Republicans and Democrats

Supposedly in our country there are only two ways to be political. You are either Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. We are "bipartisan" and so split along party lines.

And never the twain shall meet.

Yes, the parties periodically shift focus and morph. Yes, there are smaller political movements with which a minority identify (Green, Tea, indie, progressive).

But for the most part bipartisan politics appears to be our reified and painfully narrow options.

Perhaps these are two ways of thinking about or viewing the world, basic philosophical commitments we make--or hold--that then enter into dialogue and conversation one with another, kind of like points on a sliding scale.

But still points on a scale. Like this:

----+-------------------------------------+--------

Democrats                              Republicans

However, I have become increasingly suspicious that this is not the way it work. That in fact, the two "parties" now reside in different parallel universes. It is as if we are seeing the same thing, but from completely different and incommensurable perspectives.

And because we don't simply differ in our opinions, but actually reside in different universes, the conversation we hope for between the two sides is now no impossible. There is no possible fusion-of-horizons (horizontverschmelzung), because you can't fuse parallel universes. They are by definition different universes.

If this is the case, and I think it is the case, our task is now how to survive in a meta-political science fictional universe.

Consider one simple example. The Democrat solution to many of our current economic concerns is the exact opposite of the Republican (Keynes vs. Draco), and both sides are convinced the alternative side's proposal will destroy us economically (and may, additionally, be immoral). We hear someone from the other side describe the current intractability, and we think to ourselves, "What universe does this person live in?"

Exactly.

I don't have a solution. But it does help me in various conversations to realize that when I get into a talk with someone from the "other side," it might actually be that we are not simply lining out our position on a sliding spectrum of political options, but we are in fact trying to scream across universes to each other. Just so each of our conversations is grounded in a completely different epistemological, phenomenological, and perhaps even ontological, situation, one from the other.

This makes me sad. I lament it. But I think it is true. And I wonder if there is anything to be done about it, anything at all.

Lord, help us.

--
p.s. The novel that best develops this thematic, a novel I wish everyone would read, is China Miéville's The City and the City.

Putting the "Is" back in "Is"

So I'll try to invite a conversation (if only this topic could attract as many readers as a post on Chick-fil-a). Earlier today I posted this status update on Facebook, 

The Spirit is being-as-possibility in its non-subsistent isomorphic ipseity. Precisely in this way is the Father freed to be the Father, the Son to be the Son, and all three themselves in their mutually coinhering circulation around the neighborhood.

Typically in Western theology, the Spirit ends up being the shared love of the Father and the Son. So the Father and the Son are "subsistent" beings, clearly identifiable as persons because of their antecedent narratives, where as the Spirit is the love between them. 

This is helpful as far as it goes, but it risks leaving little "there" there for who the Spirit actually is as a full person in the life of the Trinity.

The question is, "Where does the Spirit 'stand' to be him or herself over against the Father and the Son?" One of the best, but in my estimation, still insufficient responses, is that the Spirit is God's own liberative future.

In the East, on the other hand, the Spirit is really more independent as a person (no filioque, for example), but then all the processional and monarchical language of that tradition ends up making all three members of the Trinity more static even than in the West, since the Spirit is in a sense less free to set the other two members of the Trinity free in their particularity because the ontology in the east is more being as persistence rather than being as possibility.

Theologians wrestling with this have thus tried to find a way to speak of the Spirit as God's divine future, thus grounding the Spirit not in a developmental past but an anticipated future. And the "isomorphic" aspect of the Spirit is that it puts the "is" back in "is."

How do you in your own reflections wrestle with this?

A "free" sermon on Ephesians 4

This is probably one of the strangest and most complex sermons I've preached in the past few years. I tried to be faithful to the complexity of the text itself. Also, we then gave a doubled and extended gift at communion, where Jesus doesn't just remind his hearers that God gives gifts, but identified himself as the gift: "I am the bread of life." Jesus gives himself in his gifts and in so doing extends the recipients of the gifts themselves as co-givers.

Or something like that.

Here's the sermon: http://goodshepherdnwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/08-04-12S.mp3

Straight Talk About Chick-fil-a

Three "confessions":

• I am a Lutheran pastor who advocates for the full inclusion of the LGBTQ community in the life of the church, argues for marriage equality, and seeks to reduce anything that excludes and hurts marginalized communities.

• I'm a dad who likes to take his kids to Chick-fil-a for lunch. And I really like their milkshakes.

• I fancy myself an iconoclast of sorts. On the issue of free speech, corporate advocacy, traditional marriage, and chicken sandwiches, I think we are stuck in a rut. I'd like to think that a new angle on the issue might help all of us--conservatives and liberals, traditionalists and gay rights activists, Christians and atheists--talk about how we talk about divisive issues in a way that strengthens culture and sturdies the polis. Call me an idealistic iconoclast, but I'm going to make the attempt.

So, a series of theses on this week's Kulturkampf de pollo:

Advocacy by symbolic action is ripe for misunderstanding. Take, for example, this photo of a Chick-fil-a at a mall somewhere in suburban America. The line is long, but do we actually know why each person in the line is there? Are they all advocates for the defense of "traditional marriage"? For all we know, some of them are there as counter-protesters. Others (perhaps even a large percentage) are simply clueless and didn't even know there was a Kulturkampf arising. They just wanted a chicken sandwich with a dill pickle and waffle fries. Others are probably there because they think buying food at Chick-fil-a on a specific day is a defense of free speech, or defense of a CEO's right (and a corporation's philanthropic practice) to advocate for a "traditional" definition of marriage, even if it flies in the face of popular opinion (a later thesis will address this last point specifically). Still others are there because they wanted to be part of the crowd. Whatever the reason, it is still hard to "read" the symbolic action of the individual participants, because all they are actually doing is standing in line to purchase lunch.

Vocal and public criticism does not equal intolerance or a violation of first amendment rights. I thought this one was obvious, but if what I've read in the blogosphere and on Book of Face is any indication, lots of people are totally confused about the definition of tolerance and what counts as violation of free speech. There is even greater confusion concerning what right individuals or groups have in responding to someone who has a different opinion than them.

So, a few clarifying points. First, just because I disagree with you (or your actions) and say so publicly, does not in any way mean I am taking away your first amendment rights, or seeking to curtail them. I'm just exercising my first amendment right to offer criticism of your speech and actions. You then have the right to respond.

This is called dialogue. Hopefully it includes listening.

And take note: My desire to change what you are saying and doing does not vitiate my own right to argue for that change.

A few other points follow from this. First, if you happen to be an advocate for the "traditional" definition of marriage, this does not make you a bigot. You might be a bigot, I don't know. But for those who advocate (as I do) for marriage equality to presume that you are bigoted is, well, bigoted. Your definition of marriage is different from mine. We need to talk.

However, and this is an important point, just because I seek a more open definition of marriage (what many who disagree with me construe as "tolerance") does not actually mean that I then have to "tolerate" your view of marriage, whatever it may be. Why, you might ask? Well, John Locke, in perhaps the founding text that helped define tolerance in the modern era, stated clearly, "And first, I hold, that no church is bound by the duty of toleration to retain any such person in her bosom, as after admonition continues obstinately to offend against the laws of society." There is a limit to tolerance. It works to a point, until it doesn't, and for most communities, it is fairly clear where the breaking point is when tolerance is no longer expected or even preferred. No community, none of us, simply tolerates everything. That is not toleration. That is pathology.

Boycotting is typically ineffective. If you really want to change Chick-fil-a's corporate culture, I suggest you purchase stock in the company and participate in the shareholders' meetings. Live edit #1: Some commenters have pointed out the effectiveness of many boycotts, historically speaking. They're probably right. I just have some skepticism of many forms of current consumer advocacy. I am suspicious it ends up being more about the product, and what we can say about ourselves because we do or don't buy the product. But I concede the point, sometimes boycotts are necessary and right. This may be such a time.

Consumer advocacy is annoyingly banal and self-deceiving. Consumption has become such a habitual aspect of our daily life that we have become delusional, and think that buying something counts as social justice, moral advocacy, and more. In some cases, this is true. In this particular case, I doubt it. If you ate at Chick-fil-a this week as a statement, I don't think you actually contributed to any higher good, other than the financial stability of Chick-fil-a. And you got a decent lunch.

There's a lot of good at Chick-fil-a. I've really never been at a fast-food restaurant that had better customer service than Chick-fil-a. It's really outstanding. Also, although taste is highly subjective, lots of people (myself included) like their food, especially their milkshakes and waffle fries. There are many ways to judge the merits of a specific corporation. Chick-fil-a, like any other chain, deserves to be judged on the wider array of their practices and policies. How much do they pay their employees (I don't actually know but should)? Where do they raise their chickens, and how? Etc. [This would be the place to insert all kinds of other moralizing conversations about chicken, fast food, etc., but let's not go there. That conversation would apply mutatis mutandi for perhaps most restaurants in America.]

Christians in the United States are not a beleaguered minority. Some of them would like to convince all of us, and have done a good job of convincing themselves, that they are oppressed, silenced, victims. But of course this is a power move. A lot of those who mobilized the crowds that turned out at Chick-fil-a this week are actually still representatives of the cultural majority, not the minority, but it is a fantastic power move on the part of a majority group to convince everyone they are actually a minority.

Many advocates for the traditional definition of marriage are not Christians. Many advocates for marriage equality are Christian. So don't lump everybody into the same basket and blame whole groups when in fact things are far more complex.

Finally, there is a subtle but important difference in kind between those advocating for a boycott of Chick-fil-a because of its social/political position, and those troubled by that very boycott. Here's the difference. Let's go back to John Locke again. He writes, "The sum of all we drive at is, that every man (sic) enjoy the same rights that are granted to others." There is a difference between rights and rights. Some claims to rights are actually claims to rights that result in the curtailment of the rights of others. The CEO of Chick-fil-a is claiming rights of this type. He says he has the right to advocate for the curtailment of the rights of others. Those who argue the other side, inasmuch as they wish to silence him (and it is not clear to me that anyone is trying to silence him per se) are making their case on the grounds that they are simply defending their right of access to the same rights that he and everyone else enjoys. Live edit #2: This isn't about "mutual tolerance." One group wants to protect rights. The corporation wants to take away or reverse newly granted rights. There are major power differentials at work. So talking to both sides as if they were basically mutual is problematic and unhelpful.

John Locke again (I'm not making a wholesale defense of Locke here, but referencing him because his book, "A Letter Concerning Toleration," fell off my bookshelf and onto my arm today while I was pulling down a completely different book--I felt this was perhaps a God-nudge). In any event, I find this final statement of his compelling:

"This only I say, that however clearly we may think this or the other doctrine to be deduced from Scripture, we ought not therefore to impose it upon others as a necessary article of faith, because we believe it to be agreeable to the rule of faith, unless we would be content also that other doctrines should be imposed upon us in the same manner; and that we should be compelled to receive and profess all the different and contradictory opinions of Lutherans, Calvinists, Remonstrants, Anabaptists, and other sects, which the contrivers of symbols, systems, and confessions are accustomed to deliver unto their followers as genuine and necessary deductions from Holy Scripture. I cannot but wonder at the extravagant  arrogance of those men who think that they themselves can explain things necessary to salvation more clearly than the Holy Ghost, the eternal and infinite wisdom of God."

--
One final point. I'm open, very open, to listening to people and what they have to say about this. It's a really complicated and messy and polarizing issue. I have good friends, and have even read really good essays today, that push me farther over into the camp of boycotting the company. Some people very close to me are so terribly hurt by the way Christians and others have gone out to support Chick-fil-a. I'm not neutral, I have a position. And I can often be wrong. So I will in all likelihood make this blog post a "wiki" post and edit in the coming days if people post comments that inform my overall argument and help me re-consider those places where it is weak.