Monday, April 24, 2017

Divisive Unity

Trump and Republicans and many of their supporters have, since the election, many times said, "The election is over.  Get over it.  We need a unified country."  Oftentimes these statements are followed with, "You've never seen the Republicans act that way."

Of course, anyone with an unbiased memory will immediately know these statements for what they are: hypocritical amnesia.  Many Republicans protested Obama's election claiming he was/is not American and Muslim (as if that is supposed to matter); many Republican Congressmen explicitly and publicly said they'd reject any Obama policies just to stall the government in order to elect a Republican Congress and President; and Republicans initiated the whole Supreme Court nomination fiasco (though Gorsuch is a good selection, the fiasco is the process) by unprecedentedly refusing to hold hearings for Garland--this last one is particularly difficult because the reasoning was that the American people had the right to vote for a president to nominate the justice and, even if we ignore the fact that we had a sitting president who just nominated someone, the presidential election campaign technically and officially does not start until the conventions in June.  Given all these quite recent events, a Republican telling a Democrat to 'get over it' is hypocritical.  Adding that Republicans would never act 'that way,' meaning protests and stalling, is nothing but amnesia.

By the way I've begun here you might think I'm launching into Republican bashing.  I'm not.  As always, it is important to hold one another accountable for the truthfulness and genuineness of our statements, but here I'm more concerned with the Republicans' call for unity.  Unity was a major talking point for all the candidates in the election and certainly was a talking point afterwards, too.  After the election, Trump, McConnell, Ryan and others all said it was time to forget everything past and move on together because he, and this Congress, would be for the people, all the people.  It's been rather clear that Trump is not a president for all the people, but let's put that aside for the moment as well.  Let's just focus on this call to unity amidst hypocritical amnesia.

What do people mean when they call for and pray for unity?  Obviously, when you are on the 'losing' side and you call for and pray for unity, unity for the sake of the good of all people is indeed what you want.  That is true because if your chosen policies and leaders have lost, then you gain nothing by becoming unified around a different set of policies and leaders.  Gaining nothing is perhaps the purest evidence we have of altruistic motives.  If, on the other hand, you gain total control by calling for unity because the majority is on your side, then unity is not necessarily altruistic.  When unity gives you everything then when you say, 'unity,' what you're really saying is, 'power and dominance.'  Calls for unity from a position of strength sounds oppressive to those on the losing side whose voices would be drowned out in supposed unity. 

While I do not mean to say that all Republicans who call for unity have ulterior motives and are actually power hungry, hoping to silence those who disagree, it is almost certainly true that when a victor calls for unity, those who are defeated feel silenced and oppressed.  Whether the victor likes it or not, and whether the country or organization in question needs unity or not, those in the minority who hear, "Let's forget our differences and move on as a unified whole," are actually hearing, "Look, our side is clearly stronger, give up, shut up, and assimilate."  You may say that responding in such a self-victimized way is not appropriate, that the victors, in this case Republicans, do not want to silence or oppress anyone and, again, the losers should get over it and move on.  You may say that.  But the typical loser's response is at least legitimate.  The Founding Fathers created a government that would protect minority voices and groups for this particular reason.  Our government's constitution and structure acknowledges that throughout history minority voices and groups have been silenced and oppressed in the name of unity and assimilation. 

The United Methodist Church, in which I am a pastor, knows this well.  Currently we are intensely debating homosexuality in the church (I don't know how to properly talk about this.  Saying, 'the issue of homosexuality' is certainly not right, nor is 'the place of homosexuality.'  What I have here said doesn't sound right, either, but alas).  This debate has raged for a long time and is now seemingly coming to a breaking point as the Church has yet to budge from its stance that, while persons who are homosexual are welcome and loved, persons who are homosexual cannot be married or ordained.  Lately, because of the intensity of the debate, there have been many calls for unity.  As a church, the Church has said, we have to be unified, since we are the Body of Christ after all.  Of course, the problem is that unity sounds great to those who are confident that we can and will rally around keeping the status quo, the tradition; while to those in the LGBTQ+ and alliance community, unity sounds like a subtle new way of perpetuating their silence.  Indeed, how would you feel if for thirty years you have been fighting for what you believe to be right, all the while being shut out not only from the church but from the very discussion, and then at the moment when your movement had momentum the majority portions said, "Well, wait, let's have unity"?  How would you feel?  Would you not feel like unity were being used as a silencing and oppressing tool?  To silence you so that the majority position could regain complete control?  If you didn't feel that way then you probably didn't care much about your positions in the first place.

Herein lies the difficulty: unity is a good ideal because any organization is stronger when unified, but when humans are involved differences of opinion--no, passionate differences of opinion are inevitable.  Calls for unity are, by nature, divisive. 

Divisive unity may sound disconcerting to you.  The idea that calling for unity might create more division, especially at times when it seems unity is most needed, may be troubling to you.  But you shouldn't be troubled.  Our country and Western religions are built on the right and the necessity for prophecy, for standing for justice in the name of liberty.  Without prophecy, without the freedom to voice one's sense of prophetic justice in a divisive climate, we would still be a slave-holding country, Jesus wouldn't have existed, and we'd be a part of Great Britain.  To put it bluntly, life would suck if we were always unified.  There must be room for divisive unity; there must be room for people to not 'get over it and move on' when justice and mercy are at stake, when the very ideals of our country are at stake.  Prophecy and liberty must never be stifled.

So where does that leave us?  First of all, we should get over and move on from hypocritical amnesia.  In general, we should probably never say, 'We won, get over it.'  Beyond that, we need to create space for dialogue.  People who are in the minority do need to accept that their positions may not always carry the day, but they have a right to expect that they will be heard.  Our political system has taught candidates, and the rest of us, that as long as we have enough votes we don't need those who disagree with us (remember Mitt Romney's famous statement?).  That is the wrong approach.  We cannot legitimately call for unity when we don't care about those in our unified bubble who aren't like us.  At the end of the day, then, unity must be a place where all people are invited to gather to speak and also to be heard.  The reason why minority voices and groups raise hell as they do is because, first, they believe they are right, but secondly because they are silenced.  We must hear one another and accept that we cannot all agree, and this also includes ensuring that the processes by which we make decisions are transparently fair (hint hint). 

We need to embrace divisive unity in order to move forward.  Perhaps the best way to embrace divisive unity is by limiting the number of universal rules our organizations have.  For the UMC, perhaps open the door to allow marriages and ordinations if the church, pastor, or conference involved are okay with it; for our government, perhaps take a more libertarian approach on social policies and let science do the talking for agency policies.  Whatever we do, rather than silence our divisions, we must let those divisions be our unity, because throughout history the minority's voice and prophecy has always made civilization move forward stronger.

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Libertarianism and Truth

There are a number of reflections from the most recent presidential campaign that I still feel the need to write about.  Bear with me.  I also should warn you that this post is essentially, without explicitly doing so, explaining why I am a Libertarian when we define ourselves by political parties (which I try not to do).

Here's the deal, friends: there's a difference between objective and subjective truth.  Objective truth could be called Truth, if we know what the capital t means.  If we don't know what the capital t means, let me explain.  Objective truth is truth as defined by reality, by what you and I and anyone else can all see and touch and concede to be true.  Objective truth, then, cannot be argued or denied.  It is truth determined by objects in reality.  Subjective truth is truth defined by each person, each person being the subject.  Subjective truths, then, by nature, are intangible.  When we talk about a subjective truth we are talking emotional or spiritual truths.  What the nature of love, anger, family, friendship, etc., are must be determined by individuals, by each one of us, by subjects.  God and religion, as Soren Kierkegaard put it, are objective truths (either God exists or He doesn't, but if God exists He exists objectively) that must be determined subjectively (if God exists we can't see Him, so we personally must determine that He exists).

Let's explore starting with objective truth.  For instance, if you and I were both standing on a sidewalk at a road intersection next to a stop sign, we could both see it or at least touch it and know that it's there.  Unless one of us were legitimately off our rockers, we couldn't argue about the objective truth that a stop sign stood there.  It's clearly there, that stop sign.  The reality of the stop sign is unquestionable because, indeed, it really exists, and is therefore an objective truth.  No argument, deception, or philosophical roundabouts could expunge the stop sign as objective truth.

Now, we might come to different conclusions about what the stop sign means.  Chris Rock has a funny joke about slavery in America that includes a bit about a stop sign.  For your viewing pleasure (if you don't mind cursing left and right): Slavery in America.  The joke really begins at the three minute mark.  What Rock's joke gets at is that we might not all know what a stop sign means.  We can all agree that it's there, that it exists, it has objective truth, but perhaps we either can't read or think, "Does this sign mean for me to stop, or just everyone else?  Probably just everyone else" and drive right through.  Or if there were a crosswalk at the intersection and cars were coming our way, I might say that we shouldn't walk until all the cars have indeed stopped at the sign while you might say that it's okay to start walking before they've stopped since they need to stop anyway.  We might come to different conclusions but none of that can disregard or negate the objective truth of the sign.

The nature of objective truth matters.  During the election, I had a Facebook conversation with someone that I do not know about our country's military budget.  The lady (whom I shall call Adeline for random reasons) declared that we needed to elect Trump because our military had gone ignored for too many years and was now one of the worst equipped and most underfunded militaries in the world.  I told Adeline she was wrong, but if she had other reasons to vote for Trump then she should go ahead.  Adeline then responded by saying she can't be wrong because she knew lots of people in the military who said so.  I then found and linked Adeline to one of the many sources that show, indeed, that the U.S.A. spends far more on defense/military than any other country, at least three times more, in fact.  If the military is not well-equipped then that can't be the government's fault, it would be the Pentagon's fault.  What Adeline then responded with truly shocked me.  She said, as far as my memory can recall, "I don't need your sources, I have my own."  Without Adeline's proving the veracity of her sources, I can only conclude that her 'sources' were individuals spouting off words, all proving to be untrue.  Objectively untrue.  You see, the objective truth of the matter is that we do spend far more than any other country on our military.  Use Google and you'll find any number of sources to prove that objective truth.  Anyone who says anything to the contrary is simply wrong. 

We have to understand what objective truth looks like.  Once we understand it, we'll see that a distressing amount of what President Trump's campaign team, the man himself, and his White House Staff claim are untruths, disagreeing with basic, objective truth.  We cannot label a falsity 'alternative truth' and change the nature of reality.  Reality and objective truth is what it is and cannot be modified.  There are some things that are true, objectively, and cannot be spun into being maybe true.

One of the difficulties we have with objective truth, I think, is that what is objective true is sometimes based on definitions.  The unemployment rate is a perfect example.  There are, what, six different unemployment rates?  They are all needed because they all have different definitions of what constitutes unemployment.  Based on your chosen definition of unemployment you might want to use a different rate. 

Because objective truth is sometimes dependent on our definitions, as with the unemployment rate, people can get confused and think that truth, in general, is not at all objective and is instead subjective.  That's not true, however.  To confirm that objective truth does not turn into subjective truth simply because of a dependency on definitions, think of words.  Words are, basically, merely sounds; but sounds for which we have agreed-upon definitions.  You cannot say, "I hate you," to your wife and then later, when she is divorcing you, say, "Well, you know what I meant is that I love you."  'Hate' and 'love,' though merely sounds and are subjectively determined for meaning, do have objective definitions by which we navigate life.  Whatever we subjectively decide 'love' and 'hate' to mean, we all know that by objective standards we tell people that we want to keep close that we love them and people we want to keep far away that we hate them--though let's try not to hate anyone, eh?  'Cat' is just a sound that could mean anything.  Yes, think about it.  Before there were definitions, that sound 'cat' could have been applied to any object in reality.  But it has now been applied to the small, domesticated feline objects that go, "meow."  So now, 'cat' has an objective definition and so has objective truth.  In English, you cannot say 'cat' and mean 'tree.'  In another language the sound 'cat' may have a different definition but, all the same, it has objective truth because it has a definition.  The sound 'oh' in English means, "what a surprise; hmm; woops," but in Spanish it means, "or."  Different definitions, but once we choose a definition, there is objective truth there.

Back to the unemployment rate.  Each of those different unemployment rates is objectively true.  You cannot say that one or all definitions are false simply because there are multiple definitions.  You cannot make up your own truth about unemployment simply because there are multiple definitions.  There are different definitions, yes, but each is objectively true.  An untruth, therefore, can be ratted out and should then be condemned rather than accepted as part of the process.  If we start accepting untruths then we have nothing to stand on--'cat' will mean 'tree' and 'desk' will mean 'I' and 'to be' will mean 'outlast,' and sooner or later we'll have no friggin idea what the frick is going on.  Objective truth must be accepted as objective truth.

I'll repeat: Objective truth must be accepted as objective truth.  Untruth, objective untruth, must be condemned and thrown out rather than accepted.  If we live any other way, especially when we try to live in community, which is what politics ultimately is, then we are like the guy in the Bible who built his house on sand with no solid foundation.  We need a foundation.  If we feel like some objective truth doesn't tell the whole story, then that is a good argument for creating better definitions, not a case for succumbing to a universe of only subjective truth.

Speaking of subjective truth, there is plenty of room out there for what we, personally, believe to be true that no fact or objective truth can determine for us, the individual.  Daily life is full of decisions and choices based only in subjective truth.  What is the best way to make our spouse happy?  I'm still working on that.  Which coffee shop has better coffee?  I personally don't care.  I could go on but I hope you get the idea.  There are no factual, objective answers to those question, no matter what Cosmopolitan or coffee-connoiseurs may say.  Each one of us, you and I, can have different answers that we believe whole-heartedly to be true.  And, for us, our answer will be true, subjectively.

Again, understanding how truth works matters, particularly subjective truth.  What is the best way to attain peace in the world?  For me it's by being peaceful.  The concept of having a large military budget offends me.  For you, though, you may say that peace is attained through strength, in which case you'd want a higher military budget than I would, which is fine, subjectively... but you still can't argue that our military budget is deplorable, because that is objectively false, very false. 

More to my point, what constitutes the happiest and most whole wholesome family?  Or what is the best way to protect and preserve life?  Are the answers to ban homosexuality and abortion?  These are questions determined subjectively.  Each one of us will have a different answer for different reasons and each one of us will defend our truth passionately.  At the end of the day, though, there isn't any objective reality or truth to back up our subjective claims.  Making objective decisions that affect everyone on a matter of subjective truth becomes and is tricky.  You may say, "Well, homosexuality is evil," and believe everyone who says otherwise is wrong, but they're not wrong.  Anyone who says otherwise is merely different and has taken another subjective path from yours.  'Wrong' can only be applied to objective truth.

Look, many people hear that I am not against the legalization of marijuana, not against abortion, not against the legalization and acceptance of homosexual marriages/ordinations in law and in the church, and think that I am somehow a misguided pastor misguiding the flock.  But saying that I am 'not against' issues does not mean that I am 'for' them either.  All I am saying is that I understand certain issues--that generally happen to be the issues that rouse the most passion out of us, wanting to everyone to live our way--must be decided on an individual, subjective basis.  Would I approve of an abortion in my marriage?  Probably not, but honestly I don't know.  What I do know is that I cannot and will not tell a young, poor expectant mother whose husband recently died that she must have her baby.  Or anyone else.  Do I wish that more people would practice abstinence and not risk pregnancies that they would not be willing to carry through?  Sure, but a) that wouldn't solve the entire problem anyway, and b) we're not talking about my subjective truth when we're talking about other people's lives.  The same goes for homosexuality and--though you can debate this last one--marijuana, as well as a great deal of other issues.  While I may have firm opinions on issues, based in my religious belief, my belief has been determined subjectively and I cannot and will not force that on anyone.  Such a philosophy just happens to be the Libertarian way, but that's beside the point.

What is the point here is that, when it comes to our political involvement in our government, we must understand the difference between objective and subjective truth.  Confusing the two leads to harmful results.  Making objective decisions for subjective realities leads to oppression and persecution, and forms of elitism on the other side; making subjective decisions for objective realities leads to a government based on lies, deception, and egomania.  If our leaders got up and said, "That Wait for Traffic sign doesn't exist," (subjective decision for objective reality) would we want to follow them into the intersection?  Dear God I hope not.  Likewise, if our leaders, seeing how busy the intersection is, perhaps the busiest intersection in the world, got up and said, "No matter where anyone lives or works, or what they are doing, everyone must drive through this intersection at least once a day because clearly that's how the world works well," (objective decision for subjective reality) would we all want to put down what we are doing and drive through that intersection?  I hope not.  So first, we must understand the difference between objective and subjective truth.  When something is objectively true, we must accept it; when something can only be subjectively true, we must accept that, too. 

In order to make appropriate decisions, then, we should let those who are fact-finders in our society do the fact-finding so that we can make objective decisions for objective truth.  I mean our scientists and journalists.  Defunding or attacking either our journalists or scientists means that we are more likely to start making harmful subjective decisions in place of using objective truth.  And on the flip side, when subjective truth is the rule of the day, and we can't objectively know one way or another, then it is best to love one another rather than target and hate certain groups and let non-essentials be decided individually.  To paraphrase: facts are facts and we should hold one another, especially our leaders, accountable; some issues have no facts and so in the meantime let's love one another.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Ecumenical Cross Walk Reflections

This past Sunday was Easter Sunday.  At the churches I serve, it was a day of great celebration... I mean, real celebration.  We danced, clapped, laughed, cheered, jumped for joy; we did everything you'd expect those who are celebrating to do.  Easter to us was not just a day to dress in bright, flowery clothing and sing "Christ the Lord is Risen Today" (though we did that, of course, especially as Methodists).  Easter was and is a day for us to celebrate, truly.

Yet as I have repeatedly said to my congregations, there is no Easter Sunday without Thursday and Friday.  While Easter and the resurrection are the center of the Christian faith, we cannot celebrate what Christ did and does for us on Easter without Thursday and Friday.  Indeed, Christ hardly did anything for us if we don't acknowledge Friday.  For what reason did Christ rise from the grave?  If we can't answer that question then what meaning does Easter have?  And the answer to the question is that Christ rose to save us from death and sin.  Death and sin.  Both of which are the key players of Maundy Thursday (sharing a meal but also the betrayal; betrayal as in betraying our God) and Good Friday (death and, wouldn't you know it, betraying our God).  So if we don't first acknowledge that we are mortals, that we are created beings who fall short of our intentions and dreams and our created purpose; if we don't first acknowledge that we are sinful, whatever we mean by that; if we don't first acknowledge those facts then Christ rises for no purpose.  We must, then, at the very least, make Good Friday a critical part of our faith journeys every year.

Since first experiencing a cross walk in Swanton, VT, and carrying a rather heavy cross a short distance, I have decided that some form of a cross walk on Good Friday is indeed the best way to faithfully journey with our God on Good Friday and Holy Week in general.  Even if you don't carry a cross or if the cross isn't all that heavy or if you haven't been tortured and beaten before carrying the cross, still you are using your whole being to journey with Christ when you walk.  Doctors, psychologists, theologians, etc. all agree that there is a mind-body-soul connection, so walking as a spiritual exercise beats all other spiritual exercise.  Not to mention, of course, the fact that you can imagine yourself actually walking with Christ who himself walked (stumbled?) up to Cavalry.

I have further decided that ecumenical cross walks are the pinnacle of spiritual exercise.  At the cross walk we just had here in Jericho and Underhill, VT, we had at least seven denominations represented by my count.  It was probably eight, who knows.  Pastors of all these various denominations offered reflections on the "I AM" statements of Jesus in the Gospel of John while walking three miles.  It was, if such a thing can be said about Good Friday, a beautiful experience.  And everyone knew it. 

Our last stop took us to a UCC church.  Pastor Kevin Goldenbogen asked us to reflect together on what the experience meant for us.  A number of people said it was a joy to walk with people of different faith backgrounds and beliefs.  Probably half of the folk who stood to say something in reflection mentioned that we were walking together in unity.  Sure, you could tell that the pastors were of different theological and pastoral persuasions, but that made the walk all the more meaningful as we heard, hopefully, the full breadth of God's Word to us on that momentous day of our faith.  And, of course, in the midst of it all, as Pastor Kevin said (as I remember it), "There are reasons why we have upwards of eight denominations represented here, but it does us well to be reminded there is one God." 

It does do us well to be reminded there is one God.  The gospels tell us this constantly, even though we may not be attune to the reminder.  Think of how many times the Pharisees are mentioned, and scribes, and priests, all Jews but clearly believing in God, the one God, differently.  There were other sects of Judaism, too, including namely the Sadducees and also the Essenes.  Yet all these sects and groups were, it would seem, present with Jesus on his, on the, cross walk.  In the Gospel of John "the Jews" is an unfortunately all-encompassing derogatory remark, and in John 19:20 we read that "many of the Jews" read the inscription above Jesus's cross because Golgotha "was near the city."  The Gospel of Luke says a great many followed on the walk.  The Gospels of Mark and Matthew say that the chief priests and the scribes were among those who mocked Jesus at the crucifixion.  All the gospels place enough people at the scene for them to have conversations.  All but John's gospel relate that Simon of Cyrene helped Jesus carry the cross.  Who the heck was he?  Since he was compelled to carry the cross, we don't even know for certain if Simon was Jewish.  So,  you see, it took all kinds on that first cross walk, too.  Different denominations and non-believers, many disagreeing passionately with one another, certainly few agreeing on who Jesus Christ is, all present on the cross walk to witness, willingly or unwillingly, what God was doing.  As well it should be for us: if there is a God, there is One, so why not walk together on this journey of life?

Monday, April 10, 2017

Parsonage on the Side of the Road

My first pastoral ministry appointment was to a church that rented out its parsonage (called 'parsonage' because of ye olden days when ministers were called parsons) and so my wife and I were on our own for housing.  I loved living in a house we could call our own on a dead-end street a few miles away from the church and downtown and with good neighbors.  As much as I loved that house, though, I looked forward to someday living in a parsonage.  Why?  Well, partly so I could stop pretending I knew anything about caring for a house, and mostly because I had an image in my head of parsonages.  That image consisted of living on the side of a main road so that people could walk by, stop in and talk, or drive by and ask for directions.  My image turned out to be an illusion.

That's right.  No one is driving by and asking for directions.  I guess my illusion had been informed by film, perhaps, in which people would stop and ask for directions and then the person they asked directions from turns out to be a serial killer.  And I guess, at some point in my life, I watched a film or video in which someone knocked on the door of a minister's house and the minister turned out to be a creep.  Now, I did not have hopes of being a creepy serial killer.  For whatever reason, though, I watched or created those images in my head and thought, "Yeah, parsonages are often on main roads, people need directions, people will stop by."  I thought I could be the love of Christ for any stranger who stops in to ask for help.  But that has yet to happen.  In fact, I seriously doubt any stranger will ever stop by asking for help or directions.  I doubt it for two reasons: 1) when people from the town walk by the parsonage, which is right next to the church building, I get the rather strong feeling that not even they know the house is where the minister lives, and 2) why would anyone need help with directions?

The other day I saw from my window (I like to look outside, so I often am being creepy without intending to be) a couple drive in to our parking lot and both the driver and the passenger had their phones out.  Obviously, anyone can guess what they were doing.  Rather than say to themselves, "Hey, we've pulled into a church parking lot, there's a house here, the pastor must live here, surely he or she will help us, and he or she is local and will probably know where we're trying to go," they said, "Let's ask our phones and try to figure this out." 

Before I go any further, let me state that this fairly regular occurrence is not a criticism of the world today or 'kids today,' as we like to say, because I probably would not have been able to help, since I'm actually not any good with directions or knowing where crap is, and so phones and GPS are the only recourse lost folk have when they pull into our parking lot. 

What I am saying, however, is that the world has changed.  Wherever I got the idea that people stop by parsonages on the side of main roads to ask for help and/or directions, whether from an old film or story or my imagination, people simply do not knock on the door or ring the doorbell for help or directions.  Because I don't know where I got this notion, I can't actually say that the world has changed, that once upon a time people would have knocked on the door or rung the doorbell.  I can say that the world has changed from what we'd like to have happen.  We'd like for people to hear our minds' shouting, "Hey, I'm right in here, I'd love to help!"  Unfortunately telepathy hasn't been developed fully yet.  We're working on it.

How we help one another, whether as a person of faith evangelizing or spreading God's love, or simply as a compassionate fellow human being, is thus affected.  We like to say to people in emotional or physical need, "If you ever need anything, just let me know."  Look at the most recent Facebook post that you or a friend wrote in which you complained, vented, or shared some trouble you're experiencing, and count how many times people said, "Let me know if you need anything."  We love it.  We love that phrase because, a) it puts no pressure on us, and b) we live in a society in which every individual is supposed to care for themselves.  The person needing directions is supposed to look on his or her phone for directions rather than asking a local.  If someone is going to have a license and drive places, it's his or her responsibility to get there.  More than that, because every person is supposed to look out for themselves, we no longer appreciate intrusions into our space and time.  "Why ask me for help?  I don't know.  You figure it out."  We have so engrained this train of thought in ourselves that when we actually need help, there's just about no chance whatsoever that we will tell anyone or ask for help, even those who have said we should let them know if there's anything they can do.

In this climate, we can't rest at making ourselves available.  I think churches really struggle with this.  We're still stuck in the, "We're here.  Everyone knows we're here.  How can we make it more known that we're here so more people will come in?"  But that's not the question.  The question isn't whether or not anyone knows we're here.  Even if they do, it won't matter.  No one is going to come to a church and ask for directions anymore, physical or spiritual directions.  Instead, if we want to help and guide those who are lost and in need, we need to go out and do it.  Again, whether we're talking church or simply our lives with our friends, then we can't sit around and wait for more people to know they can come to us.  We need to go out and just help.

Unfortunately, going out and helping without waiting to be asked can be dangerous for the very reason no one will ask for help.  As I said, no one likes intrusions upon space and time.  Still, when we see someone who is walking through life with little hope or direction, rather than say, "Well, maybe it's my imagination, they'll ask me if they really are feeling hopeless," we should go to that person, wrap our arm around her or his shoulder, and say, "You know, I love you.  Because I love you, I'd also love to share with you what keeps me ticking.  Maybe it will give you even more meaning in life."  No waiting, and no judgment that the person is hopelessly lost; just a kind gesture. 

And, if ever you see someone pull into a parking lot or your driveway looking confused and staring at a phone or GPS, maybe you go out and ask if you can give them directions from an experienced resident.  I'll work on taking my own advice, too.

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Apathy and Third Parties

I'll be brief with this one... sort of.  What I'm thinking about today is that there's no quicker way to apathy than a two-party system.  And there's no quicker way to demagoguery, fanaticism, and politics-by-fiction than apathy.

The reason there's no quicker way to apathy than a two-party system is that neither party would then be able to elucidate a distinct platform on a variety of issues.  A majority of people in this country, and around the world, would be defined as moderates or near-center in a right vs. left party debate.  Thus, in a fight to win party dominance, both parties in a two-party system need to fight over those moderates, and in doing so their platforms cannot, by rule, be all that unique.  Certainly, each party would also need to pander to their 'side,' and so differences between parties would exist, but not enough to the point that any significant change could occur when offices change hands.  If no significant change occurs, then apathy grows as people realize that it doesn't much matter which of the two parties have control of government: the result would stay nearly the same.

I'll go further and say that a two-party system also breeds corruption.  With only two parties there are fewer leaders, and with fewer leaders there are fewer chances to rise up the ranks and fewer targets for lobbyists and others, and so there is greater opportunity for those who cross lines of integrity. 

But the two-party system's main consequences are not corruption so let's keep that as a side note.  The main consequences are, 1) a strong apathy that creates an uninformed and destructive passion; and 2) 'movements' of the people.

First, we all should be able to agree that when a high percentage of a democratic nation's citizenry grow apathetic, the populace is uninformed.  To the extent that an apathetic society is informed, it is informed by sound bites.  Gone are the days when people might actually stay in regular contact with their representatives or remain up to date on bills in state and national legislatures.  Gone are the days when people might actually attend town meetings, town selectboard meetings, city council meetings, or any other local government actions.  Instead, we listen to five minutes of news.  Instead, we read Facebook.  Instead, we seek after biased news that tells our story so that we can read an article or two a day and feel better.

Apathetically being uninformed then creates destructive passions.  At some point, because of the sound bite, piecemeal manner in which we get our news and form our opinions, we only accept our way of thinking as truthful and we only accept our party's explanation.  A few minutes or less of news and information a day are simply not enough to seriously reflect, and therefore not enough to convince a person to change positions.  Confirmation of one's own stance is the only possible outcome of sound-bite news.  Even if we do not think of our opinions as adhering to party logic, that is what we will be doing because in a two-party system there are only two sides of the aisle and our bias will, inevitably, fall on one side or another.  If and when our passions emerge, they will thus be destructive because the other side--and there will only be one other side--will be the enemy to our side.  Indeed, the rise of 'fake news' shouldn't have been all that surprising because of the acceptance of one's own logic, whether it's real or not, without any reflection.  Less surprising still, though more destructive, is the more common habit of labeling truthful news as fake simply because we don't like it and our biased sources, our party's sources, do not confirm the truth.  One party is determined to be destructively set against the other.  People are determined to be set against people on the other side.  Whether we want to think of ourselves as part of the problem or not, we are, simply by taking part in a two-party system.  It is a structural fault.

Now what we're seeing now with Trump, and with Bernie Sanders, is an attempt to transcend the party dynamics to create a movement of the people.  Many who voted for or supported Trump or Sanders might think that they transcended the problem with two-party dynamics.  They did not.  In effect, Trump and Sanders made the two-party, oligarchic system worse.  By claiming to be a movement of the people with platforms that could have, and should have, resulted in new parties altogether, both men perpetuated the myth that only the Republican and Democratic parties are worth anything.  Essentially, Trump and Sanders used their respected parties to get elected rather than doing what could have best served our country in creating new parties with their unique platforms.  Perhaps neither would have had a chance running as the candidate for some new party, but Trump was not and is not a Republican and Sanders was not and is not a Democrat.  Why run as a candidate of those parties?  For personal gain, not integrity.

I do not blame either Trump or Sanders.  Both did what they believed to be right and there is certainly a logic to getting elected no matter what it takes if you believe in your position.  Despite that, it is because of Trump's and Sanders's 'movements' that we now see greater destructive passion aimed at the other side and, worse, greater apathy in both parties.  Members who associate themselves with either party are now lost in confusion concerning for what his or her party actually stands.  With such apathy stemming from confusion, the voices that are left in the game are louder and, again, more destructively passionate.  And, on top of that, members of the 'movements' all think that they now have more right to total control of the political landscape because 'the people' are on their side, thus leading them to believe that all those who disagree are sore, sad losers.  It's all a vicious cycle, and it's all because of movements that should have resulted in the establishment of new parties but instead resulted in the fortification of a corrupt, apathy-making two-party system.

Recently I heard a political scientist from England state that parties are the protector of democracy.  After what we have seen in the past year, we should understand.  Parties are the mechanisms by which we begin dialogues by clearly marking out our boundaries and positions in rank of importance.  The more political parties we have, the more clearly we demarcate our positions and the more clearly we can dialogue.  More parties creates more clarity rather than less, and also create more dialogue rather than less because a multi-party system eliminates all the factors in apathy covered above.  Without apathy, a multi-party system is therefore less likely to result in the easy planting and growing of false narratives and destructive passions.  We are therefore more likely to talk than hate.  Even if biased hate stuck around, we'd still better be able to dialogue because dialogue first requires understanding the other, and with more clear party designations there would be better understanding.

The solution here is obvious and not obvious.  Allow, support, and involve ourselves in third parties.  The more viable parties there are, the more likely movements will not confuse party lines and create hysteria, and the more likely they are to rise up within the appropriate parties and help all people understand, reflect on, and dialogue within the appropriate political landscape.  Third parties are not delusional.  To the extent that they are delusional, they are such because of the two parties sucking up all the resources and painting the third parties as irrelevant.  Third parties are only irrelevant because the two-party system would break down with a third party.  Simply calling parties other than Republican and Democratic 'third parties' is part of the problem: there is more than one third party. 

Here's the funny thing.  In my discussing Trump with people who voted for him, most could agree, usually without prompting, that his words and actions were deplorable and unacceptable (hear me aright, I am not calling those who voted for Trump 'deplorable').  Indeed, if they had an alternative, they would rather have not voted for him.  And that's funny.  It's funny because most people who voted for Trump did and do have an alternative: the Libertarian Party.  Many voted for Trump to reduce taxes, to reduce American policing around the world, and to re-balance federal and state government.  Is that not Libertarian?  Further, many people who voted for Trump, if we went down the list of Libertarian priorities, would say, "Yes, I agree."  Why not vote for what you actually believe?  A novel idea.  I'm not saying that people should vote Libertarian because it's some superior party or that those who voted for Trump voted wrongly.  What I am saying is that many who voted for Trump have said they'd rather they didn't have to, and if we simply moved out of our apathy in the two-party system then those people could have voted their conscience rather than for what they determined to be the lesser of two very great evils.  As I see it, we technically have six parties in our country as I write, and only the Republican and Democratic parties can conveniently sit on the linear two-party line.  We also have the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, whatever Trump is, and Sanders's Democratic Socialist party (which should be its own party).  If everyone voted their conscience and supported the party they believe in, rather than waiting every two or four years to vote for the lesser evil, then we'd instantly erase a whole lot of apathy and evil because we'd also have four or five major parties and one or two smaller ones.

The less obvious 'third party' solution is to involve ourselves with third-party organizations.  Non-profits and churches fit this bill.  If we are unsatisfied with our political system, the solution is not to fall prey to false narratives because of our apathy and susceptibility to sound bites but rather it is to change the ground on which the political system is planted.  If the soil of our communities changes, so does everything else.  Non-profits and churches (which are non-profits, heyo) transform the soil of our communities.  I can just about guarantee that there is a non-profit out there that will suit your taste.  And whatever your taste, we cannot let apathy or adherence to a mania be our response when things do not go well.  We must make the change we want happen one way or another.  If we are political, then building up a third or fourth party will be the best solution; if we are religious or justice-oriented, then a non-profit or church will be the best solution. 

If we are worried that churches or non-profits can't make the third-party type of change we'd like to see, then the reason is similar to why we think political third-parties don't work: we have made churches and non-profits obsolete via our apathy.  Organizations are only as powerful in community work as the support they receive. 

So if you are as concerned as I am about the destructive prevalence of the two-party system and all its various, harmful symptoms, give a political or organizational third party a chance.

Friday, January 27, 2017

Christian Anarchy and Idealism

Anyone who knows anything about U.S. history will know that the statement, "Our country was founded as a Christian nation," is suspect.  In the days of the colonies, our country was so unchristianly Christian that Catholics and Quakers had to establish a colony for themselves just to be protected (Maryland and Pennsylvania, respectively).  The form of Protestantism that existed here was quite unkind even to other Christians, making our country, as far as I can tell, an unchristian one.  More than that, those who actually wrote our founding documents were mostly not Christians but Deists or atheists, or some strange brand of Christian that we wouldn't recognize as Christian today (Thomas Jefferson).  I'm not denying that some, like John Adams, were devout Christians, nor am I denying that our founding documents can be read as consonant with Christian ideals, as I myself read them, but I am denying, as any nominal historian would, that our country was ever founded as a Christian nation, aside from the coincidence of a lot of Christians living in the country.

Despite the undebatable facts, many do re-write history in demanding that our country return to some fictional Christian theocracy in which Christian ideals, ideas, and policies are instituted and Christians themselves protected for living out their faith in whatever form it takes.  Most of those who read the Bible would point to Romans 13 in which Paul urges a respect and submission to the governing powers that be and Jesus's statement to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's in support of their claims.  There is biblical precedent, they would say, for an intense patriotism and loyalty to state because the government and its leaders have been ordained by God; or, if not ordained by God, then we need to create a Christian nation in which we can say God would be proud.  Christians, it would seem by these arguments, have the right and duty to have power in government and power over government.

The problem, of course, with any biblical argument for a near-theocracy or Christian power in or over government is that such an argument goes against the arc of Christian living outlined in God's story.  First of all, we are told that God helped the Israelites set up a monarchy begrudgingly.  If you check out 1 Samuel 8, when the people ask Samuel, God's prophet, to erect a kingdom/government to protect them from invading armies, God essentially says through Samuel, "I am the only Lord you will ever need," and then warns the people that they will have reason to complain of their leaders and government forever thereafter if they do not continue to adhere to the decentralized, almost anarchical way of living that they had been accustomed to.  Indeed, up to that point, God's people had lived in Israel with this tribal anarchy for two hundred years or so, or more depending on how we read the Bible, and had survived and thrived... at least whenever they followed God's ways.  It would appear, then, that the institution of any government was and is a decision that cannot be rolled back, and a decision about which God disapproved.  Anarchy, or its closest sibling, is God's ideal form of government for His people so that God alone can be Lord and Judge. 

God's absolute ideal for us as written in the Bible is to live without government, without anyone's having power of another, and instead to love one another to the point that we don't need any centralized force to protect us from one another.  Love of God and following God's precepts would be the only necessary glue; love of God, following God's precepts, and loving one another would do the same job as a government.  Christian anarchy, in which there is no government and therefore no power, is God's ideal, and so is the ideal. 

Putting aside for now the practicality of Christian anarchy, it is clear that God believes (or, if we're talking about God, I should say God knows) that any person or persons having power over other human beings can never end well.  How, then, is a Christian theocracy, the sort that many in our country have hoped or worked for with the election of Trump, at all Christian?

Of course, as the founders of our country knew, and this we should at least agree on, hoping for an idealist society is silly.  Madison and Hamilton repeatedly state in the Federalist Papers that idealism is impossible when you are working with human beings.  So anyone's hoping for one candidate, one party, or one policy to suddenly usher in an ideal is living a pipe dream.  Human beings are flawed and will not and cannot bring about an ideal.  We will be constantly disappointed and disillusioned if we fight for the election of one person or party believing that

Jesus Christ knew this, too.  If we actually read the gospels, the overwhelmingly trend of Christ's political engagement is not to declare vague statements about rendering to Caesar and to God, but to fight against the corrupt powers that be, even the temple authorities.  Based on the story of Jesus, one might say that "the powers that be" are always in need of prophets to attack and criticize and push the government to be more righteous.  Perhaps this is because power corrupts.  Perhaps simply it is because we are, indeed, flawed, and can never think that the work we have done is enough.  Whatever the reason, it is clear that Christians in power as Christians--meaning that they are in power because they are Christians, and not simply individuals who happen to be Christian--Christians in power or Christians as Christians using those in power are doomed to become like the leaders and Pharisees that Amos, Micah, and other later prophets prophesy against.  The Pharisees were righteous by Jesus's own declaration, but even them, the most religious people at the time, were in need of corrective spiritual forces.  What we learn from Christ, then, is that it is best for Christians to avoid power altogether.  Yet that is not what we have seen in the past year, plus, to the great detriment of the faith and Christ himself.

Indeed, what we further learn from Christ and from his apostle Paul is that Christ is ruler over all dominions.  We then must ask the question why anyone would ever want power on Christ's behalf.  Christ is not in need of power, since he is already in power.  To seek the institution of Christian power in government is to deny our discipleship of Christ, of a God who wants to be the only one with power, and instead to seek the institution of ME: my ideas, my thoughts, my say, my power.  Christ does not need power, but we think we do.  When we fight for power as a Christian we are fighting for our ego and therefore not dying to self or dying with Christ on the cross, and not doing what we claim to want as a supposed disciple.

Individuals should, of course, take an active interest in the work we as a collective citizenry do, called politics.  Perhaps especially Christians should take an interest.  More than take an interest, we perhaps should get involved.  If we are to get involved, however, it should be as outsider prophets declaring the corruption and misuse of power and abuse of our republican democracy, or as people who take office and just happen to be Christian.  Never should we run for office with a campaign platform that we are a Christian working for Christians; never should we seek power for our Christian church or group; never should we seek power on behalf of one who does not need or want power.  If we do, then we are failing the Head of the Church, Christ, by using faith as a powerful means of persuasion in the pursuit of power, both forces of manipulation that Christ could never consent to.  And, of course, if we do, then we are then called on to actually be a Christian leader, and it's kind of hard to do that when basic concepts of Christianity are neglected or outright rejected (I'm thinking of Matthew 5 and 25 in particular, loving enemies and being merciful, and welcoming the stranger, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked).  Instead what we have gotten in the last year or so are Christian power-brokers who would rather focus on a Christian's right to deny someone service in the name of religion while also building walls to keep out a handful of potential enemies, policies which may be good or bad but neither of which can be classified as Christian.  Almost always Christianity will be duped when it is used in the name of power, and the country will likewise suffer.  I would add that we should be wary of any pastor who sidles up next to politicians for political gain.  Nothing religiously good can come of such a relationship.  Christ would roll over in his grave if he were still in a grave.

Regardless of all of this, and despite how I began, there are many who still in their heart of hearts would like to see our country a Christian nation.  If that is the case, and your intentions are pure, then do not seek power.  Instead, we should live in such a way that we do not rely on the powers that be.  As far as possible we need to live into the ideal God set out for us: as anarchists.  Again, anarchy is impractical on many levels, and by 'anarchy' I obviously do not mean those people who throw Molotov cocktails at government buildings.  I mean that we should live as anarchists, not relying on government to do what we are called to do by Christ: loving our enemies, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, welcoming the stranger.  We can do all of that without the help of government, without power of any kind.  We can be powerless prophet servants who do what faith asks of us.  Actually doing what Christ leads us into doing is the only way we can ever claim to be a Christian nation.  The moniker will have nothing to do with power, can't have anything to do with power, or we instantly lose our claim to being a Christian nation and we have lost hope.  So just live your own life as a Christian and we will see a revival.  Until then, when we see those in power, especially so-called Christians in power, who are not making Christ's love known in the world, you must be a prophet and call it out and try to move us closer to the ideal.

Monday, January 9, 2017

Politics, Religion, Sex

This post follows closely along the lines of the last one.   In my last post I urged us to hear and listen to those who are genuinely scared of a Trump presidency, as women or especially minorities, and who are already afraid because of an attitude shift since the election.  Many who read that post may simply have responded, "Oh he's just a Trump hater," or, "He's a silly liberal, brain-washed by the media," and I don't need to go on with the list of "or"s because we all know what people say in response to critiques of Trump--they imitate Trump himself, who this week, in response to Meryl Streep, proved again that he is incapable of listening to criticisms of any kind.  I'm not saying that all or even most Republicans or Trump supporters responded in that way, just that, based on my occasional use of Facebook, I am certain some did.  And the funny thing about that is that I am a registered Republican myself who often votes Libertarian.  I declare my political leanings with hesitation because two posts ago I said that pastors should remain as invisible in partisan concerns as possible, yet I do so now to point out how to assume, to refuse to truly enter into dialogue, indeed can make an a** out of 'u' and 'me.'  Our quick assumptions and judgments of people, along with our rapid and often hurtful responses, show that we have lost the ability as a culture and society, if we ever had the ability, to dialogue.  Dialogue, my friends, is a lost virtue.  For those Christians of us out there, I'd go so far as to say it's a lost Christian virtue and that those Christians who do not dialogue are actively falling short of discipleship of Christ.

We need go no further to prove that we as a culture and society are generally incapable of dialoguing than that we are taught from an early age not to discuss politics, religion, or sex in company, regardless of how closely related we are to our company by bonds of family or love.  The reason we are taught to avoid those three topics, the Big Three, we are told, is that to broach them is impolite.  The real reason, of course, is that to bring up politics, religion, or sex often derails a pleasant conversation and a verbal fight is likely to ensue; to cause a verbal fight is the impolite factor.  Yet we should ask, 'Why must those three subjects cause a verbal fight?  If we love one another, shouldn't we be able to discuss anything politely and in good taste?'  Stop to think for a moment and the answer should be, 'Why, yes, of course!'  And there we have it.

Unfortunately, we have no practice of dialoguing because we are, indeed, constantly worried about crossing the line into impolite territory and causing a fight.  It is our desire to constantly be polite that precludes training in proper dialogue habits.  On the flip side, however, is perhaps an even worse problem.  Many people who have been courageous, bold, or impolite or drunk enough to venture into a political, religious, or sex conversation often do not do so with a dialogue partner who is equally courageous, bold, impolite or drunk enough.  For example, I have on many occasion been to a gathering where someone spouts off ignorant, racist, discriminatory, or personally offensive views, and I have not said a word because I was not willing to cross that line, too.  So what did I, and everyone else, do?  We either remained silent or said, "Yeah... I get your point... I see where you're coming from."  If your discussion partner's replies are limited like that, you may think you have entered the politics, religion, sex conversation with love and grace, but you haven't really, because your partner is either offended by your tone or words, or is worried they might offend you.  If that happens, if we enter the arena of the Big Three and do not have a willing dialogue partner, and the reason they were not willing is you and your hurtful mouth or ideas, then you will continue on spewing your hurtful, and perhaps hateful, rhetoric to other unwilling partners with not a care in the world.  Then, if ever someone challenges you, you'll think that other person is the problem, and not you, because you've never been challenged before; even though you've never been challenged before because others have been swallowing their criticisms of your offensive, hurtful rhetoric and ideas to save you and them from a fight.  It is therefore my hunch that those people who are most unwilling to hear someone challenge their opinions, disagree with them, or critique them in some way, are the ones who are most holding us back as a society from being able to dialogue.  When a conversational speed bump is hit, they assume it's someone else's fault when in fact it is their own, yet they refuse to look inward and consider how they can dialogue better.

Take my wife and I as another example.  I had never fully discussed homosexuality, in religious terms, with anyone until I was engaged to her.  I therefore had zero practice.  I wager that she also had little practice because of the taboo around the Big Three.  When you marry someone, however, you are more or less forced to talk about all the major stuff, and if you don't then, oh boy.  Shortly before our wedding is when she and I first engaged the topic and, to be honest, it did not go well.  Discussing homosexuality in religious terms may have been our first fight.  My wife and I were not on opposite ends of the spectrum.  If we paused to consider for a moment, we would have realized that we were not so far apart that a fight should have ensued.  Still, my first reaction was to never bring up homosexuality again.  Thankfully, my wife did not have the same reaction and she did bring it up again, worried that we would have painful divergent responses to a gay child... and we fought again.  I don't remember how many times we had to have the discussion before we learned how to dialogue about homosexuality rather than fight about it, get mad, and stew for awhile.  Eventually, our conversations, our dialoguing, looked something like this, "Here's what I think and believe and why..." "Okay, I understand what you are saying, and to put it in my own words you're saying this... Is that right?... Okay, then here's what I think and believe in response to what I understand you are saying..." "Oh, I see... so you're saying this... Well, what do you think about this...?" and so on.  We used those 'I statements' that you hopefully learned in elementary school and repeated back to the other in our own words what the other was saying to ensure we were understanding, and then, because we were actually and truly listening, rather than reply with statements we were preparing to one-up the other while the other was talking, we responded to what the other was saying based on our understanding.  That is what dialogue should be.  Dialogue is give and take, with lots of listening and understanding, I statements (though not exclusively I statements), and love and grace enough not to ever comment on the validity ('That's stupid!  That's moronic!  Here's why.') of the other's positions except to point out, again with love and grace, any contradictions or inconsistencies.

It took practice for us to learn how to dialogue.  If I am honest, it was mostly me who had to learn, because my wife always began conversations trying her best to dialogue while I only tried to say what I wanted to say in explosively convincing ways, which meant I wasn't listening or understanding.  Of course, it also helped that we had, by the time we learned how to dialogue on homosexuality, publicly stated our vows to one another.  Over time, too, we both softened our positions.  We came to understand the other's position to the point that we included some of the other's opinions into our own, thus changing what we thought and believed.  That process was particularly significant for me, I think, because my position on the subject now feels entirely different than where I began.  Dialogue can do that to you.  If you are understanding the other person, you are thus open to change, and whether change in your opinions happen or not, the openness to such change fosters further understanding and easier dialogue.

Now, I mentioned that my wife and I taught each other and learned together how to dialogue and that it helped that we had stated our vows of marriage to one another.  I want to point out that marriage is, for a Christian, not the bond that should be tightest.  The most famous passage on love in our Bible is 1 Corinthians 13... about the love church members should have for one another. Indeed, Paul talks about marriage as a last resort if we are incapable of living a Christian life without a sex partner, to put it crudely.  While the stakes of not dialoguing with a husband or wife may be high, the stakes are even higher with our neighbors because God calls us into community, first and foremost, with our neighbors, not with a marriage partner.  Plus, an inability to dialogue with our neighbors--defined, by Christ himself, as everyone--obviously affects far more people than with a marriage partner.

Marriage is still a good analogy, but only to the point that we should consider ourselves married to our church family and to the whole family of God, which is everyone.  A society that cannot dialogue is like a polygamous marriage consisting of the entire global population gone terribly wrong.  Imagine.  To thus return to the marriage analogy: my wife and I, after our first few fights without being able to dialogue about homosexuality, were angry and confused and we stewed, just as all people do.  Neither my wife nor I are the type of people who seek revenge or to hold a grudge, but speaking for myself, it was hard not to simmer in that anger and confusion, feeling like I wasn't understood or my opinion wasn't appreciated or questioning how she could think the way she did after I so carefully explained a better way, and then have that anger and confusion jump out at the slightest provocation later to hurt her feelings.  The lesson I learned is that when we do not understand or are not understood in a marriage, we unwittingly hurt our partner's feelings later to shock them into seeing how hurt we were from not understanding or being understood.  I see this all the time in the global polygamous marriage of sorts that God calls us into.  During and after the presidential campaign, and to this day, many Trump supporters did and do not feel understood and therefore have lashed out at anyone who questions them or Trump, calling them morons or brainwashed, and vice versa, and then they also were not understanding which makes the lashing out more violent.  Without question, as far as I'm concerned, it is clear that many Trump supporters were stewing in not being understood and the anger and confusion that resulted, and the lack of dialogue meant that no one could understand them except Trump himself, which, again, ratcheted up the verbal and physical violence of a vicious cycle.  Now anti-Trump persons are the ones who are not being understood, and are too afraid to enter into conversation and dialogue because of the atmosphere, and so no understanding is being done, and thus goes the vicious cycle.

It is easy, as I've seen it being done, for someone who voted for Trump to call those who opposed him morons and brainwashed by a liberal media that lost.  It's easy not to attempt to understand or dialogue on the other side because they have 'won,' and all those who are still opposing Trump are just biased or politically motivated or sore losers and so who cares about them.  And I'm not saying all Trump supporters are like this--I'm trying to say that many anti-Trump folk are equally to blame since we are a whole society and culture that cannot dialogue--but Trump himself sets the tone that dialogue is unimportant.  That is dangerous and it is not Christian.  If we continue on this path, led by Trump rather than by Christ and our better nature on a local level, then we will reach the point where I and many others will not want our kids around certain other kids or adults because dialogue will have been ruled out of the question and the rule of the day will become saying whatever comes to your mind without ever bothering to truly listen to others.

Forget all I've said for a second about Trump and whether I'm biased or not and consider for a second that, essentially, a world where dialogue is not encouraged is a world where hate can breed.  If we are able to say whatever we want and not listening to one another because we know we are right, then love, which is God (1 John 4) who calls us into community (1 Corinthians 13, and many others) in which dialogue is necessary (James)--love won't be part of the equation, or at least not nearly as much as it should be, opening the door for hate.  For a second, just hear that.  Hear that we need to dialogue, defined as it is above, or else we will allow hate to exist happily in our communities, and that prospect scares me and scares away my hope for my children's interactions with people in the future.  For a second, let's stop there and commit to dialoguing in our own lives and encouraging others to do the same.  At some point, we will have to be courageous and loving enough to invite others into dialogue with us on all subjects, including and especially politics, religion, and sex, no matter how extreme the views of those we engage.  Dialogue, not just talk, as polite as it may be; real dialogue with understanding on both sides.  At some point, someone has to try.  Let that someone be us so that we can spread love, rather than hate, by the simple act of dialoguing.

We must continue, however, to address Trump.  We must do so because people do not generally change when in power.  Power magnifies character and often corrupts character.  Already, though, there is plenty of evidence that Trump is incapable of dialoguing.  If he is critiqued, the critic is a lousy person and he is great; if he is challenged in any way, he doubles down on his policies, often strengthening his regard for his policies, in clear disregard to what was just said to him, meaning he did not listen.  As I said in my last post, Trump's policies may work for this country, who knows.  But the manner in which he is proposing those policies and his character are very dangerous in a leader and, regardless of the quality of his policies, the refusal to dialogue in itself is harmful to the legislating and implementation of those policies.  If we are to have four years of this type of leadership, even if good policies are put in place, then we still definitely need to make it a priority to learn how to dialogue in our own lives and encourage others to do the same, or else the hate that many are now afraid of will become a reality because our top leader has let it.  Rather than letting hate in, let us instead dialogue, that Christian value, and choose love, which is God.