Douglas Todd on perfection

Last Saturday, Douglas Todd wrote a column on the subject of perfection. I know I already wrote about last Saturday's Sun, but this was worth going back for.

Todd is anything but a hack or a crank. He's one of the most respected religion journalists in Canada, and therefore the world.* But I've been reading him for probably about 15 years, and I've never been much of a fan.

Todd is an example of what I like to call 'life-goes-on' journalism. He doesn't seem to believe that a journalist should ever offer a point-of-view, or perspective, or expertise; he simply lays out the range of opinions on a topic in a non-judgmental manner, evaluating nothing, analyzing nothing, and finally wrapping everything up with some completely banal observation like: "One thing for sure...life goes on." Reading him, I often find myself seized with the urge to grab him by the lapels and scream "FOR GOD'S SAKE, DRAW A CONCLUSION!" **

It's as though he buys into the notion of providing 'balance' with the ideal of 'letting people make up their own mind.' He doesn't seem to understand that by doing so, he actually eliminates the tools people need to make a choice. With no basis for choosing one side or the other, people are forced to simply affirm what they already believed anyway.

In contrast, you have someone like Peter McKnight, another Sun columnist, and one I have tremendous respect for (lest anyone claim that I hate all journalists equally). A few weeks ago, he wrote a review of Ben Stein's anti-Darwin 'documentary' "Expelled." McKnight pretty much dismissed it as a cheap piece of propaganda, and provided analysis to demonstrate why. I found it indescribably refreshing that a journalist would actually call a spade a spade.

You would think that a dishonest documentary about evolution would be right up the alley of the Sun's Religion/Ethics reporter. But there's no way in hell Todd could ever have written a piece like this. He would have been too busy saying something like: "Although some consider "Expelled" a cheap piece of propaganda, others disagree. But one thing we do know...life goes on."

But, back to Todd's column on perfection, from Saturday July 12. As usual, he lays out several contrasting views on whether humans are perfectable, or not; whether perfection should be striven for, or not; whether Jesus was perfect, or not...and so on.

I couldn't help wondering: how is it possible to discuss ANY of these subjects without first considering what exactly you mean by 'perfect' in the first place? What does it mean to speak of a perfect human, or a perfect life, or a perfect God?

It seems to me that 'perfect' means nothing more than a complete adherence to a preestablished set of standards. If you think about it, merely by using the word 'perfect' to describe something (or 'imperfect,' for that matter) you are automatically claiming the existence of such a standard. Where do these standards come from? Wouldn't that be a more interesting vein for an essay like this to mine? Especially when you consider what this would mean for those who call God perfect!

That has some pretty serious implications to the question of morality, which has always been pretty tightly intertwined with the concept of perfection, and it also raises the dirty little secret of the Christian concept of morality -- namely, that it doesn't actually have one. If you look at what Christian doctrine states, you find that it doesn't believe in morality so much as obedience; to be perfectly good is to adhere completely to God's standards. If, on the other hand, you look at what actual Christians -- as opposed to mere doctrine -- believe about morality, you find yourself quickly discovering something more humanistic than theistic. Surely, that in itself would be a worthy discussion.

Many Christians would probably agree with the idea that God sets the standards for our behaviour. But, as stated earlier, they also say that God IS perfect, which leads to an odd little contradiction that doesn't really get a lot of attention: you cannot say that God both defines good and is good. If we say God defines good, than 'good' becomes completely meaningless; after all, if I get to decide what constitutes a 'right' answer on a test, would anybody be impressed if I got a perfect score?

On the other hand, if we say God IS good, it just raises the question again: If there is a standard of perfection that God Himself can be judged by, where does this standard come from?

I can't help but think that these are all far more interesting fruits than any Todd managed to pick.

Todd's blog carries the header "Award winning spirituality and ethics columnist Douglas Todd talks about everything we're told not to discuss in polite company: Religion, morality, politics, sex, death, God, love, meaning and all the things that matter." Would that his column were as controversial as this makes it sound! It takes extraordinary skill to make these topics boring.

But, that's Douglas Todd for you.

----------


*OK, OK, I actually have no real basis for suggesting that Canada's religious writers are the best in the world. But it was fun to write. ;)

**There is one exception to this rule. Although after 15 years I have little sense of what opinions Todd personally holds about anything, I do know he doesn't like atheists one bit. It's a petty point, but I've always been pissed off by a column he wrote many years ago, in which he actually said "Some of my best friends are atheists." Gosh! Guess there's some good ones after all. Thankya, Massah!