It Is Both The Best And Worst Of Times For Nonviolent Revolutionaries

While discussing today's world with a friend over lunch, my friend asked how I think things are going. I gave a bipolar answer: it is both a time of opportunity as well as a time of deep discouragement.

For those who read the blogpost on my wanting two nonviolent revolutions for Christmas (click here for the article), you will remember that I saw a need for two distinct revolutions: a structural revolution and a revolution of personal morals. The structural revolution is one that needs a great deal of coordination with others and participation in a number of national movements which do not yet exist. For the structural revolution requires that we significantly change our political and economic systems. The personal moral revolution needed is expressed in the words of Martin Luther King Jr. as he spoke against the Vietnam War (click here for the source):

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

This moral revolution can be entered into anytime we are with friends, enemies, or strangers: though it should not be the only thing we talk about. We can participate in this moral revolution as individuals. It requires no collaboration with others or coordination with groups of people around the world. We simply need to point out King's words to others and let the chips fall where they may.
Thus, in terms of opportunities in which to participate, we are like a person who, for whatever reason, jumped out of his/her boat into an ocean of opportunities. We have ample chances to talk about the need for a moral revolution and that is the good news. We can, at almost anytime we desire, talk to people about the importance of counting people, whoever they are, as being more important than our gadgets (prophetically written for millennials?), profits, and property rights.

Now for the bad news: people are too apathetic to care. The hold of things on the lives of many people around us is terribly strong. Many people walk along in a trance provided that they have or believe they can get the things they want. This attachment to things makes them picture that they live on islands that are cutoff from the unpleasant parts of the world. This island living is what they want and they seem interested in only participating in those activities that maintain the status quo for them. But this island dream should cause us to think of the words of Rachel Corrie as she wrote in the book of her journal entries, Let Me Stand Alone:

all islands are the symbol of unenlightened desire

Though the opportunities to participate in this moral revolution are vast, the current going against the message is strong. Thus the return on our participation, in most cases, is small at best. But small returns are to be celebrated rather than to become a reason to surrender and join the crowd. We should note that it is the accumulation of small returns that can eventually, if not now, turn the tide. And that is what we can't lose sight of. To take advantage of our opportunities is to practice hope. To bypass our opportunities is to give in to despair by joining the crowd that values the present enjoyment of things over both the present and future welfare of people.

Is There Any Hope Left For The US?

Is there hope left for this country is a question a friend of mine recently asked. I said that it might be that we have to go the way of Europe before there is light at the end of the tunnel.

What is the way of Europe? The way of Europe was WW I and WW II. There use to be quite a bit of intolerance, infighting, and the desire for control before that war. But the devastation that resulted from both wars at least temporarily changed Europe into becoming a more tolerant place. So when we question other regions in the world for their perpetual fighting, we need to realize what it took for Europe to become as peaceful and tolerant, at least within its borders, as it seems to be today.

But what threatens our hope is what is happening within our borders, even after the Civil Rights Movement. We have at least two strikes against us. For the first strike, we should note that Martin Luther King Jr. warned us that for as long as we value things, which are gadgets, profits, and property rights, over people, we will have racism, war/militarism, and economic exploitation/materialism. Note that in 2 cases there are 2 options given because King expressed what is invevitable in 2 different but related results.

Our second strike is what naturally proceeds out of the first strike: that is tribalism. For if things are more important than people, we should note that we will compete for those things in groups. And as loyalty to those groups increases, tribalism emerges and increases. 

What is tribalism? It is when loyalty to a group becomes so great that one loses their objectivity in judging both themselves and those outside their group. When one loses objectivity in judging themselves, they fail to see the weaknesses and faults of their own group. When one loses objectivity in judging those outside the group, they become unable to recongize the merits of those outside their group. Thus, what is right and wrong is determined by who does what to whom. This is moral relativity. Another term for this moral relativity is a 'gang mentality.'

And with tribalism also comes a group authoritarianism where failure to agree with or support one's group causes one to be angry and hostile toward others. The past and current reaction of some "patriotic" Americans to Colin Kaepernick's protests during the playing of the National Anthem is just an illustration of group authoritarianism. But that isn't the only example. The hostility that results from the sharp divisions between the police and minorities or the police and citizens who only verbally object to or question their actions provide other examples of authoritarianism. The sharp ideological divisions exist and the hostility between rival ideological groups withing our nation provide other examples of group authoritarianism. And the economic apartheid that exists between the upper economic class and the other classes or the disdain that some in the middle class have shown toward the lower economic class also serve as examples of tribalism.

As we can see, tribalism so permeates both the American society and it also does the same in the world. The current pending legislation that criminalizes support for BDS because it targets Israel in order to stop its Occupation against the Palestinians can provide multiple examples of tribalism both in terms of the loyalty some lawmakers have to Israel and also by some in the BDS community as they react to those not following BDS. And it isn't too difficult to see the tribalism that exists where there are violent clashes in the world.

Now whether or not we've struck out and are doomed depends on whether our current embrace of authoritarianism is a strike or is merely a foul ball hit out of play. For, as just described, authoritarianism is a part of tribalism as it exists within groups. One of the signs of authoritarianism is the showing of hostility to those who do not follow the traditions or recognized authority figures of one's group. Another sign of authoritarianism is that of viewing the world in black/white concepts where one is either right or wrong without having any partial merit or nuance. Signs of authoritarianism are listed at the following website but we should note that that perspective of authoritarianism was written to target conservatives. Authoritarianism exists in liberals and leftists as well (click here).

We see this authoritarianism in how willing people are to break convention or in how they react to the breaking of convention. An example of this authoritarianism exists in how we vote. When presented with the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, very few people voted for third party candidates. In fact, those who did were told that they were throwing the election to one of the two major party candidates. Granted that none of the third party candidates were prize candidates, still that both of the two major party candidates posed more as threats to our society than as merely options for candidates for office was rather obvious.

Donald Trump's tweeting temper tantrums to any who questions him also becomes another side of authoritarianism. For there are two sides of authoritarianism: the active and passive sides. Those with power who are hostile to dissent show the active side. Those who are reluctant to or are even afraid to question the traditions or recognized authoritary figures show the passive side of authoritarianism. 

With authoritarianism comes the practice of determining truth not by examining the facts and logic involved in a statement or argument, but by the credentials of the source. Thus when Trump tweeted that Meryl Streep was an overrated actress after she spoke against his imitation of a disabled reporter, instead of challenging how she interpreted what he did, he attacked her credentials hoping that passive authoritarians would then ignore her. Authoritarians prefer to discredit their opponents rather than to engage in any kind of discussion with them.

By embracing authoritarianism, we lose the ability to challenge the abuse of power. And indeed, what we are seeing is a sharp rise in the abuse of power whether that power is exhibited by local police or those with supervisory positions at work or school, or it is exhibited at the national level. And with the other two strikes, we lose the motivation to challenge the abuse others as they exercise authority. We can see that loss of motivation even in those we might think of as rebels. For how many millennials do we see who are so glued to their gadgets that they become less and less aware of the world around them and start to lose ability to interact with people personally?

So we have at least two strikes. And whether we are denial of having struck out or we have merely hit a foul ball out of play remains to be seen. In any event, hope for substantial change without having to go through devastation and tremendous losses as has been suffered in the past is dwindling. What better time there is to take a blog break.

On Having Hope And Being Hopeless

The Scriptures assure Christians that they have a living hope. That hope is Jesus who will return. And in this sense, everybody who belongs to Christ should be hopeful about the future--the distant future that is.

And in addition to that hope in the distant future is an assurance that God's sovereignty does limit the suffering we can experience today and in the near future. These two facts must be pillars in the lives of all who trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sins.

But if we care about the world in the way that God loves the world,  then why is the state of this world hopeless and getting worse? There are two reasons for this hopelessness. First, most with wealth and power are insane. John Lennon made this point about our world leaders. If Lennon was alive today, he could most certain say this about both Obama and Putin as they flirt with conflict while being armed with thousands of nuclear weapons.

Those whose wealth is derived from financial conquest and who care not for the welfare of the victims of that conquest should be put into John Lennon's insane leaders category. This is Chris Hedges' point in talking about the cult of the self.



How can one come to any other conclusion when what drove the world into the most devastating and inhumane war in history is being practiced today? This obsession with conquest and dominance in a world, even though today's conquests are mostly financial, where interdependence and an ever advancing and adulterous technology makes all of us more vulnerable shows us to be, as the Scriptures say, like "a dog that returns to its vomit." (see Proverbs 26:11). From this we can easily say that 'never again' was never learned, as was reported by a previous blogpost on this blog (click here).

And though we might not be one of those who search for such economic conquests, we are complicit with such takeovers when we do not object but prefer to ride on the financial coattails of those who seek to conquer. These financial coattails anesthetize us so that we feel neither the pain of others as they lose out nor the destruction of the environment stemming from our exploitation and abuse of the earth and its resources.

For Conservative Christians, part of our complicity is due to the failure of our churches' leadership to properly engage culture. For when it comes to social justice issues, the range of reactions from Conservative Christians is to either not engage or to engage with the intent of advancing a strict Christian agenda.  Their involvement is measured by the charts below with the social justice grid chart being a modification of a new model introduced during Friday's blogpost review of Tim Keller's Center Church model (click here).

Social Justice Grid

Personal Morality Grid

The horizontal axis represents the degree to which a group want society to either be libertarian or controlling through the use of law. So what the two charts together illustrate is this, much of the Conservative Church, the Two Kingdoms and the Transformationists to be specific, invest more in trying to get society to restrict the personal moral behavior of individuals than they do in getting society to control groups or even itself when it comes to social justice issues. This is shown by how both the Two Kingdoms and Transformationists adherents are located to the right on the Personal Morality Grid compared to their positions on the Social Justice Grid. In last Friday's chart, which was named the Social Gospel Grid, the Transformationists were located solely in the second quadrant. But as I thought about it, certain parties in the Transformationist group or model as Keller calls it, do not always push society to legally require the just treatment of others. Instead, they often want society to take a more libertarian approach to social justice issues. Social justice issues could include employees being paid a living wage and having the right to belong to a union, or that everybody has access to affordable healthcare and housing. Social justice issues could also include protection of the environment. 

Part of this overall approach by the Transformationists is due to conservative political values and their apathy or antagonism toward social justice issues. And even where conservative political values do not come into play, there is a tendency to have some kind of objection to legally demanding that people be treated justly or that the environment be protected. Thus there is a mixed record in demanding justice by Transformationists.

In addition, some use the Bible to justify not being involved in the culture and social justice issues. I Timothy 2:2 is often used to justify Christians living "quiet lives" where we does not get involved in the bigger matters of the world. Those who interpret passages like I Timothy 2:2 this way are forgetting the changes in the historical context between when Paul wrote I Timothy and today. Unlike Paul's time, because of the Christianity's influence on Western Civilization, Christianity can be easily associated with some of the injustices practiced in our part of the world. Thus, it becomes mandatory for Christians, not just for the sake of having compassion on others, to be involved at least for the reputation of the Gospel.

The two charts together show that if you are going to sin as an individual, you'll hear about it from most Conservative Christians. But if you participate in the committing of group sins, you will enjoy quite a bit of impunity from Conservative righteous indignation. And with this being true on domestic social issues, how much more true is it with foreign issues such as with the use of sweatshop labor, the use of trade agreements that benefit our businesses while destroying the ability of some countries to feed themselves, or imperial foreign policies and the use of our military in interventions and drone warfare? For those Transformationists who are not prevented by conservative politics to care about these issues, one has to ask, where is your presence on the streets? Do you know that it is strongly desired by those who are both religious and Leftists because it helps confirm part of what they believe Christianity is suppose to be about?

Of course, demanding social justice has a price. It offends many, though not all, who have wealth and power. And such offenses could cost the Conservative Church members and money. In addition, because of an unthinking adherence to the Conservative label, some Conservative Christians have trouble distinguishing religious and political Conservatism so that an attack on one seems like an attack on both. The cost of demanding social justice for such conservatives can mean a very tearing and painful remaking of oneself--something I experienced when I became a political leftist.

So it is easier for the Conservative Church to stress the future hope we have because of our faith in Jesus because such provides an escape from having to make certain choices. The tragedy here is that our real hope is used to escape reality rather than to give one strength to face a present but temporary reality. And this desire to escape reality is based on combining a consumer culture to faith where one is more willing to live in comfort rather than bear the fruit of the Spirit in the face of injustice.

How tragically ironic it is that the hope of the world has become a reason for hopelessness in today's perilous times.