Innocence and experience

Last updated on: November 4, 2009 at 4:05 pm by Fred Clark

Innocence and experience 2009-11-04T16:05:58-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I made this recently, but I'm still not quite sure what to make of it.

Playing off of Jesus' charge to his disciples to "be wise as serpents and innocent as doves" we can construct the following grid of wisdom and innocence, charting four possible outcomes when you encounter someone purporting to be in need of your help:

As you can see, one of these outcomes is a Very Good Thing, one is a Very Bad Thing, and the other two are more or less indifferent. That lower right square is, of course, the inbreaking of the kingdom of God. The lower left square, on the other hand, is a little slice of Hell on earth.

So our little model here would seem to suggest that it might be wisest to avoid the wisdom of serpents altogether and stick to a dovish innocence. Assume that everyone you encounter is genuinely in need and you'll never find yourself participating in the hellish neglect of that lower left square. The worst that could happen would be that you'd get taken advantage of, which is sub-optimal but, morally speaking, no big whoop. Such deliberate naivete would also seem in line with some of the other things Jesus told his disciples, such as telling them to give freely to anyone who asks and to lend without the expectation of repayment.

But there are at least three problems with the holy foolishness of that approach.

The first problem, obviously, is that it contradicts the original statement. Jesus didn't say, "Forget about being wise as serpents, just get out there and be as innocent as doves." He seemed to think there was some merit or necessity to serpentine wisdom, so it's probably worth exploring what that might be.

The second problem is that a strict adherence to an unqualified dovish innocence offers no way of knowing or ensuring that our actions are effective — that we're making the best use of our finite time and resources. When the question is "Should I help this person?" then an undiluted innocence may provide an answer. But when the question is more complicated — "Should I help this person or that person?" — it seems a measure of wisdom is called for.

The third problem with the dovishness suggested by the grid above is that this abstract model doesn't account very well for the actual facts of the actual people we're likely to meet here in the actual world.

Take for example the routine ethical dilemma posed by panhandlers. "Ignore him — he just wants money for drugs," is one form of the usual dismissal given to any obligation we have when confronted by this purported need. That dismissal is sometimes despicably self-serving, but it's also usually accurate. The vast majority of people in need do not panhandle, and the vast majority of panhandlers are not in need — or, rather, they have real and desperate needs, but not of the sort that a fleeting exchange or a few small bills can hope to address. Nine times out of 10, giving money to a panhandler is enabling, not empowering.

Given this data set, then, in which most panhandlers are addicts or scammers or both, we might conclude the opposite of what the model above suggests — that we should completely avoid dovish innocence and treat all panhandlers with a suspicious, reptilian wisdom.

That approach seems troubling, in that it leaves open the likelihood of the hellish scenario in the lower left square while shutting off the possibility for the kind of blessed community described in the lower right square. Plus, again, it contradicts what Jesus actually said. His charge to his disciples indicates that he also saw something worthy and necessary in maintaining the innocence of doves. He wanted his followers to have both wisdom and innocence, so that they wouldn't lose their shirts or their souls.

Anyway, that chart above was originally part of a weird attempt to spoof the use of PowerPoint in church services, which I eventually abandoned because it seemed too much work for something silly. The chart itself is also silly, but I thought it was silly in a somewhat interesting way — a silly way of approaching some interesting and maybe important things.

But I'm still not entirely sure what to make of it. Hence this rather feeble conclusion.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

November 2, 2009

TF: Saving Hattie Durham

Next Post

November 5, 2009 Sinister suffrage

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said, "What is impossible with man is possible with God"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Moses Paul Jesus Peter