This is an excellent and insightful article. I agree especially with the humiliation issue and the predictable angry pushback. As a More classical Prayer Book Catholic Episcopalian, I faced much of this. On one occasion, I was told by a younger cleric, “look Dean, if you don’t like these changes, just leave. “ and I’m a social moderate.
I think the really hot button in 2024 Was DEI and the way it was being implemented. On universities, the DEI officer often humiliated professors for pushing back on some issues.
While the woke word was over used, but the proponents often operated with a disdainfulness toward opponents who would resist any of their assumptions.
Even today DEI generates much anger. I notice that even the DSA Democrats don’t mention it.
Loren, I appreciate the effort to get to the bottom of the alienation that has torn both the church and the nation apart. And I hesitate to note this, because I am reasonably sure that you were trying to transcend the behavior that you critique here.
But ultimately you speak from one side of the debate and you describe "traditionalists" who - though benighted - should have been managed with better messaging.
Consider this:
Your article sides with "leaders" (meaning progressives) who need to take responsibility for how they lead. They are the "elites." tThey live on the coasts, and they are urbanites. This, along with superior insight into the issues roiling the church and nation requires that they bring all those other people along, in a more genteel fashion (all the while making what is, of course, the right decision).
On the other hand, traditionalists are people "who are responsible for how they respond," but haven't responded well because they have been humiliated. They live in "the hinterlands;" and they are the ones with "dark passions," the "aggrieved," the fearful, who are "ripe for the picking."
While you briefly acknowledge that traditionalists have a different world view, you don't acknowledge that they have cogent reasons for their views. You don't note that many of them drew more subtle distinctions, which allowed for blessing same sex marriages and marriage rites, without jettisoning the traditional view of marriage. Nor do you acknowledge that maybe - just maybe - Progressives have their own "dark passions" that prompted AOC to acknowledge that Woke 1 was crazy.
I minister to and with people on both sides of this divide. But I don't think that the path to genuine conversation (in the deeper sense of that word) begins with the thesis that those who are right and elite should have managed "those" people with their "dark passions" a bit more effectively.
You're right--I do have my biases and I wanted to acknowledge that those in favor of traditional marriage have reasonable perspectives of why the advocate for such, not solely rooted in bigotry or hatred, and I could have done better to express that. Though as you said, I am trying to speak to progressives and asking them to lead better.
I think where we could part ways is that while I understand your point about "better messaging," change is inevitable. And while I am not an expert on change theory, how people adapt towards change is often highly dependent on how they are presented with that change. So while I would not discount it to simply "better messaging," I think that is a part of it. More so, I think there needs to be some amount of respect and "appreciation" for the people who hold the different perspectives, which certainly has not been the case by most on the left.
Today's reflection was brought to me by God. Seriously. I have been struggling with both sides of these issues for years. As a moderate to liberal Christian, it is very difficult to see people 'supporting' issues important to me by belittling, accusing and generalizing those who they feel oppose their views. Anyone who disagrees with your assessment should think back to the late Rush Limbaugh. The man made a fortune filling the 'humiliation gap' created by the media and politics. Trump picked up that mantle and follows the same formula. Most of it is schtick, tweaking the opposition. It is the opposition that gave them both the license to do that. Regarding this, there should never be any confusion or denial.
As an Episcopalian, I have felt at times, that our church has been hijacked by a political movement who's goal is to bring down on conservatives the shame it has felt for centuries. At times, I feel that the compassion of Christ is severely challenged and denied by those who carve out exceptions to the creed of 'Everyone is welcome'. So many of us fall into the why can't we just get along and love one another as Christ loved us and be quiet camp. Many leave and burn bridges, others remain and hope it will all just go away.
Your article provides an insight that has helped me to understand and see this in a different light. As an individual, I can only do and act on what I believe that I have learned from the Trinity. That is to love and have faith that history ultimately belongs to God, as does the future. Jesus is very clear about the requirements of discipleship. None- hetero, homo, whatever we can come up with as labels- are exempt. We know how the story ends.
yes. exactly. I am an Episcopal priest, and i find it increasingly disheartening that we seem to be reading our theology through a political lens, rather than our politics through a theological lens.
it seems to me that Jesus tells us that the closer we get to being sure we are right (and righteous), the farther away from the Kingdom of God we actually are. That’s why the last shall be first, and the prostitutes and tax collectors are getting into the Kingdom before us.
Because they know they are sinners. And we’ve forgotten that we are, too. And we come to church because we’re *all* wrong about something, and we all need forgiveness and salvation.
This is an excellent and insightful article. I agree especially with the humiliation issue and the predictable angry pushback. As a More classical Prayer Book Catholic Episcopalian, I faced much of this. On one occasion, I was told by a younger cleric, “look Dean, if you don’t like these changes, just leave. “ and I’m a social moderate.
I think the really hot button in 2024 Was DEI and the way it was being implemented. On universities, the DEI officer often humiliated professors for pushing back on some issues.
While the woke word was over used, but the proponents often operated with a disdainfulness toward opponents who would resist any of their assumptions.
Even today DEI generates much anger. I notice that even the DSA Democrats don’t mention it.
Thanks for your article.
Loren, I appreciate the effort to get to the bottom of the alienation that has torn both the church and the nation apart. And I hesitate to note this, because I am reasonably sure that you were trying to transcend the behavior that you critique here.
But ultimately you speak from one side of the debate and you describe "traditionalists" who - though benighted - should have been managed with better messaging.
Consider this:
Your article sides with "leaders" (meaning progressives) who need to take responsibility for how they lead. They are the "elites." tThey live on the coasts, and they are urbanites. This, along with superior insight into the issues roiling the church and nation requires that they bring all those other people along, in a more genteel fashion (all the while making what is, of course, the right decision).
On the other hand, traditionalists are people "who are responsible for how they respond," but haven't responded well because they have been humiliated. They live in "the hinterlands;" and they are the ones with "dark passions," the "aggrieved," the fearful, who are "ripe for the picking."
While you briefly acknowledge that traditionalists have a different world view, you don't acknowledge that they have cogent reasons for their views. You don't note that many of them drew more subtle distinctions, which allowed for blessing same sex marriages and marriage rites, without jettisoning the traditional view of marriage. Nor do you acknowledge that maybe - just maybe - Progressives have their own "dark passions" that prompted AOC to acknowledge that Woke 1 was crazy.
I minister to and with people on both sides of this divide. But I don't think that the path to genuine conversation (in the deeper sense of that word) begins with the thesis that those who are right and elite should have managed "those" people with their "dark passions" a bit more effectively.
You're right--I do have my biases and I wanted to acknowledge that those in favor of traditional marriage have reasonable perspectives of why the advocate for such, not solely rooted in bigotry or hatred, and I could have done better to express that. Though as you said, I am trying to speak to progressives and asking them to lead better.
I think where we could part ways is that while I understand your point about "better messaging," change is inevitable. And while I am not an expert on change theory, how people adapt towards change is often highly dependent on how they are presented with that change. So while I would not discount it to simply "better messaging," I think that is a part of it. More so, I think there needs to be some amount of respect and "appreciation" for the people who hold the different perspectives, which certainly has not been the case by most on the left.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Today's reflection was brought to me by God. Seriously. I have been struggling with both sides of these issues for years. As a moderate to liberal Christian, it is very difficult to see people 'supporting' issues important to me by belittling, accusing and generalizing those who they feel oppose their views. Anyone who disagrees with your assessment should think back to the late Rush Limbaugh. The man made a fortune filling the 'humiliation gap' created by the media and politics. Trump picked up that mantle and follows the same formula. Most of it is schtick, tweaking the opposition. It is the opposition that gave them both the license to do that. Regarding this, there should never be any confusion or denial.
As an Episcopalian, I have felt at times, that our church has been hijacked by a political movement who's goal is to bring down on conservatives the shame it has felt for centuries. At times, I feel that the compassion of Christ is severely challenged and denied by those who carve out exceptions to the creed of 'Everyone is welcome'. So many of us fall into the why can't we just get along and love one another as Christ loved us and be quiet camp. Many leave and burn bridges, others remain and hope it will all just go away.
Your article provides an insight that has helped me to understand and see this in a different light. As an individual, I can only do and act on what I believe that I have learned from the Trinity. That is to love and have faith that history ultimately belongs to God, as does the future. Jesus is very clear about the requirements of discipleship. None- hetero, homo, whatever we can come up with as labels- are exempt. We know how the story ends.
yes. exactly. I am an Episcopal priest, and i find it increasingly disheartening that we seem to be reading our theology through a political lens, rather than our politics through a theological lens.
it seems to me that Jesus tells us that the closer we get to being sure we are right (and righteous), the farther away from the Kingdom of God we actually are. That’s why the last shall be first, and the prostitutes and tax collectors are getting into the Kingdom before us.
Because they know they are sinners. And we’ve forgotten that we are, too. And we come to church because we’re *all* wrong about something, and we all need forgiveness and salvation.