Listen To Article
|
我姑姑上周试图越过边境她是一个加拿大人生活在德国和一个女儿住在密歇根州。她飞到加拿大,在我父母的房子隔离了两个星期,然后开车前往边境,相信自己能够过境,因为她与一个仍然是受抚养的孩子团聚。没有这样的运气。美国海关官员把她转过来,没有告诉她原因。不过,边界的麻烦是边界实际上并不在边界。美国海关在美国。加拿大海关在加拿大。区分一个国家和另一个国家的实际线横跨桥梁。所以当她拉到加拿大海关检查站时,警官告诉她,由于她现在已经在外国,她将不得不再隔离两个星期。没关系,她已经在美国所有的二十分钟,从来没有得到她的车。她会把脚趾跨越边境,显然她现在是一个威胁到真正的北方,强大和自由的公共健康。如果我听起来激怒了这一点,因为我是。
...
我和我的朋友们这些天一直在谈论很多关于边界。不是实际的陆地边界,而是界定人们可以和不能说什么的界线。什么是和不是社会可以接受的。听起来像背叛一个事业,或投降到另一个事业。现在我们说的话带来了很大的重量。我们承担的负担不是说真话,而是说正确的话。确保我们正确认识自己,与现状保持一致,没有人有理由称我们为种族主义,或者偏见,或者天堂禁止,福音派。说错误的话,提出一个问题,把脚趾放在可接受和不可接受的边界之间,你很容易被羞辱,抵制,取消,并被迫进入自我隔离,以免你感染他人与你的邪恶的想法。建议文化影响或意识形态倾向在导致越来越多的人向性别过渡中发挥作用,显然你必须讨厌变性人。从讲坛上说,种族主义是系统性的,压迫是真实的,基督徒被呼吁做正义的艰苦工作,你是可能是批判理论的马克思主义支持者。庆祝一个国家节日,很可能你是一个白人至上主义者,不尊重土著人民。想知道是否有更好的方法来组建警察,你几乎肯定是一个无政府主义者。人们把脚趾跨越线,然后我们把他们扔到深端,靠在墙上,指责他们有一种极端或另一种极端。我们喊,我们喊,我们标签,我们感到满意,我们已经做了良好的工作,保护社会,保护自己,保护我们的未来,免受这些问题的人。不需要再害怕那个人了,他们无助地在我们投入的水域中飘荡着。因为恐惧,我认为,这加剧了我们的两极分化,我们的自我正义,我们的决心消除问题的人。也许害怕失去权力。害怕看起来愚蠢,也许。但也害怕不能实现完美的乌托邦,我们的后基督教社会相当相信我们可以实现,这种恐惧很容易渗入教会,在那里,我们渴望成为上帝的更新代理人,可以很快变成部落的胜利。我们的恐惧导致我们妖魔化和羞辱另一方。我们害怕被羞辱使我们无法参与对话。所以我们一直挤在我们的角落,在我们的边界两侧,脚趾牢牢地保持在我们下面。
...
上周日,我访问了谁住在底特律北部的朋友。我们开车到底特律河的口,它打开到圣克莱尔湖。我靠在铁路上,看着穿过水蓝色的水在加拿大,我的家。自去年 10 月以来,我就没有踏进加拿大,随着边境关闭,目前还不清楚下一步什么时候能做到这一点。所以这是尽可能接近,在温莎大方向的波浪。我们看了一段时间,我想知道边界在海浪中究竟在哪里。快艇照顾,皮划艇拥抱的边缘,一艘船挤下来的中间。我敢肯定,有浮标指示一个国家停靠,另一个国家的起点,但河流就像一个没有人的土地,一个中间地带,在那里你可以把脚趾浸在水中,并知道它是相同的水,撞到对岸岸。我希望我们花更多的时间在中间地带一起游泳而不是把人扔进深端我希望我们居住在一个同时许多事情都可以真实的空间里,你可以成为爱国者,而不是民族主义者,你可以尊重警察,同时还要求改革,你可以促进男女同性恋、双性恋和变性者的权利,同时还与圣经摔跤,你可以保护环境质疑恐慌,你可以担心经济,想保护人们的健康,你甚至可以写一个博客,要求更细致的对话,同时承认无法呼吸的人没有要求时间和精力来整理事情。有时,它需要采取一个良好的硬的姿态。我们不应该妥协要求正义。抗议、运动和起义是变革的必要组成部分。但是,参与对话、混乱妥协、调整政策措辞和倾听的艰苦工作也是如此。几乎所有的时间一切都比我们想要的更复杂,和最好的谈话,最有可能的理解和转变,发生不是当我们站在我们一边的边界,投掷侮辱和指责和耻辱,但在一起游泳的中间河,问我们的问题,提供我们的智慧,建议我们的答案,并这样做的谦卑和爱,而不是恐惧。今天在加拿大日和 7 月 4 日之间。这是一个我已经存在了将近 11 年的地方,生活在这个地方,但不是我的家,我的心一次在两个地方。在一个国家或另一个国家牢固地牢固地安置起来可能比较容易.但是,当你的心在两个地方,还有更多的爱。这个世界是如此大得多。所以在河里游泳,朋友。谁知道你会在水中发现什么。
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. 🙂