Ah, the elections are over.  Some people are happy, some are not.  I, for one, am happy — not because the people I voted for got elected (they didn’t), but that we will not be subjected to the petty, spiteful, disrespectful, spurious, un-true/half-true, patronizing, attacking ads anymore.  I cannot remember in recent years so many ads that both attacked the opponent AND insulted my intelligence.  It was as if the candidates and their public relations handlers counted on the ignorance and gullibility of the viewing audience.  “So-and-so has been in office the past two years — therefore he/she is responsible for all that happened.”  Please tell me that no one actually confuses correlative reality with causal fact.  I have often been hired to mediate disputes that got worse after I arrived.  No one was ever silly enough to blame me for the escalated tension.  People elected just two years ago inherited an incredible mess.  There is no way they should shoulder the blame — either for the mess or for not cleaning up in two years what took over ten years to create.

Ah, but this is human nature (fallen human nature, but human nature nonetheless).  How many times in our churches do we encounter a problem decades in the making that we lay at the current pastor’s feet?  How frequently do we allow bad behaviors to go unchecked for years, then act all surprised when problems pop up?  In a culture tolerant of anti-social behavior, we cannot be surprised when it permeates our churches as well.  Of course, we could do something about it… if we wanted to.  But we don’t seem to want to.  We are allowing the church and the whole Christian faith to be reinterpreted for us by popular culture and media pundits.  Case in point: socialism.

With growing amazement I followed the rhetoric about “socialist” government.  Someone, somewhere, sometime noted that egalitarian care for all is a tenet of socialism, so therefore any government involvement in “universal” anything must be socialist.  Someone, somewhere, sometime noted that care for the poor and marginalized is viewed as a moral imperative in socialism, so any focus on “immigration reform” that is framed in terms of justice or compassion must be socialist.  Socialism as a form of government is a complex and convoluted beast, and it defies simple acceptance or rejection; as a philosophy it becomes even more complex — especially for Christians.  Setting aside the politics and disallowing corrupted examples of bad socialist governments for a moment, Christians are faced with a disconcerting truth — regardless of what Glenn Beck might say to the contrary, there is a whole lot more socialism than capitalism in the gospels.  Social justice is central to the teachings of Jesus.  It gets even worse with Paul.

Once political parties usurp concepts and twist them for their own purposes, we get into some messy problems.  The teachings of Jesus really don’t belong to any “ism” and shame on us for allowing them to be mis-appropriated by a secular culture that doesn’t understand or respect them.  There has been virtually nothing “social” about any of the political discourse this season.  A misunderstanding and misapplication of “socialism” to our current situation doesn’t make the statements true.  (Swimming in a duck pond doesn’t automatically make you a duck; caring for the poor and marginalized doesn’t automatically make you a bleeding-heart liberal socialist… believe me; all my conservative friends working in homeless shelters and at soup kitchens HATE the assumption when it is made about them!)

We’re standing in a very dangerous place.  When we allow the secular culture to state that care for the poor, love of the stranger, responsibility for the widow and orphan, visiting the prisons, etc., are part of a negative agenda it spells trouble.  We cannot let being like Jesus and doing the will of God be reframed as a political agenda.  No more can we allow “values” to be ascribed to one political party over another.  Our political passions cannot overrule our common sense and our faith.  It breaks my heart that justice, mercy, kindness, compassion, economic equity, and basic sharing have all been stained by political posturing.

Socialist?  Not socialist?  Republican?  Democrat?  (Green?  Independent?  Sky-blue pink?)  None of this really matters if the only way we can relate is in a decidedly “anti-social” manner.  Unless our faith is great enough to allow us to set aside political differences, the healing work of Christ simply won’t happen.  I think of Paul’s statement in Ephesians that Christ has broken down the dividing walls of hostility, then I think of some very ugly disputes I have witnessed recently in our churches as well as in our political arenas.  Folks, we have to stop following along like sheep and start leading.  Just because the rest of the world gets mired in senseless debate doesn’t mean we have to.  Just because the rest of the world divides itself into self-righteous winners and losers doesn’t mean we have to.  Just because the rest of the world resorts to insult, disrespect, slander, half-truth, innuendo, intimidation, and violence doesn’t mean we have to.  No, we need to model a different way — a better way.  Some might try to label it (something like “socialism) as a way to dismiss it.  But saying something doesn’t automatically make it so.  What we need is to strive to be like Christ, together, and not be overly concerned what labels might be applied.  And maybe if we can begin to offer a better way, others might follow us for a change.

43 responses to “Anti-socialism”

  1. Jeffrey Lewis Avatar
    Jeffrey Lewis

    Hilarious! The Bob and Dave Show proving your point! Invitation to dialogue and civility? Response: draw lines, choose sides, point fingers. Dan, you are right on target, as usual. Thanks to Bob and Dave for illustrating so clearly the problem you diagnose!

  2. Kevin Avatar
    Kevin

    For those campaigns that can afford it ads are prescreened with various demographics to judge the effectiveness. Perhaps it is too much to expect every voter to research every issue so pithy ads to make a point work just fine for many folks. Negative ads also work and are usually the tool of the candidate that is behind in the polls. When the polls show a close race both sides use them. Politics is not always pretty and when the stakes are high all weapons are brought to bear. Not saying I approve of that but that is how it goes. As for the last two years, we had a Democrat White House, Senate and House which passed one of the most expansive partisan bills ever. Did President Obama think he could do this without ramifications? The voters sent a message clearly showing that there are consequences for over reaching. I hope our newly elected members understand this. And the Health Care Bill looks like a trillion dollars worth of socialism to me.

  3. Wesley White Avatar

    “To me, it is less important what our opinions are about the issues, but instead, it is more important HOW we communicate our opinions.”

    And here we have the old chicken and egg problem. A “How” approach that does not engage more than an analytic, balanced journalistic approach keeps the status quo. A “How” approach that dares engage personal views fractures the body politic. And so a divide over something as basic as “How” becomes as great as that between the rich and poor.

    Blessings Dan, Blessings Bobby, Blessings All.

    As we move toward the end of another Church Year, I wonder how much progress we have made from the Advent Expectations of a year ago. It would be nice to have some agreed upon standards for evaluation. Perhaps we are not grieving our loss of place as much as I see us doing and reacting out of that sense of grief. But, in light of a question about “How”, I am intrigued with using that as a lens for the lectionary gospel for this coming week, Luke 21:5-19. How does Jesus’ language help or hinder his differences with the chief priests and scribes looking for a way to put him to death? It raises questions for me about a view that “Jesus has given us all that we need to navigate our way through the discourse”.

    1. Bob Lindsey Avatar
      Bob Lindsey

      I believe that this discussion has been helpful… at least to me. I also believe that God is at work here, and perhaps (though some clearly don’t agree) we are accomplishing what Dan’s article speaks to.

      I hope that I have been civil in my communication, and my definition of dialogue includes a healthy dose of listening to the contributions of others, and contemplating all facets and contexts of the discussion. If I come off otherwise, it is not intentional, and I apologize.

      I would like more from you on the following:

      “But, in light of a question about “How”, I am intrigued with using that as a lens for the lectionary gospel for this coming week, Luke 21:5-19. How does Jesus’ language help or hinder his differences with the chief priests and scribes looking for a way to put him to death? It raises questions for me about a view that “Jesus has given us all that we need to navigate our way through the discourse”.”

      I’m not clear on your question about how does Jesus’ language help or hinder his differences with his adversaries.

      My initial response is that I’m not sure they do help or hinder his differences with the chief priests and scribes. Certainly, we all know the outcome. I think we can agree that Jesus’ words were more so for us (posterity) to benefit from than for himself or his adversaries. That’s why I believe his example of communication (under the worst of circumstances) is a model for discourse among opposing groups of people.

      Certainly, he spoke truth, and he was always concerned with the benefit (salvation) of others, including those that would condemn him. In my opinion, that’s a pretty good place to start if you’re going to go at it (dialogue) with people that you may not agree with.

      If you’re willing to share, I’d be interested in how you approach this within the lectionary gospel. Blessings to you, and thank you for sharing your voice.

  4. Bobby Lindsey Avatar
    Bobby Lindsey

    I do believe that Dan is sincere, and again, I do agree with the premise of the article. I do not harbor any disappointment in his or anyone else’s opinions about political issues, as I certainly have my own. Nor do I have skin so thin that I would spend this amount of time bothering to discuss these issues in order to simply vent with those in opposition to my views. I am clearly failing in my communication.

    Regardless of the intention of the article, in my opinion, it is written in a manner that will not be receptive to some people because of the biased NATURE in which it is expressed. We can have more productive dialogue among opposing viewpoints when we take the time to pray for understanding; suspend judgment in order to hear the message of others, and then refrain from the use of derogatory, potentially insulting statements, or language that is accusatory or separatist in nature. I did not imply that we should not have opinions, core values, or refrain from the use of our intelligence in communication. We all have our own biases, but why reveal them in a manner that could so clearly lead some to view them as insensitive?

    Dan, I feel that you do not understand me, but I believe that you are trying. I don’t believe that the things separating us are right or wrong (they will always be right or wrong in someone’s view), I am concerned about HOW the points/opinions are presented. To me, it is less important what our opinions are about the issues, but instead, it is more important HOW we communicate our opinions.

    We could easily cut and paste that article and every response thus far into any secular-based partisan debate blog, and it would not stand out as being any different than any other pointless conversation. The converse is also true, if we pasted secular, partisan debate blog content into this thread. In my opinion, to the objective viewer, it would be challenging to determine the “Christian” contributions from those of non-believers. Again, in my opinion, the article read like typical partisan rhetoric, for reasons that I’ve previously stated, and I don’t understand why that approach was used when unity was the central theme.

    Within an online discussion format such as this, there will likely be false assumptions made, as well as things taken out of context. Don’t we want to do as much as possible to minimize these possibilities?

    Here’s my version of the premise of the article:

    Brothers and sisters in Christ, the recent elections and the activities surrounding them have clearly reminded us of the peril within our secular world, and how opposing viewpoints (when communicated within the context of negatives ads, partisan political talking points, and media sound bites) can tear apart our nation, our communities, our churches, our families, and our interpersonal relationships.

    As Christians, we recognize our commission to first love God with all our heart, soul and strength, and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Simply stated, Jesus has given us all that we need to navigate our way through the discourse, and recognize that with God as our guide, when we seek His will, we will not only find ways to provide for the needs of all in our society, but we will likely grow in our abilities to understand our differences, and recognize when evil is at work to separate us, bringing us further and further away from active engagement in the healing work of Christ.

    Here are some guidelines for Christians with opposing political views to engage in meaningful dialogue; dialogue nurtured by spiritual grace.

    Then I’d list such guidelines. (END OF MY VERSION)

    The original article itself, this ongoing discussion, and unfortunately what I routinely observe within our churches, does not sound nor look like what I’ve described above. As it relates to my criticisms of the UMC, I am now to the point where I’m advocating for less talk about politics, and more action in service to others. My inability to express this effectively within this discussion and format is another example of why my concerns about the UMC may hold some validity.

    1. David Avatar
      David

      You’ve done an excellent job, Br. Lindsey!

  5. Jeffrey Lewis Avatar
    Jeffrey Lewis

    To Bob Lindsey. I’m confused. Your not talking about Dan are you? You need to reread what he said. If your beliefs are tied to your politics and you don’t like what he is saying, that’s one thing, but there is no other voice in our church that is more consistently calling us to civility and to return to the basics of prayer, evangelism, spiritual formation, and Christian community than Dan Dick. I hope I missed something, because you can’t have meant to say that a call to unity and civil discourse around the gospel of Jesus Christ is what is wrong with the church today!

    1. Bobby Lindsey Avatar
      Bobby Lindsey

      Jeff:

      Yes, I am talking about Dan. It seems that one of two things is occurring here. Either you are correct, and I have somehow completely missed something, and/or you (and perhaps Dan) are too immersed in the culture to see what appears obvious to me. What’s the old saying… “A fish doesn’t realize that it is in water until it is removed from the bowl.”

      First, to be clear, I completely agree with his premise (which I assume to be genuine), the “healing work of Christ” should transcend all labels, political leanings, etc.; I do like what he is saying as it relates to that point. Secondly, I have absolutely no issue with “a call to unity and civil discourse around the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

      My point (and sorrow) is rooted in the manner and choice of language that he uses to express what he is saying. The language itself is clearly divisive in nature. Please consider the following:

      If one were to objectively read that article, knowing little background about the author, is it possible that the article sounds closer to partisan commentary than spiritual enlightenment? And if so, why?

      Cases in point (I am welcome to feedback to these questions):
      1. Toward the top of the article, what was the purpose of identifying that those that he voted for were not elected? What was hoped to be gained by that statement?

      2. The author writes, “So-and-so has been in office the past two years — therefore he/she is responsible for all that happened.” “Please tell me that no one actually confuses correlative reality with causal fact.” It is not difficult to understand how some may take that statement as an accusatory slant (i.e. “you can’t be that stupid, can you?” toward someone that does not agree with the current direction taken to address problems of the past, particularly if they view the current direction as adding to past problems.

      3. The author writes: “People elected just two years ago inherited an incredible mess.” Is that not a current central talking point (and virtually verbatim language) used in the back and forth “blame game” of the 2010 election year? Even assuming that all agree to the factual nature of the statement, it clearly conjures up more finger pointing on exactly who is responsible for created the inherited mess. He goes on with the analogy of laying decades old problems at the feet of new pastors, with the implication being that there is unjust thinking and behavior afoot. In the context of the article and its precept, all of that is clearly divisive commentary.

      4. The author shares his views on what some perceive as an agenda moving toward socialism. In doing so, he defines socialism in a manner that concludes that anyone adverse to addressing the needs of the poor, sick, homeless, etc. in the manner that some believe to be the best way (as if there are no other ways), is wrong or misguided. He then uses the name of a popular conservative pundit (that many people respect because of his messages about faith in God, prayer, and general morality), in expressing his opinion about he degree of socialism in the gospels vs. capitalism. Again, the point being what, that that other guy is wrong and I’m right? Is it also possible that people were already clear on the definition of socialism, and his approach in explaining it all to those “not as intelligent” could be insulting?

      5. The author writes: “Once political parties usurp concepts and twist them for their own purposes, we get into some messy problems.” Isn’t that exactly what’s going on here? I could go on and on. Can you at least see how some may view the article that way? Why write a unifying message in a divisive context?

      My point again is that I don’t need this political rhetoric within my faith community. I think it has no place here, whether coming from someone I agree with, or someone that I disagree with… because there will always be someone in opposition. It simply drains our energy in doing the healing work of Christ, and I view it as an unacceptable example of how secularism has woven its way into our spiritual purposes.

      1. Marianne Avatar
        Marianne

        Oops. Sounds like somebody stepped on some conservative little toesies! How dare anyone have an opinion that doesn’t support Bob’s!

        Dan, keep calling us to civil discourse. Keep calling us back to the gospels and to relationship with Christ. Keep challenging us to ground our faith in prayer, scripture and accountable Christian community. Keep reminding us of the totality of what Jesus said and not just selected parts. And don’t let the people who completely miss the point and have no desire to enter into true dialogue and Christian unity get you down. Those of us who are paying attention to the larger vision you cast as deeply grateful. Thanks.

      2. doroteos2 Avatar
        doroteos2

        Well, Marianne, thanks… I guess. I am thankful that you find value in what I say. But I also want to lift up that the kind of personal, patronizing response to Bobby Lindsey is not what I have in mind. This perpetuates the problem rather than solves it or addresses it in a positive way. I think Bob makes some assumptions that aren’t true, but he has the right to his opinion. He is concerned (as I understand him) that my desire for building bridges across our differences is predicated on the idea that the things currently dividing us are wrong. The problem with this approach is a circular logic: anyone who identifies the problem of judgmentalism is judging, therefore a hypocrite that we shouldn’t listen to. Anyone who understands our faith as holistic and embracing our politics is promoting politics, therefore a hypocrite that we should not listen to. Anyone who disagree with the people we agree with is somehow missing the point and wrong, therefore we should not listen to them — which is what I am hearing in your response.

        Anyone who chooses to label, dismiss, and therefore attack someone for their opinion is not going to be part of the solution. They will merely perpetuate the problem. My concern with Bob’s comments is that I do not believe it is possible, nor advisable to try to compartmentalize and segment our faith. If our values and intelligence do not have anything to do with our faith or politics, we are in big trouble. To say that we should be in spiritual dialogue as if politics, core values, and deeply held opinions do not apply is problematic to me.

      3. David Avatar
        David

        Dittos, Bobby. Thanks for taking time to dissect the article to reveal the author’s left-sided bias. His obvious bias and disappointment with the recent election makes one question the sincerity of the point he is attempting to make.

      4. doroteos2 Avatar
        doroteos2

        I’ve never claimed to be anything other than a Democrat — though I don’t tend to vote party as much as conscience. There have been some fine Republican, Independent, and hodge-podge candidates that have received my votes. I have never pretended to be unbiased. What I have repeatedly said is that when we get stuck in our biases and will not be open to talk — when we have to resort to name-calling, labeling, and finger-pointing to dismiss a call to civility and open disagreement — we are in trouble. Question my motives all you want to, but my point still stands: regardless of our politics, regardless of our values, regardless of our prejudices, if we refuse to be open to the other side we are the problem, not part of the solution.

      5. David Avatar
        David

        doroteos2:
        “…We get stuck in our biases and will not be open to talk.” With this one phrase, you make my point precisely. Your column is so biased from the beginning that you shut down the possibility of promoting the civil dialogue that you call your readers to advance. The condescending tone of the political opinions you express throughout the article belies the point you claim to make. I challenge you to go back and carefully read your article, paying special attention to the political opinions you state and ask yourself, “If I were of the opposing view point, how might I view this article?” In short, your article takes a very disagreeable tone from the very beginning, thereby falling short of the civility you expect of your readers.

  6. Bob Lindsey Avatar
    Bob Lindsey

    Last month my wife and I shared with my pastor that we are losing our faith… in the United Methodist Church. The central reason is that at seemingly every level (from the local church, to Annual Conference), there is such a permeating political presence at every turn. It seems to be our accepted “way of being.”

    Like our society itself, the lines are so crystal clear where individuals stand on the issues, that any mention of anything related to spiritual growth and doing God’s will is diluted and superficial at best, simply wrapped around an agenda. This article is a perfect example of this.

    The writer states: “Unless our faith is great enough to allow us to set aside political differences, the healing work of Christ simply won’t happen.”

    He uses this statement in summarizing an article laced with his own political leanings made clear at the onset, and then repeatedly speaks critically of those holding views unlike his own. I want my faith community to be a place where “the healing work of Christ” is the discussion, and more importantly, the activity. There are an endless number of resources in this world that I can access for political partisanship, I’ll not have my church be one of them, it is breaking my spirit.

    After a long evening of discussing with a member of our church, how heartbroken I am at how our church as a whole seems so locked into and preoccupied by secular issues. For me, this article (from a prominent leader within our conference) is the final straw. Please think about what you are doing. Blessings to you all.

  7. Kevin Avatar
    Kevin

    Rob
    for a nation state to exist it must be able to defend itself. In our case there are plenty other countries that depend upon the USA for some of their self defense needs so our military budget seems out of proportion when percentages are compared around the globe. Examples; Canada knows we would come to her defense if invaded by Russia. Japan does not need nuclear weapons because we have the nuclear umbrella on their behalf an so on. And you are correct. Free enterprise depends upon protecting free enterprise. How much that costs is subject to debate. The world’s sea lanes are safe for shipping because we have a Navy that helps ensure that. Enough on that. We are straying from the post.

    1. Zuhleika Avatar
      Zuhleika

      It amazing how much humans love to pick sides. Most of the comments miss the point of the blog – the writers are too busy supporting their own political viewpoint.

    2. rob Avatar
      rob

      My point, to the post, is that as an outsider it puzzles me that American public debate seems to label tax dollars for health care, education, or social amelioration as evidence of creeping “socialism” while shoveling TRILLIONS of tax dollars into the Military Industrial complex (Dwight D. Eisenhower’s term not mine) is dismissed as an “investment in free enterprise”. As our honoured host at this blog suggested; how can you expect a civilised civil process when the labels are skewed from the get go?

    3. JustoPointout Avatar
      JustoPointout

      I am so tired of the “our budget is so high because we must protect the rest of the world for free enterprise” excuse.

      1. Canada has officially requested that we provide military protection for them? Japan has requested that we keep a nuclear arsenal on their behalf? What did the US do? Offer a free trial sign-up offer for us to pick up your defense costs?

      2. It’s ironic that we’ll provide “military insurance” to the rest of the world, even though they aren’t asking for it and probably don’t need it, but we won’t provide health insurance to our own people, who are dying for lack of it.

      3. It’s also ironic that the focus of this obscene military spending is protection of “free enterprise,” meaning money and corporations. Are there pirates in the North Atlantic again?

Leave a reply to rob Cancel reply