Forget About Instinct, It's Not What Pays

Part X (My Response)

I agree with you that as a moral policy, extremism, or at least the striving towards an extreme, is the only way to go. I think there is a distinction from our earlier conversation about balance, especially in the context of the isolation v. community debate, where the decision is not necessarily a "moral" choice.

I guess morals are whatever we choose to give value to in our lives, what directs us in the way we make decisions on a daily basis, and how we choose to live, but it seems like there is something to gained from living a balanced life in the isolation vs. community context that cannot be gained by living in a morally lukewarm/apathetic manner towards others. There is some way to hold those two ideas in tension, balance and extremism, and I'm sure someone much wiser than yours truly would be able to paint a better picture of what that looks like in a human being's life.

On the idea of being both extreme while also being non-abrasive, I agree that that person is as rare as the proverbial Native American rapper, but the reason for that is likely that if you are truly extreme in your beliefs on how the world such operate on matters both large and small, you will do whatever you can to make that so. As I wrote earlier in our conversation, this desire often comes in conflict with the viewpoints and lives of others, who may be extremely devoted to their vision of how the world should operate.

If you are an extremist, it would seem to be a betrayal of your views to yield to the other person's perspective on an issue that you are devoted to. That's why it seems we must be extreme about the right kinds of things (care and concern for others, love, peace, justice, hope, etc., etc., etc.). How someone arrives at which are the "right kinds of things", well, as they say in East Texas, that is a whole 'nother can of worms.

I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that Christianity/religion is a good personal policy, but a bad political one. In my mind, here's the reason why: From a Christian perspective, I want the separation of church and state, not simply because I think that religion is bad for government, but more for the reason that government is bad for religion. When I read the Gospels/New Testament, I keep reading Jesus talk about how we are supposed to be in this world, but not of this world.

The church is supposed to be counter-cultural. It's supposed to exist in this sphere that is outside of government, outside of the realm of political power as calculated by the world, outside of "the establishment." Throughout the history of the church, we as Christians have always gotten into trouble when we became obsessed with intertwining government and religion. I'm all for the promotion of religion, but that promotion should be done by the church, and not by any power gained by being co-opted by the government or attempting to co-opt the government.

I'm starting to write a novel here, so I'll stop for now.