Why Trump?

Why could America elect Donald Trump to be the next President when there have been a plethora of red flags being raised and waving vigorously in the air. January 6, 2021 alone should have provided enough reason for not reelecting Trump, but it hasn't. If that had been tried during the 1970s, both parties would unanimously condemn such actions and prevent those involved from serving in government again. But that was yesteryear.

There are 3 reasons that I can see why we could elect Trump as President. That does not imply that these are the only 3 reasons. What follows are the reasons that I can see.

Reason #1

As a society, our thinking is more limited today than it was decades ago. That limited thinking is not due to a lack of intelligence, it is due to how we think. We should add that our limited thinking is self-imposed. Why and how? The how is because more and more of us have passionately embraced a form of all-or-nothing thinking called black-white thinking. We see things either one way or the other. An example is when then President George Bush told the world after that 9/11 attacks that people are either with us or against. us. What Bush was telling others was that it was either his way or the highway. It isn't issues that necessarily polarize us, it is passionately embracing black/white thinking that does.

Such thinking not only causes polarization, it is also the kind of thinking that authoritarian leaders dream of in their followers. Such leaders dream of such thinking because it makes their followers more susceptible to their desires. To disagree with an authoritarian leader often results in the being labeled as 'enemies.' 

We can go to Russia to see some past examples of such leaders. Both some of the Tsars and Vlad Lenin promoted this type of thinking. While the Tsars promoted the idea that because they were Russia. That how Russians treated them illustrated how they were treating their nation is an example of such thinking. And the same goes for Vlad Lenin only his identification was with the proletariat and the Revolution in the newly formed Soviet Union. \

And so today we have Trump, who previously called the Press the 'enemy of the people,' predicting that there will be utter disaster if he is not elected. In addition, he has told me and my fellow religiously conservative Christians that we will never need to vote again should he be elected.

How have we come to engage in such self-limiting thinking? It is because of people like Rush Limbaugh, who for decades, encouraged us to see all liberals as having nothing to offer or teach us and true conservatism as being the fount of all blessings. And because, like Trump, Limbaugh knew how to speak to a frustrated conservative audience, he could promote these black/white thinking in people which has caused today's polarizations in America.  And like Reagan, he could make such conservatives feel good about themselves and their political causes.

Reason #2

And just as we have limited our thinking, we have limited our ability to be fair and objective. And we should note that just like our limited thinking, this inability to be fair and objective is self inflicted. The moment that we let our loyalty go wild, we decided that we no longer  needed or even would be able to judge our own groups and other groups using the same standards and measurements. 

What has infringed on our ability to be fair an objective? As was just mentioned, it is when we allowed our loyalty to go wild. And when our loyalty goes wild, we take a black/white approach to loyalty. In this case we believe that loyalty can only be a virtue, and never a vice, so long as we are loyal to the right groups.

The more loyal we are to a group, the more resistant we are to the criticisms of that group until finally we passionately embrace moral relativism.That occurs when right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. We see this in authoritarian led groups where either the person or ideology is seen as being relatively omniscient. In other words, borrowing a phraseology from Martin Luther King Jr., we see this moral relativity when a group believes that it has everything to teach and nothing to learn from others. And so with becoming so loyal to a group comes the elevation of the pedestal on which we put that group. 

Reason #3

Many of us have seen a decline in our affection for democracy. And what has caused that decline is the materialism that comes from our consumer society. Once we've become materialistic,  then democracy, with equality,  is no longer seen as being important.

Of course in this election, it isn't just those who are marginally opulent who are hit hard by today's economy, it is regular people too. But the same principle holds. Once our economy crosses certain thresholds, democracy with equality is no longer seen as being an important value to cherish and hold on to. We want our economy fixed and fixed now. And with our black/white thinking, we will look for simplistic explanations and solutions to our economic problems. That is why Republicans pin the blame the past spike in inflation, which is over with, solely on government spending while the Democrats blame the previous spike in inflation solely on corporate price gouging. What is missing from both narratives is the simple economic roles that supply and demand plays on prices. In lieu of recognizing that our inflation may have had multiple causes, both Republicans and Democrats oversimplified what caused our spike in inflation.

And so we look for a magic leader who can immediately fix the economic problems we have been having. And that isn't the major problem here. Just as we are looking for an immediate solution, we become more willing to do without other  important things. So what if that magic leader needs more and more power to get the job done, as long as one's own economy is fixed, then all becomes forgiven. 

And so with today's Republicans, as long as they claim that they can "fix" the economy, immigration, and our other problems, who cares if we elect a person who tried to overthrow a fair election, who wants to be a dictator for "just" the first day, who has expressed strong admiration of dictators of the world like Putin, Erdogan, and Xi Jinping, and who has constantly and shamelessly lied throughout all of his Presidential campaigns?

We should also note is that the factors mentioned in those three reasons feed personal needs that we all have. The simplistic worldview that black/white thinking produces makes us feel more in control of what is going on around us. The excessive loyal to a group that we idolize makes us feel more significant because we belong to something greater than ourselves (see Fromm's The Authoritarian Personality) 

Not only have we heard warnings from those who served him during his presidency, we also have documentation from mental health experts some of whom are from prestigious universities (for mental health concerns such as Trump's narcissism, see The Dangerous Case Of Donald Trump). 

In addition to that, we have history, however recent. Like that of President George W. Bush, the end of Trump's first term ended with America in shambles. It was in shambles because of  Trump's belligerent attitude and response to the nation's medical science community; and it was in tatters because of his his response to the election. His lawyers brought no court worthy evidence in the 60 lawsuits they filed. And when they failed, there was January 6, 2021. Trump himself had told the Proud Boys to 'stand back and stand by.' He advertised the event by saying that it was going to be a 'wild time.' He tried to pressure then Vice President Pence into shirking his Constitutional duties. He set up the whole conflict by claiming before the election that the only way he could lose would be by fraud. He is vowing revenge on his political opponents while claiming that the indictments and guilty verdicts made by ordinary citizens in grand juries and juries are political attacks.

If we refuse to listen to those warnings and if we ignore the recent past, we will be like Israel when, despite the prophet Samuel's warnings, they insisted on having a king (see I Samuel 8:10-22). And what prediction that Samuel gave did not come true?

Yes, Pro-Life is an important issue. But those hoping to manipulate the votes of religiously conservative Christians reduce being Pro-Life to abortion. This reduction of what is Pro-Life is another example of all-or-nothing thinking. In truth, neither the Democrats, with their legitimate concerns for the climate, environment, poverty, and social safety nets, nor the Republicans, with their legitimate concerns about abortion, are consistently pro-life.

Will we heed the warnings or will we provide yet another example of what Hegel said when he said that the only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history?

Those Were The Days

While in the Kennedy Center in DC, the wife and I ventured off to a hallway that contained some of the speeches, statements, and positions made by JFK--President John F. Kennedy.  What is to be most admired about JFK is not necessarily the wide view he had on issues, the country, and the world as large as it was, but the leader he became after listening to others and after not always performing best under certain crises. 

It took time for JFK to come around on civil rights issues. In fact, he had to learn from actions and sacrifices made by ordinary people in the struggle for civil rights and racial justice. 

Likewise, it took the Cuban Missile Crisis for JFK to give a speech at American University that was so valued that it was published by Pravda, which was the official newspaper of the Communist Party (click here for the speech).

As I walked out of that hallway, I spoke to an employee of the Kennedy Center and lamented that we don't have leaders like JFK anymore. We don't have leaders who could truly work with those from the other party. Rather, we have political parties and  leaders who have passionately embraced tribalism. We have political candidates who claim that they, by themselves, can solve the social and economic problems we face while asserting that their opponents can only destroy our nation. And because of the tribalism that their parties and perhaps they themselves promote, they are preventing themselves from learning. They are preventing themselves from learning from those either they cared little for or opposed and from their own errors.

Listen to the speech previously linked to. Note how JFK was  was able to identify the positive attributes of the people of an enemy nation  while criticizing its ideology. He also spoke loudly about our nation's own vulnerabilities. Those abilities are why JFK could learn from others and from his failures. And those abilities are absent in most of the political candidates for whom all of us will vote tomorrow. The absence of those abilities allows for some to give into the desire to rule over those whose views they oppose or whose lives they disapprove of. The absence of those abilities is why we Americans can no longer even agree on what the facts are. 

We are about to see the demise of our nation. Too many people, from all ideological sides, passionately embrace tribalism and are willing to believe conspiracy theories that fit their political beliefs. Their embrace of tribalism has moved them to demonize their opposition while canonizing themselves. And in so doing, they have guaranteed our nation's self destruction. And it won't be until it is too late, until they have seen the destruction they have wrought, that they will be able to see the cruel foolishness that their ignorance, arrogance, and self righteousness brings.

How Did The Tribal Tug Of War For Truth Start?

It is well recognized that our nation is deeply divided. Some fear that the divisions are so deep that there could be some drastic consequences.

At the root of the division is tribalism. Tribalism emerges as group loyalty that crosses a certain threshold. Though it is difficult to precisely define that threshold, the effects are unmistakeable. For example, the more loyal one is to their chosen group, the more difficult it becomes for that person to objectively consider any wrongdoings by their group. In fact, one can be so loyal to one's group that they passionately embrace a moral relativity that says that what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. We saw that in the Cold War when Americans blindly supported the Vietnam War and other US policies that participated, at different levels of involvement, in coups that overthrew left leaning democratically elected leaders and replaced them with tyrannical dictators. Those who claim to be proud, patriotic Americans could see nothing wrong with those actions. 

We see a similar tribalism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Those who are tribally loyal to Israel aggressively assert that the Occupation, the confiscation of land, and whatever other actions are taken by the Israeli government against the Palestinians are morally correct. While those with a tribal loyalty to the Palestinians have already rationalized the terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians.

We have a somewhat new tribalism that is threatening to tear America apart. That tribalism revolves around Trump and Trumpism. And though loyalty to Trump himself makes up a large part of Trumpism, it also applies to the sources of misinformation and political candidates who follow in Trump's footsteps with or without his approval.

It's not hard to see this Trumpism up close and personal. It was evident on January 6, 2021, it was and still is evident during the investigations in January 6 and in the Trumpublican responses to both Biden's forgiving of the college debt as well in FBI search for federal documents at Mar-A-Lago. Not only are the responses by Trumpublicans strong and condemnatory of those events while defending Trump, that reaction is being used to further the divide we have in this nation.

We should note that part of tribalism involves authoritarianism revolving around a given group. Realize that many modern studies on authoritarianism, authoritarian personality types to be specific, were actually started by the Frankfurt School, which has ties to Marxism or Neo-Marxism. Their study into authoritarian personality types was the result of looking at why Germans remained so loyal to Hitler even during the worst days of his regime. Below is a partial list of characteristics of an authoritarian personality type. Review those characteristic to see which of those signs are ones we are witnessing today. Just replace the word 'conventional' in the terms 'conventional beliefs' or 'conventional thinking' with the word ' the group' (click here for the source, click there for a longer list of characteristics):

• 'Blind allegiance to conventional beliefs about right and wrong'
• 'Belief in aggression toward those who do not subscribe to conventional thinking, or who are different'
• 'A need for strong leadership which displays uncompromising power'
• 'A belief in simple answers and polemics - i.e. The media controls us all or The source of all our problems is the loss of morals these days.'
• 'Resistance to creative, dangerous ideas. A black and white worldview'
• 'A tendency to project one's own feelings of inadequacy, rage and fear onto a scapegoated group'
• 'A preoccupation with violence and sex'

We should note what Erich Fromm attributed authoritarian personality types to. He attributed them to being alone and then fear. Fromm identified two subtypes of the authoritarian personality: active authoritarian and the passive authoritarian. The active authoritarian gains significance by having followers whom they can dominate, and the passive authoritarian gains significance by belonging something larger than themself, by following the lead of their preferred active authoritarian (click here for source).

So if that is what you are seeing in the Trumpublicans, then we can say that there is some degree of truth in calling them authoritarians. BTW, we need to realize that Trumpublicans do not have a monopoly on authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is the other pandemic that has crossed all ideological sides. It is that for some, the signs of authoritarianism seem to be most pronounced in the Trumpublicans.

But what started all of this? It all goes back to conservative talk radio, especially with people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin. How did they start today's authoritarianism? If you remember, one of the traits of the authoritarian personality listed above is that of having a black-white worldview. And that is exactly what those three fostered, as well as those who followed in their footsteps, groomed  their listeners into having. Their constant message that conservatives were this country's true patriots and backbone. Meanwhile, they described liberalism as a mental illness, 

While conservative talk radio show hosts deserve a significant amount of the blame for manipulating vulnerable audiences into embracing authoritarian thinking, they are not the only ones to blame. Religiously conservative Christianity created the foundation for the authoritarian culture that has always existed in America. This makes religiously conservative Christians more susceptible to catching the authoritarian personality virus--note that I am saying that as a religiously conservative Christian. The Scriptures lay out how we are under many authority figures. And perhaps we have been put under so many authority figures that we have forgotten how to turn off the authority switch for those settings that involve egalitarianism.

And again, authoritarianism knows no ideological boundaries. Because I lean toward Marxism and have attended certain events like May Day commemorations, I've see authoritarianism in leftists. And because I have friends who are registered Democrats, I've seen authoritarianism in them. 

So we see authoritarianism in tribalism and thus the way to challenge tribalism is not with more tribalism from the group that knows how to do it right, but with approaches that do not include authoritarian traits. In particular, we need to challenge black-white worldviews by showing how such worldviews don't explain the details. Black-white worldviews don't explain the wrongdoings of those in their own group nor the contributions that have been made by those from rival groups. And finally, we need to recognize and try to relieve the fear that has driven so many into following authoritarian leaders. And berating others is not the way to respond to the fear that is in so many Trumpublicans and others today.

Today, Rage Is All The Rage

 While anger can be a negative emotion we experience because of a perceived wrong (click here for source), rage can be described as an uncontrollable anger experienced for the same reason (click here for source). But because of what that uncontrollable anger can appear to offer, rage can act as a siren call to the aggrieved. Rage can seem that way because it promises power, and thus salvation, to the aggrieved who embrace it. However, as one begins to embrace rage, one either approaches the rocks of being under another person's tyranny and thus be vulnerable to being exploited or the hazards of becoming tyrants ourselves.

At this point it is important to compare and contrast the kind of wrongs that so anger us that we feel tempted to sail toward the siren call of rage. Though the rages expressed will have its similarities, there will be a significant difference in the reasons for rage. To see that difference, please compare the official video of Rage performed by Pussy Riot (click here for the video and click there for lyrics translated into English lyrics, both sites are important to access) with the response to the raid on Trump's Mar-a-lago residence (for a range of enraged responses, click here and there). The first video  is in response to people having been abused by a harsh, tyrannical ruler. The latter video and webpage show an enraged response to a perceived wrong where the perception is called by a tribalism enabled sensitivity. 

In the first video, we saw a heavy dosage of rage. And again, the rage felt by many in Russia because of Putin's authoritarian rule is a very understandable reaction to the circumstances. In that video, we get mindless chanting of a mantra along with delusions of grandeur by the main character. 

In the second video, we see a mild case of rage. But it was enough rage to see that being enraged prohibited one from being rational. In this case, Kirk told his people to conduct the same kind of searches or raids on groups like BLM which the FBI performed on Trump. In so doing, he told his people that there would be significant differences between their searches from the search that the FBI conducted. If Kirk was rational, he would note do that. He would not do that because while Kirk wanted his people to target groups for searches simply because Kirk believed those groups were guilty, the FBI had to first present sufficient evidence for a judge to issue a search warrant. That difference alone is glaring and thus it shows how rage is adverse to being rational.

Because Trump is a leader in Kirk's and Metaxas's political-ideological tribe, rage is their response to something that was legal but challenged Trump's dignity and reputation. One of the traits of tribalism is that what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. And so the constant investigating of Hillary, for whom I would never vote, was kosher to the Trumpublicans while even suspecting Trump of wrongdoing becomes a severe threat to his followers.

The problem with rage is that even when rage is understandable because of the amount of suffering endured from injustices, in the end, it does not serve those who are victims. That is because rage makes us vulnerable to believing our own delusions of grandeur that our rage has now empowered us to defeat our sworn enemy. Unfortunately, all too often that power causes us to become like our enemies. Another possible outcome is that rage can be that it causes us to fall under the spell of authoritarians who are opportunists. In either case, rationality and what we prefer to think of as being humane fly out the window and are replaced by authoritarianism. And here we should note that there are two kinds of authoritarian personalities. Being vulnerable to delusions of grandeur leads one to embrace an active authoritarian role that causes one to exploit and abuse others while being vulnerable to the control of others indicates that one has embraced a passive authoritarian role (click here for an explanation of those two authoritarian personality types). The lack of self-control, along with the absence of rationality, are why rage makes us vulnerable to either form of authoritarianism.

Whether one's rage is understandable or was due to misperception because of one heightened sensitivity, there is no good end to rage. That doesn't mean that there should be no anger to the injustices suffered or that we should deny being enraged when we are. It does mean that acting out of rage does not end well. Historically speaking, those who, out of rage, lead rebellions continue the authoritarianism of the tyrants they rebelled against. Maybe those rebellious leaders showed their authoritarianism in different ways, but they still continued the authoritarian rule of those they rebelled against. 

As for the followers who allow their leaders to inspire them to be enraged, they become complicit in the injustices and atrocities committed by their leaders. And so here we need to acknowledge that specific people are not our enemies as much as it is the authoritarianism they employ. Authoritarianism is our real enemy regardless of who employs it.

Belonging To Groups Without Being Tribal

 While talking to a college student who is a Psychology major, I suggested that he read about authoritarianism to understand what is happening today. But understanding authoritarianism gives a partial picture. Understanding tribalism helps us to gain a fuller understanding of today's world.

What is tribalism? G'Joe Joseph (no available biographical material is available) wrote an article warning us about tribalism for the Gospel Coalition website (click here for the article). In terms of reading level and the depth of discussion on the subject, the article is very accessible. So, in other words, there is no real good definition of tribalism or any substantial description of the subject in the article. But there are still some good points made in the article.

In lieu of any definition or description of tribalism provided by Joseph in the article, the following is provided. There are several definitions of the word 'tribalism.' A post Cold War definition defines tribalism by a high degree of loyalty to a group regardless of what the group is about. We could add to this initial description a more detailed description of that degree of loyalty.  We could better describe tribalism as a high degree of loyalty to one's group such that one embraces a moral relativity. That moral relativity says that what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. So what is right and wrong depends on who the perpetrator is and who the victim is. If the perpetrator is one's own group, then what is done is morally acceptable. But, if the victim of the same action is one's own group,  then the same action is immoral.

That working definition of tribalism is somewhat alluded to when Joseph describes the first warning side of tribalism. That first sign is when one makes their own group into an idol while one demonizes other, especially opposing, groups. And this is a good point that Joseph makes about tribalism. 

Another good point that Joseph makes about tribalism is found in the second warning sign gives of it. That one has possibly embraced tribalism when one easily loses their patience with those from other groups when they share. Joseph gives counterexamples to losing one's patients by mentioning Priscilla and Aquila Acts 18.

But perhaps losing patience with others can be better described by noting that a partial way of describing tribalism is to say that it is group authoritarianism. Then one only needs to review the list of traits of authoritarian or authoritarian personality type (click here for an article containing that list). One of the traits from that list is as follows:

Belief in aggression toward those who do not subscribe to conventional thinking, or who are different

If we understand that conventional thinking is relative to the group one belongs to, we can see the connection between tribalism and the 2nd warning sign given by Joseph. Other pertinent traits of the authoritarian personality type from that list include:

• Blind allegiance to conventional beliefs about right and wrong
• Resistance to creative, dangerous ideas. A black and white worldview.
• A negative view of people in general
• A need for strong leadership which displays uncompromising power

Even more enlightening about why authoritarianism, which is a part of tribalism, causes impatience with those from other groups can be found in Erich Fromm's description of the authoritarianism personality. From accurately describes authoritarian personalities as being fear-driven (click here for the article).

So once we see the link between tribalism and authoritarian personality types, we can better understand the dynamics of why tribalism produces the first two signs that Joseph has provided.

The third sign of tribalism that Joseph mentions is when one expects too much from what the groups can do. In terms of groups that are oriented around ideology, expecting too much involves the belief that one's ideology is omniscient and carries with it the assumption that one's ideology has the best answers for every situation and that there are no ideologies that can contribute good ideas to one's own ideology.

Joseph calls that assumption of omniscience, 'making good things into ultimate things.' That one believes that one's group can provide perfection, or we could add relative perfection, in whatever area one's group works on.

Joseph wrote his article so that people, especially Christians, can escape tribalism. That we can belong to tribes, or the word 'group' is a better word to use without becoming tribal. And he is correct. But we need a little more information on how to avoid tribalism than to just spot a few warning signs.

We all belong to groups, but whether that belonging will yield tribalism depends on whether we can control the level of loyalty we have to a group. And how much loyalty we have to a given group depends on what we expect to get out of the given group. In particular, two of several reasons why we join groups are that groups help provide a sense of significance and security. And it seems that the more sense of significance we get from belonging to a given group, the more loyal we become to that group and thus the closer we come to embracing tribalism. 

Thus what Joseph says to Christians toward the end of his article is helpful. Our greatest sense of significance must come from our belonging to Christ. And one of the major parts of belonging to Christ is that we become like the tax collector from the parable of Luke 18:9-14, (click here for the parable). That our biggest sense of significance comes from knowing that despite our own flaws and sins, that, if we believe, we have received God's mercy because of what Christ has done for us on the cross. Such a belonging should go a long way in keeping us from being tribal.

What Do They Mean By A Religious Radical Here

Thanks to Roger Olson's blog on Patheos, which is one of the best, if not the best, Christian blogs on the internet, I read articles on two documentaries regarding American Evangelicals (click here and there).  Those articles two documentaries on American Evangelicals (click here for the first documentary) and the second documentary (click here for the documentary).

The first documentary gives a monolithic view of Evangelicalism and eventually covers a militia in Georgia made up of Evangelicals. It is when the documentary covers the militia group that the idea of fanatic comes into play. The second documentary gives a more balanced view of Evangelicalism even though it limits its coverage of Evangelicalism  to the Nashville, Tennessee area. In that documentary, fanaticism is associated with conservative social and political views including Christian Nationalism.

Because some Evangelicals are being called 'Christian Fanatics' in Olson's article, I wanted to give my take on the subject. For not all Evangelicals are religious fanatics, but too many are.

Here it might help to define what is a fanatic. But there is a problem there. The word 'fanatic' is often used as a pejorative to show disapproval of what a group believes and/or its actions. With both documentaries, Christian Fanatics are not only offended by abortion, but also by the growing presence of unbelievers. 

Also, what is considered to be fanatic or extreme is relative to the status quo and thus the criteria for determining what a fanatic is can be fluid over time. And so some who were considered to be fanatics in their own time period might no longer be called fanatics later on in time. In fact, the relationpship between what is fanatical and what is acceptable is comparable to the relationship between history revisionism and accepted history in that the value of either fanaticism or revisionism can be, in large part, determined by the perceived quality of what is acceptable or accepted history. So just as if the original historical accounts are bad, then  history revisionism can be good. so if what is acceptable is bad, then fanaticism can possibly be good.

So unfortunately, Christian fanatics today are identified by what they believe. But as just previously mentioned, what is fanatical is fluid and thus could change over time so that it could eventually become what is accepted regardless of how wrong it is.

Thus, I thought it might be helpful if we look at whom we consider to be  today's Christian fanatics and focus on their personal qualities that seem to be pushing them over the edge. And those personal qualities are shared by those Evangelicals from both documentaries.

The first personal quality or approach that is apparent in Christian fanatics is tribalism. The word 'tribalism' has several definitions and the definition I will be employing here describes tribalism has when a person has a strong degree of loyalty to a group regardless of what that group revolves around. Why tribalism is a problem here is because as one's group loyalty becomes too strong, one's sense of right and wrong changes from depending on more universal principles and values to that of who is doing what to whom. And so when group loyalty gets too strong,  that sense of morality becomes relative and eventually prevents one from being critical of one's own group.

Here it might be helpful to look at some of the traits that come with tribalism. We can use an article that was previously posted on the this blog to help (click here for the article). Those traits consist of conformity, a sense of superiority to others, a hostility toward both those outside the group and those who are different, and defensiveness. This last trait can be seen in the anticipation of hostility many Evangelicals have because there is a growing percentage of atheists or those who no longer accept traditional Christian values. Thus, many Christian Evangelicals, including those who we would not think of as being fanatics, are anticipating or even perceiving hostility from merely being in the presence of a higher percentage of unbelievers than in the past.

What those traits in tribalism help produce is a group authoritarianism and so we should note that authoritarianism was studied by the Frankfurt School, which I am told follows a Neo-Marxist school of thought. The reason why authoritarianism was being studied was in response to the German population's reaction and almost undying loyalty to Hitler and the Nazis. And much of that loyalty survived the horrific consequences that the German people had to experience because of Nazism. So here we should note that traits that authoritarianism adds to tribalism are the belief in power, having a negative view of people in general, and having a black-white worldview.

Another trait exhibited by those with an authoritarian personality type is to show hostility toward challenges to conventional beliefs. Considering that conventional beliefs are relative to one's ideological world, what we are seeing when exploring tribalism and authoritarianism is the source of fanaticism for some people. And when one looks at the documentaries side by side with a listing of the traits of tribalism and authoritarianism, it should be obvious that tribalism and authoritarianism can come into play in the making of a fanatic.

The problem for us religiously conservative Christians here then is to how to live the Christian life without becoming authoritarian either as a follower or a leader. That can be difficult because the Scriptures and a lot of conservative Christian teaching puts us in so many hierarchical relationships where we must follow authority figures. And so we must ask ourselves this question: How can we submit to the various authorities that the Scriptures tell us to submit to without becoming authoritarian either as a follower or a leader?

In addition, we are encouraged to almost solely rely on Christian teachers to digest the world for us. That is because these Christian teachers are trying to see the world from a biblical viewpoint. But it is also because we are discouraged from relying on worldly sources for learning about the world because such sources lack a biblical worldview. And so not only do we religiously conservative Christians have a penchant for authoritarianism, we also have one for tribalism.

It shouldn't be too difficult to put the above together to explain what we see in religious fanatics. The tribalism keeps people secluded in their groups. The black-white worldview allows those people to demonize those outside their group and thus further secluding them in their groups. That sets people up for adhering to conspiracy theories depending on the ideological or other group those theories emerge from and rejecting legitimate news sources. The demonization of others also feeds hostility towards those who challenge one's own group. The demonizing of others along with feeling superior to others feeds the sense of entitlement to try to rule over others.

But there is still one missing piece of the puzzle in creating a Christian religious fanatic. That missing piece is a tribalism but not one that is spiritually based, it is a tribalism that is worldly based. Groups that us religiously conservative Christians develop a tribal loyalty include America, conservative political ideology, conservative economic ideology, and conservative social ideology, and Western Civilization. It is tribal loyalty to Western Civilization that we see the introduction of the belief in white supremacy. 

Thus, if we religiously conservative Christians want to avoid becoming religious fanatics, we need to avoid tribalism and authoritarianism. That is we must avoid developing deep loyalties to any ideology, nation, a denomination's theology, or other-oriented group to avoid tribalism. That doesn't mean that we cannot have any loyalty to a group. But it does mean we can't afford to be so much loyal to any group that we become blind to its faults and sins. Once we are able to see the faults and weaknesses of each group to which we belong, we become less hesitant to learn from other groups and appreciate their strengths. To do that, we limit out much of the world we see in black-white terms.

 American Christianity is facing a crisis. That crisis is that it feels pushed into thinking that and responding to a nation that is increasingly secular. Considering that many religiously conservative Christians believe that the US started as a Christian nation and that is understandable. But understandable or not,  we cannot afford to respond to this growing secularity by circling the wagons and trying seize back control. Because we live in a democracy, we do have to learn how to exist and function as the Church while remain free of tribalism and authoritarianism.

The State Of American Politics

 Already we are hearing about one possible presidential candidate in 2024.  Of course that would be Donald Trump. His followers don't realize what a disaster his presidency was. His presidency, like that of George W. Bush's, left our nation in shambles. Yes, it got an assist from the Covid-19 virus. But still, Trump's judgment during the time he was in office was very suspect. 

From the beginning Trump was either enthralled or intimidated by strongman leaders. Even if we don't include Putin in the mix, he expressed jealousy over China's Jinping's maneuvering to become President for life, he was impressed by Erdogan, he congratulated  Duterte for how he handled the Philippines drug problem, and from I read from one of Woodward's book on Trump, he seemed intimidated by Jung-un of North Korea.

Trump's reelection hopes always relied on his immigration policies and the nation's economy. Moral shortcuts were seen in the Trump Administration's treatment of those who were detained though it should be mentioned that there were some similarities with how Obama's Administration also treated undocumented people. But Obama was able to talk about unwanted immigrants without using racist descriptions. 

But let's face it, we will never solve our immigration problems until we make our foreign policies and trade agreements a significant part of our immigration policies. Why is that? It is because our foreign policies and trade agreements have been instrumental in driving up the demand for people wanting to emigrate to this nation. Our foreign policies have a history of increasing the rate of violence in a nation even for the long term. There is something about supporting regime changes where the incoming ruler acts as a tyrannical dictator that can tend to make a nation more violent. As for our trade agreements, they have been partially responsible for increasing poverty in some of our trade agreement partners as the targeted beneficiary of those agreements are often corporations. That is what we saw with NAFTA.

As for our economy, Trump took shortcuts there to ramp up, or actually partially ride the coattails of his predecessor's, success. Here Trump cut environmental regulations that increased short term profits while endangering our future both with respect to climate change and environmental concerns outside of climate change. In fact, Trump did all he could to show the world that he refused to believe that climate change even existed. 

Trump's tax cuts targeted the wealthy. That and his spikes in the military budget again put America's future at risk as the they resulted in unnecessary spikes in the deficit. Many of us didn't notice this because we were convinced that Obama left the military in shambles--something that is kind of hard to do since even under Obama we were spending more money on the military than the next 8 nations combined. But as one old rock song mentioned: 'Paranoia strikes deep.'

And while we weren't watching, Trump restarted the US in a new arms race with Russia.

But what do we get with Biden? Certainly he is an authoritarian at heart though not to the degree that Trump is. He claimed that he could work with the Republicans but has yet to show that. Having floated his recovery plans earlier in the year, some non-Trump Republicans met with him to see if they could strike a deal. But Biden refused to compromise with them. As a result, Biden's infrastructure plans will have no Republican support. In fact, some of Republicans are thinking about letting America default on its loans and shutting down the government, a step that will hurt many of us.

And then there is Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan. Certainly we needed to withdraw because we were in an unwinnable conflict with those who hosted those who attacked us on 9-11. Our troubles from Afghanistan started when Carter signed off on assistance with the predecessors of the Taliban, the Mujahideen. Here we should note that, like the Taliban, the Mujahideen strongly opposed the social reforms that the Soviet friendly Communist government was trying to continue and even add to that included an improved standing for women. Thus we have another success story for employing binary logic in a world full of continuous values.

Certainly, any withdraw from Afghanistan was going to be messy. But Biden showed insufficient effort to minimize that messiness. And he has still failed to acknowledge that he could have done a better job.

Yes, Biden has some success early in his tenure as President. But will his performance hurt the Dems chances of keeping control of at least one chamber of Congress let alone both Such is an important question because the Republican Party is still under the control of Trump. Their denial of reality, seen with Climate Change during Trump's Administration has leaped tall buildings in a single bound with their reactions and responses to the Covid crises. And they plan to center the 2022 midterms on the ludicrous accusation that the Dems are Marxist socialists--such is an insult to many of us who lean to varying degrees toward Marx. But such is the state of the Republican Party because of the deliberate ignorance possessed by many of its registered voters.

And though we could go one about the government, we should note that, in many cases, a nation's politicians are only a reflection of its people. Here, we can realistically blame Trump for spiking the political polarization we see. This polarization is the result of tribalism, a tribalism that is built on the practice of canonizing one's own views and leaders and stoking fear by demonizing one's opponents. And many of us just go along with that.

If this article seems pessimistic to you, then good. I really don't see anyway out of the mess that the whole nation, including its politicians and its people, have made for itself.

The Three Threats To Our Democracy And They Are Us

 I recently wrote a post on Facebook that said the following

Arrogance makes us deaf.
Loyalty blinds us.
And Authoritarianism makes us stupid and foolish

 Because the above items apply to the population in general, then our politicians are not necessarily what is destroying our democracy--a democracy that might not even survive the current election. It is the people who are destroying our democracy.

Yes, certain politicians are playing a role in dismantling our democracy. But they have no power without support from the people. And the sad truth of our current state is that just as art is said to reflect life, so our politicians reflect too many of us. Suppose Trump loses and Biden is sworn in as President, we will still have the same divisions that we have under and were nurtured by Trump. We will still have some white supremacists sharing a key characteristic with their liberal and leftist counterparts and even some police officers: the inability or unwillingness to recognize legitimate limits for how they operate. And a piece of evidence that supports the claim that our politicians show us what our people are like can be seen in that too many of our politicians fight against recognizing limits to their actions.

The first statement from above says, 'Arrogance makes us deaf.' What inspired that saying is a statement made by Martin Luther King Jr. about the West as he spoke against the Vietnam War (click here for the source):

The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

The attitude that onesel or one's group has everything to teach and nothing to learn from others is rooted in our wanting to feel significant.  But in seeking our significance in that way, we are denying the significance of others. And when we can so easily turn a deaf ear to what others have to say, we overstate our own significance. We show that our own sense of significance is rooted in feeling superior to others rather than being satisfied with merely contributing in collaboration with others. And for us to believe that we ourselves or the groups we belong to, have all the answers,  then the superiority we claim is not just that of a sports teams seeking to win a championship, it is a superiority that comes with being omniscient. 

The problem with claiming such omniscience it is that it is based on delusions of grandeur which are eventually effectively challenged by facts on the ground. And while others wait for those facts on the ground to catch up with one's claims of knowing everything, many are made to suffer.

No ideology has all the answers. And so it is just like what Martin Luther King Jr. said about Capitalism and Marxism. He said that we need to take the best parts of both approaches and merge them together in a hybrid. He said that because he noted the weaknesses and strengths of each ideology. He stated that while 'Communism forgets that life is individual,' he added that 'Capitalism forgets that life is social' (click here for the source).

 The next statement that requires examination is the one that says, 'Loyalty blinds us.'  Loyalty to a person or group is fine to a degree. But there comes a degree of loyalty that serves neither the subject(s) nor the object(s) of that loyalty. We see such loyalty in the patriotism/nationalism of many people. When their loyalty to a given nation is too great, then loyalty to the nation trumps commitment to universal principles and moral values. The result is that the nation no longer has any any outside standards with which it can judge itself. Thus, what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. Such loyalty to one's own group says that whatever one's group does to others is fine, or necessary at the worst. But whatever is done against that group is immoral. This eventually leads to the rule of force even by those groups that claim that they follow the rule of law.

Finally we have the statement about authoritarianism. Here I am referencing the authoritarian personality type that was explored by the Frankfurt School in an effort to understand why the German people remained so loyal to Adolf Hitler even to the end. The authoritarian personality has both an active and passive side according to Erich Fromm (click here for the source). The active authoritarian personality is on display by those who seek more and more power.  The passive authoritarian personality is seen in those who enable the active authoritarian to seek and maintain power.

We see both authoritarian personality types on display in the reaction and response to dissent. The response to dissent doesn't employ rational thought and dependence on facts. Rather, the response seeks to attack the source because truth is determined more by the credentials of one's sources than the facts on the ground and the logic used to organize those facts. And because authoritarianism is fear-driven, the response to dissent tends to be aggressive and even hostile. Rather than trying to prove that a dissenting view is wrong, the authoritarian, by hook or by crook, attempts to discredit the source of dissent.

 And because authoritarianism is fear driven, there is the strong tendency for authoritarians to demonize those individuals or groups that express dissent. The fear that drives the authoritarian personality is that of not having enough control over others.

Because authoritarianism does not foster rational and logical responses to dissent, it causes stupidity and foolish responses. Rather than question our authority figures and rationally examine what they are saying, we accept most, if not everything, our authority figures have to say we find ourselves ignoring facts on the ground and logic. Thus authoritarianism makes us stupid and foolish.

If only our leaders demonstrated arrogance, too much loyalty, and authoritarian personalities, we could survive. Unfortunately we see these traits in more and more people from <b>ALL</b> ideological perspectives. And that is why our democracy is in trouble today. For if it was only our leaders who went off the rails, then activism could easily and quickly correctly their errors. But many who are not our political leaders cling to arrogance, have unchecked loyalty to people, groups, and/or ideologies, and have embraced an authoritarian personality.

 

 

 

 

The Conservative Church Is At A Crossroads

The times have caused movement within the conservative Church in America. Religiously conservative Christians are being pulled from multiple directions. Their penchant for political conservatism has them divided between supporting Trump and fellow conservatives who oppose Trump. In addition, mere observation and the influence of Post Modernism are telling many of them that because of the prevalence of systemic racism, we need to make changes. The demand for equality from the LGBT community also muddies the waters for many such conservative Christians. More and more conservative Christians feel forced into what is really a false dichotomy between supporting  equality for that community with the acceptance of homosexuality as a allowable sexual orientation for Christians or choosing to continue marginalizing that community.

And there are other divisive issues for the conservative Christian Church down the road. Some are already feeling the pull away from the economic system they grew up with. And what should we say about patriotism? Is it another religion?

So religiously conservative American Christians are at a crossroad. But it isn't the kind of crossroad one would expect with the conflicts tugging at us from different directions. The crossroad we are facing isn't whether we should remain politically conservative or not--I have personally decided to opt out of political conservatism. Rather, the choice we have is whether we will continue to embrace tribalism or not. Currently we hear the siren songs from a few groups that ask us to be tribal. They include the old groups like the Republican Party and conservative political ideology. But now we need to question whether we will retain tribal loyalty to our nation and whether we will embrace tribalism if we change party and politically ideological alliances. In other words, our choice is whether or not we want to continue to embrace tribalism.

Of course the big question is what do I mean by tribalism. There are several definitions and the one I am using is a post Cold War, sociological definition. That definition spoke of tribalism as having a high degree of loyalty to one's group regardless of what that group revolved around. In Christian terms, we could define tribalism as what occurs in a person when loyalty to a group trumps commitment to principles and morals.  When tribalism holds sway over a person's life, then because of loyalty what is right and wrong to a person depends on who does what to whom. In other words when one's own group does the same hurtful action to another group, it is not wrong. But when that other group does that same hurtful action to one's own group, it is wrong. And all of that is because loyalty determines what is right and wrong.

It follows then that tribalism interferes with one recognizing the real faults of one's own group. And when that occurs for us Christians, then we become incapable of speaking prophetically to our own groups. So while we have no problem with trying to correct others, we become offended and even defiant when others return the favor.

Thus, in essence tribalism becomes group authoritarianism. And thus the traits that are part of the authoritarian personality type become part of the person who embraces tribalism. When the authority or values and traditions of one's own group are challenged by others, one responds to them with hostility. In addition, tribalism causes one to think in black-white terms so that those within the tribe are regarded as being on the side of good and those outside of the tribe are seen as a threat. Here we must remember the words of Obi-Wan as he confronted Anakin Skywalker after Anakin had turned to the Dark Side: 'only a Sith deals in absolutes'--of course us Christians should note the limits of such a statement. No one from any group is seen as a mixture of being both good and bad. There is also the strong desire for one's group to have as much absolute control and power over those from other groups as much as possible.

So the choice we religiously conservative Christians have is not which political ideology we will choose. Rather, our choice is whether or not we will take a balanced approach to the groups we belong to. Our choice is whether we will have a higher allegiance to what God's Word teaches than our loyalty to the groups we belong to so we can speak prophetically to our own groups. And if we don't look at people in black-white terms, then we will have to choose to listen to others outside of our groups with the intent of learning from them.

Right now, the poll percentages that report on evangelical loyalty to President Trump indicates that we are still choosing tribalism. And that is confirmed by how many evangelicals view those who are not politically and ideologically conservative. And our tribalism is also confirmed by how we are so impressed by power and want our group to have the power so we don't have to collaborate with others.

So the question isn't whether we religously conservative Christians will become political liberals or even leftists. The question is whether we will tone down our loyalty to the earthly groups we belong to so that we can more closely follow God's Word and speak prophetically to the groups we hold so near and dear.

 

 

 

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 2, 2020

Aug 5

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost entitled Tribalism and Irony. IN the article, Clark takes issue with a critic of his article about Grace Community Church’s worship service while allegedly, by Clark, having not read the article. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The siren song of tribalism is particularly alluring to those who build high pedestals for their heroes and pet ideologies--realize that theology is a kind of ideology.

So noting your strong allegiance to conservative political ideology as well as reformed theology, I would be careful in citing others for tribalism. It all has to do with the height of the pedestals on which we place our heroes and favorite ideologies.

BTW, research has shown that there is no spike in coronavirus cases because of the protests since most of the protesters continue to wear masks. That makes the public gatherings of the protests a little too incomparable with the public gatherings of worship where masks are generally not worn.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aug 24

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost warning about a new McCarthyism because of a new Princeton proposal to have a committee be in charge of investigating anti-Black racism by faculty as practiced in their behaviors, incidents, and research. This was posted in Heidelblog.
What is apparent both from past concerns and actions and present ones, is that some conservatives become on edge when prejudice and discrimination come under higher scrutiny. And that seems to say something about those particular conservatives and their ideology.  Here we should note that conservatism is not a monolith so this in now way is describing all conservatives.

What is also odd is this warning about the possibility of a McCarthyism employed by nonconservatives while the political party that most conservatives align themselves with has become much more authoritarian than during the last Presidential election. Trump is now the GOP. That is an ominous warning according to History.

In the past, the Tsars saw themselves as Russia and the Bolsheviks equated themselves with the Revolution. And we know about Hitler and which group he defined as the superior race. When a person or group is equated with a cause or nation, nonconformity is seen as opposition to a greater good and thus the enemy. And yet, Clark is concerned about a new McCarthyism from nonconservatives. The question for Clark is whether he believes that only conservatives can wield the sword of enforced conformity and authoritarianism correctly.

After all, calling for greater scrutiny of what could be considered racism in and of itself is not threatening. What makes it threatening is the authoritarian response to noncompliance emphasizes harsh punishment. So what makes Clark understandably on edge is not just the proposal, but the social context in which the proposal would operate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aug 28

To R. Scott Clark and Carl Trueman for Clark’s blogpost that quotes and cites an article written by Trueman who asks whether we should add to what the Reformers wrote about the marks of the Church in the light of the sins that today’s wokeness is directing our attention today. This was posted in Heidelblog.

Trueman’s article can be found at:
    https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/08/woke-repentance

Granted that wokeness is selective in the sins it points out, but what group, including the Church, hasn't been? So who are Christians to point out that particular fault about wokeness without identifying wokeness as a peer in selectivity?

And why call wokeness hokey? Why call the awareness of social and corporate sins and the desire to doing something about them hokey? Is that because personal, individual sins are more evil? Are status quo sins less sinful than aberrant sexual sins? If wokeness is pointing out real sins, then shouldn't our response be that acknowledging where wokeness is correct and should be listened to rather than labeling it as if it had nothing worthwhile to say?

Trueman is correct in nothing how the Church has failed and that it needs to repent. But what wokeness is pointing to is that just perhaps we have more sins to repent of than we be knowledgeable of or able to repent of. And when realizing that, we gain a better, but not complete, understanding of God's mercy and grace and thus the graciousness with which we need to treat each other. And we might also learn that the Church, especially the traditions it so heavily relies on, is not the only source for learning about our sins.

And speaking of Church traditions, is it possible that conservative theologians, like both Clark and Trueman, are overly dependent on Reformed traditions to the extent that they use them as a canon to determine how we should both understand and respond to current problems?

Is There Hope For Today?

A fellow activist and an important friend of mine keeps telling me that the current system has to crash and burn. A system that is as unjust as ours cannot, nor should it, continue. If the system does crash and burn, then the people who pay the highest price are not those like me who is in the old stage of life. Those who will pay the highest price include my children, my current grandchildren, and any future grandchildren. So I hope that my friend is wrong.

However, the more I look at the world, the more my friend seems to be a prophetess. Those who started drunk with power are still guzzling their drinks. Many who speak truth to power do so out of jealousy. While others who speak truth to power are really calling for war by embracing tribalism. And all war does is to either further fortify the status quo or make the new top dogs into mirror images of the old ones.

The last great call for real change came from the nonviolent part of the Civil Rights Movement. For unlike past revolutions where the revolutionaries all too often became cheap knockoffs of those whom they replaced, the nonviolent part of the Civil Rights Movement invited their opponents to change sides and then when it was apparent that that would not occur, they only asked for laws that promoted equality and protected the marginalized from the actions of their oppressors.

But we have passionately embraced tribalism so that instead of inviting one's opponents to discuss and work together, we have demonized them to the point where we cannot possibly believe that we can collaborate with them. All sides cleave to tribalism. Many Leftist groups do as do many Liberal and Conservative groups. And the only possible outcome that can occur when the status quo is challenged from groups that hold on to tribalism is a competition that ends in a mutually destructive war.

Much to my despair due to the all too obvious future of our subsequent generations, my friend not only seems to be correct now, there is nothing on the horizon that could possibly change our current course. And that is despite the wisdom that both secular and religious prophets have shared with all of us. It's as if too many of us are too determined to self-destruct and that our present comforts here only serve as hallucinogens that blind us from seeing the future.




 

The Pharisee Is The Pope Of Tribalism

Some who are concerned about our national unity identify tribalism as a threat. There are several working definitions of tribalism depending on the context in which the term is used. One such definition is based on a post-Cold War observation. What was observed was that a very strong loyalty could extend to any kind of group such that right and wrong depended on what served the welfare of the group. Such a loyalty allows for only moral relativity where what is right and wrong depends more and more on who does what to whom. Such loyalty acts as an inhibitor on people being able to judge their own groups.

For those concerned about our national unity, they are worried about the different groups within the nation where very strong loyalty is evident. They are worried that some groups based on ideology, religion, language, ethnicity, economic class and national identity have too many members who are more loyal to their groups than they are to the nation. Please note that some of these groups that are receiving such loyalty might not be located in our nation. That was the concern of Joe McCarthy and the red scare in the 1950s where those who identified with any kind of Communist ties were then received workplace sanctions.

Here we should note that those who are concerned about our national unity do not regard nationalism as a form of tribalism because nationalism is suppose to be acting as the pie in which different groups of American become its pieces. But all we have to do to show that nationalism can act as a form of tribalism is to change the overall context to something larger than the nation, such as the world. When the pie is globalism and some nations have garnered a great loyalty from enough people, then those people may not care if their actions hurt the world at large, they are only concerned with what is "best" for their nation at the present time.

Of course, we don't need globalism to show how nationalism can act as a form of tribalism. Those who believe in absolute moral values, whether their beliefs have a secular or religious basis, see nationalism act as a form of tribalism. In the context of absolute moral values, tribalism occurs when loyalty to any group, including the nation, trumps commitment to principles and morals. When this occurs, we end up with the rule of force and an ends justify the means ethic.

That ethic was clearly seen in the actions of former Vice President Dick Cheney as he was portrayed in the movie Vice. In that movie, Cheney did not care about what he did to others or whom he hurt if he saw that it protected the people of the United States. In other words, Cheney did not allow any moral standards stand in the way of what he saw was needed to protect America. His loyalty to the United States was so great that he recognized no absolute moral values if they interfered with how he thought things should be done.

We see the same tribalism in the form of nationalism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The siren song of the tribalism trap seduces people to pick a side so that they easily point the finger at the atrocities committed by the other side while whitewashing the atrocities committed by their own side. Regardless of whether we have embraced Israeli or Palestinian nationalism, we end up being willing to do anything to win without recognizing any moral limits for our actions.

Because of the moral relativity that comes from strong loyalty to a group, another way to picture tribalism is to see it as a kind of group authoritarianism where the group becomes the ultimate authority over all. And when one looks at the traits of an authoritarian personality type, it is easy to see the connection. Some of those traits include (click here for the source)

• Respect for submission to acknowledged authority
• Belief in aggression toward those who do not subscribe to conventional thinking, or who are different
• A negative view of people in general - i.e. the belief that people would all lie, cheat or steal if given the opportunity
• A need for strong leadership which displays uncompromising power
• A belief in simple answers and polemics - i.e. The media controls us all or The source of all our problems is the loss of morals these days.
• Resistance to creative, dangerous ideas. A black and white worldview.
• A tendency to project one's own feelings of inadequacy, rage and fear onto a scapegoated group  

It should be easy to see authoritarian personality type characteristics on display in internet discussions. As for nationalism serving as an example of tribalism and thus displaying traits of an authoritarian personality type, we simply insert one's nation and its traditional values as the source of acknowledged authority and we should not have much difficulty in seeing how a nationally based tribalism displays authoritarianism. That tribalism demands that others submit to our nation's authority. Why? It is because a fear-driven aggression and hostility over challenges to an acknowledged authority is a summary definition of an authoritarian personality type. And that's what happens when we see a nation or group of nations bully other nations or following double standards?

Now where does the phariseeism come into play here? It is present in tribalism's moral relativity where what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. With that comes a sense of superiority that says what others do against us is wrong but what we do to others for our own good is never wrong.  Here, it would be helpful to look at the parable of the two men praying (click here for the source):

 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

 As the Pharisee exalted himself and looked down at the tax collector as being below him. And so those who have embraced tribalism exalt their own groups and look down at other groups and assume that their own group is an authority over other groups. And as the Pharisee considered the tax collector his inferior, so too we see with tribalism how those from other groups are considered to be inferior to those who embrace tribalism.

It is the Phariseeism lodged in the authoritarian personality type traits from tribalism that have currently seized the day. These traits play a major role in why we are so divided and so uncivil with fellow citizens let alone the world. And it is not until we see ourselves as fellow sinners regardless of whom we compare ourselves with that things will change. And it isn't until we seek to share power rather than to seek to control others out of fear that we really coexist peacefully. Yes, we have real enemies out there. But to act toward others as if we are superior to them and are entitled to control them and their resources that we can actually start living in peace.



 

What Is Leading To The Growing Political Violence In Our Nation?

The pipe bombs and the horrific shooting at the Tree Of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh are logical results of certain processes that have been occurring in our naton for a while. The same could be said of the violence that occurred last year in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The processes that are removing some of the self-restraints that have helped hold our society together start with tribalism. Tribalism has several working definitions in the field of sociology. One of those definitions includes a high degree of loyalty to a group regardless of the basis for identification of a group. Tribalism occurs when loyalty to a group trumps commitment to principle so that what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. Thus, it should be easy to see that tribalism produces a moral relativity in its members. Of course that is the polite way of stating that fact. A more streetwise way of saying the same thing is to say that tribalism produces a gang mentality where what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. And what tribalism starts to eliminate is the ability of people to judge their own groups in terms of doing what is wrong.

But before that tribalism became entrenched, we had conservative pop commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin who portrayed Liberals and Leftists, despite the fact that they could not tell the difference between the two groups, as enemies of America. Not long afterwards, Liberals and Leftists responded in kind. And so now we also have Liberals demonizing Conservatives with Leftists demonizing all Capitalists.

When groups are continually painted as nothing but threats to one's nation and its way of life, it is only logical that violence follows especially as political parties gain and lose support. And that tribalism extends beyond political ideologies to other bases for identification such as ethnicity and religion.

While some will proudly point to their opposition to anti-Semitism, they might hold to other racially, ethnically, or religiously based prejudices. Thus they will promote practices and policies that exhibit those prejudcies while remaining oblivious to the reasons for the fallout of those same practices and policies.

While this nation proudly pays homage to Martin Luther King Jr and his work against prejudice and discrimination, it is only the image many of us want to have of him which we honor. And thus we ignore what he saw what was involved with racism. In his speech against the Vietnam War, he said the following (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.

At this point, it is important to observe a couple of points about his quote. The first observation we should make is that by calling racism, materialism, and militarism triplets, he is stating that we can't eliminate racism without ridding ourselves of materialism and militarism at the same time. He makes that claim in other speeches as well.

In addition, what produces racism and the other plagues is when society puts a higher value on things more than people. And living in America where the values of the Free Market have more influenced our sense of Democracy than Democracy has influenced the workings of the Free Market, it is only logical that our society remain a thing-oriented society rather than a person-oriented society.

Do we really want to reduce the violence that is practiced against groups in our nation? If King's claim is right, it means that our society will change the priority it has placed on the newest gadgets, the maximization of profits, and the hyper-individualized protection of property rights so that people, regardless of the racial, ethnic, religious, ideological, or economic class groups they belong to, will be counted as being more important. The question then becomes this: Does America have the ability to do what is needed to combat our prejudices or will we slip deeper and deeper into division and tribal violence?

The State Of The Conservative Church In America

To my longtime friends, Steve and Caroline. You will have to settle for this blogpost since we didn't have time to discuss things in person during our last visit.

Religiously conservative Christianity is roughly facing the same fate that the Republican challengers to Trump's Republican and  Hillary Clinton's campaigns suffered. That fate is failure and the reason will be the same. As guardians for the old status quo, status quo Republicans and Democrats found it too difficult to acknowledge their own failures and sins. That failure to admit their faults was why Mitt Romney's well stated opposition to Trump was translated into 'WAH WA WA WAH WA WA' to Trump's supporters and others who knew that the status quo had failed them. The same occurred for many people when Hillary Clinton campaigned.

Since religiously conservative Christianity has been a strong supporter of the old status quo in the West, especially in America, it is now facing the same challenges that the old status quo is facing. And those who are challenging it, are listening for confessions of wrongdoing before pronouncing their verdict and punitive sentences.

Such has occurred before in Church history. In the pre-revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain when the dominant branch of the Church supported those with wealth and power, the Church, and the Gospel itself, was understandably portrayed as the enemy of the people. Thus when those respective revolutions came, the Church and the Gospel unnecessarily suffered for having aligned itself with wealth and power.

Now instead of national revolutions, the Church is being held accountable by Post Modernism. Post Modernism holds to an outcome-based truth system that says if the tenets of a group lead to abuse, those tenets must be false. And since Christianity has so strongly aligned itself with Western Civilization and a dominant part of that civilization visited exploitation and oppression over other peoples via colonialism and imperialism, Christianity is being given one more chance to distance itself from the Western Civilization. But it is not.

In America, religiously conservative Christianity has become strong supporters of patriotism and business--again, power and wealth. We should note that that patriotism expresses great fondness for the past, especially America's founding. But that fondness strongly interferes with people experiencing a full, emotional connection to America's atrocities of ethnically cleansing Native Americans from the land and of teaching and practicing white supremacy as seen in slavery and Jim Crow. Thus, though America's faults are acknowledged, they are not given their full due by those adhering to patriotism. And by not distancing itself from past sins, Christianity's teachings are being heard as 'WAH WA WA WAH WA WA' by more and more people.

In addition, religiously conservative Christianity has not owned up to its history of marginalizing the LGBT community. Unfortunately, too many religiously conservative Christian leaders have conflated correctly promoting Biblical Christian morals on Church members with doing the same on all members of society regardless of their religious beliefs. That caused those leaders to marginalize the LGBT community in society for centuries in our nation's history. For those younger Christians who know decent and trustworthy people from the LGBT community and have them as friends, that marginalization has created so much dissonance that more and more younger Christians feel compelled to believe that homosexuality is an biblically acceptable sexual orientation.

In short, religiously conservative Christianity suffers from misplaced loyalties and a misplaced spirituality. The misplaced loyalties can be ascertained, for the most part, from what was written above. Those misplaced loyalties include patriotism, Capitalism, political conservatism, economic conservatism, social conservatism, and white supremacy. That is not to say that all religiously conservative Christians will hold to all of those loyalties, but they do experience a tendency to hold to the loyalties from that list to varying degrees.

When, for the religiously conservative Christian, those loyalties become strong enough, syncretisms are produced. A syncretism is what we get when we pound a square peg into a round hole as one attempts to merge two or more ideas that do not fit together. Neither the peg nor the the hole escape change from the violence of the pounding. And so as the peg of those loyalties appear, and 'appear' is the operative word here, to come more in line with what the hole of the Scriptures teach, what is often overlooked is that the hole of what the Scriptures teach has also changed and it resembles less and less what they originally taught. In the mean time, the shapes of the peg and the hole develop a closer resemblance. And if we add our natural tendency to want to be flattered, we see a natural tendency to conflate what the Scriptures teach with how we were raised and taught while we were children.




So much for the misplaced loyalties. There is another problem that religiously conservative Christianity faces that has yet to be mentioned. That is the misplaced spirituality found in many  religiously conservative Christian circles. For it seems, at least to me, what has been often identified as the religiously conservative Christian response to changes in the old status quo, in actuality, is evidence of an authoritarian personality type epidemic in the conservative Church.

Now we should note that we religiously conservative Christians are very vulnerable to embracing an authoritarian personality type. Why? It is because of all of the authority structures we are taught to accept. With those multiple structures comes a growing inability to turn off the authority switch as we relate to society. When we can't turn off that authority switch, we look to either rule over others or to submit to them. And since we share society with many unbelievers, many of whom we look at as being a moral threat, we look to rule over society rather than to share society with others as equals.

And so, in line with those who fall prey to an authoritarian personality type, we become hostile and aggressive toward those who challenge the traditions of the old status quo as we expect others to submit to what we submit to. We also hold on to an overly negative of view of those who don't hold to our religious convictions. We also look for strong leaders who can exercise power over those who do not want to conform. We hold to overly simple, black-white views of the world despite the complexities that many issues we face in the world contain. And we generally don't like new lifestyles or creative responses to new situations because we look too much to the past for our understanding of current life and how to solve today's problems.

Simply adhering to and defending Biblical and other familiar traditions and questioning what is new does not mean that we have embraced an authoritarian personality type. Instead, it  is how we respond to challenges and defend Biblical and other traditions. When we respond with hostility and aggression, we are looking to suppress changes practiced by others and thus to rule over them. On he other hand, when we respond to challenges with questions, we are looking to see what in the new can help as well as hurt us. We are not looking to either accept or reject all that is new. Instead, we are often looking to pursue wisdom by combining what is valid from what is new along with what is valid from what is old in terms of how we should navigate an ever changing world. In other words, we are pursuing wisdom.

Our misplaced loyalties as well as misplaced spirituality has hurt our witness before the world. It has understandably caused many outside the faith to not even want to listen to those of us who hold to the faith. Thus, religiously conservative Christianity is going the way of the old status quo simply because it has identified itself with it too strongly. And all of that has contributed significantly to the decline of religiously conservative Christianity in America and in the West.




 

Is The Tribalism Trap Preventing Peace In The Middle East?

Sometimes, the same temptation that exists in watching a game between arch rivals is the same inclination many of us experience when sizing up the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. That urge is to pick a side and root for that side no matter what they do to win. And though doing so when watching a sporting event causes no significant immediate problems, it does train us to pick sides in other, more critical arenas.

Tribalism has many definitions. One of them involves having a strong loyalty to a group. It matters not on what that group identity is based, what is important is the degree of loyalty involved.  The stronger the loyalty we have to a group, the less committed we are to other groups and even beliefs. So eventually when group loyalty becomes strong enough, we end up supporting the group regardless of what it does. That causes us to passionately embrace moral relativity so that what we see is right and wrong depends who does what to whom. What we are talking about here is a gang mentality.

And this is what many Americans experience when paying attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On one side are those strong supporters of Israel who side with Israel for any number of reasons. Such people find it difficult to find significant fault with Israel's Occupation of the Palestinians. For either they deny that Israel commits atrocities against Palestinians or they justify those atrocities.

And in the other corner are those who, out of deep sympathy for what the Palestinians have endured, support the Palestinians in the same way as those who sympathize with Israel support Israel. I ran into such a group at a panel discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They correctly found fault with Israel for the atrocities it has visited on the Palestinians, but, because of those atrocities, they unfortunately rationalized  the violent responses Palestinians make to Israeli civilians.

Tribalism, which at the most, merely winks at the wrongdoings of one's own group while crying foul at the sins of the group, is what has kept the Israeli-Palestinian conflict alive for these many decades. For as long as we ignore our own atrocities while pointing out the horrific acts conducted by the other side, we are relying n the rule of force. And that fits in with the embracing of moral relativity.

Now it is easy to see how Israel relies on the rule of force because it is, by far, the stronger party between the two. But what is Palestinian terrorism other than an attempt to respond to force with force. And though the force practiced by the Palestinians against Israel might be more understandable because the Palestinians have much more to be angry about in this conflict than Israel, attacking civilians is still horribly immoral and inexcusable.

Thus, we have two sides that rely on force to have its way with the other. And while both sides rely on force to win, they both will risk committing moral suicide while only one side will see military defeat. And we should note with the former is that how one treats one's own enemy can become how one treats one's own citizens.

At that panel discussion, I suggested that the US, Israel, and the Palestinians submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the ICC. Why? Because doing so would introduce the rule of law since all sides would be subjected to the same standards--something that could never happen for as long as tribalism reigns. It would also require both sides to employ self-restraint. The person who responded to my suggestion said that doing so would not help. That same person also had rationalized Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians. But that person also  said earlier that there exists a cognitive dissonance between American and Christian values and how Israel treats the Palestinians. And he couldn't be more correct about the existence of such dissonance.

However, this person didn't read everything about the theory of cognitive dissonance. For he left out the part that says when people experience cognitive dissonance, they usually seek to alleviate that dissonance using the least energy possible. And since change requires the most energy, change is rarely the response one who is experiencing cognitive dissonance exhibits. Yes, people do change when they feel forced to. But that takes a great deal of dissonance and how much it requires becomes almost insurmountable when people embrace tribalism.

Thus, for as long as the violent status quo remains, there is little possibility that sufficient support for changing how our nation responds to this conflict will occur. And this is especially true when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The more violence that is exercised by either group, the more tribalism strengthens its grips on the two parties involved and the more we will witness the same-old, same-old in that region.

We simply cannot afford to support or overlook the atrocities committed by either side if we want a peaceful and just resolution to the conflict. Thus, those who want such a resolution cannot afford the tribal approach where they are almost unconditionally supporting one side or the other. Instead, they must insist that the rule of law be relied on in resolving the conflict. For relying on he rule of law includes self-restraint and discipline. And there is a better chance that the other side will eventually respond to the self-restraint and discipline of their opposing group with their own self-restraint and discipline.

Isn't that what happened during the days of our Civil Rights movement. Blacks had every reason in the world to regard Whites as their mortal enemies and treat them as such. But those who followed Martin Luther King Jr. did not do that. So that eventually, enough support for civil rights laws and changed attitudes took hold and we experienced an opportunity to see racial reconciliation between Blacks and Whites. We had that opportunity but we certainly didn't take advantage of it.

And so we have a choice here. Either  we embrace tribalism or we insist on settling for nothing less than a peaceful and just settlement. To do the latter, we have to provide enough reasons for those who need to change the most to change. And that will never occur when we embrace tribalism regardless of which group we support.