Nothing appears to be wrong with the following report: “Ex-chancellor Helmuth Schmidt reveals he has a somewhat strained relationship with the new media”. Nothing wrong at first sight. The background: He had been asked was he surfing the internet or watching Big Brother on TV. This gives the affair a different flavour. Were there no other slightly more important questions a politician of his calibre could be asked? Obviously not. Instead the attention of millions of people remains constantly fixed upon Big Brother programs etc. whose winners are presented (and hence well rewarded) as socially competent individuals. Yet it should have dawned by now on the public for quite some time that the wellbeing of any society depends largely on sufficient numbers of people who apply their social competence every day without much ado or extra reward.
In one of his parables Jesus quotes an employer telling a faithful servant: “You have proved trustworthy in a small way, I will now put you in charge of something big” (Matthew 25:23). In other words: Such servants should be honoured by their society and have a say in matters of importance, because they have shown social competence and therefore deserve recognition. Unfortunately it doesn’t work like that in this world of ours.
Instead we tolerate alcoholic abuse by millions of people. Alcoholism as intensifier and trigger of violence is not questioned, even though it prevents the development of social competence. Stalin’s catastrophic carrier started with a father who was a drunkard and a rowdy. His son had no choice but react accordingly to the pain and coldness of his childhood which made him an insensitive man, cold and hard towards other people. Thus he became the Lord of Fate for millions of people and the destroyer of life expectations for many millions more. Had Adolf Hitler ever proved his social competence before so many Germans pinned all their hopes on him as their saviour? Had he ever lived in a real community before proclaiming the community of the German nation (Volksgemeinschaft)?
Did there ever exist in history a human being who could have served as a model? Most certainly Jesus of Nazareth at the beginning of the era that started with him (yet did not follow his example). He showed social competence, stayed close to fellow men, did not show off as important among the important, a keen observer, close to common folk, understanding, ready to help with physical and psychological problems, a comforter, sharing average conditions, following the biblical advice as quoted by himself: “Always treat others as you would like them to treat you” (Matthew 7:12). But he had no better fate than so many other helpers, thinkers, inventors, artists, heralds of human values and servants of humanity. The bible compares suchlike people to “chequered birds” who in place of thanks were defamed and destroyed and thus prevented from sharing their potential with their contemporaries. They remained outsiders, neglected by the media, although millions of people did in fact benefit from their lives, their vitality and their insight.
A certain Christian dignitary tells us that “We need to promote a prophetic renewal”. History has shown with sufficient clearness what happens to prophets. Because they are different and appear strange, the chequered birds will be hunted down and killed by the flight of the other birds. His countrymen didn’t do to Jesus as he had done to them. They didn’t guard his life, were not close to him, and didn’t understand the importance of his life.
In conclusion: Is the global society willing to contribute towards its own necessary psychic evolution – or let things take their “natural” course? Why does the world community not face the gigantic problems that confront us, the conflicts, the question by which principles we want to organize our global existence?
One day Mother Earth as a living organism will have no choice but do to mankind as we have done to her in global consent.