Transcript for July 5, 2009 by Ian Lawton

Independence Weekend is a great time to reflect on national affairs (excuse the pun), what your expectations of national leaders and your own role in building a stronger nation. I want to approach the discussion by the way of the issue of trust.

Confucius once told his student Tsze-kung that rulers need three resources: weapons, food and trust. If the ruler cannot have all three he should give up weapons first, then food, but should hold on to trust at all costs. He said, “Without trust we cannot stand.” What do you think? How important is trust in your worldview?

Consider Confucius’ saying for a moment. Weapons are no use to troops who have lost trust in their leaders and deserted or lost the will to fight. WW2 demonstrated that food shortages can be overcome if people trust the rationing systems of the government. Trust is the bedrock on which societies are built. Trust is the foundation on which your life is built. Every time you get in a car, you trust your life to the machine you are in, as well as the competence of other drivers on the road. You travel on an airplane, and you trust the pilot with your life. You receive your mail each day and trust that there is no anthrax in the envelope.

Trust may be the bedrock of healthy society, but we more often build our communities on the shaky top soil of fear. I say top soil because once trust starts to slide, fear very quickly turns into an avalanche of mistrust. We tend to agree more with Machiavelli than Confucius. Machiavelli said that if both love and fear are not possible for a ruler, he should choose fear over love. “Love is held together by a chain of obligation which, since men are wretched creatures, is broken on every occasion in which their own interests are concerned; but fear is sustained by a dread of punishment which will never abandon you.”

Do you live with a high level of trust or suspicion? Do you build your life on trust or fear? How much do you trust the basic structures of society; the government, the media, public transport, the health care system, etc?

Politics and a Culture of Suspicion

Trust in institutions is at an all time low. Maybe trust is low for good reason.

The same group that produces hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the population in check is racked with its own scandal and dishonesty.

Just this past month, we have had yet another American political scandal with the indiscretion of South Carolina Governor Mark “don’t cry for me Argentina” Sanford. Before we could even cry for Argentina, Governor Sanford was weeping up his own river, amidst revelations that his indiscretions included 20 years of dishonesty, plus a large dose of hypocrisy along the way. Ten years ago, Sanford voted to impeach Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal.

Clinton himself had compounded his indiscretion by lying about it. Jon Edwards recently did the same thing. We have very little reason to trust political leaders. They have breached the trust placed in them time and again by people and a system that depends on mutual trust. According to a 2005 study, only 27% of Americans trust the government, only 22% trust the media and only 12% trust corporations.

I don’t expect that the numbers of politicians who have extramarital affairs is any higher than the general population, which is itself high. It’s just that we expect more from people in political office. Should we expect more from politicians? Is the problem with our expectations, or do we have every right to expect honesty from elected officials?

Either way, this high level of mistrust is no way to live. It’s certainly not the fullness of life that we aspire to as spiritual people on a human journey of growth and healing. On this Independence Day holiday, begin healing some of the mistrust that is now endemic in society. Grow in trust rather than shrinking in suspicion.

Give to God, Give to Caesar

Reflect for a moment on the well known phrase, “Give to God what is God’s. Give to Caesar what is Caesars.” What does this offer in terms of national trust? Maybe there are different levels of trust. Maybe there is a trust that you give to God, and a trust that you give to Caesar.

Trust that you give to God is a trust that never fully dies; it relishes life’s changes and surprises. This trust is willing to take risks because it sees life as an adventure. It dwells in mystery and wonder and doesn’t need any guarantees. There is literally no accounting for this trust; it is an inner awareness and a life lived without defenses or conditions. This sort of trust never buys return tickets because she doesn’t plan when or if she will return. She goes with the flow of life.

Trust that you give to Caesar on the other hand is a measured trust that is won and lost over again. You give it according to merits. You might trust the function of Caesar even if you don’t trust the current Caesar. You might have never experienced a trustworthy Caesar in your life. This trust needs to be protected and earned. She not only buys return tickets, but shops around for the cheapest seats.

Maybe Jesus was suggesting that you have to hold both levels of trust in tension; a general, unconditional trust of life along with a specific giving and taking of trust. The general trust is foundational. You can trust God without trusting Caesar, but you can’t trust Caesar without trusting God.

Trust and Interdependence

Trust is hard. It’s one thing to trust yourself and your friends. It’s another thing altogether to trust strangers and politicians. David Hume, 18th century Scottish Philosopher, offered a simple story to point to the challenge of trust in large groups.

Two neighbors may agree to drain a meadow, which they possess in common; because ‘tis easy for them to know each other’s mind, and each may perceive that the immediate consequence of failing in his part is the abandoning of the whole project. But ‘tis difficult, and indeed impossible, that a thousand persons shou’d agree in any such action.
(David Hume A Treatise of Human Nature, Bk. III, Pt.II, Sec. VII.)

Trust between large groups, and in nations requires a social contract. The idea of a social contract was the foundation for the Declaration of Independence that we honor on July 4. The key element of the social contract is that leaders and governments no longer rule by divine right, but by the election of the people. The social contract requires a blending of rights and obligations; the obligation of citizens to vote in a system that they trust, and the rights of citizens to protest the way the system is being run.

That sounds simple enough, except that in many instances the rights and obligations in a situation cannot be determined by a contract. Consider this story about the social contract.

The story involves a milk man in a small town who earns his living by going door to door each morning with a large jug of milk. For lunch, he stops in a sunny clearing and sets his jug on a rock while he unpacks his humble lunch of bread and cheese.

One day, the goat herder comes by as the milk man is having his lunch. The milk man hollers a greeting which spooks one of the goats. The goat jumps onto the rock and knocks the jug over, shattering it and spilling its contents. Not only does the milk man lose the rest of his day’s wages, but it will take him up to a month to get another jug. The milk man demands the goat herder sell his goat to pay for the milk man’s losses. The goat herder responds that to do so would bankrupt him.

The two men go to the village judge. After hearing both of them plead their cases, the judge declares that is was neither the fault of the goat herder nor the fault of the milk man. To truly find out whose fault it was, he would hold a trial between the goat and the rock. The judge sends his bailiffs to bring forward the goat and the rock. The goat comes fairly easily. It takes twenty bailiffs to carry the rock.

Soon, word of the trial spreads throughout the village. The trial is held in the town center, and all of the townspeople come to witness the spectacle of such a ridiculous trial. The judge orders his bailiffs to seal all of the gates to the town center, trapping everyone inside. Then the judge speaks. “You have come to see a trial between a rock and a goat, which is a foolish thing. Thus, you have come to see me make a fool out of myself. The only fair judgment is to fine each of you a few coins for ‘improper thoughts.’” The money was given to the milk man who was able to purchase a new jug and continue his work.

Isn’t that a story about the taxation system?

The story does make an important point about the social contract. All in the village are related. It’s not just that we vote the politicians into office, but we also gather round like vultures with our improper thoughts when politicians are indiscreet. We help to create a culture of suspicion. Your mistrust, rightly applied in many situations, is partly responsible for the culture of mistrust. You can’t control how politicians act, but you can control your own thoughts and attitudes. Choose to break the cycle by doing what you can do to build trust.

Smart Trust

The trust that I am encouraging is somewhere in between mistrust and blind trust. Let’s call it smart trust. We tend to think that accountability and transparency are the hallmarks of smart trust. But are they? Over the last 20 years there has been a strong emphasis on accountability and transparency. The confounding fact is that in the same period of time, we appear to have become less trusting. Is there some connection between heightened accountability and lower trust?

Accountability often leads to a culture of suspicion where the measure of efficiency becomes more important than the people involved. Accountability so easily turns into bureaucracy. The point is that plants don’t flourish when they are constantly pulled up and inspected. Smart trust surely must include some personal autonomy, with accountability that enhances efficiency rather than deterring it.

Then there is transparency. Transparency can often turn into a breeding ground for deception. We force people into a trial by media, and the result is that people get lost in their own deception. Have you noticed in the aftermath of the Mark Sanford affair that no one can shut the guy up? The more transparent he becomes, the more narcissism and self righteousness he parades before the media, who are lapping it up. The media are lapping it up because we are lapping it up. Jon Stewart did a very funny report on the Sanford case this week. He showed footage of a South Carolina Episcopal priest saying, “Many of us are praying that he goes into a more silent mode.”

Stewart then said, “You know you’re in trouble when the person who is spiritually bound to hear your sins wants you to zip it.”

We need accountability that is smart trust, holding the balance between autonomy and responsibility to the whole. We need transparency that is smart trust, speaking the truth in appropriate contexts that are not run by the media and under the hawkish gaze of a self righteous citizenry.

Smart trust begins with you. This is not ultimately about the politicians, although we could do with a little more integrity in that department. It’s not ultimately about the media, although we could do with a little less sensationalism in that department. Ultimately, it is about you learning to place smart trust in life. When enough of us learn smart trust, then we will love the culture of suspicion into submission.

Then we will have reclaimed the balance between trusting God and trusting Caesar. Then all that is harsh and unforgiving in the world will give way to a softer more gracious aliveness that is open and ready to be surprised, even by a politician.

Will you trust life with a smart trust? I honor the part of you that is unconditional and unprotected, and I honor the part of you that is smart and discerning. Namaste.