Sunday, February 13, 2022

Trust issues

This is my homily for today, the 6th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle C.  The readings for today are here.

We’ve entered a new phase in our journey through COVID: mass is now mask-optional.  As you can see, I’m trying to go without a mask.  We’ll see how it works out.  I’ll put a mask on later, when I’m giving communion.  As I look at it, my not wearing a mask today is an exercise in trust: I’m trusting that archdiocesan authorities, and the public health experts who advise them, are setting a good policy.  I admit I’m not entirely comfortable with not wearing a mask.  Trusting in others isn’t easy, even when the others are experts.

How are you at trusting others?  Do you have trust issues?  “Cursed is the one who trusts in human beings”, says the Lord in that first reading from Jeremiah.  

“Cursed is the one who trusts in human beings.”  We may be able to relate to that.  It seems many of us don’t think human beings are particularly trustworthy.  For many years now, social survey outfits have asked the American people, “Can most people be trusted?”  What do you think: can most people be trusted?  Yes or no?  Back in 1960, which is right around the time when I was born, 55% of Americans said yes – they agreed with the proposition that most people can be trusted.  Back then, we were rather a trusting lot.  But 40 years later, at the end of the millennium, when my generation had reached adulthood, the percentage of Americans who agreed that most people can be trusted had declined to 35%.  Only about a third of Americans thought most people can be trusted.  

Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam offers many bits of evidence to illustrate that our trust issues have grown worse over the years.  Hitchhiking, which requires mutual trust between two strangers, used to be common; now it has almost disappeared.  Driving on our roads requires cooperation and trust among strangers, for example in the act of letting another car merge onto a highway.  But by many measures, the behavior of drivers has gotten worse over the years as our trust in others has declined.  Putnam reports that driving above the speed limit has increased over the years.  He also cites a stop sign study which shows that fewer drivers come to a complete stop at stop signs than was the case in the 1970s.  I’d add anecdotally that few drivers slow down in school zones, and some don’t stop when a school bus puts out its stop sign at a bus stop.  

Here's another example of the decline in social trust: hoarding.  Just two years ago, people were desperately driving from store to store, looking for toilet paper – remember that?  In a community with a healthy level of trust, people are less likely to hoard; they’re more likely to believe that a friend or neighbor will share with them if they’re low on a necessary item.  But it’s hard to trust others, isn’t it?  Professor Putnam notes that we can get caught in a vicious cycle in which decreasing trust in others leads us to be less trustworthy ourselves.  If I’m less likely to think that someone else would share a scarce good with me, I’m less likely to share it with someone else.  Hoarding toilet paper is an act of distrust in others.

As another sign of our dwindling trust, Putnam also points to the increase in the number of lawyers in the United States in recent decades.  When members of a community believe other members are trustworthy, they’re less likely to sue one another.  One of my children was sued when the car he was driving collided with a neighbor’s car as my kid was backing out of our driveway.  Until then, I didn’t think Arlington Heights was the kind of place where neighbors sued one another.  I learned otherwise.

So God is asking a lot of us today.  God is asking us to put aside our trust issues.  He’s saying, “Don’t put your trust in yourself or your wealth.  Don’t put your trust in your lawyers.  Trust me instead.”  Trust in God.  He says it flat-out in our first reading: “Blessed is the one who trusts in the Lord”.  And all those beatitudes and woes in our Gospel reading also are about trusting God.  Consider this contrasting pair: “Blessed are you who are poor”; “Woe to you who are rich.”  In God’s kingdom, it seems it’s better to be poor than to be rich.  Just try to wrap your brain around that for a moment: how can it possibly be better to be poor than to be rich?  That seems contrary to what has been ingrained into us.  A quip from the last century, attributed to the writer and editor Beatrice Kaufman, the wife of the famous playwright George S Kaufman, went like this: “I’ve been poor and I’ve been rich.  Rich is better.”  That’s the epitome of Kingdom of Earth thinking.  Today, God is inviting us to think in a different way: in the Kingdom of Heaven, it’s better to be poor than rich.  The thinking here seems to be: If I don’t have a lot of material things, then it’s easier for me to put my trust in God.  

Likewise, this pair from today’s Gospel: “Blessed are you who are now hungry”; “Woe to you who are filled now.”   How can it be better not to have food to eat?  Again, the idea seems to be: when we lack something, if we trust that God will provide it for us, he will see to our needs.

What I’ve just described, this business of relinquishing our plenty, making ourselves poorer, and then trusting in God to care for us – this is the way of St. Francis of Assisi.   It’s what he did in his own life, and it’s in the rule he wrote for his friars.  They are to beg for what they need, and God will provide it – through other people.  It seems fair to say that a person with trust issues wouldn’t make a good Franciscan.  In St. Francis’s vision, a friar had to trust every single day that others, maybe complete strangers, would see to his basic needs.  

I understand that most of us aren’t quite ready to take the leap to give up all we have.  For most of us, relinquishing our possessions is what happens when we die; as the title of the Pulitzer Prize-winning play co-written by Beatrice’s husband, George S Kaufman notes, You Can’t Take It with You.   It’s better if we put our plenty to good use while we’re still alive.  The proof that we own our possessions, and not the other way around, is that we can relinquish them for a good and noble purpose.

There are people right here in our local community who are poor, not because they’ve willingly embraced poverty, but because life has dealt them a hand full of woes.   For one reason or another, they don’t have some of the material blessings that some of us are fortunate to have.  Today’s Gospel is Good News for them, and perhaps a word of warning to people with many possessions, that outcomes and social status may be very different in God’s kingdom.  

Folks living in poverty come to St. Edna Parish for assistance because they’re hungry and in need, and I’m so proud of how this community has given and given to provide food and financial assistance to them.  This faith community is like those strangers who took care of St. Francis’s friars – we’re being God’s presence on earth.  Even during this time of COVID, the donations to our Outreach ministry and our food pantry have stayed strong.  You haven’t hoarded; you’ve given.  You’ve trusted God enough to give what you have to others.  That is an amazing achievement by the St. Edna faith community.  I believe with all my heart that, whenever we give food or money to people in need, by making ourselves just a little poorer, we’re storing up treasure in heaven.  

Do we have trust issues?  Let’s try to get past them, because God really wants us to trust in him.  God himself is completely trustworthy: he keeps his promises, and he will never stop loving us.  But for us to trust God more, we may need to make ourselves a little poorer.


20 comments:

  1. In my cancer group, there are people who say "we have to trust in God." It took me some time to see that as more than just a pious platitude. Of course these folks trust doctors to help maintain quality of life and provide info. And they trust friends and family to be with them at points along the way. But they also feel connected to Eternity in a way that those who have not yet had to face their own morality are not. I don't want to go off on some pseudo mystic woo-woo tangent. I can't explain it. But there is, when people come to terms with their own demise, some accounting, some reordering of thinking, and a sense of readiness, even a sense of purpose. Many people describe a sense of peace and freedom from anxiety and cares of the world. These are unexpected and welcome gifts that come from trusting that weakness and death, are part of the natural course of things, that whatever Force created us does not forsake us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jean, thank you. That helps shed light on St. Paul's cryptic "it is when I am weak that I am strong."

      Delete
    2. I don't think it is a feeling that is there all the time, even for those with the strongest faith. So much connects us to the world, and the world has so much beauty. And lots of people have young children or other cares and obligations. Maybe St. Paul as a privileged soul, felt it more constantly and strongly than most of us.

      Delete
  2. While I don’t have any trust issues with God, my level of trust of other people has certainly deteriorated.

    I have never been very political for most of my life. When Obama ran for president the first time, I became involved because young people were involved. So, I volunteered to do phone banks, and hand out literature. When I handed out reminders to people the day before election, they sent me to one of the wealthiest areas of our county, and also to a very rural area full of McCain signs. Who was voting for Obama in those areas? The young people who were obviously not following their parents.

    If McCain had won, I would not have been distressed or distrustful. I had admired him for being a “maverick” and respected his war hero credentials.

    By the time Obama ran against Romney, the need to use a walking stick took me out of campaigning for him. However, I noticed that during the primary season he was soliciting funds to build a computer system to facilitate his campaign. I had never contributed to a candidate before since I certainly would not want to fund television ads. Funding a computer system appealed me, so I gave him the maximum amount.

    Again, had Romney won I would not have been very disturbed even though I would have lost a big bet. Again, I trusted Romney. He is a religious person and had developed a healthcare plan as governor of Mass. and I could see why people might think he was better for the economy.

    Trump changed everything. I simply have no faith in anyone who voted for him. That means that I have lost faith in all the Evangelicals, and all the Catholics that have voted for Trump. Whatever they believe in, it is certainly not the Christianity nor the Catholicism that I believe in. I once thought it was OK to be an Evangelical or a Republican. Now I don’t think so. If someone voted for Trump, I don’t trust their judgment on anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why so many Republicans accept the big lie of The Big Lie is a mystery to me - and I'm conservative! Somehow, they have decided they trust Donald Trump more than actual, factual reality. I have to think that this inability to embrace (or unwillingness to face) what is true, is an outcome of living in a media bubble in which inconvenient realities are suppressed and distorted, and convenient lies are amplified.

      Delete
    2. Good article about Pete Meijer, freshman congressman from the Michigan West Side about trust in the GOP. Likeable and thoughtful kid, but time will tell whether he can withstand Trump by surviving his primary this summer without caving into the crazies.

      https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/peter-meijer-freshman-republican-impeach/620844/

      Delete
  3. Jack: Trump changed everything. I simply have no faith in anyone who voted for him. That means that I have lost faith in all the Evangelicals, and all the Catholics that have voted for Trump. Whatever they believe in, it is certainly not the Christianity nor the Catholicism that I believe in. I once thought it was OK to be an Evangelical or a Republican. Now I don’t think so. If someone voted for Trump, I don’t trust their judgment on anything.

    That pretty well sums up the way I feel too. And I WAS a Republican for most of my adult life. Until Trump, I was never afraid for our country, no matter which candidate won, whether or not I had voted for him. With Trump came a fear that I had never before felt, a fear that if he won our country was at risk, the country that our children and grandchildren would have to live in. He was even worse than I had feared he would be, and I'm very afraid that the Republicans will retake the house, and that he will be re-elected. I realize now that I never really knew Americans (I had always been proud of Americans - overestimated them/us) and I have realized that I never really knew some of my own family members and once-close friends. They are not who I had thought they were.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I knew my family and friends enough to know where they were susceptible. The right combination of fear and tribalism led them down this path. What I will say of them is that I don't think they are hypocrites. They really believe the things they are fearful of. Of course there is an element of assent; it's a lot easier to believe things you want to believe.

      Delete
    2. "He was even worse than I had feared he would be"

      Yes.

      I'm still proud to be an American because I believe in the ideas that underlie the American experiment in liberty and self-government. I try to live them and, when I'm able, evangelize them. Those ideals certainly are under assault these days. To some extent, they always are, but it feels more exigent since Trump came along.

      I suppose that is what Jan 6, 2021 signifies: the assault on the Capitol was an assault on the idea of America.

      Delete
    3. Katherine, what are your trumpism supporting family and friends actually afraid of?

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Not all of them are anti covid vaxxers, but some of them are. Interestingly, none of them are anti vaxxers for things such as tetanus shots. They fear that the Covid vaccines may do bad things to their health in the long term. Another thing they are fearful of is loss of livelihood, that the government will tax them out of existence. Which isn't an altogether unfounded fear, judging from the inheritance tax my brother had to pay lately. Of course that was state, not federal. But it's based on the assessed value of land. If you plan to stay in business, you can't sell the land to pay off the tax.
      Then of course there's the usual fears politicians like to gin up, like CRT and gender issues in the schools. Our gubernatorial wannabees are much milking that for all it's worth.

      Delete
    6. As I understand it, the protests are less about vaccines and more about vax mandates/govt overreach.

      Any American who wants to duck vaccines pretty much can. Religious exemptions have been expanded to philosophical objections. I don't know what exemptions exist in Canada.

      Whatever their exemptions, no one is requiring workers to get vaxxed. They may have to choose between their vaccination status and their job.

      And they don't wanna.

      Delete
  4. I'm a baby boomer. I grew up in the peak of American Empire. Many things have gone downhill since then. I often rail against my generation but, to be honest, a lot of these problems are merely a natural trajectory of empire. Maybe these people sense the drop and react inappropriately. I hope we can transition from an empire to a democratic country among countries. Right now, we are thrashing around militarily to prove we're still top dog and future generations of Americans will pay the price. We're paying them now.
    Anyway, that's what I think causes the fear. I'm afraid, too. I just don't want to do stupid things because of it.
    Anne speaks of leaving Republicanism. I'd have to say I've left both parties. Especially with Old Man Biden beating on the war drum. Democrats haven't initiated a war in a long time, instead merely playing cheerleader to the Repubs. Please don't, Joe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apparently, the Ukraine being neutral and not being part of NATO is non-negotiable on our part. I don't know. Sounds reasonable to me. Bacevich in Commonweal said it worked with Austria wrt the Soviets.

      Delete
    2. Stanley, I’m your age. I left the GOP after the rise of the Tea Party, but I am not a Democrat. “no affiliation” is the official term. However, given the choice between a democrat and trump or one of his clones, I have no choice but to vote for the Democrat. They do not pose the same threat to our country that te people who call themselves Republicans do. If Larry Hogan runs for President ( he’s our governor) I would happily vote for him. He’s only the second Republican governor in this very blue state in the last 50+ years. His popularity is high with majorities of both parties. He’s also one of the only Republicans at a high level who never voted for trump and said so explicitly. So he will get zero help or money from the RNC. He’s as unpopular with them as Liz Cheney.

      Delete
    3. Anne, this might be another argument for ranked choice voting. If you want your party back with its old principles, someone might have to start a Reformed Republican Party. Although I am for strengthening the socialist component of the economy and democratizing the workplace, I prefer to have disagreements and negotiate with people who aren't crazy or think I'm the spawn of evil.

      Delete
  5. BTW, has anyone heard anything about the "Durham Report"? Some people were buzzing about it at work today saying how it was going to rock Biden and the Democrats' world. Nothing on the major news sites. Anything I found on it was old news. Didn't seem as earth shaking as they were making it out to be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right. Durham is a US Attorney, given a special assignment by the Trump Administration's Justice Department to investigate the "origins" of the allegations of conspiracy between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign - the allegations in which the Steele Dossier and James Comey played big roles, and led ultimately to the Mueller Report. There had been some speculation that when the Biden administration came in, the new attorney general, Merrick Garland, would shut down Durham's investigation, but (to its credit) the Biden administration has allowed it to proceed.

      The (alleged) risk for Democrats from Durham's investigation would be to various members of the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. From Trump's perspective, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow of Durham's investigation would be to discover that Obama's administration improperly colluded with Clinton's campaign in an attempt to sabotage Trump's 2016 campaign. The connections between the Steele Dossier and Clinton's campaign already are well-known, and the FBI's improper use of the Steele Dossier to obtain FISA wiretaps of various Trump campaign small-fry also is well-documented (all this stuff has been covered by investigative journalists and also, if I'm not mistaken, was reported in the Mueller report). The big new piece of the puzzle would be to come up with evidence that the Obama administration crossed the line which is supposed to separate governing from partisan political activity.

      Of course, President Biden himself was a member of the Obama administration, and many members of Biden's administration are Obama administration veterans, so there could be some individuals at risk of this investigation actually goes anywhere. I haven't heard anything that connects Biden himself to what Durham is investigating.

      The news in recent days is that Durham has indicted a tech executive with ties to the Clinton campaign. He allegedly engaged in hi-tech snoopery of Trump's home and/or campaign headquarters. The hope of Trump partisans presumably is that Durham will flip this guy in exchange for testimony that will allow him to scoop some bigger fish into his net. Whether it will lead anywhere, or any of it will lead to anything at all, is anybody's guess. Garland hasn't shut it down yet, so presumably it hasn't been a complete waste of time and the taxpayer's money so far.

      If Republicans recapture the House in November, it's quite possible that new Speaker Kevin McCarthy and the rest of the GOP House "leadership" would gin up Congressional hearings on what Durham is investigating. Because this is the pressing business facing our country in 2022.

      Delete
    2. And pot meet kettle, not to mention the logs in the eyes of some of the accusers.

      Delete