More Divided than Ever?

Markell - Stations of the Cross

Few would disagree that the US is in a time of unprecedented divisiveness, but few agree on what makes this time so unique. I will try to explore my personal hypothesis for my own peace of mind so I can give attention to priorities from which I must not be distracted. Vigorously debating differences of opinion is intrinsic to democracy and not a sign of dysfunctional division. Every presidential election since George Washington has been contested, sometimes quite sharply. I came of age in the deep divisions of the peace and civil rights movements of the 60s and 70s. If you think those wounds have healed, just talk to some Vietnam War veterans or African Americans. (I am making no assumption about who is reading this.)

Perhaps the deepest historic division came with the Civil War/War Between the States. To be sure institutional slavery was the driving force, but seeking freedom from perceived economic tyranny also motivated the formation of the Confederate States of America. Despite all the moral arguments that continue to swirl around that conflict, the outcome was determined by military and economic power. Imagining what would have happened if the states from Texas to Virginia had succeeded in becoming a separate nation is only speculation. Nevertheless, that thousands died in the dispute over that possibility is a clear sign of how deep that division was. Having lived in Texas for 17 years, I can tell you that even a century and a half later, those wounds are not completely healed.

Even against that historic backdrop, our time is clearly one of unprecedented virulent division and engulfs much more than politics. My personal sense is that this dramatically ramped up with the 2008 presidential campaign with highly hostile attacks on Obama and Trump way beyond policy disagreements. I certainly do not have any particular credentials for a definitive analysis. I have only my own observations. I would welcome the insights of any who take the trouble to read all of this (acknowledging that I tend to write on past the point other folk are willing to read).

I often hear and read that we are living in a time of sharp polarization. That implies what has come to be referred to (in a broad range of concerns) as binary thinking. We used to call this black-and-white mentality (without any implicit racial overtones), but meaning it’s all this way or that way with no gradations in between (sometime referred to as gray or even colors).  Polarized thinking lumps things together into two categories: that with which I agree and that with which I disagree. By extension, that becomes the people who are on my side and the people who are against me (or I am against them). Such friends are embraced, even overlooking their flaws; an enemies are shunned, even rejecting any contribution they might make.

In this environment, coalitions are branded with labels to indicate whether they are rejected or accepted at all. These labels get hurled around like curse words, as though they explain something. Liberal, conservative, denier, evangelical, fundamentalist, religious right, leftist, progressive, gun nut, anti-gun, anti-abortion, baby killer, socialist, communist, fascist, Nazi. The list could go on and one. What it suggests to me is that the “us vs. them” binary thinking of our present divisiveness is much more complex than that. It pushes different clusters together in coalitions of strange bedfellows indeed. I think of these clusters as tribes that are each after their own agenda and willing to draw power from other tribes if it serves their specific interest. In the process the tribes get associated with causes that may even be at odds with their own principles, but they are willing to do that as a way of disempowering the tribes who they identify as their enemy. The very concept of polarization feeds on this “us vs. them” thinking.

Others have observed in different ways that not only do these different tribes and their coalitions hold differing presuppositions, they live in often dramatically contrasting realities. While an obvious oversimplification, people in the Northeast and on the West (left) Coast are like one country and people in the South and center of the country are a different nation. This has been noted by observers from both arenas. Citizens of each think of themselves as being authentically “American” and find some patterns in the other so different they say, “That’s not who we are!” I am not going to analyze this model but only observe that people’s sense of national identity and their presuppositions coincide with the reality in which they live (at least as they perceive it).

As the debates between the opposing views erupt in the news, on the internet, in social media, and personal interaction with acquaintances, co-workers, neighbors, friends, and family, my observation is that these conflicts are not about data and information, logic and reason. They are about mutually exclusive, contradictory presuppositions. Data and information, logic and reason are viewed through the lens of those presuppositions and marshalled in constellations around them. While not necessarily overtly defined or even easily recognized, the presuppositions are regarded as sacrosanct and any challenge to them is perceived as an attack on the sacred. Such attacks are perceived as so threatening they justify unmitigated rejection and virulent responses.

Let me be very quick to acknowledge that I am very aware that I have as many presuppositions as anyone else, and my responses to many things in the world around me flow from those presuppositions. Let me also acknowledge that try as I might, I know I am not always aware of my presuppositions and how they come out in what I think, say, write, and do. The things I am about to write are clearly extensions of my presuppositions and in no way am I suggesting that my awareness of and attempts to live them either exempt me from the hazards of my presuppositions nor am I suggesting I’ve figured this out well enough to be an model for others, only that I am learning and growing myself.

Perhaps with a simplistic smile, a Peanuts cartoon I’ve seen several times sums this up (I don’t know if this actually came from Charles Schultz or someone just used his characters). Snoopy is at a typewriter, and Charlie Brown asks what he’s writing Snoopy says he’s writing a book on theology. Charlie Brown ask what it’s about. Snoopy replies, “The title is ‘Have you Ever Considered that You Might Be Wrong?’”

I find two Psalms sobering challenges to how deeply I am affected by my presuppositions. Psalm 19:12 asks, “Who can detect their errors? Clear me from hidden faults.” Psalm 139:23-24 prays, “Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my thoughts. See if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.” I need give enough silent space for God to conduct such an inventory so I can pray with integrity Psalm 19:14 May “the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable to you, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.”

This is closely akin to Step Four of AA. “Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.” Christian contemplative traditions speak of the discipline of examen. The Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola call for a “Daily Particular Examination of Conscience.” Benedict of Nursia taught a continuous “conversion of life.” We are always in process and need to have our thoughts, words, and actions increasingly converted toward Christlikeness every day. I find this wholly consistent with the calls of John the Baptist and Jesus to repent. (Matthew 3:2; 4:7; Mark 1:15; 6:12) That was not just at the beginning but throughout Jesus’ ministry and at the heart of the message of the Apostles (Acts 2:38) I dare not think I am finished with repenting but continuously seek to live out the prayer of Richard of Chichester (1197–1253). “O Dear Lord, three things I pray: to see you more clearly, to love you more dearly and follow you more nearly, day by day.” (Yes, far more ancient that Godspell)

I have no illusions about becoming presupposition-free. But I do intend my own contemplative practices to open me to having them exposed and corrected. As these rhythms have grown over the last half-century, I have become increasingly and acutely aware that I do not fit in with any of the tribes or coalitions that compose this country. Though I am present and participating, I have known for a very long time that I don’t belong here. I am an outsider. Or as Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon wrote in their 1989 book, I am a resident alien.

That tradition, even if not the exact term, is deeply rooted in biblical and Christian experience. The Hebrew Prophets were outside of both temple and palace. They spoke God’s Word of truth to those in power, both religious and political, and often paid a high price. Claiming identity with the Hebrew Prophets is not to be taken lightly. I certainly would not do it for myself except to observe that the outside voice has a long and important history. After Jesus’ resurrection and Pentecost, the Church quickly outgrew its Jewish roots, but it was never part of the cultural or political establishment anywhere in the Roman Empire. As Philippians 3.20 says, “Our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” This outsider role prevailed until the Emperor Constantine adopted his own distorted view of Christianity as the religion of imperial conquest in the fourth century. The resultant spiritual collapse was the impetus for the Desert Fathers and Mothers.

With the unholy alliance of ecclesiastical and political power, the outsider witness was kept alive by various monastic movements starting with the Desert Fathers and Mothers. Some of the most notable are still contributing: Benedict, Francis, Ignatius, and others. What we think of as the Protestant Reformation largely took place in the realms of ecclesiastical and political power and accepted the insider identities of Christendom/Christian nations. The Anabaptists, however, were more akin to the monastics, though with different underpinnings. But they knew (and still know) that following Jesus will inevitably be countercultural. The presuppositions of these outsider movements are never be congruent with any of the tribes and coalitions of the established powers in any culture or society.  It is true that some monastics and some Anabaptist have withdrawn so much they limited their influence as salt and light in the world.

I have already disavowed any claim to the prophetic office of ancient Israel, and I certainly have no prophetic gift in terms of seeing what is coming at us with any more clarity than anyone else. I do know that zero-sum binary thinking (if I concede “they” are right about anything, then “we” lose) is destructive. I know that for me to become an advocate for or adversary of any of the tribes or their coalitions violates my aspiration to follow Jesus. I know that even others who bear the name of Christ will struggle with this way of living. Yet, as a resident-alien/citizen of the reign of God, I am called to justice and peace, love and righteousness. I am called to live in community with others who aspire to follow Jesus to live out his values the best we can, demonstrating and inviting others into the reality of life with Jesus.