One More Plea for Civility

My undergraduate degree is in sociology, and there was always an open debate between sociology and psychology regarding the relative impact of social vs. psychological influences. The debate continues among the laity, fueled to a significant degree by responses for and against the writings of Ayn Rand.

In today’s climate of extreme partisanism, it’s rare to see an argument for any consideration of relativity. Everything is cast in absolute terms; therefore, it’s really difficult to hold an intelligent—or civil—debate about anything (there’s that absolutist thing again!)

Hillary Clinton wrote a book entitled, It Takes a Village. Reaction against it predictably was based not nearly as much on the merits of her thesis as on her political and personal reputation.

An old friend (since high school days) is intelligent, educated (actually an educator) and articulate, so I take seriously his comments. His brother also is educated and articulate—a colleague in ministry—whose comments I also consider thoughtfully. They both are Libertarians; and since I am a very liberal Democrat, you can imagine some of the conversations that emerge when we make contact.

I also have a cousin—a sweet, compassionate young woman who has survived some of life’s hardest knocks. She is conservative; although, she may be the only true “independent” among all my acquaintances.[1]

I mention these three because each of them is able to carry on a conversation in which there is disagreement without becoming sarcastic, disrespectful, or insulting. They focus on issues instead of personalities, and in virtually every conversation with either of them I find my own awareness expanded and my understanding more empathetic.

By contrast, most of my remaining acquaintances, liberal or conservative, if they participate at all in politically or socially controversial conversations, resort to insulting put-downs directed at any who disagree with them. With increasing frequency, I find myself dropping out of those conversations or ignoring them altogether. They accomplish absolutely nothing; indeed, they are counterproductive to any hope of reconciliation and unity.

The vitriolic conversations I observe appear to emerge out of a mindset that says, “I’m right; and I have to convert these infidels!” I have friends who actually have said we are obligated to confront “their” stupidity! (And the overuse of the word, stupidity is another obsession of mine.)

Here’s the thing: if you refuse to accept me for who I am and for what I believe—if you have a need to change and correct me—if you require that I be like you—before you can treat me with respect and common courtesy, there’s not much hope of deepening our relationship. If I perceive that you are trying to change me—to coerce or intimidate or humiliate me into becoming something I am not—then my sense of distrust and defensiveness is activated.

On the other hand, if you treat me with respect and common courtesy first—if I perceive that you truly are listening to me and trying to understand me[2]; then I am much more likely to trust you and listen to you and to seek to understand you. I may not agree with you, nor do I have a need for you to agree with me; but, if we understand each other first, there’s at least some hope that we’ll move closer to agreement.

And see, here’s the other thing: since the earliest days of this wonderful American experiment, this inability (or unwillingness) to tolerate differences has existed. Remember reading about the infamous duels to the death (Aaron Burr actually killed sitting Vice President, Alexander Hamilton, in a duel that emerged out of the long and bitter partisan rivalry between the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists.)

And what was gained? One human death; the virtual end in dishonor of Aaron Burr's political career, and what some have argued was the final nail in the coffin of the Jeffersonian Federalist party.

And what has been gained by the bitterness and animosity that has continued until this moment because we humans cannot tolerate differences? Hmmm? I’ll wait.

On Tuesday evening President Trump echoed the same whine that has come from every president and politician since (at least) President Nixon: “Why can’t we set aside our partisan differences?” The reason is that the whiner, whether Democrat or Republican, liberal, conservative, independent or Libertarian, means: “Why can’t you who disagree with me stop disagreeing with me?”

So, how’s that working out for you? for our nation?

I don’t want Republicans and Libertarians to agree totally with me! Democracy flourishes on lively debate in which all parties listen to each other and try to find the best in each other’s position.

I truly believe that we all have something of value to offer, and that many of our harshest disagreements are matters of degree, if we only will listen to each other. I refuse to believe that any one party—or any one person—has all of the truth about anything. But actualizing that truism would require each of us to acknowledge and accept the possibility that “I” may not be absolutely, irrefutably, and eternally right about everything.

Oh, well. I can dream.

That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Within my limited circle of acquaintances there are several who claim to be political “independents,” but whose conversation mirrors and supports virtually anything that opposes the Democratic party.

[2] And it always is my intention to be the same kind of listener; in fact, I have specific training in listening. I hope I am a good listener.

Black-and-White, or Gray?

The first time I sat down for a conversation with my new colleague, his first words were, “I’m a black-and-white sort of person.” His reputation for stirring things up had preceded him, and my immediate thought was, “That explains it.”

He and I enjoyed a trusting collegial relationship as we worked together, and I still hold our friendship dear. He is intelligent and knowledgeable (and opinionated) about a wide variety of topics, he is deeply compassionate and deeply spiritual and can be very charming. But his “black-and-white” approach to life continues to be counterproductive in both his relationships and his vocational pursuit.

In my observation, a black-and-white approach has a counterproductive impact on virtually every part of life. It lends itself, almost de facto, to adversarial confrontations, and is never—ever—an effective vehicle for negotiation or collaboration or effective problem-solving; indeed, it more likely will create conflict than resolve it.

Black-and-white people are perceived (correctly, all too often) as arrogant and obstinate, and often project an attitude of intolerance. They aim more frequently at persuading others than seeking to understand them. And, whether accurate or inaccurate, they are heard to say, “I’m right; therefore anybody who disagrees with me is wrong. Period.”

The “right” must prevail; and since I’m right, I must prevail. It’s only a short hop from that pronouncement to an “ends-justify-the-ends” ethic. But, in truth, the noblest cause, if achieved ignobly, is tainted, and thus ignoble.

Given the tirade above, it probably won’t shock you to know that I consider myself a both/and person. I live in the gray. My black-and-white friends (I truly am not aware of any enemies), consider me weak, malleable and even naïve. Compromise is a dirty word to them. But I find it a strength to be able to listen to both sides of any issue, to consider them in light of circumstances[1] and sometimes even to take parts of both to create a whole new reality.

My long-time readers may grow tired of reading, “I believe in absolute truth; but, I don’t believe any human or group of humans is capable of perceiving truth absolutely.” Truth is not relative; but my perception of it is, and therefore it is incumbent upon me to keep searching and growing in understanding.

And so, I am brought up short when I realize that Jesus uncompromisingly took sides in a debate that was as old as Judaism. Was Jesus a black-and-white person?

As I’ve outlined in previous blogs, the ancient debate, faithfully recorded and later included as part of Holy Scripture[2], presents contradictory understandings as part of an effort to discern the nature and will of God. Which is it: (1) Is God a warrior/despot, jealous of his conquests and harsh in judgment upon those who stray from his pronouncements and laws, or (2) is God a creator, loving redeemer and merciful sustainer whose concern is the well-being of God’s creation?

There’s a third possible reading: God is both, because the Bible says so. This understanding requires that I jump through one of two hoops: (1) I have to overcome the hang-up that such a reading understands God as schizophrenic, or (2) I have to overcome a hang-up regarding the definition of Grace. If God relates in one way to “those who stray from his pronouncements and laws” and in a different way with “the people who choose to live in relationship with God,” then the divine/human relationship is based on human behavior rather than on God’s Grace, and the whole Christ event is rendered impotent and irrelevant. We are back under the law: obey or die.

We’re under Grace or we’re under the Law. Limited as I am by the clay of which I am made, I cannot conceive of having it both ways. I am fortified in that belief by my Lenten journey, in which I am discovering how Jesus read the Bible. Jesus consistently chose the side of the debate that understands God as loving and restoring, and rejected the alternative of God as vengeful and blood-thirsty. That choice directed all he taught and preached and how he served. And his choice qualified the intent behind his invitation: “Follow me.”

So, here I am, touting my liberal openness, claiming to be a “both/and” kinda’ guy, confronting a black-and-white” choice. It’s what Thomas G. Bandy calls a “bedrock belief.” It is the limit beyond which I can see no other alternatives: Grace or Law. Upon the choice I make I stake my eternal destiny. I choose Grace.

It’s also by choosing Grace that I am free to acknowledge the gray and to live there fearlessly, trusting that my relationship with God and my eternal destiny are based upon God’s Grace, and not upon whether I’m right or wrong about anything.

That’s the way I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Which is another quality perceived as weakness to my black-and-white friends. To them, there is no circumstantial consideration. Right is right and wrong is wrong under all circumstances.

[2] At another time it might be well to discuss the role of inspiration and revelation in both the recording and the canonizing of the writings we call Holy.

Pride? or Insecurity?

My Pastor’s Column in church newsletters was called “Jim’s Gems”. Sometimes it was more like “cut glass”. Today’s blog is a case in point. My mind is wandering; so I’ll see where it leads.

By the way, I need to give credit every now and then to the best Youth Minister I’ve ever known. Patty Methvin always signed her church newsletter column, “Together in the Walk.” In my opinion, it’s the best Christian sign-off around, so I've adopted it in most of my writing. Thanks, Patty!

Also, every now and then I need to reaffirm the philosophical position from which I think and write and work. Some will respond immediately, “You're Liberal!” Yes, I’m unapologetically liberal; but liberal is not where I start. It’s the end product of my thought process.

On the other hand, one of the classic definitions of “liberal” is “open.” I guess that’s a starting place.

If you've read almost anything I've written you’ll know I’m a “both/and” kind of guy rather than “either/or”. I believe no human is ever—EVER—totally right, or totally wrong, about anything. There's something good, and something bad, in everybody. And in almost any aspect of life, between me and any other human, there are infinitely more similarities than differences. And understanding trumps agreement.

If we remain open and honest in our encounters, I truly believe we can find enough common ground between even the most divergent positions to begin building an effective outcome, not matter what the issue may be. In my estimation, that’s what it means to be liberal (as opposed to popular understandings based on where one stands on specific issues, like abortion, LGBT rights, firearms, etc.)

I also strive, though not always effectively, for humility (yeah, I know: looks aren't everything.) Most of the time the humility thing is pretty easy, because I can almost always find somebody who’s better than I at whatever I’m doing. Still, pride is a demon I must resist daily. Where I have the most difficulty with humility is in the area of mental, intellectual process.

Oh, it’s not that I think I’m a superior intellect. Indeed, it’s easy to find many people whose thinking is far superior to mine and more clearly articulated. But I battle with the same human weakness I observe in most others: when I reach a conclusion I generally feel “I’m right.” And if I’m right, then anyone who disagrees with me must be wrong.  Of course, Logic 101 says logic is valid only if its premises are valid. “I’m right” is seldom a valid premise, because we humans are incomplete, and are incapable of perceiving truth absolutely [even though I believe absolute truth exists].

So, is the “I’m right” syndrome a symptom of pride, or of insecurity?

So I intentionally pull most of my conclusions through the sieve of “what if I’m wrong?” I make an honest effort to research a variety of resources on any topic I’m considering, and more often than my pride wants to admit, I end up altering or even reversing my opinions. I know far too many people who read and study only those resources they are confident will reinforce and strengthen what they already believe, which must assume they already have arrived at the correct belief. 

For me, faith is a lot more about being than about believing. The epistle of James says, “even the demons believe, and tremble” (2:19). Belief alone puts me at the same level as the demons.

Faith is the act of living as if I truly believe what I say I believe. It is a never-ending process of growing. Growing, by definition, is changing; therefore, the crucial question is, “Toward what am I growing?” My aim is the goal Paul laid out in Ephesians 4:13, namely, to grow “…until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.” (NRSV)

My faith goal is not to solidify what I believe about Christ, although, I will always continue to study and learn everything I can learn about Christ. But that has to do with “belief,” not “faith.” My faith goal is to become more like Christ.  It’s easy to say.

I am inspired in my journey by my nephew’s one-year project to experience and understand what it means to follow Jesus[1]. I don’t yet fully comprehend his process or his goals; but, I’m totally in agreement with his desire to follow Jesus.

I trust whatever I accomplish in my faith journey will never be a foundation for pride, or for declaring the correctness of my beliefs. My faith is in a person, and whether my doctrine is correct will not change that person or influence the relationship into which he calls me. I will be wrong often. But that is the risk of faith. It also is the test of faith. “What if I’m wrong?” It’s tempting to cling to the need to insure my relationship with God by being “right,” rather than by trusting the “right” person.

Pride is still a daily demon for me. Every sermon I write is subjected to two questions: (1) “So what?” and, (2) “Why do these people need to hear this sermon this Sunday?” Not every sermon passes the test; but 11:00 o’clock Sunday morning rolls around about the same time every week, ready or not!

It’s difficult to be proud when a sermon I've worked on for six weeks falls off the end of my tongue, “plops” on the floor immediately in front of the chancel and slithers away to hide under the front pew.

Wow! My mind was on a wandering path today; but that’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christianpiatt/2015/02/day-two-of-my-jesus-project-are-we-done-yet/

What's In A Name?

A few days ago a Facebook friend posted the following :

While he and I disagree on almost every element of political ideology, we still are able to maintain a healthy respect and love for one another—I suspect because neither of us takes ourself with ultimate seriousness. 

We’re also cousins, and we realize that our relationship is more important than any issue that may arise between us.

I understand his post. I don’t agree with it, and think it presents half-truths and inaccuracies; but I understand the feelings behind it because I have very similar feelings myself; therefore, I have undertaken to respond in kind:

      WHAT DID YOU CALL ME?

I’m UNAMERICAN for not being an “Obama Basher”.

I’m a TRAITOR because I favor accountability for gun ownership.

I’m a LEFTIST for supporting the whole Constitution, and not just that part that undergirds my political ideology.

I’m a NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT (plus, I’m unfriended by 14 Facebook “friends”, and blocked by 6 others) because I speak my mind.

I’m a TROUBLEMAKER for asking unanswered questions.

I’m NAÏVE AND GULLIBLE because I dare accept the documentation of the President.

I’m a COMMUNIST for exposing the corruption in the American corporate world.

I’m A CONSPIRATOR for presenting documented facts (which nobody will accept unless he or she already agrees with them).

I’m ANTI-AMERICAN for not toeing the party line. [Sorry. I’m also a Grammar Nazi, and “towing” means to pull.]

I’m UNAMERICAN because I support the troops but not necessarily the political corruption that puts them in harm’s way.

I’m a SOCIALIST because…

1.      …while I believe I’m entitled to what I earn (which, incidentally, includes Social Security, Medicare and Veterans’ Benefits), I don’t’ believe I have a right to intrude on others’ rights or wellbeing in the process of earning it.

2.     …I believe there are people who legitimately need the safety net of Food Stamps, unemployment and other public assistance programs.

3.     …I believe it’s unjust to remove a public assistance program because some people abuse it. Humans can always find a loophole, and nothing is so pure that it does not have its pornographers.

4.     …I believe in protecting the innocent at all costs, even if in the process some of the guilty “get away with something,” and I don’t believe in punishing all the guilty at all costs IF IN THE PROCESS some of the innocent are harmed.

5.     …I believe the abuse of public assistance programs should be eliminated as much as possible; but without depriving those with legitimate needs from their benefits.

6.     …I believe, related to public assistance programs, that fraud and abuse are relatively small, and that fraud is much heavier at the administrative level than at the receiving level.

7.    … I support labor (but not necessarily unions).

8.    …because I believe human need always trumps political or economic ideology.

Now, the original post ends with an antagonistic, “So what?” I’d like to pursue that “so what?”

1.     So, there are two sides to every issue, and every person deserves to have his or her side heard, understood and respected.  

2.    So, name-calling is a useless exercise that accomplishes nothing good, and accomplishes much harm.

3.    So, until we decide as a society that our ideological log-jam is the greatest immediate threat to our unity and security, we will continue to be a house divided.

4.    So, as long as a substantial population of Americans believes, “I’m totally right about everything and anyone who disagrees with me is totally wrong and is an idiot (or whatever name comes to mind),” we will continue to be a house divided.

And you know what is said by so many, including the Lord of Christianity, about a house divided: “It will not stand.” At this point in history I am much more afraid of our own obstinacy than I am afraid of any outside threat.

There are proven ways of negotiating and collaborating and finding common ground upon which to build. But all of them require that we let go of our absolutism and that we give valid effort to find something good in those with whom we disagree. 

The first step to unity is a question: “What if I’m wrong?”

That’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

Seven Biblical Principles of Unity #7

The Blessedness of Unity

Psalm 133:1 How good and pleasant it is when brothers and sisters live together in unity!

Unfortunately, churches all around the world experience brokenness. Christians are divided over things as petty as the style and time of worship services. We have said that unity is crucial, because it is the Secret of God’s Will. Nothing is more important to God than the unity of Christ’s Body. Unity also is crucial to any organization for the achieving its purpose. So how is it possible to live in unity when disagreements arise?

Most of my readers know that I am an ordained minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Our founders, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, were fond of quoting St. Augustine: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things love.”

So, what is essential, and what is non-essential? That’s the question about which Christians have been unable to agree since the day the Church was born.

Some say evangelism is the most essential element in the Christian community. Others suggest that following Jesus in meeting human needs must take priority. Some insist that one’s ultimate relationship with God comes only by way of a specifically worded affirmation of faith, while others contend that we are known by our fruits.

Some put forward issues such as abortion and gay rights as “deal breakers” and still others counter with their focus on grace and forgiveness and being non-judgmental. And all of the above use and abuse scripture to rationalize their positions.

In a perfect world, we would sit down together and prayerfully and lovingly collaborate to discern God’s will in a given situation. Sometimes we just have to reach a consensus and walk by faith—test out the consensus to see if it edifies or tears down.

But, it isn’t a perfect world; nor are we perfect creatures. As long as there is freedom of thought, there will be differences of opinion; and as long as we humans are incomplete (a fundamental definition of sin), we will not always be able to discern the difference between “opinion” and the “truth.” We can’t even agree on the understandings of specific verses of scripture.

The fundamental beliefs of the faith, those tenets generally shared by virtually every Christian, are not negotiable. But if the dispute has to do with a nonessential issue—even certain interpretations of doctrine, (i.e., free will versus predestination)—some prayerful discussion in love is acceptable, but believers should not let it cause division. In such cases, a consensus is likely to leave some people disappointed with the results. Yet both sides should be willing to accept differences without strife. Sometimes the old adage is valid: we just have to agree to disagree—and continue in love.

In a democratic organization in which votes are taken, there usually will be winners and losers. Sadly, win/lose resolutions virtually always divide, rather than unite. But when Christians are united on the basis of our common need of God’s grace; that is, when we can understand that none of us is capable of understanding God’s absolute truth absolutely, then there is the possibility of unity, even when “the other side wins” on a particular issue.

We all love democracy until “our side” loses. But if we are to remain a democratic body, and if we are to choose unity over division, then we all are required to be prepared occasionally to accept defeat graciously, and move on. A broken, divided church is Christ’s worst enemy, and the devil’s greatest friend. Two generations of North Americans are leaving the church (or never getting involved), and the number one reason given is the divisiveness and judgmentalism they see in the church.

It also is good strategy in many cases, once an issue is resolved, to agree to revisit it from time-to-time, preferably on a planned schedule (e.g., once a year). Issues can be re-evaluated, and sometimes new information can influence the outcome. Although in many cases what really divides us is personal pride and unresolved control needs, rather than the truth, it is possible under some circumstances that humans actually can change a position when convincing new data is provided.

But in some cases there simply will be nothing we can do in our human strength to mend our differences. If we selfishly (and often irrationally) cling to the belief that we cannot be wrong and that our preferences are better than others’ opinions, division will be unavoidable.

I've done conflict resolution consultations between departments of corporations, in school settings and even in city government; but, whether the conflict is between marriage partners, parent and child or in some larger corporate setting, I always begin with two questions: (1) Do you want to resolve the issue between you, or do you just want to win the fight? (2) Which is more important, this issue or the effective continuation of the relationship? I truly believe that any conflict can be resolved to the benefit of all parties. Obstinate pride is the only impenetrable barrier to unity. 

At the infamous “bottom line,” after prayerfully giving our best effort toward agreement, sometimes we just have to settle instead for understanding, and graciously accept the will of the majority, even when we disagree. While no single issue should ever take precedence over the unity of the Body of Christ, when the disagreements begin to outnumber the agreements, it may be time to lovingly part company. But in the Body of Christ, it is never--EVER--acceptable to fight.

I'm not suggesting that we surrender our convictions; indeed, I already have suggested that resolved issues should be reexamined from time-to-time. Such reevaluation should always include new data and new perspectives, and should never be simply the resumption of beating the proverbial dead horse.

Limited as we are by the clay of which we are made, I may be wrong! In deference to that possibility, once we have presented our case and born witness to our deepest convictions, if we then acknowledge our own fallibility, and if we voluntarily and humbly subordinate our own need to "win the fight" for the greater good of a unified church, we please God. 

And pleasing God gives greater joy than getting our way.

That’s the way I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim