It is only when we are fully rooted that we are really able to move.
Madeleine L’Engle
A Wind in the Door
I attended a holiday party recently and found myself in the host’s kitchen engaged in a long conversation with a young man, the father of three young children. He and his wife are thinking of converting to Catholic, and since I have a long history with Catholicism — pro and con — and enjoy a good discussion (when it doesn’t turn argumentative), I served as his sounding board.
We talked (and listened) for a long time with the crush of party swirling around us. He knows that the Catholic Church isn’t perfect (which I confirmed), but he’s attracted to their teachings on ethics and morality, which he finds lacking in the modern world, especially in our political discourse, as evidenced by the uncivil and toxic combat often found in social media.
He has a background in philosophy and articulated his positions in cerebral fashion, as you might expect, with underlying feeling. Emotion didn’t get in the way for either of us, which made for a pleasant exchange. He was a concerned father and seemed to be asking the right question:
How do we live a moral life and serve as an example for our children?
He focused less on defining morality — which gets pretty complicated and has been kicked around by great and not-so-great minds for centuries — and more on ethical behavior: treating one another with kindness, decency, caring, respect, fairness. First, do no harm, then do some good. He and his wife, I think, are looking for a religious base that provides a structure in which this can be learned and practiced.
Whether that is best found in the Catholic Church is, at the very least, arguable. I mentioned my misgivings, both spiritually and politically, which involve those in authority who hide behind a veneer of morality that disguises a much less moral agenda. In general, I find that kind of hypocrisy far more widespread on the conservative side of the secular and spiritual ledger. But I did not sense a hidden agenda in him, even though he said he has become more conservative in recent years. He seemed sincere about seeking a better world for his children to grow up in.
We also discussed societal change, starting with G.K. Chesterton’s parable of “the fence,” which goes like this:
“Let us say, for the sake of simplicity, [there is] a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’”
The dilemma of change — tradition vs. progress — is at the heart of this country’s polarization. You can argue both sides of the fence (so to speak). One side resists change, even when change is badly needed and the lack of it causes harm (unregulated firearms, for instance). The other is determinedly pro-change, which, in its most reckless form, can cause harm by not considering unintended negative consequences (what conservatives like to call “cancel culture”).
But Chesterton seemed to suggest a middle way: show respect for the past by researching the reasons that led to the fence being put up in the first place (the conservative position), then if you propose getting rid of it, clearly make a case for the benefits of taking it down (the progressive position). In an ideal world, the final decision on the fence would favor the side that shows superior benefits to the greatest number of people — or at least some acceptable compromise which balances the benefits.
But that reasonable world is not the world we presently live in.
As I thought about our conversation later, it struck me: Our national dispute over change and morality results from most of us being either conservative or progressive. What if each of us were conservative and progressive? One side, grounded in the past, fights change. The other side, seeking a better future, seeks to forge ahead. Two nations, irreconcilable? But what if we respected both? Could we become one nation again — or for the first time? Maybe we can only move if we take the best of the past (our democratic foundation) with us as we move forward, leaving the worst parts (racism and inequality) behind. Maybe it’s not change we seek after all. It’s continuity. Madeleine L’Engle wrote that it’s only when we’re fully rooted that we’re able to move. And maybe it’s also when we’re ready to move that we become fully rooted.
We may need both.
Being both conservative and progressive may be what is required for each of us to live a truly moral life — one that is kind, decent, caring, respectful, and fair to everyone — in a turbulent world.
Maybe then we wouldn’t need so many fences.