Monday, July 22, 2013

A "Cold War" in the Church?

At a recent conference I attended, an insightful Canadian colleague remarked to me that the U.S. is in a “cold civil war.” I’d never thought about it that way before, but it’s a frightening idea, and there may be some truth to it. In my lifetime, the left and the right have never been so distant from one another. Politics and politicians have never been so polarizing. This goes for the politics of the Church as well as of the nation.

Consider, for example, our current national political climate. To self-identify as a Republican is to embrace a cluster of positions: small government, lower taxes, fiscal conservatism, a pro-life perspective, and generally traditional views on marriage. To self-identify as a Democrat, on the other hand, tends to mean that one supports more direct government intervention for public welfare, greater taxation on the wealthiest members of society, a pro-choice perspective, and an acceptance of gay marriage. Yet there’s no real internal coherence to these party platforms. Some issues, such as fiscal conservatism and small government, naturally go together. But how is it that fiscal conservatism has become tied to traditional views of marriage? How is it that broad support for government-sponsored social services has become entwined with a pro-choice agenda? One would have to do a considerable amount of historical work to discern the processes by which each of these issues became tied up with the others. At the very least, however, we can say that the right people allied with one another for mutual political gain, and thereby determined the agendas for a large section of the population. As it becomes more and more commonplace to see particular issues linked together in a platform, it becomes easier to see these issues as a “package deal.” We have to take sides because a more selective agenda has no political leverage. Ideological entrenchment is the inevitable outcome.

Rather than modeling intellectual virtue and the fruits of the Spirit in this divisive time, the Church seems to have modeled its political life on that of the secular world. At least, this is the case in many Protestant groups in the U.S. The most visible current controversies, of course, revolve around issues of sexuality. Within the UMC, clergy—even bishops—are pledging civil disobedience in defiance of the General Conference and the Discipline, despite the fact that the UMC is not a civil state, but a largely self-governing voluntary organization. The ability and willingness to have real and meaningful conversation with one another is all but lost. To regain this ability will take serious self-examination, critical thinking, intellectual virtue, and of course the fruits of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control; Gal 5:22-23).

Perhaps the best articulation of this kind of critical perspective I’ve come across is Brian McLaren’s Generous Orthodoxy. We need to reclaim a hermeneutics of generosity. This would mean a willingness to give other people a fair hearing, to learn from them, to try to get inside their perspective and see its merits. The Church should model this approach in the face of a culture that is ever more sharply polarized. Yes, we must remain passionately committed to our beliefs, passionate about the Gospel, but passionate does not mean unreasonable, brittle, or entrenched. If we continue to mimic, however unconsciously, the cultural of secular politics that has led us to this point of cold civil war, the outcome will be a cold ecclesial war. We will compromise our unity in Christ and our witness to the world, all in the name of being right.

11 comments:

  1. Most polarized time in American politics? Hardly. Your use of the term "Cold Civil War" also betrays a lack of knowledge of American History. More polarizing than the vote for independence? More of a cold civil war than bleeding Kansas? More polarizing than Northern Republicans vetoing the government of the south immediately after the Civil War and appointing new leaders that are often black? More polarizing than the fight against segregation? We get bored and get tempted to say "This is the biggest..." "...the most..." "...the most important..." but rarely is it so. There is nothing new under the sun. Politics were divisive long before and shall continue to be as long as the sun is in the sky.

    As a general rule, in any time in which there are political parties, one will be the "We can fix everything if only we.." and the other will be "Hold on, those ideas have consequences you haven't thought through. There are some problems, but changing everything the way you want will likely cause more harm than good." Those will be liberals and conservatives and that explains the ideological differences and the way these issues go together.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I said the most polarized in my lifetime. I'm no spring chicken, but I'm not old enough to have lived through the vote for independence, or even the civil war. I am aware of the fact, however, that such things took place, and that, say, outright civil war is a more polarized state than our current state of affairs.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with you David. I have lived outside the US for the past 26 years, and I can see and feel the polarization. I also appreciate your observation of the connecting of things: if you believe this, then you also believe that. The connections are not at all obvious. What is worrisome to me is the dogmatic, mutually exclusive dynamic involved in the polarization. Someone just loaned me McLaren's book, so I will check it out.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks, Mark. I particularly appreciate your perspective as a U.S. citizen who has been outside of the U.S. for some time, and has therefore developed some critical distance from things here. I look forward to seeing you soon!

    ReplyDelete
  5. David, there is no doubt we are very highly polarized. Neil Howe and William Strauss in their book the Fourth Turning identified an 80 year cycle of crisis and rebirth in Anglo-American history dating back to the War of the Roses in England. In each of the last 3 crises, the Revolution, the Civil War, and Great Depression/WWII America experienced a crisis and emerged from that crisis into a period of great growth, but also radically changed from its nature before the crisis.

    Part of the nature of polarization today is the values orientation of the Baby Boomer generation that forms societal leadership today. They are much like the Transcendentalists (Lincoln's generation) that could not see past the culture wars to achieve pragmatic solutions to society's ills.

    Fortunately for our country the next generation of leaders, Gen X, comes from an archetype that historically has been much more pragmatic in their focus and should be able to engineer a society that is both more productive and more stable, as long as we can keep it from ripping it apart before we get there.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for these thoughts, Scott. Let's hope we're headed for a more cooperative political climate.

    ReplyDelete
  7. David, your mention of Brian McLaren was interesting to me because I had just been thinking about a piece on his blog that was written during the whole Love Wins dust up.

    What I notice so often is that people in debates almost always describe their debating partner's idea or points-of-view in terms that the other person would never themselves adopt. We characterize the arguments of those with whom we disagree in ways that win the argument for us but do not display any charity toward the other person's own self-understanding.

    I do not know how to overcome that, since it is such a powerful tactic in winning a debate -- or at least rallying the partisans on your side of a debate.

    It even shows up in the way we speak of debates. We used to partner with another person in a debate in an attempt to arrive at the truth. Now we square off against an opponent -- an enemy -- in an attempt to defeat him or her.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think your comments are right on, John. Intellectual charity has largely gone missing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Excellent post, David. Picking up for UM Insight, with your permission. Your last entry on intellectual rigor draw much positive response.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That we view ourselves (I believe your characterization is probably correct) as a "largely voluntary self-governing" society is precisely the problem. The result is a cafeteria culture in which "intellectual virtue and the fruits (sic) of the spirit" do not exist.

    The church of Jesus Christ cannot be a "largely voluntary self-governing" people. We are a people called and sent by the one true God. We are (or, at least, should be) wholly committed to what the church of Jesus Christ has always believed, taught and confessed upon the basis of the word of God.

    Technically, because of the first restrictive rule, we are so committed. This is the point of the Confessing Movement. But, in truth, at least in so far as the "cold war" (culture war?) is concerned, we are in practice a political organization that mirrors our present Congress. Two parties, talking past each other, totally impotent in our purpose, which is announcing and being the Kingdom of God in time.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That we view ourselves (I believe your characterization is probably correct) as a "largely voluntary self-governing" society is precisely the problem. The result is a cafeteria culture in which "intellectual virtue and the fruits (sic) of the spirit" do not exist.

    The church of Jesus Christ cannot be a "largely voluntary self-governing" people. We are a people called and sent by the one true God. We are (or, at least, should be) wholly committed to what the church of Jesus Christ has always believed, taught and confessed upon the basis of the word of God.

    Technically, because of the first restrictive rule, we are so committed. This is the point of the Confessing Movement. But, in truth, at least in so far as the "cold war" (culture war?) is concerned, we are in practice a political organization that mirrors our present Congress. Two parties, talking past each other, totally impotent in our purpose, which is announcing and being the Kingdom of God in time.

    ReplyDelete