|
Listen To Article
|
내 이모는 지난 주 국경을 넘으려고 노력했다.그녀는 미시간에 사는 딸과 함께 독일에서 캐나다인 생활입니다.그녀는 캐나다로 날아 갔고, 부모님의 집에 2주 동안 격리된 후 국경으로 몰아 갔습니다. 그녀는 여전히 부양가족인 아이와 재결합하고 있었기 때문에 자신을 넘을 수 있다고 믿었습니다.그런 행운이 없지미국 세관관은 그녀에게 이유를 말하지 않고 그녀를 오른쪽으로 돌렸다.그러나 국경의 문제는 국경이 실제로 국경에 있지 않다는 것입니다.미국 세관은 미국에 있습니다.캐나다 세관은 캐나다에 있습니다.한 나라와 다른 나라를 구별하는 실제 선은 다리를 가로 질러 자릅니다.그래서 그녀가 캐나다 세관 부스로 올라갔을 때, 장교는 그녀가 지금 외국에 있었기 때문에, 그녀는 또 2주 동안 검역해야 할 것이라고 말했습니다.그녀가 20 분 동안 미국에 있었고 결코 그녀의 차에서 빠져 나간 적이 없다는 것을 신경 쓰지 마십시오.그녀는 국경을 가로질러 발가락을 두었고 분명히 그녀는 이제 진북부의 공중 보건에 위협이되었습니다. 강하고 자유롭습니다.나는 이것에 대해 향이 들리면, 그 때문에 나는.
...
제 친구들과 저는 요즘 국경에 대해 많은 이야기를 해왔습니다.육체적 토지 경계가 아니라, 말할 수 있는 것과 말할 수 없는 것을 구분하는 선들.사회적으로 받아 들일 수없는 것은 무엇입니까?어떤 원인에 대한 배신, 또는 다른 원인에 대한 자충처럼 들릴 것입니다.우리가 말하는 것은 요즘 많은 무게를 지니고 있습니다.우리는 그 부담을 부담합니다. 참된 것을 말하는 것이 아니라 옳은 것을 말하는 것입니다.우리가 자신을 제대로 식별하는지 확인하고, 현상에 자신을 맞추고, 아무도 우리를 인종 차별, 비범, 또는 천국 금지, 복음주의 호출 할 이유를 제공하지 않습니다.잘못된 말을 하고, 질문을 제기하고, 허용 가능한 것과 용납 할 수없는 경계 너머로 발가락을 대고, 부끄러워하고, 불매 운동을하거나, 취소하고, 자기 검역소에 강요하여 다른 사람을 사악한 아이디어로 감염시킬 수 있습니다.문화적 영향 또는 이데올로기 적 기대는 전환 성별에 증가 숫자를 선도하는 역할을 제안하고, 명확하게 당신은 트랜스젠더 사람들을 싫어해야합니다. 연단에서 인종 차별주의가 체계적이며, 그 억압이 현실이며, 기독교인은 정의의 열심히 일을하도록 부름 받고, 당신은아마도 비판적 이론의 마르크스주의 지지자. 국경일을 축하하고 매우 가능성이 당신은 원주민에 대한 존중과 흰색 우월주의자있어.경찰을 구조화하는 더 좋은 방법이 있는지 궁금해. 그리고 당신은 거의 확실하게 아나키스트입니다.사람들은 발가락을 선을 가로질러 놓았고, 그 발가락을 바로 깊은 끝으로, 벽에 대고, 극단적이거나 다른 것을 비난합니다.우리는 외치며 소리 지르고 레이블을 붙이고 우리는 우리가 한 선한 일에 만족하고, 사회를 보호하고, 우리 자신을 보호하고, 문제가 있는 사람들로부터 우리의 미래를 보호합니다.더 이상 그 사람을 두려워 할 필요가 없습니다. 그들은 우리가 그들을 던져버린 물에서 무력하게 흐려져 있습니다.그것은 두려움이기 때문에, 제 생각에, 그것은 우리의 편광, 우리의 독의를 악화시키는 우리의 문제 사람들을 제거 할 우리의 결심입니다.권력을 잃는 것에 대한 두려움, 아마도.어리석은 것에 대한 두려움, 어쩌면.그러나 또한 완벽한 유토피아를 달성하지 못한다는 두려움은 우리의 포스트 기독교 사회가 달성할 수 있다고 확신합니다. 교회에 너무 쉽게 흘러 들어가는 두려움, 하나님의 갱신의 대리인이 되려는 우리의 욕망은 빠르게 부족의 승리로 변할 수 있습니다.우리의 두려움은 우리가 다른 악마와 부끄러움에 이르게.부끄러워하는 우리의 두려움은 우리가 대화에 참여하지 못하게 합니다.그래서 우리는 우리의 구석에 모여 있고, 국경의 우리 옆쪽에, 발가락은 우리 아래에 단단히 붙어 있습니다.
...
일요일에 나는 디트로이트의 북쪽에 사는 친구를 방문했다.우리는 디트로이트 강의 입으로 차를 몰고 세인트 클레어 호수로 열립니다.나는 레일에 기대어 캐나다의 아쿠아 블루 물을 바라 보았다.지난 10월부터 캐나다에 발을 디디지 않았고 국경이 닫히면 다음에 언제 그렇게 할 수 있을지 분명하지 않습니다.그래서 이것은 제가 얻을 수 있는 만큼 가까웠습니다. 윈저의 일반적인 방향에 파도가 있었습니다.우리는 잠시 동안 배를 보았고, 국경이 실제로 파도 가운데 어디에 있는지 궁금해했습니다.스피드 보트에 대한 걱정, 카약 선박은 가장자리를 안아, 배를 중간을.나는 한 나라가 멈추고 다른 하나가 시작되는 곳을 나타내는 부표가 있다고 확신하지만 강은 어떤 사람의 땅, 중간 지대처럼 물에 발가락을 담그고 반대쪽 해안에 겹쳐진 것과 같은 물임을 알 수 있습니다.나는 우리가 깊은 끝에 사람들을 던지는 대신 중간에 함께 수영하는 데 더 많은 시간을 보냈으면 좋겠다.나는 우리가 많은 것들이 동시에 모두 사실 일 수있는 공간에 살고 더 괜찮았으면 좋겠다 - 당신은 민족주의자가되지 않고 애국자가 될 수 있습니다, 여전히 개혁을 요구하면서 경찰을 존중 할 수 있습니다, 당신은 성경과 레슬링 동안 LGBT 권리를 촉진 할 수 있습니다, 당신은 환경을 보호 할 수 있습니다공황에 의문을 제기하면 경제에 대해 걱정하고 사람들의 건강을 지키고 싶을 수도 있습니다. 숨을 쉴 수없는 사람들은 시간과 에너지를 요구하는 사치가 없다는 것을 인정하면서 더 미묘한 대화를 요구하는 블로그를 쓸 수도 있습니다.때로는 좋은 어려운 자세를 취할 필요가 있습니다.우리는 까다로운 정의를 타협해서는 안됩니다.시위와 움직임과 반란은 변화의 필수 구성 요소입니다.그러나 대화에 참여하고, 타협을 통해 혼란스럽게하며, 정책의 문구를 조정하고, 듣는 노력도 마찬가지입니다.거의 모든 시간이 우리가 원하는 것보다 더 복잡, 그리고 최고의 대화, 이해와 변환을위한 가장 가능성, 우리는 국경의 우리의 측면에 서있을 때, 모욕과 비난과 부끄러움을 던지고, 하지만 중간에 함께 수영 할 때 발생하지 않습니다강, 우리의 질문을, 우리의 지혜를 제공, 우리의 대답을 제안, 겸손과 사랑으로 그렇게, 두려움하지. 오늘은 캐나다의 날과 7 월 4 일 사이에 있습니다.그 사이에 있는 곳은 제가 거의 11년 동안 존재해 왔던 곳입니다. 제 집은 아니지만, 제 집이 아닌 이 곳에서 살면서 동시에 두 곳에 제 마음을 가지고 있습니다.한 나라 또는 다른 나라에서 확고하게 잡히는 것이 더 쉬울 수도 있습니다.하지만 마음이 두 곳에 있을 때, 사랑해야 할 것이 훨씬 더 많습니다.세상은 훨씬 더 큽니다.그래서 강에서 수영, 친구.누가 당신이 물 속에서 발견 할 것입니다 알고.
Well said, Laura. I think you make a very good point that has broad reaching implications. So much of life and living is not inclusive of other views and perspectives. For instance, religion and religions (especially including Christianity) are mutually exclusive. Christians and Christianity say there is only one way to find acceptance with God and that is through Christ. “There is no other name…” So Christians exclude all other religions as to a person fitting into God’s good graces. But other religions do the same. They all are mutually exclusive. So we prefer to stay within our own borders and find fault with those on the other side. We even do that within our own Christian circles, finding fault with other denominations who are treading on slippery ground. And the problem you describe, Laura, is so profound that we have hundreds, if not thousands, of Christian denominations. And our Reformed denominations are getting close to making more denominations (or groups) over the LGBT issues, more borders, as to acceptable or unacceptable, inclusive or exclusive. Somehow, I imagine God is very confused over all the borders we have established for ourselves.
Thank you for saying this so well.
Amen.
Thanking you for great thoughts, this morning!
“… and you’re probably a Marxist proponent of Critical Theory … you’re a white supremacist with no respect for indigenous people … you’re almost certainly an anarchist …”
Reductionism! The fallacy occurs when an explanation of an event is assumed to be a single, simple cause when it may have had multiple causes. The cause is oversimplified, preventing a more in-depth analysis, often in order to deceive the listener as to the real causes.
“Almost all the time everything is more complicated than we would like it to be…”
Life requires effort – physically and, mentally.
Loved it.
Hard times require hard decisions. We cannot swim long in the boundary waters; sooner or later, we have to go for the shore, one way or the other. And if we tire before reaching safety, the river simply sweeps us away and our voice is lost.
“Choose this day whom you will serve” reflects the writer’s frustration with a people who want it both ways, who cannot wade through he complexities to some form of settlement, but want more time for reflection, thought, research, and prayer.
For the writer of Joshua, the people cannot have their gods of culture and history (think Confederate monuments and flags) and still worship Yahweh. The framers of the Declaration of Independence had to cross the boundary finally, realizing that compromise with Britain wasn’t going to work, because King George believed he held all the cards (as those in power always do), and thus, in his own mind, would have the final say so.
You touch upon so many issues, but all of them revolve around justice for the oppressed, the marginalized and the “different” (even that word begs the question: who in the world decides who’s different?)
Many years ago, while I was still hoping my denomination (the PCUSA) would work its way through the questions of ordination, etc, for LGBTQ persons, I said to my associate pastor: “We need more time.” She replied: “My brother [a gay man] doesn’t have any more time.” Then and there, I realized that those who “want more time” to discuss things, to consider the materials, to take another look at this and that, are really failing people who need us, on their behalf, to “choose this day whom we will serve,” with the unsettling realization that those calling for “more time, more discussion” are really only delaying the time when they might have to change their mind, enlarge their boundaries, include those whom they’re previously pushed away, pay more taxes and embrace the neighbor, think globally rather than locally.
In other words, take down the monuments, redesign the flag, welcome the LGBTQ person with fulness of heart and mind, repent of the nation’s sins against Indigenous Peoples and Africans and Asians.
I appreciate your call to conversation, but as I read your essay, I became increasingly uneasy. Having been a minister all of my adult life, I know what it’s like to serve congregations with a hodgepodge of views, many of which are at loggerheads when closely examined. I’ve danced around many an issue over the years, hoping that people might really be able to talk it through, build some compromises, learn and grow, but the present mess in society and church speak to my own failure to “choose this day.” The dreams of compromise and further learning never really came to pass. Whether I should have spoken out more firmly, remains to be seen, I guess. But I can’t escape the feeling that I should have.
All the best in these boundary-crossing times.
Tom, I appreciate this comment. While I was reading Laura’s blog, I had this uneasy feeling that the ways I was agreeing with her made me more comfortable. I have the privilege of wading through the river, because it never seems to sweep me away. I’m not oppressed. I’ve never had an interaction with police in which I was afraid for my life (maybe afraid of getting a ticket, but I generally deserved it). It feels easy to stay in the middle and not choose. But then I thought a bit more about Laura’s blog, and what I think I took away from it is even when we choose, maybe we should keep our hearts and minds open to the other side of the border. Maybe the border should be more porous than it is currently. Maybe while we’ve planted our flag, we can keep up conversations, relationships, covenants if you will with others and not throw them away, and do so in a non-judgmental way. There is a theory in non-violent approaches to life that argues making space for others allows change. Maybe choosing a side of the border creates that space rather than all swimming together in the middle trying to figure it out, but it also feels that the space created needs to hold us together rather than split us apart. This theory feels like hospitality, space made for respite and refreshment, where we can come together to disagree but not be disagreeable, to be together through porous borders. It doesn’t make the issues simple. It acknowledges their complexities, and we still need to “choose this day,” but maybe with a huge serving of humility.
Joshua’s words about choice are wrongly interpreted to be a choice between God and gods. The command is to love God and serve Him. the choice in Joshua’s words is that of choosing among all t he other gods. Think of a long road with many sidetracks. We are commanded to stay on that long road. If I decide to leave the road I have choices about which sidetrack to take. All of these sidetracks lead to destruction. Read Joshua’s words. Serve t he Lord, but if you are going to worship other gods you are going to have t o choose from among many gods.
Yes, Tom, agreed. As I started reading this, I was struck by the thought, “How could her aunt not realize that the border is closed right now?” There are borders that have been drawn for a reason, well-publicized, and yet, there still is an ignorance about whether or not it is o.k. to cross them. I’ll hear a Christian tell a racist joke, and wonder, “How did they not realize that this is horrible line that shouldn’t be crossed?” You very accurately point out that many of the author’s “borders” are social justice issues. The problem is not the borders, but the bizarre choices of many Christians to fight about where the line is rather than to fight for the oppressed. The no-man’s-land is a playground for the privileged and hell for the oppressed, and I won’t play there. Funny thing about getting into the Detroit River, the border guards watch that river like hawks, and you cross the line without the proper permission, you’ll end up in jail. You don’t put your boat on that river unless you understand the rules and consequences. The same goes for social justice, you stand on the wrong side of that line, and there will be consequences.
Alina,
I agree that there are times to choose, times to take a stand, things we can’t compromise on. But I do think there are helpful conversations to be had about where the line is – or perhaps put better, how to approach the line. Two very pertinent examples I referenced: transgenderism and Critical Theory. On the one hand, people who advocate for the rights of transgender people, who march with them, who support them, are also acknowledging that we’re now seeing stories coming out of especially high school girls who decide to come out together, start binding their chests, change their name, and even begin taking hormone therapy, only to regret that decision in later years. The very real experience of transgender people has become muddied in conversations of gender, depression, and peer pressure. To say so isn’t to diminish the experience of transgender people or lessen their rights, but to simply expand the conversation and acknowledge there are other factors at play that may be harmful to people who get caught up in it.
On the other hand, many within the Church are condemning much of the Black Lives Matter movement as the misguided efforts of Critical Theory Marxists. They accuse Christians who attend protests and march and put up signs as having watered-down theology, of giving in to the Left’s agenda, of being trendy Social Justice Warriors and only speaking out in an effort to virtue signal. They’re therefore able to dismiss the whole movement, and the very real and Biblical cause of ending racism and Black oppression, missing the reality that it’s possible to agree with tenets of Critical Theory without agreeing with the whole thing, that there could be times when Marx agrees with Jesus amidst all the times the two stand in contrast. But many aren’t willing to go there.
And for the record, while the basic fact that the border is closed is true, there are also exemptions to that rule, and the official wording of most government documents regarding essential travel is convoluted at best. My aunt had one such exemption printed out and in hand when she tried to cross. You assume complete ignorance in this situation, but the reality is that this, like everything else I’ve talked about, is ultimately more complicated than we would like it to be.
Thank you … one of your phrases grabbed my mind: “The no-man’s-land is a playground for the privileged and hell for the oppressed, and I won’t play there.”
Thanks, Tom, for this comment. And thanks, Rodney, for your reply. You spoke to what I was trying to put in words as a response. I very much acknowledge the place of privilege from which I can utter this call to dialogue. And acknowledge that many, many people are so tired of waiting, as Scott wrote about a few days ago. I very much agree we need to move forward, need to call people to change, need to take down the monuments and change the flags and be more hospitable. I don’t think I’m saying “don’t choose,” but rather acknowledge the that even in the choices, there are variants. The challenge, as I see it, is how we do help people choose and how to have conversations about choosing. It seems we’re increasingly becoming a culture of shame, and I’m not sure real change is ever effected by shame. To further the river metaphor, if you’re going to coax people across to “your shore,” you could either stand on your side and holler at them to do so, or go into the river yourself and show that you’ll be with them as they cross, that it’s safe for them to do so. Which requires some willingness to meet people where they are and stay awhile. Doing so assumes people are willing to change and grow, rather than assumes the worst about people. And right now, it seems we’re all just really good at assuming the worst about people.
I think that leads to further questions of who should be responsible to go into the middle of the river. Certainly I don’t want to imply that people who are bone-weary of oppression must bear the burden of dealing patiently with their oppressors. But I wonder if one of the things we who are privileged might be called to is to bear with people, to have the hard, gentle, patient, aggravating conversations, refusing to give up on people with whom we disagree. Can we stay with people, when that isn’t an option for others? But I have to think that through a bit more…
I’m guessing this might be too late as the day has passed and I could not come back. Thank you. Laura. I’m hopeful that my sense of hospitality, making room, was an effort to speak to your questions of staying with people (maybe the very definition of hospitality). I agree you cannot assume the worst of people and invite them into your “home,” at least I can’t. Could I invite someone in if I thought them dangerous, violent, and a threat to my family? Probably not. I think I agree with most of what you said. My only point was that honest hospitality and making room, honest conversation begins with acknowledging when and how you have come to one side of the river. That shouldn’t mean we don’t wade into it as often as possible. Again, your article made me think. I don’t always comment, only when a comment or the article really pushes me. Not sure you’ll read this, but thank you.
Well written and what you propose requires work. Fear plays a role in our divisions but I think the bigger question is whether we are we willing to work toward what you have recommended. It is easier to have our lines or borders than to swim in each other’s waters, as it were. Keep up the good work and pray that we don’t get weary (Gal. 6:9-10).
This is only slightly off the main point of your essay, but where does your aunt live? We live in Hannover, Germany and always keen to meet more of our Reformed family abroad!
Your insightful and clever analysis of the cancel culture plague has gotten the attention of your readers, including this one. I look forward to mulling over your words while mulching the garden, percolating your thoughts while pruning the roses.
Well said. This makes me think and that is a blessing.
Be well,
Mark
What an excellent article, as well as exchange in the comments. I’m probably of a different mind as to many current political issues compared to most commenters here (maybe the author as well), but I feel as if I’m of one mind with the author in terms of what she has written in this article and in her responses to comments.
For example, I am concerned, very concerned, about Critical Theory, and perhaps having heard that, many would dismiss me as being opposed to the idea that “black lives matter” (which would be dramatically incorrect). I’m also very concerned about Black Lives Matter (that which is the organization and the cultural and especially political movement (almost party) that it is (not the meaning of the phrase). Again, that might again be cause for being dismissed by some (of being on the wrong side of “making hard decisions”), but I’d suggest — as does the author here — that there is so, so, so much nuance to all of this, and that if we ignore the nuances (which many BLM protesters and many, say, Proud Boy protesters do) and refuse honest, good faith exchange, we’ll get no where except to a state of loss on pretty much all fronts, for pretty much everyone.
Until a month or so ago, I would have said that the chances of civil war in the US in the foreseeable future is zero (the thought of it would have seemed ridiculous). Right now I’m saying the chances are one to two percent. Not much, statistically speaking, but the fact that I (and I’m not alone) am thinking it speaks loudly about how these disagreements are being “processed” (intentionally put in quotes) by so many — on all sides (I say “all sides,” not “both sides,” quite consciously).
On my way to the office this morning, I saw two paper signs taped to my building, purportedly by “BLM people,” warning that at their Salem (Oregon) protest march on July 4 (two days from now), the Proud Boys were intending to show up interrupt the BLM protest march. The warnings were that the Proud Boys would be irrational and violent, which is of course what the Proud Boys would say about the BLM marchers.
There are far, far too many people, including Christians, who have polarized their own minds on these issues in irrational (dare I say “religious”?) ways. Which makes thankful that Laura has written and posted this article and engaged further with responding comments.
You made my day with your article and comments, Laura, even if I suspect you and I might see things differently as to some (many?) of today’s political issues. Thanks for that. 🙂