Too Much, Too Fast, Not Enough, Too Slow…Enough

An argument can be made for opposites. The argument is easy to make. We live in a culture that breathes the air of opposites. There’s option A or B. There’s up or down. There’s left or right. Two teams play against each other, only one will win. Two political parties face each other, only one will win. Often faith gets put in this type of characterization as well, it’s just a matter of what faith is up against depending on who you are talking to. We are forced to pick sides in ongoing social issue battles – are you for or against this or that. Are you wealthy or poor? Have higher education or not? Healthy or whatever the opposite of it is? Do you drive fast or slow? Do you collect things or are you a minimalist? On and on the list goes.

About a dozen years ago, during my time in seminary, I took the opportunity to take my family with me for a year of studies abroad in Finland. It was an incredible experience in so many ways. And beyond the classes I took at the University of Helsinki, I learned a great deal of other things.

The lesson that has stayed with me the longest was being able to see beyond the dichotomy of either/or. For me, stepping away from American culture opened my eyes to see how ingrained the either/or way of seeing things exist in the US. It was actually disturbing to me. I had trouble re-adjusting to American culture when I returned and probably never really fully readjusted. And I’m ok with that. American culture isn’t the healthiest of cultures. Not that there is a perfect culture mind you.

Intellectually I knew all of this. But it was the observation of it that shifted it from an intellectual piece of information to something deeper. And in that shift, I was able to see the world differently.

Which is why the arguments for opposites feels lacking to me. In some ways, opposites aren’t actually opposed to each other. That sounds weird. What if opposites aren’t opposed to each other but rather a different way of expressing the same thing?

Often we think about opposites as being at two ends along a spectrum with the opposing sides as far away from each other as possible. It’s a straight line. How could they possibly be similar in any way. I think a better way to express opposites is more like a circle with a small gap at one point. The opposing sides are on each end of the small gap. What they stand for are as far away from each other as you can get along the line of the circle. But what makes this different is that the end goal of these two opposing sides, or maybe their methods to achieve that goal, are essentially the same, which is why they are so near to each other. It turns opposition from a linear concept to more 3 dimensional in a way. Opposition is never about one thing. It’s more complex than that.

Here’s a historical example for you, that I think makes the argument. Fascists and communists are opposed to each other. Fascists are far right, ultra-nationalist, and demand strict adherence to social hierarchies. Communists are far-left, internationalist, and aim to abolish social class and private property. Those are pretty far apart in terms of their foundation and their vision.

And while their foundations are opposed to one another, their methods of implementing those visions are pretty similar – control through use of force. Put the two together and you end up with a circle that has a tiny gap with fascists and communists on the two ends of the line on the circle. The gap will never close though because their foundations are different even though their methods are the same.

And when you look at it that way, you start to see that the opposite of fascism and communism are not each other, but rather democracy because the methods matter. It’s a fundamental difference between the fascist and communist ends justify the means versus the process matters as much as the ends in democracy. In this way, we have to look beyond one dimensional differences between ideas to much more complexity.

I think this idea carries out into other areas of life. The opposition that we observe is far more complex than what is on the surface. Slower and faster are in opposition to each other when we base it solely on speed. But are they more similar than different when we add in another element into the equation? Would slower and faster be opposed to moderate speed?

More and less are in opposition to each other, but are they similar in comparison to enough?

Get into more serious issues with these questions. Is the opposite of over the top patriotism in opposition to being a traitor? Or are those concepts more similar than we want to admit. Maybe they are similar and related to each other, not in their foundation, but in their method and they are in opposition to the quiet patriot who is just trying to live their life and care for their friends and family, and aren’t interested in unnecessary conflicts in the world.

I have a theory, or maybe a formula based on this. Less and more are opposed to each other in terms of their foundation, but are similar in their method. It’s not a fool proof formula by any means, but more of an observation. Quiet and loud are opposed to each other, but in many ways both attract attention. They are noticed. Slower and faster are opposed to each other, but again, it’s hard not to notice and react or respond. Over the top and making one small are opposed to each other, but again, you can’t help by notice both. They demand attention.

What if the opposite of more is not just less, or loud the opposite of quiet, or fast the opposite of slow. What if we expand on this to see that while these things are opposed to each other on the surface, that there is often something deeper that links them together. And when that happens they become opposed to something else entirely that doesn’t fit on an end of a straight line spectrum. What if the opposite of these things is enough. Not perfection. But enough. Enough of things. Enough speed. Enough sound. Enough presence.

If that’s the case then would it be fair to say that the two ends of the spectrum are really attempts at perfection? Is perfection the opposite of enough? And the problem with perfection is that it demands to be seen and complied with. It demands its own way because it is perfect and without flaw. Or so it thinks it is. And any variation on it is cast out as being as far away from it as it sees itself. Which is why any disagreement would be at the other end of the circle. Perfection is at the end of the circle that has the gap because perfection is unachievable.

But enough is different. When there is enough, there doesn’t need to more or less. It’s enough. Enough has what is necessary and sufficient. There is no lack and there is no excess. Enough says it all. And enough makes room for various ways in which it can happen. Enough isn’t full of pride and doesn’t demand compliance. It invites because there is no fear. How could there be. There is enough for everyone and everything. And those that participate don’t take more than enough for themselves. Why would they?

When we read the first creation story in Genesis 1, we see that at the end of each day God looks at what God created and calls it good. Not perfect. Good. The Hebrew word here is tov. It means functional, useful, and fit for a purpose. That sounds like enough to me. God was never interested in making creation perfect. God was interested in making creation enough.

And humanity has been unsatisfied with enough since the very beginning. And because of that, we create our own problems of lack and excess. We desire perfection. But perfection was never the point. Enough has always been God’s method and point.

Enough. Not too much. Not too little. Not too slow or fast. Not too loud or quiet. Enough.