We went with our housechurch to see An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary which chronicles Al Gore’s quest to raise awareness about global warming. We went to the earlier showing so we could break it down after, over a few drinks at one of our favorite spots. (We didn’t feel like we could legitimately call it “church” if we all just happened to be in the same movie theater at the same time, staring at the screen. Though now that I think about it, many churches do “church” that way…)
One of the cool things about our housechurch is that it’s not all people who agree about things, especially politics. (Believe it or not, Ash and I are the moderates. Well…Ash is, anyway.) But the cooler thing is that politics don’t get in the way of relationships; over many hours, dinners and bottles of wine, true friendship has blossomed, friendship that demands higher allegiance than political proclivities. It’s so money. After the film, we had the sweetest conversation…everyone was respectful and truly listened, and we were able to talk about hard things without beating around the bush. (Oh, man…pun entirely unintended, but now that I’m reading it, I’m thinking Freudian slips are the funniest thing ever.)
The weird thing about this movie is that it’s as much about Al Gore as it is about global warming. For Democrats, this is great. We love Al. We’re still a little mad about Election 2000, so it’s reassuring to see that Al’s doing something constructive with all his free time. The fact that the filmmaker chose to humanize this important and controversial topic by viewing it through the eyes of a former Presidential-hopeful bothers us not at all. In fact, it works: we care about this guy’s passion and journey, and his level of personal commitment to the issue is both compelling and inspiring.
But for those of a more Republican-ish bent, the filmmaker’s choice (and Gore’s eagerness) smacks of political posturing and poor sportsmanship. In a couple scenes, Gore jokes about the election, and in a few others is quite critical of the current Administration’s environmental policy. (I fought a long and hard internal battle not to put those last two words in quotes. Yay, me!) This came off to my more Right-leaning housechurch brethren as graceless and heavy-handed. And I can see their point. If you really think the issue is important, wouldn’t you try to un-politicize it as much as possible in order to appeal to the widest possible audience? Sure, not if you’re Michael Moore…but there’s only one of him. (And some in the reading audience are thanking the Good Lord right now for breaking the mold.)
This is my beef with the rash of progressive documentaries which are flooding America’s movie screens. They raise very important points about American society, culture and politics, but for anyone who hasn’t already bought into their agenda, they seem like one-sided polemical propaganda that enjoys the whining just a bit too much to be credible. And that sucks. Films in popular culture which address current issues have the potential to be conversation-starters between people of all political stripes…but if no one with different stripes than the filmmaker bothers to see the movies, conversation is dead in the water, and everybody goes home feeling justified and pissed…a combination that pretty much guarantees partisan polarization in perpetuity.
My beef aside, this film is worth seeing. The parts (comprising the majority of screen-time) in which Al presents the scientific rationale for and implications of global warming are riveting. He’s great at making complex concepts accessible without being condescending. In fact, Gore’s respect for his audience’s intelligence is the thing he’s most got going for him, and for the documentary. You won’t feel dumb after seeing it, which is always a step in the right direction.
I’ve heard Internet rumblings among those Dems who’ve seen the film (and the editor’s Oscar-worthy efforts to portray Gore as a charismatic public speaker) expressing the hope that Gore will run again in ‘08. I think it’s the worst idea ever, especially if he really feels passionately about this issue. If he runs, it will confirm the theory that this movie is just a vehicle to revive his waning political career. And care for God’s creation is more important than that. After seeing the movie, I want to believe it’s more important to him, too. But we’ll see.
Very interesting review Aly. I haven’t seen the documentary yet myself, so I can’t comment. What I did enjoy was how you addressed the issue of documentaries coming out with a political bent and how that takes away from the issue they’re supposedly trying to address. Keep the issue separate and you’ll find a lot more people will watch it.
I don’t remember who said it, so I’m going to take credit for it: if you choose your agenda over your story, you will fail at both. True for DaVinci Code, true for documentaries, true for every single TBN special ever released.
That aside - it’s on the netflix cue, right in between “Tron” and “Syriana” (Why yes, I am in charge of the netflix cue, why do you ask?). I’m looking forward to seeing it, if only to rewind and fastfoward the part where Manhattan falls into the sea, and our home in Burbank becomes beachfront property.
Um, hum, the only problem with that in THIS particular case is that “global warming” is automatically a highly partisan issue, so a pretense that it isn’t won’t be especially credible, either. Like this: you simply can’t make a “pro-choice” movie that isn’t partisan, try though you might.
Have you read “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton? If you don’t want to read the novel, read the afterword… but the novel is a cracking good story (much better than Da Vinci coce), while still being based info-wise on solid research, both into the “science of global warming”, and also into the “sociology of people who believe in global warming”.
Main point: global warming may be happening, a little, or it may not… but if it is, it is simply impossible to show that it’s due to human activity. The other variables in play in climate modeling are all so much greater than human activity (the few that are really understood, at least… who can evaluate the rest?) that no one can really even hazard a good guess. But whatever effect humans have had, it’s minimal in comparison to the biggies…. like the SUN, volcanic and geo-thermal disturbance, etc.
Krakatoa put more particulate matter into the atmosphere in one “big bang” than the entire sum of human industrial and transportation activity, EVER.
Re: CO2 “pollution”, there is any obvious counterbalance, even if human activity is the main reason for the moderate CO2 rise in this century… if it happened. The counterbalance (not present on other planets) is plants. Our plants EAT CO2… give ‘em more… they’ll grow faster… and put out more O2 for us to breath… think of the ecosystem as having builtin CO2 scrubbers.
Ice cores show CO2 concentrations have been greater at earlier times… and obviously, runaway global warming didn’t happen, or we wouldn’t be here.
See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa#The_1883_eruption
“The 1883 eruption ejected more than six cubic miles (25 cubic kilometres) of rock, ash, and pumice [1], and generated the loudest sound ever historically reported — the cataclysmic explosion was distinctly heard as far away as Perth in Australia (approx. 3100 km/1900 mi), and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius (approx. 4800 km/3000 mi).”
“In the year following the eruption, global temperatures were lowered by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius on average. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.”
So, if global warming gets to be a real problem, we know what to do. Let’s just drop a few nukes down a few volcanos… the resulting eruptions oughta cool it right down.
Seriously: if the best puny humans can do is raise the temperature about a degree in a century, we’re pikers compared to the reverse effect of Krakatoa style events…. let alone variations in the SUN, etc.
Touchstone for the partisanship of your beliefs in this area: I’ve read two books making the case FOR global warming, and sat through two or three other movies (haven’t seen Al’s) making the case. Now, if you believe in global warming caused by human activity, and you haven’t done the same (re: books and movies making the opposite case), then your commitment is ideological and partisan… so Al’s movie is a definitely a home run for you. But I doubt it has any new science in it.
Phil: Yep, I’ve read Crighton’s book. (If you click the link on the word “controversial,” you’ll see that I even included him in this post.) You’re right, it is much better than DVC…as fiction goes.
Yep, I’ve also tried to do my due diligence and become informed on the issue. While I’m sure I still have loads to learn, so far I haven’t seen compelling evidence that human-induced global warming is a bunch of hooey. And many people on both ends of the ideological/political spectrum agree. It’s disingenous to compare the relatively mild partisanship of global warming with the high partisanship of abortion.
As much as I’d love (not at all, actually, since this post isn’t even about global warming) to have a knock-down, drag-out debate about whether or not human activity has dire implications for the environment, I just don’t have the heart for it. If you read the part of this post about friendship and honest, respectful dialogue, it may become clear to you that I have little interest in being right for its own sake (on my best days), especially when dialoguing with friends. It’s empty and dissatisfying, and ultimately accomplishes nothing. I also have little interest in engaging in “respectful dialogue” and then being called an ignorant liberal lemming who never bothers to do her homework, and also has bad taste in footwear. (You didn’t say it in so many words, but you are not subtle in your implications. Especially about the footwear. I can read between the lines.)
The difference between debate and conversation is that the point of debate is to win and the point of conversation is strengthened relationships and mutual understanding. (These will sound like warm, fuzzy, gooey words to some, I suppose. But I think Jesus digs them.) You have to care about someone to have a conversation. I realize that this forum (blog) is perhaps not the best venue for conversation — it rather lends itself to debate — but we’re all semi-intelligent, and I think with a little effort we can make it work. Maybe we can start by assuming people with different points of view are not uninformed, recalcitrant idiots and write accordingly.
Well, it\’s supposed to be 104 at my house tomorrow. That\’s pretty warm.
It snowed almost a foot total at my house this last winter. Chilly.
“partisan polarization in perpetuity”
Probably one of the finest prog-rock band names in the history of man. Thanks, Ally.
“Maybe we can start by assuming people with different points of view are not uninformed, recalcitrant idiots and write accordingly.”
Bang. I’ll have to remember that the next time I am feeling particularly argumentative.
“so far I haven’t seen compelling evidence that human-induced global warming is a bunch of hooey.”
Wrong standard. What’s required is compelling evidence that global warming IS human induced, which would require the specific removal of the other contributors from the equation as major factors. Measurements of the sun’s output haven’t been made for long enough to detect changes this small. Sure, there’s indirect evidence that it’s varied over time… but that sort of evidence does not excel at detecting changes this small.
You can’t prove the negative, and you aren’t required to.
Hey Aly, I do not mean to hurt feelings, and I’m almost never trying to be subtle… as you have pointedly observed previously. But when I use the word “you” or “yours” or “you’re” in a post, I may or may not be specifically speaking to YOU, but may be using the terms for the generic third person. This is true even when I’m responding to one of your posts. I actually suspected that YOU personally HAD read several sources on the topic… but that most of the readers of your post probably had not… though I supposed this particular group may just happen to be wildly well informed on every possible issue we might discuss.
“relatively mild partisanship of global warming”… you’re kidding, right?
Since the topic of your post WAS (I thought) about the interaction of partisanship, “honest idealism”, and manner of content presentation, I thought it appropriate to mention that a characteristic of partisanship is failure to actually learn what the other side says.
Don’t buy real estate next to volcanos… I expect that some of them will be taken by eminent domain, and detonated in about 100 years. On the other hand, somebody may figure out how to get geothermal energy from them… in which case that real estate will prove to have been a fantastically fine investment.
RE: the “tone” of writing in blogs. To be honest, I just don’t have time to sit and puzzle over the least possible offensive way to write. I just crank it out. To me, it’s the thoughts, facts and analysis that matter. We’re all grown ups… well, the rest of you are. I still play cops and robbers with my kids.
BTW… as I read the book, Jesus was the very master of the zinger. I see VERY little gentle, careful, “don’t wanna hurt anybody’s feelings now” kind of stuff. He had a point of view. He didn’t mask it, or pretend to feel less strongly than He did. Maybe that’s why there are so many scholarly works that try to deal with “the hard sayings of Jesus”.
Personally, I really like it when people just let me know where they’re coming from ideologically. Then I can adjust my filter/input validation routines accordingly.
Phil, I think you’re being a bit selective about the qualities of Jesus’ communication style. You’re right, he didn’t pussyfoot around when truth needed to be spoken…but he also took a LOT of time and care to build relationships so that when hard sayings needed to be said, his friends and followers could hear and trust him. The exceptions, of course, were his interactions with the religious leaders, who had no interest in a relationship and tried everything they could think of to shut him up…but I think there are very few in this little virtual community who would qualify for a parallel role. Yes, Jesus was fearless…but he was also kind.
I’m not asking you to “sit and puzzle over the least possible offensive way to write.” I’m asking you to sit and puzzle over how to be kind. Dude, you’re not a computer — even with all your talk of “filter/input validation routines,” you can’t fool me. You’re a human being, designed in God’s image to commune with Him and other Image-bearers. This blog is one of the places where communion of that nature can take place, but only when we all realize that people are on the other end of ideas, people who are trying the best they know how to connect the dots about how to live well in the Way of Jesus.
When I write a post (like this one) about my dismay over widespread political polarization (within and without the church) and my joy that God-centered relationships can overcome that polarity, I’m trying to connect the dots, not make a case for why my pole is right. When I write a post about economics, wealth and poverty, I’m trying to connect the dots between how the Body of Christ’s mission can be understood in light of these ideas, how we haven’t done so well in the past, and how we can do better in the future. When I write a post about abortion, I’m trying to connect the dots between the murder of the unborn and the redemption of the world. When I write about things like this…well, I’m not really connecting any dots. That’s just silly.
I write at Addison Road because I’m trying to connect the dots (and occasionally make my friends laugh), not because I need a soapbox. I need a community of people striving after Jesus, trying to connect their own dots, to help me. That help may come in the form of hearty affirmation (always welcome! Also, money will not be refused.), constructive criticism or gentle rebuke, but the motive behind all of these responses remains the same: a challenge to live more closely aligned with the will of God in the world.
So here’s where I throw down the gauntlet: Will you help me? I need your thoughts, facts and analyses, Phil. Your considerable intelligence and unvarnished candor can help me connect the dots, if your motivation is to challenge me and others here at AddRd live well in the Way of Jesus, and to do the same yourself.
Yeah, Phil, you could say all that.
Or, you could just say, “I get you, Aly. I’ll try to be more sensitive.” and shut up for a while so that the people you’ve verbally shat on can mentally regroup.
I’m sorry, guys, this is a crap way to deal with anything - shutting up for so long and then coming online and blowing my stack - but this sort of attitude is why I took an open forum vacation in the first place. Obviously my temper can’t handle it well at all. I’m sorry…
Cerise
GENTLE rebuke, Morph. But thanks for the support. (And it is nice to have you back, blown stack or not.)
Aly, my friend, you’ll have to educate me. Don’t worry… i can take it.
How, exactly, was my post unkind? Be very specific, with quotes of exact text I wrote, and your analysis of it, including possible interpretations, and then the one you think I meant.
Aly, YOU have “input/filter validation routines”. I’m sure you know that. And I’m sure you know that people who don’t have them are prey for any slick talk that comes along. I can’t understand why that phrase would bother you. Would you be happier if I said “discernment” instead? Not an exact match, but considerable overlap, I think.
Your last paragraph seems to question my motives. I won’t defend them, not being all that certain just what they are. I know what I’d LIKE them to be… but I have a good deal of humility about my self-knowledge. In any case, I don’t know that you’d approve of what I’d LIKE my motives to be.
You present yourself as being very certain what your motives are. I’m glad for your self-knowledge, and can only hope to achieve it myself someday. In the meantime, it will be best for you not to look at my motives for writing anything I may write, and to deal with the substance of it, instead. Or not, as the mood strikes. Feel free to ignore me.
In the meantime, I tend to focus on things I can actually talk about… which are largely external to me, and to you, and to anyone else. They are things we can all see, if we look, though we’ll see different views of them, of course.
We’ll have to “agree to disagree” about Jesus’ communication style, I suspect. Those “hard sayings of Jesus” I mentioned were largely spoken to crowds of relative strangers.
Morphea, proper grammar is in order, even when scatalogical insult is being, uh, excreted. I believe it would be better to say “people upon whom you’ve verbally shat”, or something along those lines. I know, dangling prepositions have become all the rage…
BTW, I have to agree that God centered relationships can overcome political polarization. This is not, however, by some kind of dialectic “let’s all see where we can agree, and then just ignore everything else, or average out our perspectives”, or whatever.
Extreme example, to make the point: a totalitarian and a (small d) democrat, who each become God centered in their relationships, will not be able to “share in community” until the totalitarian becomes more of a democrat.
All perspectives aren’t correct. Some have no single element of correctness. Polarization is the very name of the game in the fight between good and evil. Some people who are Christians believe things that are diametrically opposed to things believed by other Christians, and these are conflicts that are not resolved by “communication style” or “building relationships”, if those phrases are meant to suggest that someone should pretend not to believe what they do.
Polaraization can be bad, of course. It can also be a sign that people are paying attention to what other people actually say, and take seriously their own faith commitments.
Phil, you said:
“Some people who are Christians believe things that are diametrically opposed to things believed by other Christians, and these are conflicts that are not resolved by ‘communication style’ or ‘building relationships’, if those phrases are meant to suggest that someone should pretend not to believe what they do.”
The phrases “communication style” and “building relationships” are not meant suggest that someone should pretend not to believe what they do. They are meant to suggest that God-centered relationship almost always precedes change of belief, and this precedence is, in fact, the way it’s s’posed to happen. When Jesus called his disciples, he said, “Follow me!” not “Let me convince you with some well-reasoned arguments why following me is the right thing to do.” It was only within the context of living, eating, sleeping, traveling, often getting it wrong and sometimes getting it right with Jesus and each other that the disciples began to believe right.
To your example of the totalitarian and the (small d) democrat and their inability to share in community, I say “Whyever not?” The seeds of belief change for the totalitarian will grow in God-centered relationship with the democrat — not the inverse, in which relationship grows from the soil of right belief. That’s tribalism, not Christianity.
You also said:
“I have to agree that God centered relationships can overcome political polarization. This is not, however, by some kind of dialectic ‘let’s all see where we can agree, and then just ignore everything else, or average out our perspectives’, or whatever.”
I completely agree (not least because averaging involves math, and math is something I don’t do if there is a qualitative option). The solution to polarizing differences isn’t in ignoring them or compromising to the point where we have nothing left but an insipid and ineffectual Gospel. God-centered relationships aren’t warm and fluffy and Downy-soft; they are gritty and tenacious and anchored to a bedrock faith that’s convinced the Spirit might just be bigger than our other faith commitments (to such things as totalitarianism or democracy), and we’d do better to trust Him than ourselves. God-centered relationships listen to the outrageous ideas of other stumbling, fallen people and respond, “Wow. That’s…crazy. I want to smack your face into next week because of how crazy that is. But instead, I’ll ask why you think such a maniacal idea is good, because since I know you and you’re not evil incarnate, I’m guessing your motives involve trying to make sense of and find your place in a wacky, effed-up world, and if I smack your face into next week, you’ll be even more confused. And also, I would miss your face, it being in next week and all.”
I’m carping on motives because motives matter, way more than good arguments. (BTW, I didn’t mean to represent myself as supremely self-actualized and Zen, if that’s how I came across…that is incorrect, and hilarious.) I get that motives are tricky things, that most of us most of the time are only half-aware what our motives truly are. But that doesn’t change the fact that relationships (the only trump card to polarization’s unbeatable hand, remember) depend on them. Relationships aren’t built on being right; they are built on intending the best for the other. The “relationship” that good arguments offer is based entirely on personal comfort (it’s so nice not to be bothered with people who are wrong) and ideological confirmation (everyone I like agrees with me, so I must be right), and is money-back-guaranteed to perpetuate the kind of disunity which grieves the Spirit. The relationship offered by loving motives, however, seeks to understand the differences of opinion and belief through the eyes of the other person, rather than view the other person through the distorting lens of the differences. (And since you asked about specific instances of unkindness, I’d offer the snarky “sociology of people who believe in global warming” as an example of viewing the other person through the lens of differences in opinion. As an alternate interpretation, you might be implying that those who believe in global warming are remarkably thoughtful and well-adjusted…but I kinda think not.)
I don’t want to ignore you, Phil. i want to understand where you’re coming from, which is the only way I can understand what you’re saying. My input/filter validation routines are short-circuiting because they’re programmed in the binary language of brain AND heart, and you’re only giving me zeros.
Aly,
Has anyone recently mentioned that you are one scary good writer?
Well, you are.
One of the downfalls of blogdom is that it turns everyone into writers…but not really at all. Reading your posts is like fine dining after a month of In-N-Out.
Keep it up my dear.
Thanks, June. That is very high praise from someone who’s no slouch herself.
Hey Aly,
I would have to say you’ve tapped the core of our difference in perspectives.
As I’ve mentioned before, you and I use language in very different ways, to different ends… no news there. Our differences in approach to things goes way beyond that, however. You seem to think that little is so true that it justifies conflict with an opposing perspective, if that brings turmoil to “God centered relationships”. I do not believe “God centered” relationships (which you would presumably characterize as “conflict reducing”) are possible without being correct about some basic things in the first place. My list of basic things may be longer than yours.
Relationships are NOT the core of things. All kinds of folks, who believe all sorts of bad-news things, have perfectly nice relationships. They love each other. They may say that they are practicing God-centered relationships. And who are we to judge? Surely you don’t want the job. (Though we must evaluate.) Seeking after truth, however uncomfy it may be at times, is the pre-requisite for God centered relationships. The limit of “God centered-ness” in the relationship will be the limit of truth-seeking practiced by both. God-centered relationships are a reflection of the work of God-centered people, who seek truth and right understanding. There aren’t many God-centered relationships that aren’t based on the individuals’ commitments to “rightness” as a foundation.
I would contend that change in belief (and especially the WILLINGNESS to change belief, since none of us has it down) is necessary for God centered relationships to happen… not vica versa. It takes at least two to tango… and two people with large variance in “God centered-ness” are not going to have a “God centered relationship” to a greater degree than the person with the lesser “God centered-ness” can tolerate. There’s a nice phrase for this: it’s called being “unequally yoked”. The phrase was invented for a reason, and applies to any relationship with this imbalance, not just marriage.
The story of Jesus calling the disciples is wonderful… but I am not possessed of supernatural insight into strangers, nor do I stand at the end of a creative epoch aiming straight at me and my life/death as the culmination of millenia of prophecy. I’m just me. Being the, uh, humble person that I am, I can’t KNOW if I personally am more “God centered” than someone else (try to contain your mirth… or at least turn down the mike on your computer). One of the methods I’ll have to employ when I’m evaluating others is whether or not they seem “right” to me about basic things that I think God has revealed to me (and us). Will you seek a “God centered relationship” with an ax murderer who is unrepentant? As usual, an extreme example, to make the point. I will not be seeking “God centered relationships” with people who’s present belief system makes that impossible. I can try to minister to them, etc., but that’s about it. And a good deal of that “ministry” will be trying to shake their present belief system (not only by argument/discussion!), so they’ll be willing to listen to something else. Good precedent here in the OT… my priests against your priests.
BTW… the disciples called by Jesus seem to have had quite a bit of “right belief” already. Jesus didn’t call Hindus, Zoroastrians, Caesar-worshippers, etc., and then move them into monotheism with the gentleness of his spirit. He picked Jews who would recognize Him, eventually, as the culmination of the prophecies they’d already learned. Sure, they were way off on lots of things… but he had a distinct place to start.
I suspect you haven’t known enough totalitarians. Otherwise, you’d know that they have a gun to your head, and are not interested in “relationship”, except with them on top.
It is not “tribalism” to put right belief before “God centered relationship” as a priority. It is the response of a human being who believes that there are two revelations, specific and general, and we are responsible to seek truth from both of them. It WOULD be tribalism absent any revelation… then “God centered relationship” would be all we’d have to discover any kind of truth, which would likely be a set of tribalisms.
Adam and Eve, presumably, had a perfect “God centered relationship”. Who ELSE did they know? WHAT else did they know? It would have been good if either or both of them had thought to ask the serpent, “So, how do YOU know that? And what will God say if we ask him about what you said? And by the way, what is this “good” and “evil” that we’ll know about if we eat the [your favorite fruit here]? Hey, did God make you, too? Did God say that YOU could eat from the tree?” Being RIGHT, and thinking clearly, would have made all the difference. Remember my line about easy prey for slick talkers?
“I’m carping on motives because motives matter, way more than good arguments.”
Well, actually… they don’t matter nearly as much. I don’t much care if my surgeon gets a secret sadistic thrill out of cutting me, if her work saves my life. I want her to be RIGHT. I don’t much care if a theologian is on a power trip and thinks she’s the reincarnation of Isaiah (and I probably won’t know, anyway), as long as she DOES make good arguments using sound methods on sound sources. I won’t be reading her mind… I’ll be reading her book. Being RIGHT matters, enormously.
The point here: people’s motives for stressing “Christian community” and “God centered relationships” are no less questionable than people’s motives for stressing the necessity of correct belief and action. That’s because everyone’s motives are questionable.
You wrote: “But that doesn’t change the fact that relationships (the only trump card to polarization’s unbeatable hand, remember) depend on them. Relationships aren’t built on being right; they are built on intending the best for the other. ”
Just about the worst things that have ever been done to me have been by people who said they loved me and intended the best for me, both personally and in “Christian community”. The problem is they were wrong about some important things. Relationship couldn’t absorb that wrongness. That wrongness led to behaviors and perspectives that caused pain to all involved, and not the “good, growing pain” kind, either.
Relationships ARE built on being right. They can’t be built on anything else, because that rightness IS the God-centeredness, fresh from the God of Truth.
Polarization is not “the unbeatable hand”. Hang around a while. One side usually wins. Big. You need to hope it’s the right side. Both sides of a “polarized debate” are rarely equally right and equally wrong. It IS possible to shame even a partisan into a realization of the weakness of a perspective, if you’ve got the goods to do it. (And I have to say: if you can’t do that, perhaps you should rexamine your own positions on things….) And, more powerfully, the onlookers of a debate between poles learn something about both sides, and make their own decisions. (Generally speaking: anger is a sign you’re losing, and know it.) Truly polarized stasis is a rare equilibrium, and doesn’t last long.
“The “relationship” that good arguments offer is based entirely on personal comfort (it’s so nice not to be bothered with people who are wrong) and ideological confirmation (everyone I like agrees with me, so I must be right), and is money-back-guaranteed to perpetuate the kind of disunity which grieves the Spirit. ”
Um, no. Good arguments can hurt. (There would have been no discussion without an opposing perspective, no?) Good arguments can be like scraping away dead tissue to allow healing. But you seem to believe that no one has the courage to change minds about things that matter, and that relationships aren’t built on common recognition of basic truths.
I can think of all kinds of unity that grieve the Spirit far more than the verbal pugilistics of fellow truth seekers.
I’m just confused: do you really think I derive “personal comfort” from these discussions?
To pick an example: abortion was a polarizing issue before the Chumpreme Court got involved in 1972 and 1973. One side “won”… for awhile. But facts are stubborn things. I think the tide is close to turning, not just in law, but in public perception, and it is not primarily because of “relationships”, it’s because of pictures and videos, and carefully argued extensions of those media by one side of the debate. I have never seen a pro-choice spokesperson argue for free access to abortion at any time in pregnancy (current law for most USA population, sadly) using photos and videos of babies in the womb.
There are people in my extended family with whom I have very close, “God centered” relationships. I am Christian. They are. We pray together, love each other, support each other in very many ways, and have great respect for each other in very many ways. But some of them have been “polarized” into the pro-choice camp for some years. Our “God centered relationship” did not move them out of it. But, for some of them, the ice is melting… and it is seeing children in the womb that has done it. Just “hearing” the facts of fetal development seemed insufficient, though the fact that they wanted to argue with me about it seems to suggest some basic discomfort level. They had to SEE the photos/videos… and that has turned some around. (I know, some may not see this as a move to greater “God centered-ness”, but I do.)
I suspect the Spirit would be greatly grieved if we all agreed on the pro-choice position.
BTW, if you want to blame someone for “being snarky”, blame Michael Crichton, not me… I merely described (pretty accurately, I think) what his main thrusts were in his book. Should I wonder at your motives for assuming my description of his work is somehow unkind to someone? Simpler to assume you didn’t read carefully. He had nothing much to say about the “sociology of people who DON’T believe in primarily human induced global warming”. In any case, would you have me believe that you don’t harbor opinions regarding the sociology (and psychology!) of groups with which YOU disagree? C’mon now… tell the truth.
Be fair, Aly… I never suggested that modern liberal democracy (in the old sense of the term) was itself a faith commitment. It does seem to be the political system that comes closest to recognizing the imago dei.
“My input/filter validation routines are short-circuiting because they’re programmed in the binary language of brain AND heart, and you’re only giving me zeros.”
Aly, I just don’t have a clue what this means. Do you really subscribe to some kind of brain/heart dichotomy? I could not give you more heart if I tried… and I’m wounded (I say, deeply wounded, cut to the very bone, bleeding internally, totally useless to the Red Cross) that you do not sense it. Would I bother with all this for the sake of some passionless intellectual conversation without implication for life?
This stuff matters to me. For lots of reasons. I do not see, however, a way to evaluate perspectives in print “from the heart”. Words mean things.
You’re concern was expressed to understand “where I’m coming from”. It’s pretty simple. Lots of Christians appear to believe things that I do not. I seem to believe things some of them do not. Were these merely theological niceties, I’d smile and go on with the conversation. Sadly, however, these are all too often “rubber meets the road” kinds of issues. Our differences have real life and death consequences. (Not code: I mean both life and death on Earth, and life and death in the hereafter.)
I want to be very clear. Christianity, to me, is primarily a revelation-based belief system. Both kinds of revelation matter. The Wesleyan quadrilateral of scripture, tradition, reason and experience is pretty close to the correct balance of inputs, in my judgment, in evaluating the revelations’ implications for our lives. “God centered relationships” will be a feature of our experience, but will exist largely as a symptom of our getting the other things RIGHT, not as either a primary means or a primary end.
And now that I’ve done my ideological duty for the day, I’m gonna go build a shed for my mother-in-law, who loves me dearly. Then I’m gonna put a bunch of her stuff in it. And she will smile upon me and give me lemonade.
You know, Phil…I think I DID assume that these discussions are, for you, for the sake of passionless intellectual conversation. Will you forgive me for my lack of grace, and for not practicing what I so stridently preach? I’m officially changing my name to The Didactic Ass. (Wait…I think that’s already taken.)
I agree… this idea of relationship v. knowledge IS the core of difference in our perspectives. I believe, too, that Christianity is revelation-based, but (if I can parse words for a minute) I think the phrase “belief system” misses the mark. “Belief system” indicates an intellectual assent to a list of truths, while the revelation of God through Jesus is about a relationship with the Truth (that would be Jesus…who is a Person, not a belief) and the ongoing relationship of that Truth through us with the world (that would be everybody). Signing one’s name at the bottom of the Official List of Right Beliefs (good argument) is not Christianity; seeking God (motivation) through Jesus for the good of God’s world is.
Of course, scripture, tradition, reason and experience all play a part in that seeking — and I never want to diminish the importance of any of them — but lumping relationships into “experience” misses the point entirely: relationship IS the point; it’s at the heart of what’s being sought when we seek God. Relationship IS the “primary end,” as well as the “primary means” by which that end is met. Love truly is the “most excellent way.”
I don’t suggest (as you presume) that this understanding of relationships will be “conflict-reducing.” In fact, I assume that conflict in relationships is inevitable and unavoidable. But I also believe that if loving relationships are the ultimate goal (and with my understanding of the Gospel, I’m suggesting they are), the onus is on us to nurture relationship in the midst of conflict, to do both the hard work of “working out our salvation” AND the hard work of “loving our enemies.” (I might even suggest that a key to the former lies in the latter.) Let me also add that by “loving relationships” and “loving our enemies,” I don’t mean walking around on eggshells or pretending we don’t believe what we believe. Love, as Paul has it, “rejoices with the truth,” which has a mid- to high-probability of inducing strains of conflict. But patience, hope and perseverance are in there, too, so I don’t think we are left with the option of giving up.
I think the rest of your comment is mostly backing up the idea that knowledge trumps relationship, so I think I’ll spare you and anyone else who has stuck with us this far a point-by-point refutation, since this comment here basically just says, “Um…no.” That is NOT to say that knowledge is unimportant; to the contrary, knowledge kicks ass (not to get all interlecktural on ya). But as big a fan as Paul was of it, he seems unbothered when he writes “…where there is knowledge, it will pass away” and glad indeed that “…these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”
I should clarify the last paragraph: “Um…no” should read “For brain surgery, yes, knowledge over relationship any day of the week. But when it comes to following Jesus, um…no.” (Knowledge especially kicks ass when waving sharp objects around someone’s soft tissue.)
BTW, I hope you had a great time with your mother-in-law’s smile and the lemonade. That sounds really nice.
The lemonade WAS nice. Today my brother-in-law wired her ceiling fan wrong. So the fan moves, but the lights don’t come on. Oops. Sounds like some faculty meetings I’ve attended.
I’m contemplating my relationships with the ceiling fan. Perhaps I should ask if I’ve offended it? I think I’ll give it one more chance… after that, I’ll just electrocute it and try another one.
Aly, one thing I can’t really communicate to you is just how suspicious I am of “human knowledge”, of any stripe whatsoever. I see nearly everything as being conditional and incomplete. I may not always SOUND or READ that way, when I’m pursuing a particular point… but it’s the core of my approach to practically everything. I’m the guy who thinks the harmonic minor scale is bunch of bull excrescence, remember? I have days where I doubt the core assumptions of my own discipline, and wonder how many I’ve led astray down through the years. You should hear me slandering the professoriate. Too many of them are plumbers with diplomas covering their rears… and that’s a slander on plumbers, who are generally honorable, competent people, who shower.
Here’s the beef: like our relationships with others, human knowledge (including what knowledge we have of the divine) is the only game in town. We have only a few tools to employ, really fundamental things like words with clear meanings (including the ability to invent new ones when really necessary), the laws of non-contradiction and logic, a few others.
I would draw an enormous distinction between our relationships with God, and our relationships with each other. I’ll try to make that clearer, since I know many will feel that the “insofar as you’ve done it to the least of these” comments in Revelations create some identity between human-human and human-divine comments.
Yes, the phrase “belief system” may seem to imply a “list of truths”, although it also carries an implication of truths that are inter-related and conceptually self-consistent. However, a “revelation based belief system” seems to me quite a different level of thing, having all the characteristics of “belief system”, but quite a bit more.
The notion of “belief” implies a certain impersonalness. That is, truth is over there, and you happen to believe it. A “belief system” is still pretty impersonal, though far more sophisticated in stressing relationships between things, relationships between the relationships, etc.
A “revelation based belief system”, however, requires a Revealer, One who KNOWS, and One who IS. What is being revealed is what is necessary for us (the revealees?) to be in good relationship with the Revealer. Regarding that revelation, we’ll have both personal (relational) knowledge of the Revealer’s work in us, AND objective, impersonal knowledge about just what that revelation actually says, does and means. These two things will inform each other in various ways.
Stress the knowledge part too much, and you fall into some form of Gnosticism. Stress the relational part too much, and you fall into about a dozen other heresies, mostly taking the position that “it means what it FEELS like it means to US”, making human relationships and desires the measure of truth. Deconstruction is not new. It’s very, VERY old (the garden, to be precise, when the serpent deconstructed God), and flows from an idolatrous use of human relationships and social interactions as the measure of things, along with exceedingly slippery use of language.
Aly, of COURSE loving relationships are crucial evidence that we’ve got it right. You will not find a scrap I’ve ever written that says otherwise. Of COURSE we need to be able to express disagreement with minimal animus or negative assumption about a brother or sister.
But you want “politics [that] don’t get in the way of relationships”, as you said in the post that begins this thread. So do I, in my weaker moments. I would purely love to believe that I can just set it all aside and fellowship together with any believer, and it all really doesn’t matter that much.
That, however, is a lie, one of Satan’s foulest. Politics is not some artificial game played by a few seekers of power (though some of them act like they believe it is). Politics is the chief means of organizing human affairs. It is as much a part of the environment as the atmosphere and the oceans.
From my point of view, Christian political perspectives respect the imago dei (chiefly the ability and responsibility of humans to choose for good or evil, not shared by any member of the animal kingdom) and reflect the fact that we’re all fallen, every one. Christian political perspectives are not utopian, and do not seek a perfect society, for such is incompatible with the first principle. I could go on at some length… but you can probably guess, and I won’t waste your time, unless you ask for more specifics.
The point: there are political perspectives that are distinctly un-Christian. Many of them are popular in the good ‘ole USA, sadly. To believe otherwise is simply to deny that there is a difference between good and evil. I do not condemn Christians who harbor these perspectives, in ignorance of their provenance or effect (that is, I cannot judge, though I must evaluate… as must you), but I reserve the right to argue, and try to inform and educate, as best I can.
In the meantime, it challenges every aspect of my being to sit in worship with a person who has had an abortion, sees no ill in it, and would have one again if desired. I try to imagine Paul worshipping next to her. I do not think he would have remained silent. How much worse to have to worship next to the abortionist who deems herself Christian?
This example may not be compelling to the reader. (I feel pain in saying this.) So fit into my example your personal favorite major sin which is politically untouchable in current culture. Now imagine that person is sitting in your house-church or care-group, and telling you that her politics should not be an issue to you, since she’s just another Christian, like you, but whose politics are different.
To believe in “politics [that] don’t get in the way of relationships” is to deny the distinction between good and evil, in the end.
Not to get too heavy about it: there are certainly plenty of political issues where the lines are less clear cut, where a desired end may be pragmatically sought without one approach or the other being demonized. Having said that, there are curiously common constellations of political perspective in our culture. Some perspectives that may be innocently held just seem to go together with others that flatly produce and promote evil results, using evil means.
What got all this started: I happen to view a certain kind of eco-enviornmentalism as something which seems innocent in its own “political habitat”, on the surface, anyway, but which partakes of a view of human beings on the earth that is fundamentally at odds with the scripture, and which allies itself politically with many of the very worst elements in modern political life. Scratch a dictator, and you’ll likely find a Kyoto accord signatory. Guess which former Communist dictator is an enviro-biggie? You get the idea…
I do not see how it is possible to know whether or not you’re “following Jesus” relationally without clear understanding of Jesus’ teachings. The knowledge HAS to come first… otherwise, you’re just doing what feels good out of minimal understanding, and calling it the leading of Jesus in your life.
Aly, it’s never necessary to apologize for playing hardball with me. Shoot, I played Little League… a truly hilarious undertaking for a person who sees out of one eye and has no depth perception. (If you’re curious, my right eye is the one that works… which is ruled, of course, by the left hemisphere of the brain… and you can make of all that what you will.) Remind me to tell you the story of how I caught a fly ball with my forehead sometime. (Yeah, that does explain a lot.)
Blessings upon you.
Harmonicminor, you are awesome. I’m hooked.