Wednesday, May 18, 2011

History: No guarantees, but certainly an indication that shouldn't be ignored

There is this radio commercial for a business in Mobile for one of those companies that sells gold. It's not one of those national companies that advertise on talk radio, but a local company that uses local "talent.'' You know the pitch: gold has doubled in price, and never loses its value, so it's never been a better investment.
And then comes the disclaimer that drives me crazy.
"Of course,'' the announcer says, "history is no indication of future performance.''
Yes, that's exactly what he says. At first I thought it was a mistake by the guy doing the commercial, but recently I was driving through Mobile and heard it again, only this time read by a different voice. And again, toward the end, the very same disclaimer: "History is no indication of future performance."
As anyone who has heard the countless "invest in gold" commercials knows, the line is supposed to be, "History is no guarantee of future performance."
Because if there is one thing history should be, it is an indication of future performance.
And I love history. The other day, I was reading about  Rome and Julius Ceasar - the historical Ceasar, not the one that most of us know about from the works of Williams Shakespeare (as great as that story is).
Rome tried to build a society based on multiple gods, to be inclusive and try to draw on the strengths all offered. Unfortunately, Roman gods were limited because - like the Greek gods they were drawn from - they were essentially human; larger than life, exaggerated in their abilities and passions, but still simply a reflection of the humans that worshiped them.
The gods, as Francis Sheaffer put it, "were amplified humanity, not divinity." And so there was no absolute, no definitive "truth'' that served as a foundation for value, morality, life, and the critical decisions that determine the future of a culture. These kind of gods depend on the society that created them, rather than the other way around.
Julius Ceasar was able to come to power because the Roman Senate had lost its ability to keep order. The normal process of government was disrupted by rival factions fighting for power, which led to street gangs terrorizing the streets of Rome. Self-interest became more important than was in the best interest of society as a whole. Conspiracies abounded, "truth" was relative.
And so Rome turned to Ceasar in the hope that an authoritarian figure could restore order to their lives. They hoped that the government would be strong enough to give the people time to breath again and recover from wars and civil unrest and environmental disasters.
Is it any wonder that, in time, the Ceasars that succeeded Julius came to consider themselves gods? And that Roman Emperors tried to dictate morals and define family life with a series of impressive social reforms and welfare programs that was supposed to create loyalty to Ceasar, but instead - because the Ceasars themselves were human - really only created demands from the populace that became harder and harder for government to fulfill.
Christians, of course, stepped in with an absolute basis for judging the government and its actions, which is the one thing an authoritarian state can't have. Christians were not persecuted because they worshiped Christ; they were persecuted because they worshiped Christ and no other gods. And even though the Christians sometimes got it wrong, they continually came back to the foundation of their faith as written out in what they believed to be God's Word, Holy Scripture, and could always go back to that to try to work out the right course of action.
And yes, eventually Christianity became the official state religion of Rome, and became corrupted (because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely). And as much as anything, the Romans became apathetic. They just wanted to be left alone to live their lives in peace, but had become so dependent on government to provide that peace that they were faced with ridiculous inflation and unbearable taxes required to pay for that ever-expanding government.
Perhaps this is an over-simplification, but I believe the premise is correct.
And perhaps some of that appears relevant to us today in this country.
Rome is not the only time in history that this pattern has occurred. History is full of similar risings and fallings. But just because there is a pattern, it doesn't mean history has to repeat itself.
After all, history does not "guarantee'' future results.
But there is no question it gives us a strong indication.

No comments:

Post a Comment