I Am Conflicted.

I deeply detest the divisive belligerence of the partisan political posts on Social Media. I have participated in the vicious “Mixmaster,” and thus far the investment of time, energy and emotion has produced a net loss.

I understand and affirm the right to express one’s opinions, and I understand and affirm the right and the obligation to stand up for one’s beliefs.

BUT…

I have begun to see that doing so on Social Media is totally useless. In fact, I’d venture to say such an effort is counterproductive.

In the first place, nothing is ever resolved in the venomous, malicious and hurtful exchanges that too often emerge. Essentially, Social Media becomes a venue, at best, for venting, and at worst, for cowards to hide behind its anonymity and become verbal terrorists, exploding over all who come within range.

I understand the human need to vent; but, it seems to me there are other, more appropriate and, indeed, more effective venues for venting.

In the second place, no minds ever are changed; indeed, most of the time it’s more like “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts;” “I’m right.” Period. Therefore, if you disagree with me “You’re wrong.” Period. It’s a short journey from “You’re wrong” to “You’re stupid,” to “You’re evil,” and the elimination of evil is justified in most ideologies.

Sadly, however, too often the aftermath is an end-justifies-the-means ethic. In my thinking, no cause, no matter how good or noble, justifies, or is enhanced by, ignoble means.

And so, earlier this week I resolved to abstain from participation in the adversarialism. It was just futile. Useless. Divisive.

Today, however, a specific on line article caught my attention, and convinced me that Social Media has become a viable indicator of the American political pulse and blood pressure. The news agencies pick up on it; and by extension, I’m guessing the politicians and policy moguls notice, too. Perhaps all that contempt and bitterness and hatred spewed across Facebook walls play valid roles in social and political influence.

Perhaps I should stay engaged, after all. My perception of Social Media is not at all representative of Social Media as a whole. Fully 85% of my Facebook friends are conservative--from traditional GOP to Tea Party to Libertarian to Survivalist. A large majority are from the South and are Evangelical Christians. While I make no value judgments here, the ethos of my Facebook community is skewed, and not representative of the whole venue.

[Yes, I understand that my unwillingness to pass value judgement begs the question whether the belligerence I experience on Social Media is a direct result of the ethos of my Facebook community. On the other hand, my liberal FB friends, though making up a small minority, are not immune to their own brand of venom!]

I’m conflicted.

By personality type, by profession, and by faith, I advocate peace, unity[1] and cooperation. I promote reconciliation, collaborative conflict resolution and empathetic human interaction. I belong to a church whose vision includes being "a movement for wholeness in a fragmented world." Thus, I detest the schoolyard bully façade projected by a disproportionate majority of Social Media pundits (and wannabees) in my Facebook community.

My gut wants to just drop out. I’m tired of the bile and the refusal to consider “other”

Downloaded from a public domain site

perspectives. I’m tired of ideology taking precedence over human need. I’m tired of the racism, the misogyny and the hatred directed at ethnic, religious and LGBT groups. And I’m tired of the denial of all the above.

Most of all I’m tired of the “I’m right syndrome”—the across-the-board refusal to collaborate, negotiate or even communicate with anyone who disagrees with “ME/US”[2].

I’m tired of it all because at the bottom line I’m convinced that between any two of us there are infinitely more similarities than differences, and that if we so choose, we can build on our similarities and agreements and can thereby create “a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

That’s how I see it through the “Flawed Glass” that is my perspective.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Unity is not the same thing as uniformity. It’s more like harmony—a choir singing in unison can create beautiful music; but the same choir multiplies its beauty when the basses, tenors, altos and sopranos are singing different notes at the same time. That’s harmony. That’s unity.

[2] As I’ve written and preached many times, I believe in absolute truth; but I don’t believe any human or human group is capable of perceiving truth absolutely. Our human perception of “absolute” truth always will be “relative” to our personal experience of reality.

Balance

I’m wearing my preacher’s hat today.

Although most of us want balance in our lives, history is more like a pendulum swinging from extreme to extreme. Historically, the church has mirrored secular culture and more closely proclaimed political party talking points than it has preached and lived the kingdom.

My own awareness of church/cultural dynamics dates back to the 1960's: "flower children", bell-bottom pants, sideburns and peace symbols. My ministry was emerging, and the church whose call I answered was more about social relevance than about stained glass and brass plaques; more about justice than doctrine. Matthew 25 and Luke 4:16-28 were frequent preaching texts, often to the neglect of more personally edifying texts.

Were things better then? No. It was a time when part of the Church neglected crucial elements of faith and practice, like evangelism and spiritual discipline; and in our concern for being non-judgmental we diluted views of morality and erased some lines that should never have been crossed.  Much lost ground was never recovered.

Perhaps the greatest fault of the church in that era was the rigid, non-negotiable lines that were drawn between various manifestations of the Body of Christ. In the last six decades the church has sinfully wasted much time in-fighting over specific differences, instead of finding common ground and working from there to build up the kingdom. “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand” (Matthew 12:25 NIV). That may explain the six-decade decline of the North American Church. A partially united kingdom is better than a broken, divided one.

So, were the 1960's worse than today? No. The social consciousness then was a needed corrective to a tunnel-vision evangelicalism that was suffocating the church. It presented the church as hardly more than an ecclesiastical maternity ward: its only purpose to get people "born again." But if the Church prior to the 1960's was too narrowly defined in terms of maternity, many churches of the 60's and 70's closed down the maternity ward altogether, and attempted to define the church more like an ecclesiastical Department of Human Services.

Again, both are good and necessary dimensions of Christian Disciple­ship. On balance Jesus talked more about ethics than about prayer; more about money than about salvation; more about social justice than about heaven. His kingdom parables were filled with images and metaphors of justice; and, he more frequently spoke of just and ethical relation­ships than of prayer. The Hebrew prophets consistently called God’s people to repent from two sins: idolatry and the unjust treatment of the poor.

But to diminish either focus is to weaken the Gospel, and the pendulum of history brims with correctives that become more destructive than the evils they were designed to correct, and each swing of the pendulum provokes its own hostility. The rigid moralism of Victorianism led to a reactionary swing to "19th century liberalism". When liberalism seemed harmful enough the reactionary swing was toward biblical literalism, which, in turn, created yet another reactionary swing into the 1960's cry for relevance.

NOTE: each reaction was a valid corrective, but when each became an end in itself, rather than a means toward a more balanced, holistic end, it became counterproductive to the Gospel.

Today, for the first time in the church's history, the pendulum may have stopped, and nobody seems to know what to do. An emerging generation is sick and tired of watching people "play church"; sick and tired of watching people who call themselves Christians fighting with each other over style and semantics; sick and tired of seeing Christ represented by people who come across as judgmental and intolerant.

What a wonderful opportunity for the church to become real again! What a wonderful time for the church to hear, as if for the first time, the Word of the Lord:

"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?  Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard." (Isaiah 58:5-9 NIV)

And what a wonderful time to acknowledge that the same Bible also says,

"I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.  Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' (John 3:5-7 NIV)

And that same Bible says,

Pray without ceasing. In everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. (1 Thessalonians 5:17-18 KJV)

And,

If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.  But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.  For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.  For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:19-22 NIV)

What a wonderful time to proclaim the balance: the Word of GRACE that leads to the peace and wholeness that is God's Shalom (salvation); the PROPHETIC Word that calls God's people to repent and to seek justice and to love mercy; the INSTRUC­TIVE Word that teaches God's people how to walk in the ways of the Lord; and the Word of PROMISE that fills us with hope. I believe it is only through hearing and believing and living such a balanced diet of God's Word that Jesus' words make any sense:

"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.  Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.  In the same way, let your light shine before everyone, that they may see your good deeds and praise God in heaven." (Matthew 5:14-16 NIV)

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

Together in the Walk,

Jim

Thanks FROM a Veteran

Today I’d like to turn the tables and, as a Veteran, say, “Thanks” to a grateful nation.

When I returned from Vietnam in early August of 1968, there wasn’t much gratitude in the air. At least it wasn't evident.

Ten days after I was released from active duty at Camp Pendleton, I attended my first class at The Graduate Seminary of Phillips University in Enid, Oklahoma. Two weeks later I was preaching my first sermon in the small congregation in Waynoka, Oklahoma, where I served during the three years I worked on my Master of Divinity. So, the first few days after leaving a combat zone were more or less a whirlwind of activity.

It was a troubled time in our nation. Beatniks were morphing into Hippies, there were anti-war demonstrations, and the issue of amnesty was being debated in regard to some who had fled to Canada to avoid the draft. The Democratic National Convention that year was in Chicago, and it turned ugly, with demonstrations growing violent. Those events, along with video from the “war” in Vietnam, were on TV newscasts every night.

[NOTE: In my opinion (you decide whether the opinion is “humble” or and arrogant), although the trend toward media partisanism was beginning to emerge in the late 1960’s, for the most part the networks still struggled to maintain journalistic integrity. Media integrity seems rare today, with virtually no effort to conceal its partisanism; indeed, commentary and analysis have supplanted “reporting,” and at the polar extremes, pundits from Fox News and MSNBC seem almost to revel in their rabble rousing.]

Campus life at Phillips included student demonstrations (always peaceful and respectful) related to those same issues; so, I was aware of anti-war sentiments, but I did not experience animosity being directed at me, personally, or the troops in general. At that point I was virtually ignorant in regard to the political and moral questions surrounding the war.

Within a couple of years, though, the Kent State Massacre had jolted the nation and the Watergate scandal was stirring the pot. With all of it pouring into our living rooms via network media, Americans were becoming an angry, polarized people. Some of that anger and hostility was directed at troops returning from Vietnam.

I was distracted with studies and pastoral duties and building a family, so I was blissfully oblivious to the hostility that increasingly was directed at those returning troops. We didn't get ticker tape parades when we returned from Vietnam; but, for me personally, I was altogether content to slip in quietly and resume my life and pursue my goals. I was relatively insulated from the hostilities, and in the conservative backlash that followed those tumultuous 60’s, American sentiment changed.

While few would call me “conservative,” I am grateful for that change.

I am grateful when people discover that I served in the military and extend a hand and a word: “Thanks for your service.” Today, because I am a veteran, I got a discount at AQ Chicken House in Fayetteville, Arkansas. And I try to express my own gratitude when I see a person in uniform—whether it be military, police, fire fighter, EMT, or whatever.

Democracy thrives on vigorous debate, and I would not want to quiet the disparate voices—as long as the debate is respectful and seeks resolution rather than party dominance. But, as a veteran, I’m grateful for the atmosphere of non-partisanism that unites our people in gratitude for those who serve and protect. Thank you, America!

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

Together in the Walk,

Jim

“Politically Correct” Does Not Mean “Theologically Incorrect”

In fact, it doesn't necessarily denote “incorrectness”at all. 

It is true that, as used, politically correct language often is ineffective and even counterproductive. And, yes, it also is used to promote causes with which some people disagree and is used by people with whom partisan adversaries differ. But none of the above disqualifies or credibly challenges its validity or its intent.

The Merriam-Webster online Dictionary defines “Politically Correct” as, “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.”

Why would anyone “offend the political sensibilities” of anyone if such offense could be avoided by a simple, easy shift in vocabulary? Of course, in our belligerently partisan culture there are some who are offended that anyone would dare disagree with them. By extension, I suppose they would consider  it politically incorrect to do so.

Wikipedia, the online free dictionary, says political correctness “is a term that refers to language, ideas, or policies that address perceived or actual discrimination against or alienation of politically, socially or economically disadvantaged groups. … These groups most prominently include those defined by gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability.”

The emphasis is on “political, social or economic disadvantage.” In my personal observation, most of those who scorn political correctness also believe social or economic disadvantage is purely and solely the result of personal choice and laziness. Thus, I suppose the logical extension is that political correctness gives credence to poor choices and laziness.

But Wikipedia goes a step further:

“Historically, the term was a colloquialism used in the early-to-mid 20th century by Communists and Socialists in political debates, referring pejoratively to the Communist "party line", which provided for "correct" positions on many matters of politics. The term was adopted in the later 20th century by the New Left, applied with a certain humor to condemn sexist or racist conduct as "not politically correct". By the early 1990s, the term was adopted by US conservatives as a pejorative term for all manner of attempts to promote multiculturalism and identity politics, particularly, attempts to introduce new terms that sought to leave behind discriminatory baggage attached to older ones, and conversely, to try to make older ones taboo..”

Aha! I had no idea that political correctness had such a long history, nor that it seems to have emerged out of communist rhetoric. But at least now I can understand why some people hold political correctness in disdain! “Guilt-by-association” has some limited validity; but to assign a whole category of language to the discard pile because of its origins is a bit over the top.

The Judeo/Christian lexicon is jam-packed with verbiage straight out of pagan worship and ritual! If we were to eliminate all words, phrases and verbal imagery that emerged from questionable sources, our language would be emaciated.

But “conversion” is at the heart of Christianity; thus the Judeo/Christian approach was to take language and verbal imagery from one reality and convert it (redefine it) into specific applications within Judeo/Christian ideology. As political correctness emerged out of Communist and Socialist (or “New Left”) ideologies, the correctness assumed the “party line.” It seems quite plausible that within another socio/political environment it could be converted to that environment’s ideological position.

For example, in the USA, political correctness thus would refer, at least in part, to the American ideals outlined in the preamble to the Constitution: “…to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” In my estimation, any language or vocabulary that promotes those values is politically correct.

A side trip (hopefully to come back around to the main route): throughout the history of religions, virtually every creed and doctrine was established to eliminate heresy. In other words, historic creeds and doctrines generally are “exclusive.”

As I understand the teachings of Jesus, God’s Grace is “inclusive”—open to all who will receive it—and, by definition, without prerequisite qualifications. Thus, Grace precedes conversion or change; indeed, it is the only source and power by which one can be converted or transformed (cf. Romans 12:2) and is extended to the most undeserving of humanity!

I who have received Grace dare not—DARE NOT—approach another human ungraciously (though I confess to overwhelming failure in that intent! Thus, I stand condemned apart from God’s grace.)

I prefer the term, “inclusive” to “politically correct”. If I am to be a faithful witness to the Grace I have received, I will be careful to use language that does not exclude or overlook anyone. That effort sometimes is a pain in the neck, because we have not derived a suitable personal pronoun to replace “he” or “she”. Most people have resorted to using the plural, “they”, even when the subject is a singular person. The Grammar Nazi in me just won’t allow me to do that! I will intentionally type “he or she” or “he/she” instead. I understand that language progresses, and that my use of language will become (may already be) a relic archived alongside the King James Bible with its Elizabethan, Shakespearean language. I can live with that.

And, while I appreciate the value of traditions, and am not the least offended, for example, by the masculine references in the traditional Doxology (e.g., “Praise Him above, ye Heavenly Hosts!”), what could possibly by offensive about a more inclusive version:

“Praise God, from whom all blessings flow!

Praise God, all creatures here below!

Praise God above, ye heavenly Hosts!

Creator, Christ and Holy Ghost!”

Together in the Walk,

Pastor Jim