Flawed Perfection

What It Means to Be Human and Why It Matters for Culture, Politics, and Law

Jeffrey A. Brauch

• Publisher: Lexham Press
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781683590255
• Topic: Théologie et religion
• Subtopic: Religion

To understand the problems that face the world, one must understand human nature.

From exploitation and violence to decisions about how to wisely govern or care for human life, the problems humanity faces aren't just abstract issues—they impact the day-to-day lives of many individuals and communities across the globe. How should Christians wrestle with these complex and difficult problems in a thoughtful, ethical way?

According to Jeffrey A. Brauch, people need to start with an informed grasp of human nature. It's only by understanding human nature that a person can recognize their profound value as God's good creation despite their fallen condition, and uphold equal human rights regardless of differences.

Flawed Perfection will help Christians from across the political and cultural spectrum think carefully about and actively respond to these issues with both gravity and grace

PART 1

HUMAN NATURE

CHAPTER 1:

WHY HUMAN NATURE MATTERS

How does our understanding of human nature affect how we address the pressing questions of our day?

The average person in Rwanda, they would no sooner kill their neighbor than you or I. But when the killing began by those who were ready to do it, the fear just took a hold of people, and it went like wildfire.

—CARL WILKENS,

Adventist Development and Relief Agency1

Over the course of one hundred days in 1994, Rwandan Hutus slaughtered more than 800,000 of their countrymen. Men, women, children. Over three hundred per hour. Over five per minute.

The trigger was the April 6, 1996, explosion of a plane carrying the Hutu president of Rwanda, Juvénal Habyarimana, along with the president of Burundi. Hutus, blaming the explosion on Tutsi rebels, immediately launched attacks on Tutsis and other Hutus perceived to be Tutsi sympathizers. While organized by leaders of militia groups and the armed forces, the genocide involved the whole population. Leaders turned citizens into killers of neighbors and even their own family members. Between 100,000 and 200,000 Hutus participated in the genocide. While some killers had guns and grenades, most wielded low-tech weapons such as nail-studded clubs and—especially—machetes. They used rape, too, as a means of genocide; the United Nations estimates that between 250,000 and 500,000 women were raped during the genocide.

Journalist Philip Gourevitch traveled around Rwanda afterward, interviewing survivors and gathering information. In his book We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families, he relates a particularly chilling account of a massacre that took place in Nyarubuye. When Tutsis asked the local Hutu mayor how they might be spared, he told them to seek sanctuary in a church. They did, and Gourevitch writes that a few days later the mayor himself “came at the head of a pack of soldiers, policemen, militiamen, and villagers; he gave out arms and orders to complete the job well. No more was required of the mayor, but he also was said to have killed a few Tutsis himself.”2

After many hours, the killers still had not finished massacring the refuge-seekers. So they cut the Achilles tendons of the survivors, feasted on cattle taken from the victims, drank beer, and rested. The next day, “The killers at Nyarubuye went back and killed again. Day after day, minute to minute, Tutsi by Tutsi: all across Rwanda, they worked like that.”3

A radio station, Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM), fueled the killing frenzy. After the president’s plane exploded, the station called for a “final war” to “exterminate the cockroaches.”4 It broadcast names of people to be killed along with instructions on where to find them.5 The radio station and genocide leaders consistently downplayed the victims’ humanity; in speeches and “consciousness raising meetings” held in advance of the genocide, leaders referred to Tutsis as “scum” and “devils” (“horns, hoofs, tails, and all”).6 RTLM urged listeners to “leave no grave half full”7 and to “take no pity on women and children.”8 Other nations stood by and refused to intervene. In part, their attention was on other crises, such as a war in Bosnia that was itself turning into a genocide. But nations like the United States were also influenced by the failed intervention in Somalia that occurred just months before in 1993 (captured in the book and movie Black Hawk Down).

While the United Nations had deployed a peacekeeping force of about 2,500 to Rwanda in November 1993 in response to a civil war, it refused to allow its soldiers to use force. On April 21, two weeks into the genocide, Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire, Canadian commander of the UN troops, requested additional troops. He insisted that with 5,000 soldiers he could bring an end to the genocide.9 The Security Council refused. It instead adopted—with strong support from the United States—a resolution reducing UN forces by nearly 90 percent to 270 troops.10 Western nations evacuated their own citizens but did nothing to stop the killing until it was too late. President Bill Clinton later called the failure to intervene in Rwanda one of the greatest regrets of his presidency. In 2013 he told CNBC: “If we’d gone in sooner, I believe we could have saved at least a third of the lives that were lost … it had an enduring impact on me.”11

Carl Wilkens was the lone American to remain in Rwanda, and he stood as witness to the genocide that shocked the world and still haunts us today. Looking back, he summarized his emotions: “By the time the genocide was over, I was so angry at America—America the beautiful, America the brave.”12

These appalling events bring our attention to a set of larger questions about human nature:

1.What is the value of human life? For three months in 1994, the lives of Tutsis were worth very little. They were considered scum. Devils. Cockroaches. Tutsi pastors, fearing for their lives and those of their congregations, wrote Hutu Pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, Adventist Church President of Kibuye, seeking help and protection. He reportedly told them, “God no longer wants you.”13 While Western nations evacuated and saved their own citizens, they did little to protect the lives of Africans. The Africans were on their own.

2.How are humans capable of such evil? In 1945, after the Holocaust, the world collectively declared, “Never again.” We created the UN and ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. How could this have happened at the end of the twentieth century—less than fifty years later? How did so many ordinary citizens pick up machetes and strike down neighbors and friends?

3.To what extent should humans be held responsible for such evil actions? The events of 1994 raise difficult questions regarding human accountability. Leaders and planners are unquestionably to blame for the genocide, but what about ordinary citizens? As Wilkens noted, “The fear just took a hold of people.” How do we decide whether—or to what extent—to blame the tens of thousands of individuals who killed while caught up in hysteria, fear, or ethnic and social pressure to participate? And what is the appropriate punishment for genocide?

We need to address these fundamental questions—and, thus, to properly understand human nature—if we want to address the pressing issues of our day in an informed way.

A HOUSE DIVIDED

Our fundamental beliefs about human nature don’t just influence our perceptions of and reactions to events that are widely regarded as atrocities, like genocide. They also matter in the domestic legal and policy issues confronting Americans every day. Our core beliefs about human nature are the building blocks with which we craft specific public policies and legislative agendas—and yet, it’s easy when confronting legal and policy challenges to focus on a plethora of cosmetic changes rather than the foundational issues. Take as an example what may be the defining characteristic of American public life today: the significant—and increasing—polarization between political parties. Red states and blue states. The inability of Congress to reach a consensus on any significant piece of legislation (including something as basic as an annual budget).14 Nominations to the Supreme Court—and at times to lower courts—have given rise to pitched partisan battles.

As a result, the American public is skeptical and at times even pessimistic. We don’t feel we can trust our political leaders. According to Gallup, out of fifteen key institutions in society (including the military, police, business, and the criminal justice system), Americans have the least confidence in Congress.15 In 2016, only 9 percent of Americans expressed “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of confidence in Congress. The next lowest group on the confidence scale was big business, at 18 percent.16

And our growing polarization is not just a matter of perception. In June 2012, the Pew Research Center released findings of a 25-year study, which stated that Americans’ “values and basic beliefs are more polarized along partisan lines than at any point in the past 25 years.”17 It reported that the divide between Democrats and Republicans on core values and beliefs was greater than divisions over race, class, age, or gender.18 Key issues experiencing increasing divides include:

•The role and scope of government: In 1987, there was only a 6-point gap between the 65 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of Democrats who agreed that “when something is run by the government, it is usually inefficient and wasteful.”19 In 2012, there was a 36-point gap; 77 percent of Republicans versus only 41 percent of Democrats agreed.20 More recent Gallup polling verifies that this division over the role of government remains. Today, 57 percent of Democrats prefer a more active government while only 15 percent of Republicans do.21

•Immigration: For over twenty years, Pew has tracked survey responses to the following proposition: “Immigrants today strengthen the country because of their hard work and talents.” In 1994, there was barely a gap between Republicans and Democrats; 30 percent of Republicans and 32 percent of Democrats agreed with the proposition. In 2016, 34 percent of Republications agreed, compared with 78 percent of Democrats—a difference of 43 points.22

2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The deep political divisions in the United States were on full display in the 2016 presidential election between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton. Two weeks before the election, US News & World Report declared: “The nation is sharply divided on nearly every topic, from race relations to what problems the next president should fix first, and a record percentage of people believe the country is on the wrong track.”23

The nation’s divisions were evident on election night. Donald Trump won the presidency with a victory in the electoral college of 304 to 227; Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million votes. Seven electors voted for someone other than their party’s nominee.

In the weeks following the election, thousands filled the streets in cities across America protesting Trump’s election. Hundreds of thousands of women marched on Washington on January 21, the day after Trump’s inauguration. By some estimates the number of marchers significantly exceeded the number of inauguration attendees from the day before.24

So now we live in a world where there is more profound disagreement over high-profile social issues than ever before. A 2016 Gallup survey found significant differences between Republicans and Democrats on the following propositions:25

	Republicans agreeing	Democrats agreeing	Gap
Doctor-assisted suicide is morally acceptable	44 percent	64 percent	20 points
Medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos is morally acceptable	44 percent	73 percent	29 points
Gay or lesbian relations are acceptable	44 percent	75 percent	31 points

These are all important issues that go to the core of who we are as a society. Effectively addressing these issues will be necessary for us to function as a society and thrive. However, there is no clear path to consensus on these and other issues that confront us. It seems clear that it will not come from being more educated or obtaining more data. We have plenty of data—more than at any time in history. No, our disagreements are not over data collection or interpretation. They go much deeper than that.

IN SEARCH OF FOUNDATIONS

In 1981, in considering the hot-button issues of his day, theologian Francis Schaeffer wrote:

The basic problem of the Christians in this country in the last eighty years or so, in regard ...