Day Two: Surveying
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
- Franklin Roosevelt, first inaugural address March 4, 1933
Male cattle!
Don’t get me wrong… Roosevelt was a great guy, but that philosophy is too simple. Yesterday I argued people’s response to fear was important in measuring its impact. Fear, by itself, is inconsequential.
Roosevelt’s line overemphasizes the negative. It’s easy to remember that fear can cause you to do bad things. But Roosevelt’s straightforward, streamlined slogan ignores the fact that is can have positive influence as well. I know you’d have trouble fitting a more convoluted statement – like “The only thing to fear is harmful decisions based on fear” doesn’t roll off the tongue like the original, but it would be more accurate.
There are practical aspects of fear. They include the avoidance of harm, the limiting of dangerous behaviors, and enforcing moral behavior.
Avoiding fear doesn’t mean you will avoiding trouble. A fearless person can decide to swim among sharks, drive recklessly without wearing a seatbelt, and play Russian roulette and his lack of fear will not automatically protect him.
When properly applied, fear should remind us of consequences. I’m not saying one shouldn’t take risks, but one should carefully consider what the repercussions should be. Only then will you be on the right track to discovering a healthy balance of fear.
I’m not talking about some international concept like nuclear deterrence (mutual extermination insurance). I’m talking about developing a personal set of scales for you to use to judge how to respond.
Like Dr. Hyde, let me use myself as an example. Let’s re-examine yesterday’s example of fearing God.
For years I didn’t know how to approach the concept of fearing God (I’m still not saying I’ve put it all together now, but I have a much better idea than I used to). I had trouble reconciling the extremes between a loving, caring Father and a powerful, vengeful deity. The Bible has examples of each in both the Old and New Testaments.
I slowly came to realize that these descriptions can be of the same God and that the consequences depend on the position of the observer. If you are a loyal servant, you will get treated as such. If we turn our backs, we are treated as traitors.
We seek the same ideal in our political leaders (with, admittedly, mixed results). As a whole, democratic electorates seek a person who will protect loyalists and rebuff opponents. Both hats, advocate and aggressor, are required. Voters routinely dump candidates who fail to display one or both characteristics.
The difference is not in the leader but where people stand in relation to him. Let me offer another anecdote to bridge the two examples:
In the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was reportedly asked whether he thought God was on the side of the North or the South. The president wryly responded that he was more concerned with making sure he was on God’s team than fretting over God being on his team.
Lincoln recognized that God doesn’t change, people do. God’s actions are constant while we humans are consistently inconsistent. God always offers forgiveness, but we have to make a choice to accept the blessings.
Once you start to get a handle on that, then you can start to respond accordingly. Having a healthy fear of God is respectfully offering God the consideration He is due. If I mess up, I need to seek forgiveness or risk the consequences of being beyond His grace. That doesn’t mean I live in constant fear of smiting, but I should be mindful of whether or not I am doing right or not.
Thus, we show the fear to be constant and our reaction fluctuating. Looking through this prism, other examples are easily discovered.
I believe there will always be a fear of diseases. We may eventually cure AIDS and HIV, and I hope we do, but history shows us that a new name invariably arrives to haunt our homes and hospitals. Fear of warring and strife will continue as long as people violently disagree (and don’t worry as much about banning the weapons. You can still do quite a bit of damage with sticks and stones – as frequently demonstrated by sports-related riots).
Sure, specific causes, groups, or personalities may vary in their potency, but it’s a zero-sum game in the long term.
The key for us is finding an equilibrium of deserved respect. Trouble occurs when we give fears too much or too little weight. Responding incorrectly, though inaction or overly-extreme measures, is what we should guard against.
To take one more shot at revising Roosevelt, “The only thing to fear is unbalanced terrors.” It still lacks the original’s snappiness, but this one fits on a bumper sticker, and it may help you better weigh your future responses.
Question for the day: Earlier we asked you to consider how you reacted to fear. Now consider whether or not it was a balanced response or an uneven approach.
