Have We Forgotten How to Think?

 It seems to me that many of us have forgotten how to think. In this time of polarization, it seems we are doing more reacting than thinking. Think with me for a moment.

Thinking engages the mind. Reacting bypasses the mind. Thinking is intentional and disciplined. Reacting is automatic and unconscious, an expression of unrecognized anxiety rooted in archaic fear. Thinking uses the intellect, logic, and reason to pursue truth and to gain a clearer grasp of reality. Reacting defends "my truth" as though it were the only reality - and if not the only reality, the only reality that matters. It is unable to recognize, much less understand or respect, the reality of others. Thus, it discounts and debunks any reality but its own. Thinking is a dimension of emotional maturity. Reacting indicates emotional immaturity. Thinking leads to fuller understanding and, thereby, to growth that leads to even greater maturity. Reacting is a survival mechanism. It is an attempt to protect my ego and the view of reality that I have constructed to prop up my ego. Reacting is the indication of a sense of identity that is tied to a constructed persona. Such an identity is fragile. It is threatened by anything that is different from "my reality." That which is different from my reality suggests I might be wrong. It threatens to expose the weak, disowned side of the persona I have created (my shadow). Consequently, I fear diversity. Everything has to conform to what I believe. This kind of emotional reactivity blocks my ability to learn or change or grow. It keeps me stuck in emotional immaturity.

The kind of polarization we are experiencing in our country and in The UMC today is driven by fear. This polarization and the fear that produces it make it difficult to think. They elicit reactivity, not thoughtfulness. 

Most of us believe we do think clearly. After all, we can give arguments that support our position and that debunk anything that contradicts it. We believe we are thinking clearly when, in reality, we are simply reacting emotionally. We cannot recognize our own reactivity. We are blind to it. 

How do we know when we are reacting rather than thinking?

Reacting is always tied to triggers. It's the proverbial "who pushed your button?" or "who pulled your string?" In the current polarization, the triggers of the self-identified conservatives are abortion (the hot button of evangelicals), Black Lives Matter, rioting and looting or any kind of protest, Defund the Police, disrespect of the flag, rewriting our history, anything that questions the greatness of our nation, immigrants, taking away our guns and 2nd Amendment rights, socialism, increasing our taxes, and anything associated with the DemoBats. The triggers for the self-identified liberals are "Trump," MAGA, police brutality, talk of "law and order," efforts to overturn Roe vs Wade, global warming, handling of the COVID pandemic, children in cages, and stacking the Supreme Court. These triggers elicit automatic, knee-jerk reactions full of anger and unrecognized fear. 

Aside: Notice how many political advertisements play on these triggers and fears. They are attempts to get you to vote "for" by voting against the thing you fear. They appeal to our fear-based nature rather than our best thinking, to our most base nature rather than our best selves. 

How do we know when we are reacting rather than thinking? Reacting is expressed in attacks that ridicule, discount, and demean anything that does not align with my thinking. It is expressed in bubble-listening - only listening to those who express what I already believe and who attack those who disagree. It is expressed in canned arguments that justify my position.

How do we know when we are reacting rather than thinking? Reacting is expressed in either-or, black-and-white thinking. It ignores the nuances that are inherent in any issue, treating them with a "my way or the wrong way" attitude. It refuses to engage in genuine dialogue that explores the issue from multiple perspectives.  

This kind of reactivity solidifies the polarization. It is the way of self-destruction. 

In the face of polarization and the fear that fuels it, we have to work at not reacting. We have to work at thinking clearly. 

To do so calls for self-awareness and self-control. It calls for humility that recognizes my understanding of an issue does not represent all there is to the issue. It calls for respect of those whose experience is different from mine. It calls for a teachable spirit that is willing to learn. It calls for a willingness to stand against "evil and injustice in whatever forms they may present themselves" (UMC membership vows). It calls for a willingness to stand for "liberty and justice for all" where all means all. It calls us to move beyond anxiety-driven, fear-based thinking and functioning. It calls for an ability to escape the what's-in-it-for-me spirit that is inherent to the human condition. It calls us to think theologically under the guidance of the Spirit as the followers of Jesus. In other words, it calls for emotional and spiritual maturity.

It is so much easier to just react. But at what cost?

The Gift of My Adversary

 The intense polarization in this political season confronts me with a challenge: how do I respond to those who not only attack and discount what I think but also attack and demean me as a person? It's the age-old question of "how do I deal with my adversary?" (Sadly, the polarization has transformed former friends and family into adversaries, at least on social media. I am continually amazed at how condescending and mean-spirited some are in their comments.) 

I certainly don't want to "return in kind." I don't want to attack and demean them. And I choose not to give them power over what I think or feel. (Do they really think they can change what I think by challenging, attacking, and discounting my position? Or by being condescending toward me? Raises the question: why do they feel the need to correct me?)

I confess that I have toyed with the idea of unfriending some of them on social media, but that seems to me to be a passive-aggressive, dishonest way of dealing with them. Some would counsel me, "Just ignore them." That sounds like good advice. After all, their comments say more about them than about me. I confess, I sometimes laugh, sometimes sigh, sometimes just shake my head.

But I want my response to be more than what I don't do. As a follower of Jesus, I want to respond in a  way that is redemptive. It seems to me this time of polarization provides a great opportunity for us as the followers of Jesus to speak a healing word - dare I say, a word from God. But to do so, we have to respond out of our spiritual life rather than out of a political posture, out of a Spirit-nurtured spirituality rather than fear. I don't see much of that happening on social media. (Thanks to the pandemic, social media takes up much more of our lives than before COVID.) 

Jesus is clear about how to deal with one we view as an adversary. "But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Do not judge ... do not condemn ... forgive ... give." (Luke 6:27-28, 36-38). Jesus calls us beyond what we don't do. He teaches us to make a positive, healing response. 

As a follower of Jesus, I want my response to be shaped by the teachings of Jesus and the ways of God.  I want to respond out of who I am as a follower of Jesus, not react out of a bruised ego that is offended by what my adversary says or does. (Reacting to what the other says or does is the ego's effort to defend itself. It makes the interchange "about me." Reacting allows the other, rather than the Spirit, to have control of what I feel, of what I do.) 

In fact, I want to move beyond viewing the other as an adversary. Viewing the other as an adversary is us-them thinking. It fails to view the other as a beloved child of God. Viewing the other as an adversary allows me to give up on the other, to cut off from them - kinda like unfriending them on FB. 

In the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), Paul listed five relational terms. "The fruit of the Spirit is ... patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness." These five terms are what love looks like in a relationship. It is to be patient with the other, kind in how I treat them, generous in giving them patience and kindness and compassion and understanding, faithful as in not giving up on them, and gentle in how I touch them ... even when the other is a so-called adversary.  

God is a God of faithful love (Exodus 34:6-7). That means God does not give up on us or abandon us. So, as a follower of Jesus seeking to live the ways of God, I choose not to give up on the other or abandon the relationship. I choose to be faithful because God is faithful. 

But such faithfulness is only possible through the power of the Spirit. The Spirit is the one who empowers me to love as Jesus loved. The Spirit empowers me to do what I cannot do in my own strength. As Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 12:9, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." 

And, therein, is the gift of my adversary. Encounters with my adversary remind me to depend upon the Spirit for power to do what I cannot do in my own strength. They are a reminder to live out of a posture of glad dependency upon God. They are a a call to prayer, inviting me to pray for the ability to respond with love while praying for my adversary. 

"So, I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities for the sake of Christ; for whenever I am weak, then I am strong" (2 Corinthians 12:9b-10).

Merciful God, may it be! 

Voting Our Values

 A major player in the polarization within our country during this election cycle is that of values - what we believe to be true and hold dear. We vote for a particular individual or party based upon how closely they align with what we value and with the truths that we believe are foundational. (Values reflect what we believe to be truth.) 

I am indebted to Brian McLaren for his clear presentation about the diverse values of the different political groups. (See https://brianmclaren.net/the-five-electorates-in-2020) I borrow freely from his post (which I reposted on my personal FB page) before adding my own thoughts. In his post, McLaren acknowledges the sources from which he drew his thinking.

Within the two major political parties in our country are four different subgroups, each holding to a different set of values. 

Traditionalists hold to old-fashion values: hard work, including honest, physical labor; close-knit families and family values, with particular concern for children, mothers, and the elderly; traditional virtues like honesty, decency, respect (especially respect for authority), self-discipline, sacrifice, and service; religious faith and faith communities; the common good. Traditionalists are uncomfortable with the rapid rate of cultural change in our society, believing it to be undermining the strength of our nation. They believe the only hope for our nation is a return to the values that made our nation strong. They are on the far right of the political spectrum.

Conservatives value a limited government coupled with a strong national defense; free and fair markets not hindered by government oversight or restraints; individual freedoms with minimal government interference (particularly the right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment); property and privacy rights; fiscal restraint that includes an aversion to debt. Conservatives fall on the center-right of the political spectrum.

Liberals fall on the center-left of the political spectrum. They value America's growth and global leadership; seek to protect the work and middle classes; fear large, powerful corporations; promote human rights and democracy around the world through foreign aid and international agreements; believe in good government that responds to the needs of the people and the opportunities of current events. 

On the far left of the political spectrum are the progressives. Progressives challenge the status quo of the nation; push for the whole truth about our nation's past and current injustices; advocate for the dignity and diversity of all people, especially the most vulnerable; preserve and protect local economies while being good global citizens; courageously face climate change and the ecological impact of our current lifestyles.

Progressives ----- Liberals ----- Conservatives -----Traditionalists

McLaren identifies a fifth set of values that are at play in today's political environment: toughness that refuses to acknowledge weakness; unapologetic willingness to break any rule in order to win; unquestioned loyalty to the leader, showering him with praise and adulation; sacrifice scientific truth and critical thinking to the reality defined by the leader; identify those who support the leader as good and those who oppose the leader as bad; suppress all dissent. He refers to the group that holds these values as authoritarians. McLaren identifies four primary tactics employed by this group: (1) fear of an enemy - real or concocted - to unify followers; (2) division of society based on loyalty to leader and hostility toward the identified enemy; (3) distortion of and diversion from truth so that the leader defines reality; (4) suppression of dissent, especially protesters and the press. McLaren views this group as a threat to our democracy, as do I. 

Some observations about these groupings. 

Obviously, these groups are painted with a broad stroke. The various groups are not always so clearly distinguished from one another. An individual can hold values from more than one of the groupings. (The  exception is the authoritarians. They hold their values exclusively.) But, for purpose of discussion, the groupings are helpful. 

Each group's values are good, but ... 

It seems to me, we hold our values too tightly. We hold our values - what we believe is true or truth - as though they were the only values ... or, at least, the only values that matter. After all, they reflect Truth (our truth = Truth). Because our values represent what is for us Truth, we believe they should be everyone's truth. As a result, we seek to impose them on others while failing to recognize, acknowledge, or respect the values and truth others hold. The issue of abortion is an example. For many Christians, abortion is not an option. Thus, they advocate overturning Roe vs Wade. Yet, a NPR poll shows the majority of American citizens support Roe vs Wade. Because "abortion is wrong/immoral" is the truth of some, they want it to be truth for all. These same people could rightly argue that Roe vs Wade represents another's truth that is imposed on them. 

In addition to wanting "my" truth to be "the" truth (Truth), we treat the different values as mutually exclusive. As a result, we end up in either-or, right-and-wrong thinking that polarizes us. We see this reality being played out in the various issues of the day. 

Progressives support Black Lives Matter while Traditionalists counter with All Lives Matter. Progressives are the ones calling out police brutality and calling for police reform while Traditionalists counter with Blue Lives Matter and Support the Blue. Traditionalists and Conservatives take offense when Progressives seek to call attention to on-going injustice by kneeling during the national anthem. 

As I have said before, either-or thinking ignores the complexity of any issue. For example, traditionalists argue for the sanctity of marriage, opposing gay marriage. They cannot accept that two gay men or two gay women can love one another the way a married man and woman do. They reject it, often appealing to the Bible to support their position. For them, their truth is the only valid truth (Truth). In doing so, they reject the reality that homosexual relationships have a clearly identified biological component and have been a part of every culture in the world (11-12% of every population) throughout human history. Human biology and human relationships are not as neatly packaged as we would like for them to be. It seems the old adage "there's an exception to every rule" just might be true. 

We approach these issues as either-or because we treat our values as mutually exclusive. I would argue that these values are not mutually exclusive. They are, in my opinion, complimentary. Each has something of benefit to offer. We can acknowledge that all lives matter while also recognizing that, historically, people of color have suffered because of racism and white supremacy. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. We can support the police and advocate for law and order while addressing the issue of police brutality. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. We can celebrate the greatness of our country and support our military by singing the national anthem and still acknowledge the failures of our past and present. The two positions are not mutually exclusive ... unless we make them exclusive. When we treat the positions as mutually exclusive, we are saying "I'm right ... you're wrong."

When any one set of values is ignored or excluded, we all suffer the loss. We are impoverished when we reject what the other values. Even more, we unwittingly contribute to the destruction of the very things we value. In his October 6 article "How Hatred Came to Dominate American Politics", Lee Drutman wrote, "'(T)his level of hatred - which political scientists call "negative partisanship" - has reached levels that are not just bad for democracy, but are potentially destructive. And extreme partisan animosity is a prelude to democratic collapse." 

And thus the challenge: 

• holding to my values while respecting the values of another 
• hearing what the other is saying beyond the slogans and sound bites 
• honoring the voice and truth of one whose experience is different from mine 
• searching together for mutual understanding and common ground 
• seeking what is good for all (the proverbial win-win). 

Could it boil down to something so simple as refusing to demand that everyone be "like me?"

Meeting the challenge calls ...

• for humility that moves beyond "I'm right ... you're wrong" attitudes that fuel either-or thinking;
• for us to move beyond knee-jerk reactions (being emotional reactive);
• for us to be emotionally mature ... certainly more so than we have been. 

I wonder: is it possible? For the sake of all that we hold dear (i.e., value), I pray we can. 

Learning to Walk on Water

The Gospel of Matthew records an incident not recorded by the other gospel writers. After Jesus fed the 5,000 with five loaves and two fish, he sent the disciples away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee. As they were crossing the lake, they were caught in a storm. As the disciples battled to control the boat in the storm, Jesus came walking to them on the water. Three gospels - Matthew, Mark, and John - record this experience. But Matthew adds a detail that Mark and John omit. When Peter saw Jesus walking on the water, he spoke to Jesus. "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water" (Matthew 14:28). When Jesus invited him to do so, Peter climbed out of the boat and started walking on the water. He was doing fine until his focus shifted to the strong winds. At that point, he began to sink into the water. Instinctively, he cried out to Jesus to save him. When Jesus got Peter back into the boat, the storm died down. 

Have you ever wondered why Peter tried to walk on the water? It is easy to say, "That's just Peter. He was an impetuous loudmouth." But this "that's just Peter" explanation misses the point, in my mind. There is more to Peter's request and his willingness to try to walk on the water than his bigger-than-life personality. 

In each of the gospels, the story of Jesus walking on the water in the storm immediately follows the story of Jesus feeding the 5,000. In that event, the disciples came to Jesus with concern about the crowd. Because it was late, they wanted Jesus to send the crowd away so they could go into the villages to buy bread to eat (Matthew 14:15). Instead, Jesus told them, "They need not go away; you give them something to eat" (Matthew 14:16). Jesus expected the disciples to feed the crowd. Of course, the disciples pushed back, citing their inability and the lack of supplies - only five loaves and two fish. Scarcity has long been an excuse for not helping. You know the story. Jesus used those five loaves and two fish to feed the 5,000+ and have an abundance of left overs. 

It seems to me that Peter's willingness to try to walk on water is tied to Jesus's expectation that the disciples could feed the 5,000. Jesus expected the disciples to do what he did - feed 5,000. Peter seemed to have gotten that. So when Jesus walked on the water, Peter wondered if he could do what Jesus was doing, i.e., walk on the water. So he asked Jesus if it were possible. Jesus's response was to invite Peter - do we dare say, encourage Peter? - to try. 

It seems to me, Peter got what the other disciples seemingly missed. Jesus expected them to do what he did ... including walking on water. 

That's a good stopping point - a good sermon, if you please. Jesus expects us to do what he did ... even that which seems to be improbable, if not impossible. But there is more to the story in my mind.

How did Peter put the two together - the feeding of the 5,000 and walking on the water? How was it that Peter understood what the other disciples seemingly did not? 

I suggest that Peter took time to think about what happened in the feeding of the 5,000. He reflected on the experience. He didn't just recount the event with the other disciples or recall it in his mind. He thought about it, contemplated it, sat with it, reflected on it. He sought to understand it. In doing so, he put himself in a position for the Spirit to guide him into insight. (Insight - seeing into so as to understand differently, to see beyond the surface, to see meaning and gain deeper understanding.) In that process of reflecting, Peter came to understand that Jesus wanted his disciples to do what he did. He acted on that understanding when he asked Jesus if he could walk on the water, too. He acted on that understanding when he stepped out of the boat and began to walk on the water. 

Reflection - or, better, self-reflection - is a vital resource for the spiritual journey. I would be so bold as to say there is little progress on the spiritual journey apart from self-reflection. Self-reflection is a tool that nurtures the inner life. 

Self-reflection is a way of processing life's events. Processing an event means reflecting on what happened and how what happened affected me. How did the event impact me? What thoughts and emotional reactions were stirred? Those thoughts and emotional reactions say something about me. They can tell me something about myself. They can be windows into the interior realm of my life. They can help me see something that normally lies beyond my conscious awareness. In other words, processing life's events (self-reflection) can lead to greater self-understanding. 

Self-reflection fosters self-understanding. Self-understanding, in turn, fosters self-awareness. Self-awareness is recognizing what is happening in the interior realm of our lives. Such self-awareness puts us in a position to deal with what is happening in the interior. It puts us in a position to manage ourselves - what the Apostle Paul called self-control. Self-control (self-management) is the doorway to change and, thereby, to growth. 

Here's what the progression looks like:

self-reflection → self-understanding → self-awareness → 

self-control or self-management → change/growth

To say it differently, self-reflection puts us in a position for the Spirit to work in our experiences the way the Spirit worked in Peter's experience of the feeding of the 5,000. 

What happens if we don't practice self-reflection, if we don't process life's events and their emotional impact on me? When we don't practice self-reflection, ...

• we live on the surface. We move from event to event, racing through our daily schedules. We become addicted to the stimulation of "what's next" on the agenda.
• we live with superficial relationships, based on things we have in common. We never go beyond surface things in our relationships.
• we don't resolve the things we experience or the pain they stir. The unresolved pain becomes emotional baggage we carry with us. Unaddressed pain from current events piles up on unresolved pain from the past, compounding the pain. 
• we become emotionally reactive as the pain piles up. We often overreact, an indication that old pain has been touched by the current event. (Self-reflection could help us see through our overreaction to the deeper issue.) 
• we become emotionally stuck as we fail to grow emotionally-relationally-spiritually through life's events. 
• we miss God and the Spirit's transforming work in our lives. The interior realm is the realm of the Spirit, where the Spirit lives and works, growing us emotionally-relationally-spiritually into Christ-like maturity. We miss the Spirit's work when we live on the surface. 

In summary, when we fail to practice self-reflection, we never learn to do what Jesus did. We never learn to walk on water.