attitude or action

there is a great discussion rolling about that i've been able to join in on ... namely the idea of, for those of us who want to be a positive influence on our fellow man, what should we focus on: the attitude of the person or the actions?

the notion is that focusing on actions breeds or forces conformity to a standard or code, but does little to effect any substantive change in the individual, while focusing on an individual’s attitude will result in deep-seated change that manifests in appropriate action. with this, i heartily agree.

here is my hitch … no society (zero, zilch, nada) has been able to operate in this manner. more over, no religious group or sect has been able to manifest this into a tenable, sustainable, and effectual system either. both society-at-large and religion-at-large has seen the need to codify and enforce standards and expectations in order to preserve unity, promote good, and protect constituents. if there are capable individuals who believe and pursue the attitude-change model, why has it not been “enforced” apart from official rules?

i think the real problem here is a base, fundamental problem. it’s a three letter word that we have come to disdain not for its truth-in-fact but because of our belief that it can’t apply to me. it’s the problem of sin. we are not able – in-and-of ourselves – to live in any kind of utopian-my-heart-has-really-changed kind of world because we will constantly, repeatedly, sometimes even eagerly respond not in like fashion to what we know to be good or right. rather, we will react in selfish ways, in ways that belie our knowledge of the reasonable and demonstrate a base, ignoble view of ourselves, others, and the world in general. humanity bears the constant burden this side of heaven of the ugliness of sin.

the real danger here is that if we rely on influencing society only through the change of heart, we ignore the problem of sin. so how do we protect both those who would feel the repercussions of our base, ignoble views as well as ourselves who hold these base ignoble views?

while profound, substantive change can only occur in the presence of a true attitude change, history and logic lead to the conclusion that something more is needed to guide and direct that change, in essence a framework within which that process can arise. but herein lies the struggle: if it is merely a human endeavor, it is fraught with the same burden of being constructed by hands steeped in sin as the effort to rely on heart change alone.

so where do we go from here?