“The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it’s indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it’s indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it’s indifference.” — Elie Wiesel
A couple days ago was Easter. I was a good boy, went to church with my wife and (thought I had sufficiently) kept my mouth shut as those who are aware of my recent retirement continue to groom me for increased service to the church. I don’t openly, personally fight anymore; the MAGA movement has won (although the visiting speaker did take a shot at the Church’s foray into politics by making the point that Jesus was not there (on Palm Sunday) to “Make Israel Great Again.” I appreciated that; but the people seem to know what they want.) This blog is where I vent; it is an effort to figure out how to care without being hateful. It has a miniscule audience—so what damage can I do?
There are a still a few people, some impending dropouts, who are interested in talking to me about what’s next. There is a lot of pain here which we are trying to process. And yet again, for voicing my case against the MAGA movement, I’m once again told, by someone that I love and respect, that I am ‘filled with hate.’ What am I to do with this?
There’s history at play here which provides some basis for my concern that I just might not be as nice of a fellow that I’d like myself to be. Being very brief, I had a violent childhood—but I didn’t carry on the tradition with my own family (not that I was perfect.) I just retired from 28 years of service from the Seattle Fire Department. It left a few scars. The accumulated trauma, the memories, the sights and smells of blood, brains, bones, vomit, shit, burnt flesh, people screaming, spitting, in pain, insanity, and rage fills me with copious doubt about how those experiences may have made deep physiological and psychological changes within me. Scientists are studying how accumulated trauma changes people. It does. Is my perception of reality in trouble? Am I really this awful, hateful person? As I see it, I don’t raise my voice or call people names, I just state my case as the situation presents itself. Yet the accusation (of being hateful) still scares me. Why?
What gives? To keep myself sane, I constantly question and study. I grew up with gaslighting. Or did I? That ever remains the question to which I’ve even hired a few therapists to help me figure out if I am the one who is wrong and hateful. Or do I telegraph a message to mean people who can use this sensitivity to hurt me for sport? Physically, I can be intimidating—I’m aware of this. How do I maintain my sanity, when it is sometimes said that in the expression of my convictions that I am a hateful person? Just shut up, don’t rock the boat, and get to work. Just what is the work?
Circle the wagons? (Which is a big part of what I’m doing here.) Continue to collect ‘evidence’ of my right position to justify myself? Or do I give up on the whole notion of right and wrong? Is that what love is? Let’s list and examining a few (possible) ‘hateful’ excerpts from the bible…
“But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul. Again, if a righteous person turns from his righteousness and commits injustice, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die. Because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds that he has done shall not be remembered, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the righteous person not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning, and you will have delivered your soul.” Ezekiel 3: 19-21
It is generally agreed that there is such a thing as sin and here we are being told that we are obligated to illuminate that. Plenty of landmines exist which require investigation into how Jesus went about doing this task. I do not recall Jesus’ thumping on ‘sinners’ but rather His harsh words were directed at the teachers of law—the righteous. But there is still an obligation to warn the wicked as well. How’d He do that? Did He use that term, wicked, against those who weren’t part of the club? I don’t recall that He did. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would convict the world of its sin (John 16: 8) which was affirmed by Paul in Romans 2:15 that everyone has a conscience. I think Elihu was correct in his rebuke of Job (chap 16) in which God is said to be the one who convicts. Does this mean that we are to remain silent? (At least at certain times.)
This question requires wisdom which we all called to seek. The way I interpret the matter of witnessing involves two entirely different modes of word and action for those who do not claim to have the light of the Holy Spirit and those who do make that claim—simply because the language is different. Any time we embark upon a new learning project, we must learn new vocabulary which requires context in which to understand the new concepts and interrelations. So, if the world is going to understand our language concerning the problem of sin and our proposed solution, we’ve been told we need to provide the context for that understanding by simply loving one another (John 13:35.) Right?
I have no idea how many times John 13:35 has been thrown in my face. ‘Loving,’ in the view of those who use this verse to silence me, is basically shaming me to keep my mouth shut and affirm whatever happens to be accepted by the ‘majority’ as our mode and mission. (‘A good time was had by all,’ except me, I suppose.) The trouble I see with this includes (but is not limited to) conveying the appearance of having to ‘join the club’ to be unconditionally loved while at the same time we (as we are now a serious political force to be reckoned with) are throwing stones and using world power to convict the ‘sinners’ to accept our superior way to the good life. Checks and balances accounted for.
Is this the proper way of managing the appearance of our witness loving towards those who are not us? I think not. And it isn’t loving towards those who are not as skilled, connected, and charismatic ‘within the club’ who are being peer pressured to submit to the ‘Make America Great Again’ program. Love must be something more comprehensive than just being silent and nice; isn’t it?
Things would be different if the MAGA movement wasn’t so deceptive, violent, vocal, connected, and motivated to save America for God. Since I believe the MAGA movement is neither Christian in method nor goal, would I have moral culpability (before God) for remaining silent despite my firm conviction that the movement is extremely harmful in our witness to ‘the others’? Or am I more culpable for my ‘hatred’ of the movement and for the rebuke of those brothers and sisters I believe are sullying the church with a program of spreading lies and authoritarianism? Screwed either way? Does the matter boil down to the question of truth and its importance? How do I deal with all the prophets (in the bible) bringing the people of God up on charges of fraud, injustice, and oppression? Or Jesus calling the pharisees out for misleading and abusing the people? (Matthew 23 for example) Yes, I know—I’m not Jesus, and I’m not a prophet…
Some more scripture and brief commentary:
“Thus says the LORD of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart.” Zechariah 7: 9-10
Singling out the word sojourner, that is, a foreigner, one big issue with the MAGA movement is its obviously hateful, fearful, and discriminatory towards ‘outsiders.’ It is blaring at jet-engine decibel levels, warning us of the plague of the dangerous and unwanted invaders of our dear country. I am not allowed to point out to my brothers and sisters that God judged Israel for (among other things) oppressing the sojourner? Not a prophet, shut up… (Amos 5:13?) Okay. Was it ‘hateful’ that the prophets pointed this out, (at God’s direction)? If so, do they get a pass? Back to the status problem?
“Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?” Isaiah 58:6
We reject those obligations even in the following verses. The general rhetoric of the MAGA movement is that the ‘others’ will be a burden to us, taxing our resources, taking our jobs, if we should take them in to feed and clothe them, thus hurting people here. Our propensity for war, our hunger for drugs, slaves (yes, slaves,) even our eschatologically motivated foreign policy makes and keeps many places in the world violent and divided, as Trump callously says, ‘shitholes.’ Where is the mercy in this? As I see it, our silence to suffering makes us complicit to the crime.
(What is even worse is using the vulnerability of those who need help to put the squeeze on them for something you want. Vulnerability extracts a steep price to be paid to those who prey; it is very expensive to be poor. The people of Ukraine are paying dearly for this right now. The ‘squeezer’ (at least the most famous one) is still in the driver’s seat collecting money. Answering the call of our chosen cheerleaders, we still have ‘Sympathy for the Devil.’ (Tee-hee—well… I think it’s funny.) Screw those whose screwing we blessed… Is this Love? (Another tee-hee—groan. Must remember to be silly at times, lest I lose it…))
Moreover, the fact that our political get togethers are not places to debate facts and policy anymore but rather places to pledge loyalty to the movement and provide adulation for a person shows the ‘others’ that we do not care one whit about those who are ‘not us.’ This is hateful. The only yoke we really wish to break is the one referring to our own (imagined?) oppression. I think I think we have been seriously misdirected regarding who is oppressing us. We are being played. The difference of opinion of what comprises oppression, and who is doing the oppressing, might be driving me crazy (Ecclesiastes 7:7?) The inarticulable common belief in ‘The Big Lie’ has stoked huge anger in those who honestly believe the election, and their hero, was stolen from them. The barrage of lies is the oppression to which the MAGA crowd suffers. But much like the past, the farmable resource (that is, us) must be placed (by the manipulation of rumors and lies already existent within a society to guide it into constructive paths) within the hierarchal ladder to stave off a revolt. In other words, the big boys stratify people (in propaganda campaigns) so that ‘they’ can maintain order (and thus extract profits.) Throughout history this strategy to maintain order has been repeated over and over again. In our judgement of human nature, social stratification is viewed as a necessary evil because it is the lesser one (to anarchy.) Having been convinced (as directed and amplified by AI which keeps the monkeys engaged) that pedophile vampires, democrats, liberals, people of color, gays, socialists, atheists, etc., are our oppressors, the MAGA group, which has been obviously (at least to those who don’t rely on blind faith—as the only evidence the MAGA faithful can provide for why they believe the election was stolen is comprised of testimony like, ‘it doesn’t smell right’) jerked around by plethora of lies and political theater is demonstrating that they still have the power to make big things happen. The whole nation will continue to suffer for a belief that isn’t even remotely true; the big boys are cashing in big time. Shrugging your shoulders and saying ‘a good time was had by all’ is not love.
Passion doesn’t make things either true or right. Blind and/or misdirected passion is extremely destructive. The fact one is not being indifferent to a matter doesn’t necessarily mean they are being loving or acting in a loving manner. Being a stooge is not loving—no matter your passion. Truth matters big time—and not going to be bullied out of this.
“Again I saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no one to comfort them! On the side of their oppressors there was power, and there was no one to comfort them.” Ecclesiastes 4:1
“Riots are the language of the unheard.” Are they always? Can they also be stirred up through rhetoric, falsehood, and imagined and/or misdirected oppression? Should we deny our extensive history of white terrorism which sought to keep certain people in their place? Is it possible that the dominant group’s grievances could be inflamed to such a degree that the historically dominant group would go so far as to storm the Capitol to set things up once again as they ought to be? It happened.
Those same grievances are being ever and again repeated by the figurehead of the movement until it is now become a permanent part of our collective psyche. Our preachers teach our proud tradition of the Nehemiad in support of this vision of holy rule. There is nothing new under the sun, for ‘on the side of oppressors there was power.’ Who is favored in this argument over who is being oppressed? After all it seems it could be argued that it is Lord’s people who are being oppressed just due to the fact of who they are (Psalm 9: 9.) A counter…
“You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.” Exodus 22:21
The fact that we oppress (both implicitly and explicitly) our own citizens in statistically demonstrable ways (as in statistical analysis of those most at risk of death at the hands of the police for example) shows me this is a cultural matter larger than the issue of mere citizenship. Telling people, human beings, ‘I don’t know what you are talking about. Sit down, shut up. All of that is over’ when prejudice can be scientifically and statistically demonstrated in our institutions, and in open, public displays of disrespect seen as in the jaw dropping displays of racist tropes and literally turning your backs to the first black woman appointed to SCOTUS, the Odal Rune embedded in the stage at CPAC, the marching of a Confederate Flag though the Capitol building, and an execution, etc, etc, etc, is just evil. In all this, I’m turning my back towards all I was raised to believe; I don’t want the approval (Galatians 1: 10) of the dominant group. If this makes me a hater, so be it. Let’s consider motive.
Romans 1: 18-32 lists a bunch of sins and concludes with the implication that it is a sin to give approval (Συνευδοκέω) to those who practice those sins. My Greek lexicon lists the meaning of suneudokeo as ‘to be pleased with, or to applaud.’ In conversation I’ve had, people have expressed a fear to me that they must actively work to get the government to forbid the practice of these sins else, they fear, they’d be giving their ‘approval’ to those sins. Let’s reason: First, the word means ‘to be pleased with, to applaud,’ it doesn’t mean ‘to allow.’ Secondly, God has the power to make it all stop; He doesn’t. Does this mean He is giving His ‘approval’ to those who practice these sins because He allows it? Lastly, we aren’t ultimately saving anyone by making people behave (salvation by works—right?) Contrarily, as I’ve shown in other posts, the rise of the Christian Right, its bent towards grievance and dishonestly to motivate the faithful to take hold of government power to assuage our fear to not give our approval to the sins of the ungodly, tells the very people to whom we are supposed to be a witness who we really are; in doing so we misrepresent God (refer to Numbers 20: 10-13) by setting ourselves up to lord over the ’others.’ Our means to ‘Make America Godly Again’ (A flag flown at the January 6th insurrection) is deeply corrupt.
My next question: Was Peter hateful when he said this of false prophets and teachers?
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones, whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord. But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, while they feast with you. They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing, but was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness. These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.” 2 Peter 2
These are very harsh words. It is my firm belief false prophets and teachers are at the root of the formation of the Christian Right and its mission to return America to God. With this (apostolic) example, am I to suppose that there are two sets of moral directives, one for the original apostles and another for mere believers? That seems absurd to me. Why is it that Paul said in his letter to the Colossians (2: 16- 23) to ‘let no one disqualify you…’ This is a letter to the lay folk (Am I wrong?) I know I ought to be gentle (1 Peter 3:15) and do my best to be. I try not to get personal. But to those who claim to be ‘in the know’ I tend to be direct—the pushback involves the common accusation is that I am not very loving towards my brothers and sisters when outspoken. The default seems to be that the Holy Spirits convicts the faithful and the faithful in turn convict the ungodly to turn from their wicked ways; I think I think my ‘opponents’ have it backwards.
In processing my hatred, I ask, ‘What is love and how is it conveyed?’ Through violence? Is it justified to beat a child for something of which they have no understanding? (I have personal experience with this.) If yes, then we have no common ground from which to argue. If not, why then would it be justified to beat an unbeliever for his or her unbelief? It seems the only thing the beatings (in those cases) would teach is fear. Loves drives out fear does it not? (1 John 4:18) But we do love the rod, don’t we? (Proverbs 10:13; 13:24; 14:3; 22:8; 23:13-14; 26:3; 29:15.) So many things I do not understand but this is what we get in our commitment to inerrancy and literalism—contradiction and cherry-picking to suit our own desires. I do it too. I think that the rod is only applied to those regarded as less than; appeals to reason are made with those regarded as equals. Yet, we believe, sparing the rod is the hateful option?
After all, we are called to warn the wicked. The disagreement lies then in how this ought to be done. The authoritarians believe in force and threat in the context of failure—hellfire and damnation are the motivator. Peaceful folk believe in a more empathetic approach,
“We must learn to regard people less in the light of what they do or omit to do, and more in the light of what they suffer.”
― Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison
I believe this is where we start. Incorrigibility complicates the matter of course (some food for thought on the difference between ‘bent’ and ‘broken’ can be found C.S Lewis ‘Out of the Silent Planet’) but mostly people want to feel that they are loved. The quote, ‘nobody cares about what you know until they understand how much you care’ is attributed to Theodore Roosevelt; it is a wise saying which is mostly true. Some people are just plain broken though—turned inwardly so intensely that nothing may penetrate. The reality of this necessitates the existence of hell. Which is,
“Hell is a state of mind – ye never said a truer word. And every state of mind, left to itself, every shutting up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind – is, in the end, Hell.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce
Hell is not a torture chamber where angels pour boiling water down one’s throat, but rather the abode of a lonely soul so wrapped up in him or herself that nothing may penetrate—even God limits Himself from violating the depth of this choice. Is this hateful? I have a hard time accepting that God would want this for anyone, and yet He allows it. Perhaps this gives us some clue as to the depth of the incarnational magic—to reluctantly agree with the depth of suffering He endured? In the end, choice must remain if there is to be love; and if there is love, then pain will follow; and finally, heartbreakingly, rejection…
There is no remedy for my ‘hatred’ but to strive to convince others that I care first; to be believable in showing that my hatred is for that which shackles us—and not for those shackled. I must accept my imperfection and doubt in the process without letting self-righteousness take over. It is hard to believe this is possible. I still must try.
“To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves
Maybe I’m starting in the middle. I need to hear the advice of Teddy Roosevelt to first provide some evidence to the human I’m talking with that I care about them, and not about obtaining power, control, or status over them. The wisdom, and defense starts in determining if they care that I care. There is wisdom in knowing which battles to fight, and which ones are an obvious total loss.
I still think that I will be accused of hate regardless, and that I must become okay with this even though it hurts. If I can honestly say to myself that I’m at least thinking about the matter of pride and power, maybe then can I stomach the failure. Disappointment in myself is okay. Being Paralyzed for fear of rejection is not. I need to remember that ‘the opposite of love is indifference;’ and that love must always be governed by truth.