“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.
No comments:
Post a Comment