Better Communication Needed???

Back in seminary, in the late 60s, one of the by-words of the conflict between a "progressive" seminary staff and a conservative classis (Reformed Church in America) was "communication" - i.e. the need to communicate better.

I remember saying: "Heck, no. We've already "communicated," and have done so rather well."

The classis knew full well what the faculty generally believed and taught about Scripture and its interpretation, theology and its world views, what ministry is all about, and how to be good pastors.

And the seminary, in turn, knew full well what the classis believed and taught about all of the above.

The conflict wasn't for want of communication, but rather because communication was clear, and it was clear that we were moving in radically different directions.

Sadly, what we have on our hands, 50 years later, is mostly the same demarcation points.

We all know, rather well, what we believe, and what others believe, too, about the shape of the church, how to read the Bible, and what justice and peace are all about.

And the same holds true for government: we all know, rather well, what we believe, and what others believe, about the role of government, regarding Social Security, public education, unions, marriage equality and health care.

The conflict isn't for want of communication, but is simply the result of two competing, and diametrically opposed, world views in collision, aided and abetted by social media, talk-radio, 24/7 news, blogs and books and all the attendant media of communication.

 It's not a matter of being right or wrong, or closer to god or further away, but of sincerely held beliefs, shaped in the fires of life, and respective groups, coming to different conclusions.

There's no need to fear or lament the discord, and let's be clear: it's the progressives, or liberals, who most likely fear or lament discord, because they're "nice" people, looking for ways to build bridges. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to have no such qualms, because they see themselves as defenders of "god's truth," more than willing to blow up the bridges and instead dig the ditches deeper.

It's all about honesty.

Honestly held views, and the sometimes painful truth, about all world-views: there will be conflict, even intense conflict, and there comes a time when lines have to be drawn in the sand, and convictions be held firmly, and when and where all the little compromises have been made, and all the books written and read, that we simply admit the ineradicable gap, live with the tension, and do our best.

Biblically, I think of the Genesis story about Cain killing Abel, and then the birth of Seth ... and how the respective lines of Cain (violence) and Seth (worship) were simply incompatible, and, at best, had to somehow live in constant tension, neither one completely dominating and eliminating the other.

The conflict is revealed in the voice of the prophets standing firm and clear against the voices of power and privilege, and seen again in Jesus standing against Jerusalem, and Jerusalem, colluding with Rome, finally exasperated by Jesus and making the decision to eliminate him.

Perhaps the Korean Peninsula is illustrative, as well, of two competing systems of thought divided by a no-man's land ... their respective world-views are not compatible; it's either one or the other.

And certainly the United States itself, with all of its talk about "democracy" versus totalitarian forms of government; obviously, much of our talk has been just that, talk ... or some might say, "hot air," mostly driven by our self-interests, but the point is clear: democracy is incompatible with totalitarianism.

On a more immediate scale, the world envisioned by Betsy DeVos and that envisioned by Marion Wright Edelman, have little in common, and to expect the proponents of these respective world views to sit down and "communicate" is nothing short of ludicrous. The only agreement is that they might agree to disagree.

While the language is a bit melodramatic, it's time for progressives, liberals, to know they're in a war with those who see a world through the lens of money: 1) money for the few who will then dictate life to the rest, or 2) money constantly redistributed, to insure the greater number of people having access to the greater numbers of opportunities for education, health care, and the "pursuit of happiness."

Sadly, it's all about politics and power ... these world views will come to dominate when enough people are in positions of power to insure the one or the other.

Am I being cynical?

I think I'm being honest.

Which begs the question: Is there hope?

Sure, there always is, but history doesn't allow us to be naive ... there is great cruelty in the human story, and great love, too ... war and rumors of war ... love and mercy. Cain's ways, and the love of Seth ... in a virtual dead heat. Why it should be this way is the great enigma of our journey. And though faith would have believe in the ultimate victory of love, along the way, a lot of suffering, a lot of pain and sorrow. Work for the best in our story, but be prepared for the worst, as well.

Where does that leave us?

Well, it means we have to be mindful of our p's and q's ... the stakes are high, and while we must learn, and keep on learning, all we can about how the various world-views work, we have to admit, perhaps tearfully, with broken hearts, that we're engaged in a serious conflict of values, and to "gird up our loins" and join the fray.

Fearful though we may be, dangerous as it, what we do in love, we do for one another.

And that's the way it is, to quote Walter Cronkite ... that's just the way it is.