Less Rigidity

I've been haunted by one word in a comment on my blog: rigidity. Lest I be accused of taking out of context, here is the whole segment: "What I see is a world that is not Black and White, Christian and non-Christian, Conservative and Liberal. I want less ridgity and more tolerance, I want less hate and more love. I want more humility and less arrogance."

I see some reason in this. I hate labels because along with a label comes a whole constellation of attributions, that change according to the "eye of the beholder." But that's a topic for another blog.

I believe that one MAJOR problem with our government, if not our whole culture, is a lack of rigidity. A lack of absolute structure. It's like our life is being built on shifting sands.

Rigidity is necessary in many parts of our life.

I constructed a compost barrel, using a recycled 50-gallon plastic drum, some scrap pvc pipe, a metal pole, and some scrap lumber. Since I was trying things out, I just put it together enough to see if it worked. I used the lumber to make two stands to raise the barrel above the ground so that I could spin it. Two 2x4s put together weren't stable enough, so I added two "leaning" type supports to the upright posts, nailing them in. However, even that construct wasn't stable enough . . . I found when I tried to spin the half-full barrel. It all started to collapse; I tried to keep it up, but the weight of it all knocked me down in a pile of poles. The point is it wasn't rigid enough. Some things don't work without rigidity.

This lack of rigidity is very much like growing up with an alcoholic father. We had to guess at the rules, which could change from day to day. It all depended on his mood. When my little brother accidentally broke a mirror that had been placed leaning against a wall, we had no idea of whether it was punishable or not and how extreme the punishment would be. As it turned out, our father made me decide whether to punish my brother or not. I had to figure out what the father wanted, and if I guessed wrong, I would also be in trouble. I didn't want to, but I said Teddy should be punished. Our father accepted that and beat my little brother with the buckle end of a belt until his bare thighs bled.

I spent many of my years growing up in a somewhat functional family trying to guess what my parents (mom and step-dad) wanted, holding my breath, tip-toeing. Many, many times, I chose not to ask if I could go to a party because they might say no. I just didn't go.

For the people of a society to deal best with each other, there must be some rigid rules. Used to be, a promise was a promise. It was rigid. You shook hands; you could rely on its being accomplished, short of death or God's intervention. Then it was a signature on a contract. That's why you had to read the whole contract carefully (even the fine print) before signing it. Signing a contract meant you were obligated to accomplish that promise.

President Obama has changed that, just trashing contract law in bailouts of banks and automotive companies. The most egregious example is Obama's dictating to the secure bond holders of Chrysler what they had to take in the supposed bankruptcy (with new rules written by Obama, et al.) There are many more examples of Obama's lack of rigidity, from his immediate and almost complete reversal of all campaign promises, to his apparent disregard of the rule of law ("no one is above the law"), to his circumventing legal provisions for checks and balances by appointing czars. . . Kevin McCullough writes an insightful column on the issue: "Why Liberals Never Lie." Basically,, he says, they don't lie because they don't have a rigid standard. The truth morphs for them.

The children of this alcoholism -- entrepreneurs and investors -- are reacting just like I did. Not being sure how any potential contracts will be taken, they just don't even take a risk. OR, they are spending all their energy trying to get on Obama's good side so they won't be punished or so they can receive special perqs.

The law should be rigid and not malleable by individuals, who are ruled by emotions. That way, everyone knows what to expect. We don't have to spend our lives trying to guess what might work or whether a promise will be kept.

In addition, I think most individuals need to make rigid rules for themselves. Goals need to be rigid. If your goals continually move or you drop your "goal" for another, they aren't doing the job of goals. If you want to be an honest person, your rigid rule should be to tell the truth, and you should not allow yourself to wimp out on that rule by fudging -- like telling yourself that white lies are okay. This doesn't mean you absolutely can't break your rigid rules; but it does mean that you don't justify the breaking of them.

Present attitudes toward marriage is a part of this lack of rigidity. People take an oath, "til death do we part," and yet, when they get bored or run into some conflicts, that oath melts like butter on a Phoenix summer day. Commitment, I think, requires rigidity.

So what did my commenter mean by "rigidity"? In context, I think she's talking about the concept she has about Christians -- that they tend to apply their own rules to everyone else, and they are rigid about those rules. That they are not tolerant toward others. However, I'd have to pursue that discussion to know if that's what she really meant.

The bottom line is we need rigidity to some extent. I see no problem with knowing what the rules are and being rigid about them. I personally do not expect non-Christians to follow God's rules, though if they did, they might be healthier and happier! (I DO expect Christians to at least try to follow God's rules.) In other words, I do not see rigidity and tolerance as being mutually exclusive.