Woken Dream

What is this thing called "woke"? We all know ... and I'm pretty sure we're all at least a little bit confused. The basic principle behind the whole "woke" thing is equality. Woke is about oppression. The notion is that this world is divided into two categories: the oppressed and the oppressor. Now, on the face of it that's not much of an issue. We certainly do have people who oppress other people and we certainly (obviously, given that first fact) have people who are oppressed. The problem comes when you view the two categories as complete. That is, everyone falls in one of the two categories. It gets worse. Parallel to this is the concept of power; those in power are the oppressors and those who are not in power are the oppressed. Parallel again, but drifting even farther away, we arrive at "White people are in power, so white people are the oppressors." (They spell that "CRT".) (No one has ever explained to me why, if "white = racist" based on power, that it's not so in countries where whites are not in power. And, of course, not all people of one "color" are in power. That's simply its own version of racism.)

Here's the "woke" complaint. "We are not being treated equally." (Thus, "oppression.") Some will respond, "But we have equal opportunity." To which the reply is now, "We don't want equal opportunity; we want equal outcome." Ah, see? Now we have a problem. "Equal outcome" requires that no one has more than or less than anyone else. It is, frankly, nonsense. Let's just do a thought exercise at your local McDonalds. The kid gets his first job. If "equal outcome" is in play, he will be paid the very same as everyone else who is there, from the seasoned veteran behind the cash register to the shift manager to the store manager all the way up to the owner. Equal outcome. And the kid is happy. But the kid won't go anywhere else. And no one will want the additional responsibility of shift manager or store manager. There will be no incentive to excel. Merit is irrelevant in an "equal outcome" system. If you tell the kid, "We will cut your pay if you don't produce," it will be deemed "oppression" and "unequal treatment" and it won't be good. Now, expand that exercise to doctors, lawyers, and the like -- jobs requiring special skills, talents, and/or training. Kurt Vonnegut wrote a short story -- "Harrison Bergeron." It's about a society where equality is mandated by constitutional amendments. Mr. and Mrs. Bergeron's teenage son, Harrison, has escaped from prison and is regarded as extremely dangerous. He's too smart and he's too athletic and he has to be stopped. The "Handicapper General" ends up killing the son for removing his imposed impediments. You see? Equal outcome.

We can all hunt about for standards against which to measure this thinking. I choose Scripture. From the beginning God assigned work to humans, not as a curse, but as a purpose (Gen 2:15). Paul wrote, "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim 5:8). He told the Thessalonians, "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" (2 Thess 3:10). The Bible is littered with the idea of merit, where we earn what we have. (Indeed, if there is no merit, both grace and mercy are erased.) There are, absolutely, warnings against the love of money, greed, that sort of thing, but we're humans who can take any good thing from God and turn it into an idol. That doesn't negate the good thing from God. So work is good and earning is good even if coveting riches is not good. In fact, Scripture itself offers rewards to those who do certain things. There is a crown of righteousness (2 Tim 4:8) and a crown of life (Rev 2:10) and a crown of glory (1 Peter 5:4), for instance. They're not given to everyone. So Scripture does not favor today's version of "equal outcome" and reason offers no hope that it could work. Why, then, is it the current topic? Well, of course, that's because God's opinion is not the current topic.