Lengthy rambling “Can’t we all just get along” diatribe follows. Feel free to skip to the next post.
Anil Dash points to an interesting article about business differences in the internal cultures of the US, including everyone’s favorite group, Red States vs Blue States.
That brought to mind the laity meeting I went to Tuesday night to discuss the Bishop’s Task Force Report. For those just tuning in, in response to the profound divisiveness in the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado over issues of same-sex relationships (more on that in a moment), the bishop organized a task force to recommend how we can live together (and to what extent) — to define the common ground.
While some folks were hoping for a definitive statement of “X is allowed,” or “Scripture says Y,” what the task force came up with were a set of principles as to how we, as a diocese, can work on these issues with mutual respect, “passionate patience,” and, in short, behave more like Christians than Partisan Political Attack Dogs in an Election Year when it comes to these things.
Two of the reps from the task force were there, a priest who was the head of the task force (a self-described conservative who disagrees strongly with the bishop’s theological stance on same sex relationships), and one of the two lay people on the task force (a gay man who’s served as vice-chancellor to the bishop and who is an avowed liberal on these matters).
Something they said sort of crystallized some of the Red/Blue vitriol I’ve been seeing for a while. One of the most straightforward, yet difficult, things that the task force decided to do, in their very first meeting, was to recognize that they were all in the room (I paraphrase, because I can’t recall the exact words) prayerful people of good will who were seeking to be good Christians. That such a thing had to be said, let alone the act of will it took to accept it, was a sign of what the task force saw as the deep divisions of mistrust within the diocese, in this as well as many other matters. Such an act of will, though, allowed recognition that it is possible for folks to disagree on profound and important pieces of theology without ascribing sinister motives, hidden agendas, or, frankly, evil intent — something that has seemed to characterize too much rhetoric (from both sides) in the current brouhaha in the diocese.
I think something similar has happened within the political culture of the US. There has always been a certain level of dislike, even mistrust, of political leaders and ideologues. This got a huge boost in the Watergate era, and that generational event has finally moved into the mainstream.
But beyond that, we seem to have moved in our civil debate over the direction America should go into not just disagreement, but active mistrust of others. Whether it’s characterizing, not just candidates, but their supporters as cheese-eating surrender-monkeys or backwoods wingnut theocrats or unwashed commie hippies or neocon frat goons or just plain old idiots — well, that’s always been a time-honored characterization of folks who vote differently from you. But it goes beyond simply thinking others are wrong (because you’re, of course, right) but thinking that others are evil, that of course they have hidden agendas, that they cannot be trusted, that they are bad Americans.
Consider this statement:
I think we are all thoughtful people of good will who are seeking to be good Americans.
I have friends, close and distant, who hold very different political views from myself. I get around this by avoiding political conversations with them, except in relatively cool, safe places like blogs. But while I think they are wrong on occasion, I can’t imagine thinking them un-American. If they express a political opinion counter to mine, I don’t automatically assume a hidden agenda against me. I think they are thoughtful (as much as most folks are — probably more so, in fact), certainly of good will, and pursuing what they perceive (and which, in most cases, I actually agree) are the highest American ideals. That we disagree (sometimes with a wry “which is the lesser of evils?” shake of the head, sometimes not) on the direction that pursuit should take in our communal American life is both fair and acceptable, but it doesn’t require vilifying them or their motives.
Would that too many folks I hear, or read, on both the Left and Right (or Blue and Red, to get back to the subject line) would do the same.
The next step, going beyond one’s friends and family (where, one hopes, it’s relatively simple to overlook such things) is to extend the same benefit of the doubt — heck, assertion of no doubt — to others. To not assume that the idiot you see screaming and capering about on TV at a protest is out to destroy the American dream, is an enemy of the state and people, but to work from the supposition that he, too, is acting out of good will and the pursuit of being a good citizen (even if he’s showing poor judgment in how he does it or in what cause he backs).
To judge people on their actions, not on their inferred motives.
Heck, what if we even extended that courtesy to politicians? Is it really necessary to actively mistrust or demonize Bush or Kerry, or can we extend even them the polite courtesy of treating them as thoughtful people of good will who are seeking to be good Americans? Even if we treat it as no more than a courtesy, it seems to me that of more importance is not whether they are evil or good, but whether, on matters of policy and leadership, they are right or wrong. Not that good and evil aren’t important, but, being human, they (as with all of us) carry an admixture of the two, and arguing about that seems more problematic than whether their proposals (and track record) matches what we’re looking for or what we think will work best to make the America (and world) we want.
Maybe that’s going too far. Maybe we can’t humanize (as opposed to demonize) politicians (let alone political operatives) that far. But certainly we can do it for those “civilians” around us. They may all be wrong, of course, but that doesn’t make them evil, only, at most, misguided. And it’s a lot easier to live and work with misguided people of good will than conniving idiots who are out to destroy us all.
Just a Thursday morning ramble. We’ll return to our regular trivia in a moment.
The red state/blue state business differences I knew on a certain level (Denver being kinda purple-ish). It was a good take on how things work when you go to other places. Just going from Denver to New Mexico, Wyoming, and Nebraska is jarring to your mind set when dealing with fellow employees of the same company.
[ramble on]
…prayerful people of good will who were seeking to be good Christians…
Yes that did need to be said since both sides of the issue needed to hear that so that they would have correct frame of mind to start the discussion from. If you have one side that just wants to belong to a church and find communion within a community of Christians, and to be treated as such, verses another, more orthodox group in regards to the scripture that feels that not only should the first group not be there, but that they are going to hell as well. Both sides needed to hear that they have valid concerns, that they are both vital to the church community, and that they are all still part of the family of Christ.
Schism’s ain’t pretty, and mostly result in large amounts of dead people, and property destruction. I’m impressed by the fact that the CofE and the Episcopal Church are even trying to deal with the modern world instead of being like the Catholic Church and firmly planting itself in the 1600’s. But that is going to cause all sorts of problems for folks as they decide at level of comfort that the have with the Bible and its interpretations. It will be a battle over how much of the Bible is considered to be true and needs to be followed, and what parts will need to be set aside (so…do we stone the gay’s to death, make them sit quietly in the corner, or allow them to fully participate in all aspects of church life). Kind of like the internal battle between the “Cafeteria Catholics” and the Mainline Catholic Church in the western world. At what point will orthodoxy render it ineffectual.
As too the Political aspect…
I see that the US is at a point in time like 1840/1850, 1858/1865, 1900/1904, 1932, 1952, 1980 points in time. There has been a steady rightward march since 1980 (to the point that the GOP currently occupies positions that the John Birch Society espoused back in the eighties). And it has come to a watershed point in time as to how things will progress in this country for the next decade or so. School politics, only more so.
As to the discourse…
After a decade plus of the Limbaugh’s, Gingrich, Atwater, Malkin, Brooks, Kristof, Coulter, O’Rielly, Fallwell, Roberts, Swagert, Phelps, and others, the Left has finally gotten tired of being called traitorous, un-American, commie-pinko-faggots, and has decided to stop trying to be reasonable and fight fire with fire. It all came to a boil in that past two years, and the gas has been turned up over the year. Again school politics, only more so
[ramble off]
If you have one side that just wants to belong to a church and find communion within a community of Christians, and to be treated as such, verses another, more orthodox group in regards to the scripture that feels that not only should the first group not be there, but that they are going to hell as well. Both sides needed to hear that they have valid concerns, that they are both vital to the church community, and that they are all still part of the family of Christ.
There was actually some interesting discussion about that, and the liberal TF member there had at least as much criticism for those liberals who “are urgently desirous of keeping the dialog open — as long as there’s a chance the conservatives will change their minds.”
It’s noteworthy that one recommendation of the TF was that the bishop should never require (should such things be authorized) any priest to consecrate a same sex union. That’s similar to what was done with women’s ordination — and there are those who feel that such ordination should be compelled. Even though I roll my eyes at the thought of someone not doing so, and believe it is wrong, I don’t feel that someone should be compelled to do that which *they* feel is wrong in such a matter.
Which is a roundabout way of saying that there are liberals as intolerant about the matter of same sex unions as the conservatives are, and unless both groups are willing to abide and trust for a time, any ultimate schism is going to be spiritually violent and hateful, rather than simply sorrowful but necessary.
It will be a battle over how much of the Bible is considered to be true and needs to be followed, and what parts will need to be set aside (so…do we stone the gay’s to death, make them sit quietly in the corner, or allow them to fully participate in all aspects of church life).
Agreed, and that’s indeed the thorniest part. I’m probably in the 90th pctile liberal when it comes to Biblical literalism and strict adherence to Scripture, but I can understand the concerns about slippery slopes and the like.
I see that the US is at a point in time like 1840/1850, 1858/1865, 1900/1904, 1932, 1952, 1980 points in time. There has been a steady rightward march since 1980 (to the point that the GOP currently occupies positions that the John Birch Society espoused back in the eighties). And it has come to a watershed point in time as to how things will progress in this country for the next decade or so.
Certainly the social side of American conservatism took over the GOP from the fiscal side, yes, probably right around 1980. And, yes, that remains worrisome to me. But, then, I’m more of an Eisenhower Republican than a Reagan one.
After a decade plus of the Limbaugh’s, Gingrich, Atwater, Malkin, Brooks, Kristof, Coulter, O’Rielly, Fallwell, Roberts, Swagert, Phelps, and others, the Left has finally gotten tired of being called traitorous, un-American, commie-pinko-faggots, and has decided to stop trying to be reasonable and fight fire with fire. It all came to a boil in that past two years, and the gas has been turned up over the year.
I’m not sure the rhetorical excess to that point — at least on the punditry side — was all on the Right, by any means. What may well have made it seem that way was the televangelized Religious Right, which has had more influence in setting the rhetorical tone than I suspect they have had in actually saving any souls.
Here’s my prediction, for what it’s worth — and it’s worth very little, since I have all-crap skill for prediction. Bush wins in 2004. Armageddon doesn’t occur, but constant battles over the Same Old Thing do [barring a 9/11-class event, in which case all bets are off, Mule-like]. By 2008, the electorate is tired enough of the whole thing that the lack of credible GOP successor coupled with a (culture) war-weary electorate decisively puts Hillary in the White House, quite possibly with at least one chamber of Congress on their side. Armageddon continues to fail to follow, but it gives the Dems a chance to show they’re not all wusses, and the GOP moderates a chance to wrest control from the in-power-too-long conservatives, making 2012 a much closer — yet less divisive — competition. Things toddle along from there.
You heard it here first.
Nice Mule reference!
Though, you may want to go back and “Box” or “italicize” my bits versus your bits.
I thought I had. I need to fix that, I see.
Amazing what getting your single-quotes and double-quotes mixed up can do …
And thanks for catching the Mule reference. I thought it added an appropriate geeky frisson to the piece.
Dave, you offer a very nice balanced political commentary, even to the mind of this Reagan Republican! Would that similar big-hearted balance can return to the Episcopal church, but the latest move of ECUSA to seize dissenting churches and depose their clergy across the country simply bodes ill–a little grace would go a long way! Blessings to your bride and family–Bob
I think there is room — and need — for big-heartedness in all parties of the current troubles in ECUSA. And the urge to depose dissenting clergy is not limited just to one side, either. The bishop’s task force report speaks of both gracious submission to discipline and gracious exercise of authority (gracious as in reflecting Jesus’ grace, as you note — WWJD?) — again, something that has sometimes been lacking amongst different individuals.
One would hope that a church dedicated to spreading a message of love and salvation would be easier to “fix” in this way than the political system. One would hope.
As usual, I agree with most all you say. I could quibble with a tad about whether the deposing of priests and seizure of churches really goes both ways (don’t see how that could be since ECUSA holds all the cards and the power on that score), but had a different point to make tonight about the political situation. We just saw the amazing Pulitzer photographs collected down at the Colo History Museum downtown–do not miss it! Reflecting on that collection, and on your original Red vs. Blue post, it strikes me that indeed we are so very polarized in many ways now as a country (and even within the Anglican Communion)………BUT, my goodness, it ain’t near as bad as all that when viewed through the longer lens of those Pulitzer photos from the late 60s and times immediately afterwards: forced busing, lynchings, beatings and racial hatred in much of this country; the enraged protests and riots and the Kent State shootings over the Vietnam war; violent labor disputes; assasinations of the Kennedys and MLKing and attempts directed at George Wallace and Reagan; Patty Hearst and the Black Panthers; church bombings, etc. etc. etc…… Seen against that deadly and all-too-recent backdrop, somehow the polarization we see around us now seems (happily) pretty tame–we aren’t shooting one another while disagreeing over national or church politics just now, and for that we all should be grateful. Blessings, my brother Dave–Bob
Certainly there has been a sentiment (if not the actual authority) that the issue of gay priests can or should be resolved simply by deposing them.
That said, your point is well-taken regarding, say, forty years ago. My fear is that increased (or even prolonged) heat in rhetoric makes escalation by some radicals into more physical or violent confrontation more likely.
I firmly believe all folks of good will (which are the vast, vast majority) don’t want that to happen.