wrong question

This morning I read an op-ed article by David Brooks in the New York Times about the alleged Penn State scandal; in it Brooks unearths the hypocrisy of the public's disgust. Brooks is a thoughtful writer, but he missed the mark on his conclusion. Here's the end of his op-ed piece:

But we’re not Puritans anymore. We live in a society oriented around our inner wonderfulness. So when something atrocious happens, people look for some artificial, outside force that must have caused it—like the culture of college football, or some other favorite bogey. People look for laws that can be changed so it never happens again. 

Commentators ruthlessly vilify all involved from the island of their own innocence. Everyone gets to proudly ask: “How could they have let this happen?”

The proper question is: How can we ourselves overcome our natural tendency to evade and self-deceive. That was the proper question after Abu Ghraib, Madoff, the Wall Street follies and a thousand other scandals. But it’s a question this society has a hard time asking because the most seductive evasion is the one that leads us to deny the underside of our own nature. 

While Brooks identifies the sins of vanity and pride, and even our total depravity--yay!--, he stops short with the wrong question: "How can we ourselves overcome our natural tendency to evade and self-deceive."

We ourselves can't do diddly squat.

A better query might read: How can we be rescued from our natural tendency to evade and self-deceive." Note the passive voice. I know it's a faux pas in English grammar circles, but it sure is fitting in theological ones. We need rescuing by the Savior.

I suppose it's a little greedy of me to expect a columnist to complete the thought. I should be thankful Brooks at least exposes our sin. His assessment of human nature reminds me of a sermon I listened to yesterday by Ligon Duncan from The Gospel Coalition website. In preaching about contentment, Duncan states, "You are more likely to seek real contentment and find it than someone who is content in his/her circumstances." Hopefully Brooks' article struck a cord of discontentment with his readers; then we will be a step closer to searching for the source of true peace.