Book Club: Final Chapter

Dorothy Sayers' final chapter is perhaps the most thought provoking for me. It begins with a quote from L. P. Jacks:

"Like 'happiness,' our two terms 'problem' and 'solution' are not to be found in the Bible - a point which gives to that wonderful literature a singular charm and cogency ... On the whole, the influence of these words is malign, and becomes increasingly so. They have deluded poor men with Messianic expectations ... which are fatal to steadfast persistence in good workmanship and to well-doing in general ..."

We do live in that society where it is the aim of many to solve, or find solutions to, our problems, from the smallest to the largest. "Don't like that mineral build-up in your shower from all that hard water? Buy Brand X and it will instantly solve that problem with no effort on your part!" "Are telemarketers a problem for you? Our app is the solution you need." "Tragically, children are reaching 5th, 6th, even 7th grade and higher unable to read. Our solution is to get them into school as toddlers." "Gun violence is an increasing problem for society; we've come up with the solution to severely limit firearm permits." And on and on it goes.

Are we being made to feel less than compassionate if we disagree with some of society's proposed solutions? Are we being made to feel less than intelligent if we haven't thought of, or at the very least, settled on a solution to the myriad of societal problems?

What if, for a great number of these issues, there is no solution apart from each person serving society within the realm of their God-given gifts? I am wondering, what if our whole viewpoint is off-center and needs recalibrating.

Sayers says, " ... the only way of 'mastering' one's material is to abandon the whole conception of mastery and to co-operate with it in love." We cannot "wrest life out of its true nature," and when we try, we kill it.

I'm going to try to talk through an example of what I'm driving at, and what I think Dorothy Sayers is implying.

Let's take the subject of the poor, whom we remember Jesus said will always be with us. So, right from the start, if we are listening and believe, we must accept the fact that there is no 'final' solution to eliminating poverty. We could talk about why this is, and we might end up with a discussion centered around human nature, individual abilities, and more, but we will leave the question of Why for another time and center on how a society might concern themselves with the poor.

In the early days of this country, the poor were seen to by those individuals/families who had the means and the will to help them. Food baskets would be carried to a family in need; churches, through parish donations, would assist the poor; relationships were built through this enterprise; the giver was blest through his actions (for Christ said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive.") and the recipient was blest with the solace of a few days nourishment for her family. On top of that, the recipient learned humility in accepting essentials from another, likely with the thought of being that person to someone else in the future. A strong bond of love, compassion, thankfulness, and friendship might develop. These are things of eternal significance.

A time came when it seemed right and necessary for the government to step in and provide for the poor. Whether this was right or wrong is not part of this discussion, but it has been suggested that this policy, lacking an end date, has contributed to the number of families in poverty. In essence, what has transpired is the mandatory taxation of society's producers, which are funneled through a bureaucracy and disbursed to the poor in society in the form of cash, with few restrictions.

As the number of families in poverty increased, likewise did the taxes on society's workers. As a result of this policy, at least two observations can be made. One is, the more money taken from families in the form of tax, the less discretionary funds these families have to personally give to others. The message and understanding becomes, 'the government is seeing to the poor; therefore, it isn't necessary that I do so, too.' Secondly, the personal dynamic is removed entirely between the bless-er and blessing-receiver. It is impossible to calculate the damage done by the elimination of the relational element. The receiver now does not know who it is that provides for him and has no way to thank the giver if so inclined. The giver is so far removed from the equation that many receivers believe they are receiving money from the government without a true understanding of where government gets its money. The receiver collects their gift on a regular basis in the mailbox and quite easily begins to plan their life around this 'income.'

Whereas, in the earlier practice, social norms would've prohibited this kind of presumption. Now, the giver is left feeling resentful about government's intrusion into this part of his life, and the receiver, entitled.  A part of what it means to be a human being is in reality stolen from both. And in the end, the problem isn't at all solved; in fact, it has multiplied into larger, more complex problems.

I will end where Sayers ends, in trying to describe the creator's nature. She says,

" ... so far as I conform to the pattern of human society, I feel myself also to be powerless and at odds with the universe; while so far as I conform to the pattern of my true nature, I am at odds with human society, and it with me. If I am right in thinking that human society is out of harmony with the law of its proper nature, then my experience again corroborates that of the theologians, who have also perceived this fundamental dislocation in man."

Powerful stuff!