strength, being… We are afraid of immorality when we should not be afraid of it but challenged to redeem people from it.
You said: If hold a particular value in response to an irrational fear or an imagined danger then it seems to me that our ‘values’ will be misguided, warped, or maybe even wrong.
That hits the nail on the head. Is not all fear except the fear of God irrational? Romans 8:15…For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. 1John 4:18…There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.Matt 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.