Segregated Sundays

Share

“For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility.”
—Ephesians 2:14

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
—Galatians 3:28

Why are our churches so segregated? Not just by race, although that is bad enough, but by political affinity? The early church was made up of people from all walks of life. There were rich widows and poor layabouts. There were Greeks, Jews, and barbarians. There were slaves and slave owners. There were young and old, rich and poor, male and female, smart and stupid, tall and short, native and alien, slave and free, extroverts and introverts, dark-skinned and light-skinned all in the same church. They had arguments and offenses and jealousies and lawsuits, but they still met together and worshiped together. Could it be that we have missed some central, unifying truth in the gospel?

I met Marv Sauers in 2006 a couple of years before he died. He was 80. He had been a pipeline technician (or engineer, I’m not sure what his job would be today) in northern Minnesota. He fought in World War II. He grew his own tomatoes and shared them with friends. (He grew and shared zucchini too, but—let’s face it—everyone who grows zucchini shares it.) We attended the same church, a nondenominational evangelical church near Hastings, Minnesota. He used to say that he was their token Democrat. When he died the church lost a little of its diversity. It became even more Republican.

I understand the need for a Credo. Without a statement of belief spelling out exactly what we stand for, the church could become a social club, standing for goodness in some unspecified way. Yet somewhere along the way being Republican has become a tacit tenet of evangelical faith. Why? It comes down to just one issue: abortion. Republicans are against it, and Democrats are for it. For many evangelical Christians, abortion is non-negotiable. If you are for it, it is like being for serial murder: you don’t deserve a voice in civil discourse about anything else. How can you vote for someone who favors killing babies just because they haven’t been born yet?

Yet there are plenty of liberal Christians who are also Democrats. They are brothers and sisters too. Some favor abortion—not, of course, because they favor killing babies—because they favor women’s autonomy. They see a world that wants to make childbearing the defining characteristic of women and use that characteristic to exclude them from full participation in other areas of life. Abortion may be an imperfect solution, but it is a solution within the control of the woman, and they favor letting a woman control her own destiny rather than letting others control it who do not have to bear the consequences of their decision. For liberal Christians, abortion is not a litmus test in the same way that it is for conservative Christians. It is one issue among many, not the one issue that defines a candidate’s—or a party’s—character. (It is plain, however, that a Democrat who opposed abortion would have as tough a time getting elected as a Republican who favored it. As with so many issues that divide America at present, there seems to be no middle ground, no room for imagining that those who disagree with you might have the best of motives instead of the worst.)

Our churches are as politically segregated as they are racially segregated. The same is true of economic class and, basically, any indicator by which we commonly self-segregate. The church is just like the world. The only difference seems to be that the Christians think they are better.

The reasons for this self-segregation are partly technological. In the first century, if you wanted to go somewhere, you walked. Everyone walked to synagogue. Everyone walked to church. Everyone walked to hear the latest theories discussed in the marketplace. If you went to church at all, you went to one that was nearby. For the same reason, people were more connected to their neighbors and communities. The people you lived near were the people with whom you worked, talked, celebrated, and worshiped. You were forced to get along with people who did not share your views. Our technology has made it possible to go to a church miles from where we live where the people are as like us as possible. Unless we deliberately seek out people who differ from us, we quite naturally drift into insular relationships that never challenge our prejudices about anything. Our churches even become adept at excluding difference merely by being unwelcoming to those who are not like us. This makes it possible to go to a church where you never encounter a dissenting political view to say nothing of different theological or philosophical views. We can go to a church where there are no feminists and talk about feminism as if it were hell’s agenda. Meanwhile across town a church of feminists is meeting and discussing how patriarchy is pure evil.

Somehow—and it can only be by conscious, deliberate effort—we have got to get out of our cocoons. We have got to accept that everyone who loves Jesus, no matter their theology or political party, is part of the family of God. I’m not suggesting we should not fight. Let’s fight among ourselves. Let’s bring to bear our best arguments and our strongest defenses. But let’s fight like brothers and sisters who love one another, not like warring camps who hate one another. Let’s open our minds and hearts to one another and learn that we might just possibly be wrong about some things.

Share
Posted in abortion, Christians, politics, race, religion | Leave a comment

How I Stopped Annoying Women

Share

In high school I was in love with a girl who had long, dark, very straight hair, brown eyes, a heart-shaped face, and a demur attitude. (Some will say I was not really in love, which is in some sense true. They will say I was merely infatuated, but the fact is, having experienced both infatuation and real love, I can say with some authority that they feel the same. The main difference, as far as I can tell, is that infatuation makes you insane, but real love is always eminently reasonable. But once again, when you’re in the midst of it, insanity seems oh, so reasonable.) We were in the same grade, so we had some classes together. We also attended some of the same religious meetings. Whenever she was near, I was very aware of her presence, and I schemed to be with her and show her attention without seeming to intend it. Crazy, right? At prayer meetings, I would sit next to her, so I could hold her hand during prayers. My prayers were not exceptionally spiritual, but I did make a number of extravagant promises to God which I have since forgotten. He probably still chuckles over them.

Girls did not flock around me. In fact, they avoided me as if I had cooties. With the advantage of hindsight, I know now that in my teens I was uncommonly ugly and socially awkward. It would be hard to imagine a combination more deadly to incipient romance. I lacked both grace and good looks. I was also naive. All I had going for me was an impressive grasp of calculus—not a trait over which many girls were known to swoon.

After high school I spent a decade with my heart on my sleeve, always ready to be in love with any young woman who was civil to me. If she were more than civil—if she flirted even in the most desultory fashion—I was instantly smitten and made myself intolerable until she utterly spurned my affections. This happened more than once. Possibly more than 5 times. It is still painfully embarrassing to contemplate.

As I grew older, despite remaining absurdly naive, my physiognomy changed. I became more or less average-looking and acquired enough social grace to pass for an ordinary guy. By the time I met the woman who is now my wife, I effortlessly and unwittingly impressed her with my erudition and aplomb. But she was different, too, from the kind of woman who usually attracted me. She was not demur. She was vivacious. She acted as if life were a present she was just about to unwrap. She had firecracker eyes, and she was infectiously alive. She dragged me out of my woebegone stupor and loved me unflinchingly.

These old bones live to learn her wanton ways:
(I measure time by how a body sways).
Theodore Roethke

Suffice it to say, I stopped annoying all woman and began to annoy just one. (At least, I think I stopped. One can never be entirely sure.) For some reason I have yet to grasp, she considers knowing me a privilege for which a little annoyance is not too steep a price.

Share
Posted in about me, love, sexism | Leave a comment

Let’s Get the Vote Out in 2018! #80in18

Share

One effect of complaining is that it diminishes our capacity to find effective solutions to the very problems we complain about. It leaves us “feeling helpless, hopeless, victimized, and bad about ourselves.” This is no good state of mind for taking positive action to change our situation. Yet we love to complain, and social media makes it not only easy but attractive to complain to those who agree with us. We trade complaints for affirmation from our friends that our complaints are justified.

A favorite source of our complaints is our government. We seem to forget that our government answers to us, that we live in a democratic republic where those who make and enforce our laws are our elected representatives. We, the people,—the voters in this republic—have the power to call our representatives to account. We act instead as if we have no power, as if our vote does not matter, as if we are helpless to change the things we don’t like.

During the last midterm election in 2014, about 40% of eligible voters actually took the trouble to cast a ballot. More than half of eligible voters did not think it worth their while to express their opinion about who would represent them in Congress, yet many of those same people complain bitterly about what Congress is doing now. To maintain our republic, we need much more than 40% participation from voters. Ideally, we want 100%, but that may seem unattainable. I propose we shoot for 80% turnout in 2018. I believe this is an attainable goal. If you agree, start using the hashtag #80in18 on Twitter and Facebook in any posts calling for the people to take back the government. We’ve tried letting special interests and corporate lobbyists run things for too long. It’s time for we, the people, to make our voices heard.

  • Vote your mind.
  • Vote your conscience.
  • Vote your values.
  • Vote your self-interest.
  • Vote your party.
  • Vote for the most reasonable candidate.
  • Vote for the most passionate candidate.
  • Vote for the best-looking candidate.
  • Vote against the candidate you don’t like.
  • Vote against sexism.
  • Vote against racism.
  • Vote for the status quo.
  • Vote progressive.
  • Vote so you can complain.
  • Vote according to whatever criteria you deem important.
  • Vote!

Don’t just vote. Encourage others to vote. Whenever one of your friends complains about the government, ask them how they voted. If they say they didn’t vote, refuse to listen to their complaints. Ignore political ads and do your own research. You can find resources about how your representatives have voted and what positions they have taken on issues you care about here, here, and here. In the Internet age, there’s no excuse for voter ignorance.

If you want to make a difference beyond your vote, consider ways you can help. Volunteer to help unregistered citizens register to vote. Research early voting and absentee voting laws in your state and work to change them or help others navigate the system to make sure their vote counts. Offer rides to the polls on election day. Join a political party or an issue-oriented political action committee. Write and call your representatives about the issues you care about, especially before important votes are scheduled. Write letters to the editors of your local newspapers.

Don’t complain; do something. Make a difference. Vote!

Share
Posted in politics, voting | Leave a comment