Fulcrum between Competing Priorities …

What does it take to hold one’s own when all about you “are losing theirs (head) and blaming it on you”? In politics it seems as if the “happy medium” is elusive at best, and perhaps impossible to achieve. What is the right answer with regard to Health Care? Most of the Democrats think they have it, but none of the Republicans agree – except one member of the House of Representatives (Rep. Joe Cao - R-Louisiana). There seems to be no middle ground between the competing priorities.

It wasn’t health care, however, that caught my eye today, but a word about Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury. And the “word” was from David Brooks in the November 19 edition of the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/opinion/20brooks.html?hp). To his – and apparently everyone else’s – surprise, Secretary Geithner’s plan to stabilize the financial system seems to be working. Brooks refers to an earlier Wall Street Journal poll of 49 economists, each asked for their opinion of Geithner; each gave him an “F”.

“If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you …” We can forgive Kipling his sexism for the moment. The point Brooks was making had to do with the fact that Secretary Geithner was criticized with equal vehemence from both right and left. No one believed he could do it. The secretary “uses the word ‘balance’ a lot. He talks about finding the right balance point between competing priorities.” And if David Brooks is correct, the reason Secretary Geithner has been successful thus far is because he is “context-sensitive”. “He’s less defined by any preset political doctrine than by the situation he happens to find himself in”, says Brooks.

As a Christian I have an inbred distrust of “balance” because it smacks of being “lukewarm”. (Revelation 3:14ff.) And we all know what the Bible says about that nauseating quality. But when I think of “balance” in the sense of being “context-sensitive”, I don’t think of wishy-washy piety; I think of a radically compassionate Christ. Jesus demonstrates balance between his destination and the need at hand. Upon heading home for rest, Jesus responds to the need of Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:29ff). He could be in the midst of a sermon, when suddenly he is faced with a paralytic in need of healing; and so he heals (Mark 2:2ff). He could be on his way to heal a child, only to be stopped by a bleeding woman. He can’t be touched by her without power flowing from him (Mark 5:21ff).

Brooks compares Geithner to a fox, flexibly responding to the current situation. He contrasts this with hedgehogs, defined as those who are guided (and perhaps shackled?) by “a few core principles”. Politics is schizophrenic; or perhaps manic would be a more apt description. Things are either way “up”, or way “down”. Popularity polls (“Do you think the governor is doing a good job?”) vacillate more quickly than north country weather.

Daivd Brooks says these are times that call for a pragmatic approach to problems – something Secretary Geithner seems capable of bringing to the table.

“If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster / And treat those two impostors just the same . . .” Ah … there is the key! To recognize that your “friends” are no more your “friends” than your “enemies” are your “enemies”! Jesus put it this way: There are sheep and there are wolves. Sometimes we must be doves; sometimes we must be serpents. (Matthew 10:16.) If we will accept “triumph and disaster” for what they truly are, Kipling says: “Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it.” If we will live with radical contextual sensitivity, Jesus assures us: “I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.” (Luke 21:15.)

With tremendous pressure to be on one side or the other, maybe the middle ground is the truest and best place to be after all. Not “lukewarm”, but delicately – and perhaps tenuously – balanced between the various competing priorities.