We Have Met the Enemy

“We have met the enemy, and he is us,” was famously said by comic strip character, Pogo, a creation of cartoonist, Walt Kelly.  Originally the quote came from an Earth Day poster in 1970 to illustrate our human complicity in the problems of pollution.  As in so many circumstances human beings are our own worst enemy.  

I have been shaped by this kind of thinking.  Theologically, I have a well-developed view of sin.  Though created in the original good graces of a loving God, we humans have trouble getting out of our own way.  I am often disappointed, discouraged, and dismayed at sinful human behavior, but never surprised.  As hymnist Robert Robinson put it, “Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it.”  Selfishness, greed, and other distressing tendencies always seem to get in the way of our best intentions.  I wish it were otherwise, but there it is.

Pogo’s observation keeps us from pointing the finger at the sin outside of us.  Wickedness may lie “out there” somewhere in some readily recognizable “them,” but the truth remains that there is wickedness at work in “us,” as well.  “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye” (Matthew 7:5).  And again, “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matthew 7:1-3).

Still, one cannot live life without making judgments.  When faced with two or more choices, one must choose, and preferably the choice is right, or life-giving, loving, or at the least, the lesser of two evils.  And in making such judgments one necessarily implies that those who choose otherwise have made the wrong choice.  That does not make them evil, of course, only misguided or perhaps, ignorant.  There is also the possibility that they are willfully reprobate, or incalcitrant.  But, as Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).  

In Christian orthodoxy (“right teaching”), the Church has tried to avoid dualism - creating a false dichotomy between “us” (the good), and “them” (the evil).  When we point the finger at someone else, the cliche reminds us that there are three fingers pointing back at us.  So, we must discern the presence of evil with humility and mercy.  But we must nonetheless use our discernment lest we ourselves be tempted to fall into sin.  

Christians have committed atrocities in our history by not distinguishing between the evil and the good.  Christians have defended slavery.  Thank God there were also Christians who were ardent abolitionists.  Christians in Germany supported Hitler.  Thank God there was also The Confessing Movement which perceived and warned of Nazism’s excesses.  And as much as scripture cautions us against being overly judgmental, we are also warned to not worship golden calves.  Scripture alarms us regarding “desolating sacrilege.”  Jesus pronounced woe on the scribes and Pharisees whom he judged as wrong.  Jesus drove the moneychangers out of the temple for turning worship into an economic transaction.  Jesus made judgments of people repeatedly.  Jesus reminds us that “narrow is the gate . . . which leads to life,” and “wide . . . is the way that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13-14).  In other words, we must make judgments about how to live into Christlikeness.

Not to belabor the subject, I want to suggest some ways that disciples of Jesus might follow in the narrow way in the midst of choices and controversies that face us in the 21st Century.  In the current racial crisis we would do well to follow the Golden Rule.  Doing unto others as we would have done to us is not only good advice for interpersonal relationships but also a preferred way of ordering society.  Our institutions would thereby provide equal opportunity for all.  As “white” people have experienced privilege (as has been done to “us”), how might we structure our society so that privilege was available to people of color (and so do for “others”)? 

In regards to immigration, our policies and procedures would be marked by “welcoming the stranger,” rather than the boondoggle of building walls.  While immigration reform is necessary, the border separation of children from their parents would not be tolerated.  “If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:6). 

The great conflict caused by the coronavirus pandemic pits economic interests against community health.  Loss of jobs is a catastrophic consequence of social distancing measures.  However, the alternative leads to death for vulnerable populations.  In such a time, Christians would willingly sacrifice for the greater good, and governments would provide relief for those making the greatest sacrifices.  “Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others” (Philippians 2:4).

Each of the preceding paragraphs could easily become a long chapter in a book, even a book in itself.  But these are examples of how a Christian makes judgments in the midst of the variety of choices before us in the present day.  I venture to add one more example:  gun control.  And I lead with a question:  What is the Biblical precedent for gun rights?  When Jesus says, “Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword,” how does the Christian justify the right to be armed to the hilt?  When Jesus says, “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also . . ,” how does the Christian justify concealed carry? The right to bear arms may be a constitutional provision but it is not a Christian right, and by no means is it a Christian virtue.

As someone once said, “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”  Christians must stand for what is right, life-giving, and loving.  Christians must make judgments in order to be Christlike.  As lines are drawn in the sand there are times when one must choose which side one is on, but with a reminder, also from Jesus who said, “Love your enemies.”  As we choose between the evil and the good, let humility, mercy, and love be our guide in our relationships with those who have, regrettably, chosen wrong.    

    

The Times, They Are A'Changin'

1964.  Fifty-six years ago Bob Dylan came out with a song about changing times.  The 60’s were to be an era of societal change toward a more utopian vision of love, peace and justice for all.  The Baby Boomers protested the war.  Black Panthers organized.  Women’s Liberationists burned their bras.  And I suppose that there were some changes, certainly not utopian, but for the better in most cases.  New laws were passed.  Affirmative Action sought to level the playing field.  Women gained some reproductive freedom. The Viet Nam war ended, ingloriously.  

But the “movement” also fizzled out.  Baby Boomers became bankers and Cadillac drivers.  Black Panthers lost steam.  And bras actually made a comeback.  Change takes time and effort.  And momentum.  For decades the momentum was lost.  Blame it on the human incapacity to sustain focus, or blame it on disco.  Maybe we are all ADHD.  Whatever the case may be, the momentum has returned.

A new generation is protesting alongside some Baby Boomers who retained their idealism.  Black Lives Matter has taken the mantle from their Black Panther parents.  #MeToo has reminded us that women have yet to achieve the status of equals.  And a new cry for justice has arisen from the LGBTQ+ community which even our nation’s Supreme Court has heard.  The times they are a changin,’ indeed.

But with an eye toward the 60’s and wondering if history will repeat itself, we have yet to see if the movements in this particular moment in time will stall out, or whether the momentum will continue toward significant change.  And it is not a foregone conclusion that the changes in the works will be utopian or dystopian.  There are powerful forces that seek to undermine the dormant movements that are now finding their voices.  There are opposing visions of what it means to be a great nation, and that opposition has shown itself to be openly hostile and violent.  We do not all share the same values.

The COVID-19 pandemic has served as a catalyst for change.  The virus has created a flashpoint, throwing into sharp relief the differences in values.  Where the truth lies is often in the gray areas of complexity and mutuality.  However, the present multiple societal crises have led to polarization of opinions as if there can only be two sides to any issue - you’re wrong, and I’m right!

Is the future to be Utopia?  Free health care, education, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  Affordable Housing.  A Living Wage.  Shattered glass ceilings.  Equal Opportunity.  Discrimination protections.  Immigration reform.  Ecologically sustainable practices.  

Is the future Dystopia?  Police states.  Hyper-militarism.  Protectionism.  Isolation.  Fascism.  Will we govern with fear of the “other”?  Will we blame our problems on the scapegoat of the moment?    

I had a recent conversation that reveals the problem in values.  

He said, “Diversity is a problem.” 

I said, “Diversity is a challenge, but is the reality we must embrace.”  

He said, “Diversity is a problem.”     

I said, “Diversity is the future, and is unavoidable.”

He said, “Diversity is a problem.”

I said, “Diversity may make us a better community if we approach it with openness.”

That conversation reminded me of a line by Bruce Hornsby, “Hey, old man, how can you stand to think that way.”

I admit that it is easier to form communities of persons who all look, think and act alike.  As a pastor, one of the greatest challenges I faced was to hold a community together that was ethnically, socio-economically, and educationally diverse.  With a multiplicity of viewpoints and backgrounds, one must field a variety of opinions on how to do everything from what songs to sing in worship to what constitutes the mission of the church.  And when you thrust that dynamic onto a diverse society which does not profess Oneness in Christ it becomes an almost insurmountable challenge.  Almost.  

The thing is, as we listen to voices unlike our own, we learn new stories.  As we hear the songs of different cultures our horizons are widened.  As we hold the hand of sisters whose life-experiences have been dramatically different we develop empathy.  When we engage in relationships with brothers of a different world, our own world expands and our capacity for compassion grows.  

But when we demonize “the other” we engage in the worst form of humanity.  We descend into tribalism and polarization which, I believe, ultimately destroys human community.  

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said that the arc of the universe bends toward justice.  Theologically speaking, the kingdom of God is at hand.  There are obstacles to the consummation of God’s plans for the human experiment, but the arrival of the New Jerusalem is inevitable.  The times, they are a’changin’.  Peace, love, and justice will prevail.  As I once heard Bishop Desmond Tutu say, “The question we must answer is, ‘What side of history do we want to be on’?”   

What Would Mr. Rogers Do?

“Idiot.”

While riding my bicycle recently, a pickup truck passed by and the driver very clearly articulated his opinion of me through his open window.  I didn’t and couldn’t argue that a cyclist has as much right to be on the road as a driver.  I have learned that one can’t argue with three tons of sheet metal from the saddle of an eighteen pound carbon bicycle.  Giving the driver the benefit of the doubt, I suspect he is not a hateful person but simply gave in to a stereotypical response of frustration at how cyclists temporarily hamper vehicle traffic.  

I didn’t take his jibe personally, but it did set me to musing on the ways I have spoken the same word, “idiot,” to refer to certain politicians, or other newsworthy persons, who seem to have acted rashly, unthinkingly or, to put it bluntly, stupidly.  I have found myself in recent years using the “i” word more frequently than I remember in the past.  Are there more ignorant people about these days, or have I become less tolerant and charitable?

All this musing on idiocy has included thoughts on Fred Rogers, of children’s TV, who I believe is one of the greatest individuals in modern history.  While I never watched Mr. Rogers in childhood, and I discounted him as boring while my own children were growing up, I have since paid more attention to who he was and what he sought to accomplish.  I have come to love and respect him, and have sought to emulate him in my own actions, particularly the way in which he gave unfeigned attention to each individual with whom he came into contact.  He demonstrated a depth of empathy that is rare in human relationships.  And while it was popular for a while for Christians to ask, “What would Jesus do?”  I have found myself asking, “What would Mr. Rogers do?”

I suspect he would not call anyone an idiot.  He would understand the childhood trauma, or neglect, that leads to gaps in personal growth.  He would comprehend that bad behavior is often the result of a failure in the nurture of an individual.  My insight into this gracious approach to persons came many years ago in relation to a member of my church who seemed to take a special interest in making my life hell.  He criticized my sermons, my decisions, my vision for the church.  I hated to see him coming into my office because I knew I would have to deal with another gripe session.  He struck me as an angry, hateful man.  In the course of my pastoral work in that church, I eventually learned that his son had died while only in his 20’s, and I began to believe that this father’s anger was directed at God, and not at me.  I began to pray for him, and to see him, not as someone possessed by some demonic force, but stricken with grief and pain.  From that insight forward, I was no longer plagued by my encounters with him. I was able to love him and be a pastor to him, even though his behavior toward me never changed.  I never liked him.  But I could love him.

I have tried this approach with those who I have a tendency to label as idiots.  To try to empathize with the ignorant is not for the faint of heart.  Nor is it easily done.  I lapse.  I try to picture the bully politician as a child who was not well-loved.  I ask, “What would Mr. Rogers do?”  Here I am, sixty-three years old, and I’m still trying to be a decent human being.

On Stupidity

I used to think that ignorance, or stupidity, was a social ill that could be addressed and corrected by education, information, facts, etc.  I have since been convinced that so much ignorance is actually an act of will - a willful refusal to accept what is true.  As such an act of willfulness, ignorance is a sin, with the consequent damage sin brings with it.

Bonhoeffer's observation offers no solution.  I'm not sure there is one.  I suggested in my last blog that the Christian response to the ignorant is grace and mercy, but to offer grace is a sacrifice.  To offer grace to the willfully ignorant is a gift given, expecting nothing in return.  Indeed, the ignorant person will not consider it a gift but his due.  The ignorant person feels entitled, deserving, to whatever good comes her way.  This is why the Christian cannot offer grace with a transactional mindset.  We cannot expect that the offer of grace will necessarily lead to a change in the willfully ignorant.  No, the offer of grace is a sacrifice.  We offer grace not because we expect results.  We offer grace because this is the nature of God.  This is Christlikeness, and this is the only thing that matters.

Of course, grace is to govern our relationship and response to the willfully ignorant.  However, this does not mean we are choosing to be ignorant ourselves.  We can continue to act rationally and ethically in opposition to the ignorant.  They vote.  We vote.  They run for office.  We run for office.  There must be alternatives to ignorance.  We must act in spite of, and in opposition to, ignorance.  We must continue to allow facts to guide our actions in contradiction to the uninformed biases and rants of the ignorant.  

I am uncomfortable with this line of thinking, however.  I realize I am creating a false “us” versus “them” dichotomy, as if I am the arbiter of who qualifies as rational . . . as if I am not ignorant, myself.  In the past I have tried to avoid this kind of dualistic thinking because I see the danger in this kind of judgment.  Jesus warned us about seeing the speck in our neighbor’s eye while refusing to remove the log in our own eye.  So, one must be aware of and accept one’s own ignorance.  To judge another as ignorant can be a serious mistake.  But . . . how can we live without making judgments?  Is it not also a serious mistake to allow ignorance to have its way in the world?  

I take some comfort that Bonhoeffer and I are in agreement.  If I have erred in my judgments, I am in good company.  Ignorance cannot be left unconfronted.  Otherwise, it will be the death of all of us.  

Ignorance Is No Excuse

In my ministry I have attempted to be a pastor to all, whether a member of my church, or a member of the community.  Whether they were agreeable or disagreeable.  Whether their opinions were mine or not.  Whether they were rich or poor.  In other words, I tried to offer grace and respect to everyone.  The theology of pastoral work is the recognition that each person is formed in the image of God.  Or, coming at this from a different angle, each individual is someone for whom Christ died.  As an ordained minister, or as a lay person, we are to acknowledge the reflection of God in each person.  As one popular folk song put it, “The Christ in me greets the Christ in thee.”

To be honest, this has been hard work.  But fruitful.  To love someone who is ornery, or whose opinions are repulsive, is difficult.  But in seeking to understand, or empathize, with someone has helped me to come at issues from different perspectives.  I have learned that someone’s present anger and hostility might be rooted in some past pain and grievance that has never been resolved.  I have discovered that a bully may have not been loved as a child.  Typically, the reason someone may be a difficult character in the present is because they have endured some kind of suffering in the past.  Through my experiences I have learned to be tolerant of others, to sympathize with their weaknesses, and to attempt to love them into wholeness - not always successfully, but worth the effort.

But one of the hardest obstacles to my capacity to love another has been their ignorance.  I used to think that ignorance was something that people couldn’t help - that it was a failure in their education, in their upbringing - a sociological problem.  And though it is anecdotal, my experience has taught me that ignorance is in many ways more intractable, like sin itself.  How else can one explain that ignorance exists not only in the poorly educated, but also in the Ivy League graduate?  Why else would otherwise rational individuals hold opinions that are counter to their own interests?  As one example, who in their right mind would deny the historic efficacy of vaccination in public health, and yet scores of educated people refuse to have their children vaccinated.  Another example, glaciers are retreating at unprecedented rates and polar regions are becoming navigable, yet supposedly intelligent politicians and lobbyists refuse to acknowledge that this might be a problem.

In the criminal justice system, ignorance of the law has never been an excuse leading to acquittal.  Yet in civic affairs, in the running of government, in every day human interaction, ignorance is a constant source of conflict and dispute.  Don’t confuse us with the facts.  Opinions rule the day.  People cut off their noses to spite their faces.  As Bruce Hornsby once sang, “Hey, old man, how can you stand to think that way?”  

As a pastor I have tried to offer grace to the ignorant.  My model for this is Jesus, of course.  As he was being crucified, Jesus extended grace to his killers, “Father, forgive them, because they don’t know what they’re doing.”  To forgive is a recognition that a sin has been committed.  In other words, ignorance is a sin.  A sin that can only be redeemed by grace.  What sticks in my craw, however, is that ignorance leads to suffering for others.  Jesus suffered because of ignorance.  People continue to suffer because of ignorance.  To me, this fact is appalling.  Even infuriating.  But no amount of education or reasoned argument is able to correct ignorance, it seems.  Only grace.  Only forgiveness.  

May God grant me mercy in the presence of ignorance that I may respond with grace.  And may I, unaware of my own ignorance, be more like the repentant Pharisee, asking, “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.”           

Self-Restraint

But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 1 Corinthians 8:9

The apostle Paul was a cheerleader for Christian freedom (Galatians 5:1).  He often made the case in his letters that Christ’s atoning work set us free from the stringencies of the law.  But the freedom that Paul describes is not freedom from responsibility.  Indeed, there is an expectation that Christian freedom leads to direct responsibility for relationships with others.  The defining parameter for Christian freedom is found in the scriptural command, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  (Galatians 5:14)

Thus, love of neighbor provides the guiding principle for our freedom.  We are free to do whatever leads to the good for our neighbor.  John Wesley’s first two General Rules underscore this guiding principle - Do no harm, and do good.  Certainly, Christian freedom guards against self-interest at the expense of the community.  

Our present pandemic crisis serves as an illustration of two juxtaposing expressions of freedom.  There are those who are interpreting their freedom as a license to do as they please regardless of what is best for the community.  Protesters armed with weapons enter a government building in Michigan in order to demonstrate their freedom.  On the other hand, medical professionals from different states voluntarily offer their services to hospitals in New York City to aid their efforts to help patients suffering from COVID-19.  If those two examples express the extremes of a freedom continuum, which of the two appears to be the best example of Christian freedom?  Duh.

Clearly, there are two values that are at war with each other at the present time - the value of health and wellness versus the value of financial well-being.  There are also two kinds of suffering that result if either of those values are sacrificed.  There is no unanimity of opinion on which of these values should have priority, though the majority of Americans have agreed that public health requires the present financial sacrifice.  There are those who disagree quietly.  And there are those who disagree belligerently.    

The apostle Paul’s guidance on our use of freedom is instructive.  We are free, he says, but not if our freedom causes another to stumble (Romans 14:13).  The Christian use of freedom, therefore, is not arrogant.  “It does not insist on its own way . . .” (1 Corinthians 13:5).  Christian freedom is most incarnate when it is expressed for the good of relationships, when it builds up community, when it shows love of the neighbor.  

I am eager for the lifting of restrictions on commerce and the easing of social distancing requirements.  I empathize with those who are suffering the loss of income and jobs and I can not imagine their bewilderment and anxiety.  I do not wish to minimize their worry and pain.  But people are dying from this disease.  More people have died in two months in the U.S. from the coronavirus than died in the many years of the Vietnam War.  At this time how can we use our freedom to do any less than what love requires?

Salvation as a Community Experience

You would think that this period of social isolation would not be such a handicap to an introvert like myself.  I have always needed time and space to be alone.  Self-chosen isolation, which I prefer to call solitude, has been necessary for me to realign my soul so that I might better function as a charitable human being.  While I have never seen myself as the life of the party, I can be a center of social attention and public discourse only to the degree that I can also retreat, restore, and recenter my spirit.

But you can have too much of a good thing.  These days I am longing for a more normal pattern of social engagement.  I miss my family.  I miss my friends.  I miss my church.  While I am taking advantage of the various modern means of staying in touch, there’s no substitute for face-to-face, hand-to-hand, hug-to-hug, encounters.  As St. Paul concludes in 1 Corinthians 13 . . . “now I know in part, then I will know fully, even as I am fully known.”  I think we all hunger to be fully known, and that requires human contact.

I even think our salvation depends on it.  What I mean is that salvation, while often understood as a “right relationship with God,” also requires a “right relationship with other people.”  There is a strain of religious thinking that emphasizes the vertical relationship with God to the neglect of our horizontal relationship with others.  This is unfortunate and, I believe, a distortion of how salvation is to be understood.  The Great Commandment is a two-fold love - of God and neighbor - but in some circles all that seems to matter is one’s relationship with God.  But I am convinced that one can only get one’s heart right with God if one’s heart is also right with others.

A long-ago friend once said that one’s love for God is only as deep as one’s love for one’s neighbor.  Maybe.  Nevertheless, I do believe that salvation is not a private transaction between the self and God, but a corporate, communal transaction - “God so loved the WORLD.”  My salvation is integral to God’s activity to save all of creation.  Therefore, the welfare of my neighbors (near and far) is essential to my personal well-being as it relates to my salvation.

This communal understanding of salvation has practical implications for how we behave during a pandemic.  My decision to keep social distance, to wear a mask, and to comply with health expert directives, is made for the good of the community.  When I overstep these boundaries in the interests of personal freedom I deny my responsibility to the common good.  My unwillingness to sacrifice for the community is an act of selfishness, and ultimately a slap at the face of God’s plan to save the world.

Several years ago a reporter was in the stands at Wallace Wade Stadium at Duke University witnessing the Special Olympics where athletes were competing in track and field events.  During one race as the runners sprinted down their lanes toward the finish line one of the racers stumbled and fell, sprawling on the track.  The other runners, of course, noticed the mishap of this competitor and instead of leaving him behind, turned back to help him up, and with joined hands they all continued the race, crossing the finish line together.  

This story illustrates the way I believe God’s plan of salvation works.  None of us is saved unless all of us are saved.  I’m not sure this is orthodoxy.  And I suppose there might be some logical questions one might ask of such a theological perspective.  But I’m content that this theology comes closer to the heart of Jesus than the flawed narratives of most substitutionary theories of personal salvation.  And, practically speaking, this theology leads to a better world in which to live.  Indeed, it probably gives us a kinder, more inclusive vision of heaven as well.