Irrepressible Conflicts

We return to the conflictions of analyses referred to on this date a year ago, with focus emerging from the Tom Brokaw volume: The Greatest Generation.  The book received wide circulation, and repeated references in the media, stimulated by interviews with Brokaw.  We are considering an event of considerable discussion during several years, with Brokaw’s concentration on the history, after some years as an eminent reporter of world news.  The book from Brokaw named a number of persons who served valiantly in World War II, both men and women, who went on, after the war, to achieve productive lives – many to become eminent in their fields.  I choose one to make a point that may be missed, perhaps controversial, in all this effort to evaluate generations.  Every generation possesses those persons who offer greatness to it, and those that deny greatness to it.  Greatness depends, in part, on the effectiveness of the people of the generation in many contexts, so a generation may be great in this context, and a curse in another.  No generation, in my perception, is the greatest against all other generations.  Brokaw chose numerous persons who deported themselves bravely and effectively in war and after, and followed them in their career to the honor of the persons, and constructive service to society.  We will need to find other sources than Brokaw for the gradual decline in the morality of the general society, in the place of faith in the lives of citizens, in the dilution of family solidarity, in the increasing devotion to materialism, in the distortions of government, in excesses for areas that may be as damaging as more warfare in the long pull.

Here I lift the pages of Brokaw’s book that reviews the life and contributions of Mark Hatfield of Oregon.  I choose this one because I chatted with him, while he was governor of Oregon.  Our contact was made when he spoke at the college (Whitworth in Spokane, Washington) where I was a professor.  He invited me to visit with him in his office. I did not pick up on the invitation, as shortly afterwards he was elected Senator from the State of Oregon, and began to serve well for the next 24 years.  I regarded Hatfield for his service to the nation putting his life at risk, his effectiveness as a teacher of collegians, his excellence in the art of governance, his quality of personal life that grew out of his evangelical faith as a Christian.  He had it all as I perceived life ought to be for an educated, healthy, professional, and Christian person might be.  He paid his dues in all the areas of personal and public life.  He was not identified as a person of wealth, nor was he perceived as a power-hungry person shoving himself forward.  This last I had seen in some politicians, which factor made them something less than they felt themselves to be.  Further, he carried his faith into his life context with consistency, avoiding a holier than thou attitude.  Even so, his opponents dubbed him Saint Mark in trying to reduce his influence.  Brokaw saw Hatfield as a striking example of The Greatest Generation.  I agree about the model, but there were many in that generation who resisted him and his influence.  His views on matters like abortion, reduced military, and other social decisions have been largely lost in an increasingly secular interpretation of life, partly encouraged by the acts of Hatfield’s generation.  I applaud his efforts even in the face of some resistance by his own political party.

Christians are called to be a public force in all the culture of a generation in which they participate.  They are not the arbiters of success, but the servants of God for moral right in earth’s population.  This story has been told to some degree by a few historians, and accounts for many social improvements that have become recognized as human rights. The influence is well-enough documented, but is not well enough understood or accepted to carry the force it deserves to continue and lengthen those rights.  Biblical Christians believe that all institutions should serve the needs of mankind, as well as respect human rights.  It seems odd to separate needs from rights, but we do it only for the purposes of finding the problems and discovering solutions.  Rights are often thought of as actions related to equality of genders, races, and anything that will erect a barrier between one person and another in a world shared by all persons.  On this basis we argue for freedom of religion – no human barriers for the person peacefully following one’s own conscience in a pursuit of life and faith.  In this there is found balance for the one and the many.