Tuesday, January 21, 2020

The Fruit of Coercion


“We live in a globalized world where partly overlapping and partly contradictory visions of flourishing life coexist in the same public space.”[1] (Emphases mine)

If the above quote accurately describes the reality out of which today’s social interaction emerges (and I believe it does), then the choices and challenges before us become clearer.
1.     We can choose to do nothing: continue to live in a pluralistic environment in which some are comfortable, some are uncomfortable, and some are fearful (their fear falling along a spectrum from slightly uneasy and irritated to paranoid and enraged) because they can neither tolerate nor control the differences.
2.    We can choose the fight/flight response: declare that our vision of flourishing life is, indeed, the only right vision, and demand that everyone else agree and conform to our vision. When there is resistance to our demand, we can choose either to fight to inflict our vision on everyone else, or we can retreat from society and congratulate one another that we’re the only ones who are right.
3.    We can raise the reality to a new level: we can enter conversation with these partly overlapping and partly contradictory visions. Conversation leads to mutual understanding and to an openness that leads to mutual trust.
It arguably is true that humans will never be totally reconciled or united; nevertheless, God has, in Christ, reconciled the world to God's self, and has called all God's people to the work of reconciliation.[2] If God is reconciled to the world, and we are reconciled to God, then we also are reconciled to the world. Our lack of reconciliation with the world--or at least with one another--is one symptom of incomplete reconciliation with God. 
The third option above, which this blog is written to advocate, provides the only context in which any level of resolution and/or reconciliation can happen. Even if we assume ours is the only valid vision of flourishing life, and if we feel compelled and led to establish our vision as the basis and norm for all human society, this third option is the only context in which there is any hope of doing so.
One counselling model calls this context the “no-problem area” of human relationships. In education it’s called the “teachable moment.” A teacher may work all day (administrative, legislative and parental intrusions notwithstanding) to produce a five-minute window of eyes widened in wonder, brows furrowed in contemplation of new understandings. It is the only context of human relationships in which effective teaching, learning, playing, productivity, growing, and loving can happen.
In a combative or competitive atmosphere, where fear and mistrust dominate, none of the desirable ends described above can emerge.
One of the reasons the church has declined in the last three-quarters of a century is that evangelism and witness grew increasingly confrontational and coercive—even to the point of attempting to legislate morality and doctrine. In the face of sin and evil, while confrontation may in some instances engender conformity to a different standard and set of behavior, it never really creates a change of values or a change of heart. The more likely fruit of confrontation and coercion is resentment, anger, retaliation, and even an urge for revenge.
This is not to say that Christianity and the church should not have standards or boundaries. Moral and ethical norms are valid and necessary topics within the Christian faith; but there are effective ways, ineffective and even counterproductive ways to present our testimony and to address differences. Too many in the church have been counterproductive in addressing disagreements.
To be fair, there is merit to the evangelical critique of progressive Christianity, viz., that progressives too frequently present (intentionally or unintentionally) a moral anomie in which “anything goes.” Again, perhaps we progressives should focus more intentionally on the standards of Jesus (and grace and love were not his only standards); however, we cannot afford in the process to slip into patterns of counter-productive confrontation. Instead of coercive pontifications, we are called to “lift up Christ,” trusting that it is Christ, and not our power of persuasion, that will draw all people to him. [NOTE: “To Him,” if not to the church, per se.]
“The problem is, many of the people in need of saving are in churches, and at least part of what they need saving from is the idea that God sees the world in the same way they do.” ~ Barbara Brown Taylor
That’s how it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.
Together in the Walk,
Jim



[1] Volf, Miroslav. For the Life of the World (Theology for the Life of the World) (p. 32). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
[2] II Corinthians 5:18-20, et. al.


Monday, January 6, 2020

If at First You Don't Succeed


There’s a story about a new, young preacher whose first sermon at his new parish was well received. The next week, he repeated the same sermon.
The people weren’t too worried. After all, he was young and probably nervous. They spoke among themselves, “We just need to encourage him,” which they did.
But when he repeated the same sermon on the third consecutive Sunday, the elders took him aside. “We understand that you’re young and new and inexperienced. What can we do to help you develop other sermons?”
The young preacher replied, “Oh, I have other sermons ready; and, as soon as I see evidence that you’ve heard this one, I’ll move on to the next one.”
Boy, Howdy! Have I been tempted to do the same thing!
There’s an issue before us as Americans and as citizens of the Earth, that needs to be addressed over and over and over. I’m not arrogant enough to believe I have the definitive Word on the subject, even though I have addressed it many times in this blog and in other venues.
This time I thought I’d broach the subject with several quotes from another, more influential source. Jim Wallis[1] is founder, editor, and publisher of Sojourners magazine. I abandoned a major writing project on the subject when I discovered Wallis’ writings, because he says exactly what I feel, and does so in a manner much less adversarial than my own efforts have been (ironically, my campaign against adversarial partisanism could not avoid adversarialism!)
Wallis’ passion, like my own, is for bipartisan collaboration for the common good. His presupposition, like my own, is that both the right and the left have important gifts to offer in the pursuit of the common good, and that the ideological warfare[2] that has replaced civil debate is perhaps history’s greatest barrier to that common good.
The quotes that follow are from two of his books:
·         Jim Wallis, On God’s Side: What Religion Forgets and Politics Hasn’t Learned About Serving the Common Good (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, a division of Baker Publishing Group) 2013.
·         Jim Wallis, Conservatives, Liberals and the Fight for America’s Future (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, a division of Baker Publishing Group) 2013.] This little book contains excerpts from On God’s Side, listed above.
I use a Kindle, which gives “Locations” instead of page numbers.
“The day after the 2012 presidential election brought a great feeling of relief. Most of us, no matter whether our candidates won or lost, were so weary of what elections and politics have become that we were just glad the process was over. Many were disappointed with how the dysfunctional and bitterly partisan politics in Washington had undermined their deep desires for hope and change. Politics has severely constrained those possibilities by focusing on blame instead of solutions, and winning (ideological confrontations) instead of governing [italics and parenthetical mine]. … But the election results produced neither the salvation nor the damnation of the country, as some of the pundits on both sides seemed to suggest. Instead, they called us to go deeper.” [Opening words of the Preface of On God’s Side, Location 165].
* * *
“Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” ~ Reinhold Niebuhr [from Conservatives, Liberals and the Fight for America’s Future, Location 39].
* * *
“I am a democrat [proponent of democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in the government… The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows…. I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.” ~ C. S. Lewis [from Conservatives, Liberals and the Fight for America’s Future, Location 44].
* * *
“Perhaps the greatest loss is to the common good—because I believe that both conservative and liberal insights and commitments are necessary for it to exist. In short, I am convinced that the common good requires us to be both personally responsible and socially just (italics his). These are the two best big ideas of conservatism and liberalism respectively.” [from Conservatives, Liberals and the Fight for America’s Future, Location 52.]
* * *
“The 24/7 news coverage today… doesn’t really “cover” the news but rather fuels the audience’s already-held prejudices about what is happening. Almost all of it is biased, much of it is distorted, some of it is just plain lies, and too much of it is downright hateful. Unfortunately, we are losing genuinely important ideas that the other political side has, which are often critically needed to find more balanced answers to our complex social, political, and economic problems. We’ve lost our integrity in the public arena, substituting ideological warfare for genuine and rigorous political debate, replacing substance with sound bites…
“In such a polarized, paralyzed and increasingly poisonous political environment, it is very difficult to find or even discuss the common good. But I believe that both the conservative and liberal philosophies have critical contributions to make in solving our problems and that the best ideas from both are essential for reestablishing a serious public discourse about the common good.” [from Conservatives, Liberals and the Fight for America’s Future, Location 73.]
Most of my political exposure, other than the virtually universally biased media, is on Facebook, where some of my friends complain constantly about the “liberal press” or the “leftist media,” etc., with virtually no critical evaluation of the biases of their favored conservative sources. At the same time, other friends continuously point out the inconsistencies of the conservative media without critical analysis of their favored liberal sources.
I can think of few Facebook friends who share my own passion for trying to find balance and bipartisan collaboration—for seeking reconciliation and healing of our land. Most just want to win the fight, and for their side to prevail.
I recommend—no, I implore my readers (both of you!) to read carefully the writings of Jim Wallis referenced in this blog, as well as his earlier book, God’s Politics: When the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It. I also recommend Parker Palmer’s Healing the Heart of Democracy as a call to healing, reconciling collaboration to replace the current culture wars.
That’s the way it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.
Together in the Walk,
Jim




[1] Since I first published this blog, Wallis has become virtually a persona non grata among conservatives, and many conservatives categorically dismiss and refuse to read or hear anything they anticipate will be counter to their own ideological cocoon. But that’s precisely the point and is the reason I quote him here. It is so crucial that we read and listen to all perspectives. No single person—no human group of any size—is totally right or totally wrong about anything. Every person, and every human group, has something of value to contribute to the common good, and to cut them off without a hearing is to abandon the common good to a closed ideology.
[2] Since this blog was published the first time, the ideological referenced above has become so pervasive that now it has its own label: “culture wars.”