I enjoyed an enriching conversation on Facebook yesterday -- yes, it is possible! -- with two high school classmates that I've not seen in person for nearly 50 years. It began when I 'shared' an article about why Christians voted for Donald Trump. While we differ on some political views, we agreed that the label "Christians" is very broad and that the article failed to recognize that the category includes different races, different socio-economic backgrounds, different creeds and, of course, different political preferences.
The descriptor 'evangelical' has been used this election season and I have bemoaned its use to describe a voting bloc rather than a theological distinctive. We used to say "born again Christian" until that label was robbed of meaning by overuse and misuse. Many evangelical Christians prefer the label "Believer" to convey an adherence to traditional Christian orthodoxy; "Bible-believing Christian" is another. But those labels are primarily for us to communicate with others of our own ilk.
I am a Bible-believing, born again Christian Believer. And I know other Bible-believing, born again Christian Believers who are brothers and sisters in Christ but have different views than I on politics and public policy. Occasionally our discussions will refer to Scripture, but we can still differ on how to apply the words to a specific public policy argument. E.g., there is no debate that caring for the poor among us is a Biblical value -- the Church has demonstrated that through the centuries in countless ways, from orphanages to hospitals to schools to micro-economic development. The quarrel is over what the role of government should be. (II Thessalonians 3:10 is often quoted in this discussion: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”) Even if we agree that government has a role to play, how to shape that public policy will likely bring about further debate based less on Biblical principles than on political perspective.
During the election, I heard "I don't don't know how Christians can vote for Clinton/Trump." When said of Clinton, it usually had to do with her position on abortion or religious freedom. When said of Trump, it usually had to do with his character and behavior which were far from what Christians expect of themselves and others who call themselves Christian.
In the conversation on Facebook yesterday, one of my classmates referred to "the modicum of accommodation required to continue being a public business." This was a reference to bakers who won't bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding or photographers who won't do gay weddings, etc. While I think that the vendetta against the Portland OR bakery was completely overblown (and Oregon voters must have agreed, since the man responsible was the only Democrat not to win his election for State office), I think that the refusal of the bakery was not "the Christian thing" to do. Unless they use litmus tests for every other customer to determine their 'moral fitness' to be married (did they have sex before marriage, are either of them divorced, do they attend the same church and confess Jesus as their Savior, etc.), they did in fact discriminate against the gay customers.
More to the point, though, is that the refusal of service "witnessed to" the wrong thing; it essentially said, "My moral purity requires that I condemn your sin." Even if you believe that the gay lifestyle is sinful, condemnation is not Christ-like. (See John 3:17 and 8:11) How much better would it have been to deliver quality service with a loving spirit and demonstrate that Christians don't hate LGBTQ persons?
To me, 'evangelical' means proclaiming the Gospel in word and deed. And at the heart of the Gospel is Jesus' command to love one another, an instruction that is repeated nineteen times in the New Testament. And it is not just love for other Christians that is commanded. The "Great Commandment" -- which Jesus quoted from Leviticus -- is to "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Luke 10:27)
Folks my age will remember the "Jesus Movement" of the 1960s when we sat around campfires and earnestly sang, "We are one in the Spirit. We are one in the Lord. And we pray that all unity will one day be restored. And they'll know we are Christians by our love -- by our love! Yes, they'll know we are Christians by our love."
The proof of our faith is not our adherence to a creed, but our faithful obedience to Christ's commands. (James 1:27-2:18) I don't think it's too much to ask for us to show love when we have received the love of Christ in abundant measure.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Friday, November 11, 2016
Words have Power
I observed to my wife this morning that I overlooked an element of the Presidential campaign that I should have included in my 'bill of particulars' in yesterday's blog: the unrelenting use of exaggerated rhetoric.
Donald Trump's favorite word was "disaster" -- everything was "a disaster." Obamacare, Benghazi, Syria, Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation -- disasters all. For anyone who has experienced a real disaster, Trump's overwrought language must have seemed dismissive of their own personal experience of disaster.
Hillary Clinton emphasized "danger" -- it would be "dangerous" to have Trump as President. Is it any wonder, then, that his election has created fear across the country? Apparently, we are all in danger!
I have posted previously about the power of words. I believe that this exaggerated rhetoric is partially to blame for the hysterical reaction by many to the results of the election. But there is another side to be considered.
President Obama was (in my view rightly) criticized for his refusal to label the threat of "radical Islamic terrorism." He believed that to do so would result in heightened distrust of Muslim Americans. I suggest that his failure to do so missed the opportunity to distinguish between the vast majority of Muslims in the U.S. who pose no threat and those who have been radicalized. I.e., by refusing to use the label, he kept all Muslims as a monolithic entity opening all to suspicion.
Similarly, when demonstrations in Ferguson MO and Baltimore MD turned violent, the President's tepid response contributed. He failed to recognize that in voicing sympathy for their concerns and lending validity to them, he appeared to justify their anger which eventually turned to destructive behavior. Yes, he condemned the violence. But his words and attitude did not convey the horror felt by the victims of those violent acts.
I was saddened to read of horrible words and actions against Muslims, people of color, and LGBTQ citizens since the election. The actors in these matters seem to have been emboldened in their misoislamism, racism and homomisia (I'll explain my terms later) by Trump's rhetoric during the campaign. While he did not use explicit bias language, the way he spoke about Mexican immigrants and Muslims undoubtedly was heard by those populations as denigrating of an entire class of individuals. Even his "othering" (my word) of groups of people by use of the definite article -- the Muslims, the Hispanics, the evangelicals, the blacks, etc. -- provided linguistic clues that were followed by opponents and supporters alike.
NB -- since words mean things, I avoid using the suffix '-phobia' to describe 'hatred of.' Homophobia literally means "fear of gays"; homomisia means hatred of them. Similarly, Islamophobia means "fear of Muslims." The acts I have been reading about seem motivated more by hatred than fear, so I chose "misoislamism." Following my blog yesterday, I should use "xenomisia" (hatred of the strange or foreign) rather than xenophobia, since I think it is more a matter of despising the unfamiliar than fearing it that is at play.
President-elect Trump should make a strong statement condemning the hateful acts against others undertaken by those who are ostensibly his supporters. He should also apologize for statements made during the campaign that "otherized" (again, my word) entire groups of people. And he should follow his pledge to be President of all people with powerful words that convey intolerance for those who speak and act intolerantly of those unlike themselves. To do so would take a strong step in the direction of unifying the country.
Donald Trump's favorite word was "disaster" -- everything was "a disaster." Obamacare, Benghazi, Syria, Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation -- disasters all. For anyone who has experienced a real disaster, Trump's overwrought language must have seemed dismissive of their own personal experience of disaster.
Hillary Clinton emphasized "danger" -- it would be "dangerous" to have Trump as President. Is it any wonder, then, that his election has created fear across the country? Apparently, we are all in danger!
I have posted previously about the power of words. I believe that this exaggerated rhetoric is partially to blame for the hysterical reaction by many to the results of the election. But there is another side to be considered.
President Obama was (in my view rightly) criticized for his refusal to label the threat of "radical Islamic terrorism." He believed that to do so would result in heightened distrust of Muslim Americans. I suggest that his failure to do so missed the opportunity to distinguish between the vast majority of Muslims in the U.S. who pose no threat and those who have been radicalized. I.e., by refusing to use the label, he kept all Muslims as a monolithic entity opening all to suspicion.
Similarly, when demonstrations in Ferguson MO and Baltimore MD turned violent, the President's tepid response contributed. He failed to recognize that in voicing sympathy for their concerns and lending validity to them, he appeared to justify their anger which eventually turned to destructive behavior. Yes, he condemned the violence. But his words and attitude did not convey the horror felt by the victims of those violent acts.
I was saddened to read of horrible words and actions against Muslims, people of color, and LGBTQ citizens since the election. The actors in these matters seem to have been emboldened in their misoislamism, racism and homomisia (I'll explain my terms later) by Trump's rhetoric during the campaign. While he did not use explicit bias language, the way he spoke about Mexican immigrants and Muslims undoubtedly was heard by those populations as denigrating of an entire class of individuals. Even his "othering" (my word) of groups of people by use of the definite article -- the Muslims, the Hispanics, the evangelicals, the blacks, etc. -- provided linguistic clues that were followed by opponents and supporters alike.
NB -- since words mean things, I avoid using the suffix '-phobia' to describe 'hatred of.' Homophobia literally means "fear of gays"; homomisia means hatred of them. Similarly, Islamophobia means "fear of Muslims." The acts I have been reading about seem motivated more by hatred than fear, so I chose "misoislamism." Following my blog yesterday, I should use "xenomisia" (hatred of the strange or foreign) rather than xenophobia, since I think it is more a matter of despising the unfamiliar than fearing it that is at play.
President-elect Trump should make a strong statement condemning the hateful acts against others undertaken by those who are ostensibly his supporters. He should also apologize for statements made during the campaign that "otherized" (again, my word) entire groups of people. And he should follow his pledge to be President of all people with powerful words that convey intolerance for those who speak and act intolerantly of those unlike themselves. To do so would take a strong step in the direction of unifying the country.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
THIS is xenophobia!
Gee whiz, this was an ugly election season. I even stayed up until the results were announced so I could be sure it was finally over (not wanting a repeat of 2000). Now we can all take a deep breath and return to our normal lives, right?
Not so fast. Hillary supporters are demonstrating in the streets, tweeting vile comments and posting articles hysterically predicting doom for the country and claiming that every female in the USA must fear for her safety.
From what I read, Facebook has been burning with inflammatory comments. (I have seen a few that were extreme, but none so bad that I felt I needed to "unfriend" the writer.) I have read opinion columns by syndicated columnists and by Hollywood celebrities that paint a dystopian picture that is completely at odds with the daily lives of most Americans. They read as if laws were repealed, convicts released, and open season was declared on sex crimes and crimes of violence on Wednesday morning November 10th.
Much more measured were columns in the New Republic by David Dayen and The Guardian by Thomas Frank. There was acknowledgement that liberal elites and the media (redundant, I know) completely misunderstand the fervor that underlay the Trump campaign.
When Trump had the temerity to discredit the Gold Star parents and speak about banning Muslims from immigrating to the U.S., the word "xenophobia" gained currency -- and rightly so. Far too many Americans are fearful of Muslims because of radical Islamic terrorism. Far too few Americans encounter Muslims on a regular basis. Those who work with, attend school with, live next door to Muslim Americans tend to recognize them as people not unlike themselves.
Diversity has been a value pursued in academia and in many businesses for this very reason. Associating with people unlike ourselves -- racially, culturally, religiously and otherwise -- enriches everyone.
I am grateful to have learned this lesson first hand. I attended elementary school with African-American kids. My high school had a high percentage of Jewish students, as well as African-Americans. (Apart from one family of migrant farm workers who settled permanently, I had no such exposure to Hispanics, though.) As a college student and young adult, I encountered other people who were different than I.
As a result, I am accustomed to engaging in polite, respectful dialogue to explain my position on an issue and listen to the positions of others. I have even, until the last Presidential cycle, enjoyed spirited discussion of political differences. It has been different this time, for the following reasons.
1. The candidates -- and their supporters -- made it personal. Both Clinton and Trump attacked their opponent's morality, honesty, competence, trustworthiness, etc. Is it any wonder, then, that the post-election dialogue continues that pattern by attacking the person who voted for ______ as stupid, blind, deluded, or even un-Christian?
2. The news media, in pursuit of ratings, circulation or clicks, latch onto the most controversial and inflammatory aspects of the campaign and give exposure to even the most lurid 'news items.' So supporters of one candidate have explosive accusations to lob at the opposition, and will continue those attacks even when the initial item has been refuted or explained.
3. Social media has depreciated the value of truth and civility. Twitter and Facebook have provided a means for the most outrageous "information" to get wide exposure. For example, there was a piece circulating that quoted Tim Kaine as proposing to ban the Catholic Church from the U.S. It was written as satire, but because it began with a legitimate quote, it appeared genuine. It was shared by two of my Facebook friends, not realizing that it was bogus.
4. Most importantly, though, I think is the xenophobia that exists in the news media and other parts of the opinion-shaping, policy-making elite. Fox News' Tucker Carlson pointed out that none of the Washington DC/New York City news media have a clue what motivates the voters in Oshkosh or Terre Haute. (They may not even know they are real places with real voters!) And it is my assessment that this cultural ignorance leads to a fear of those citizens. Racial hatred against Hispanics, not economic self-interest, must motivate someone who worries about the impact of illegal immigration because his job has been lost or wages lowered. The NRA member who keeps guns for hunting or for self-defense cannot be appalled by Sandy Hook or Charleston shootings. If you support the police when Black Lives Matter foments violence, you must be a racist. If you believe in traditional marriage, you hate gays. Apparently, these liberal elites do not believe it is possible to hold views that differ from their own and still love and accept blacks, Hispanics, LGBT+ people, Muslims, etc.
Xenophobia -- fear of the stranger. Yes, there are white working-class voters who never encounter people of color, of other nationalities or languages, or LGBT+ folk on a regular basis; but with immigration, migration, and transience that number is much lower than the coastal elites imagine it to be. I suggest that the attitudes of the average church-going Midwesterner are far more tolerant than those of the average Ivy League professor or NYT/WashPo reporter. That has to be the case if the latter are fearful of riots and violence ensuing from the mere fact of Trump's winning the election. (Oh, wait. Riots and violence have ensued -- just not by the white working-class.)
THIS is the real xenophobia: the irrational fear by coastal elites of those strange Midwesterners who attend church, own guns, oppose abortion, value traditional marriage, attend High School football and NASCAR, and who want a Supreme Court that will protect First Amendment religious liberty as assiduously as First Amendment freedom of expression.
Not so fast. Hillary supporters are demonstrating in the streets, tweeting vile comments and posting articles hysterically predicting doom for the country and claiming that every female in the USA must fear for her safety.
From what I read, Facebook has been burning with inflammatory comments. (I have seen a few that were extreme, but none so bad that I felt I needed to "unfriend" the writer.) I have read opinion columns by syndicated columnists and by Hollywood celebrities that paint a dystopian picture that is completely at odds with the daily lives of most Americans. They read as if laws were repealed, convicts released, and open season was declared on sex crimes and crimes of violence on Wednesday morning November 10th.
Much more measured were columns in the New Republic by David Dayen and The Guardian by Thomas Frank. There was acknowledgement that liberal elites and the media (redundant, I know) completely misunderstand the fervor that underlay the Trump campaign.
When Trump had the temerity to discredit the Gold Star parents and speak about banning Muslims from immigrating to the U.S., the word "xenophobia" gained currency -- and rightly so. Far too many Americans are fearful of Muslims because of radical Islamic terrorism. Far too few Americans encounter Muslims on a regular basis. Those who work with, attend school with, live next door to Muslim Americans tend to recognize them as people not unlike themselves.
Diversity has been a value pursued in academia and in many businesses for this very reason. Associating with people unlike ourselves -- racially, culturally, religiously and otherwise -- enriches everyone.
I am grateful to have learned this lesson first hand. I attended elementary school with African-American kids. My high school had a high percentage of Jewish students, as well as African-Americans. (Apart from one family of migrant farm workers who settled permanently, I had no such exposure to Hispanics, though.) As a college student and young adult, I encountered other people who were different than I.
As a result, I am accustomed to engaging in polite, respectful dialogue to explain my position on an issue and listen to the positions of others. I have even, until the last Presidential cycle, enjoyed spirited discussion of political differences. It has been different this time, for the following reasons.
1. The candidates -- and their supporters -- made it personal. Both Clinton and Trump attacked their opponent's morality, honesty, competence, trustworthiness, etc. Is it any wonder, then, that the post-election dialogue continues that pattern by attacking the person who voted for ______ as stupid, blind, deluded, or even un-Christian?
2. The news media, in pursuit of ratings, circulation or clicks, latch onto the most controversial and inflammatory aspects of the campaign and give exposure to even the most lurid 'news items.' So supporters of one candidate have explosive accusations to lob at the opposition, and will continue those attacks even when the initial item has been refuted or explained.
3. Social media has depreciated the value of truth and civility. Twitter and Facebook have provided a means for the most outrageous "information" to get wide exposure. For example, there was a piece circulating that quoted Tim Kaine as proposing to ban the Catholic Church from the U.S. It was written as satire, but because it began with a legitimate quote, it appeared genuine. It was shared by two of my Facebook friends, not realizing that it was bogus.
4. Most importantly, though, I think is the xenophobia that exists in the news media and other parts of the opinion-shaping, policy-making elite. Fox News' Tucker Carlson pointed out that none of the Washington DC/New York City news media have a clue what motivates the voters in Oshkosh or Terre Haute. (They may not even know they are real places with real voters!) And it is my assessment that this cultural ignorance leads to a fear of those citizens. Racial hatred against Hispanics, not economic self-interest, must motivate someone who worries about the impact of illegal immigration because his job has been lost or wages lowered. The NRA member who keeps guns for hunting or for self-defense cannot be appalled by Sandy Hook or Charleston shootings. If you support the police when Black Lives Matter foments violence, you must be a racist. If you believe in traditional marriage, you hate gays. Apparently, these liberal elites do not believe it is possible to hold views that differ from their own and still love and accept blacks, Hispanics, LGBT+ people, Muslims, etc.
Xenophobia -- fear of the stranger. Yes, there are white working-class voters who never encounter people of color, of other nationalities or languages, or LGBT+ folk on a regular basis; but with immigration, migration, and transience that number is much lower than the coastal elites imagine it to be. I suggest that the attitudes of the average church-going Midwesterner are far more tolerant than those of the average Ivy League professor or NYT/WashPo reporter. That has to be the case if the latter are fearful of riots and violence ensuing from the mere fact of Trump's winning the election. (Oh, wait. Riots and violence have ensued -- just not by the white working-class.)
THIS is the real xenophobia: the irrational fear by coastal elites of those strange Midwesterners who attend church, own guns, oppose abortion, value traditional marriage, attend High School football and NASCAR, and who want a Supreme Court that will protect First Amendment religious liberty as assiduously as First Amendment freedom of expression.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)