Skip to main content

And I Said, "Blog You Very Much, May I Have Another?"

There was a meme about successful people versus losers today on the interwebs. A "meme" is one of those pithy pictures with a thought-provoking, snarky, or otherwise hilarious caption made to make a point. Anyway, it said that people who watch TV and fail to keep daily journals were losers. [What if you kept a daily journal about watching TV?--ed.] That's what I was thinking.

In any case, it got me thinking: Have you ever noticed that people always say they don't like "bumper-sticker" politics? First of all, you're lying. You don't like the other side's bumper stickers. I know I don't. And let's cut the mess: There are "sides" in politics, just like in every discussion. And there's nothing wrong with this, inherently. But I think disenchantment comes when we use the same words, but mean different things. We get really hostile with politicians who willfully equivocate for political advantage. But I think it's fractious because we don't define terms, and we don't have a common patriotic heritage anymore that gets us through the frustration of the times when we don't agree on terms. You have to respect someone at a basic, human level in order to define terms together. That's what we've lost: The creative space to do the hard work of defining our terms in policy. That's what people are actually talking about when they say we need "civility." We don't need a rigidly enforced "politeness", though; we need a non-threatening, human, gentle way of teasing each other to make a point. We need bumper stickers.

In the same way that a parable disarms a defensive audience to make a point, that's what our politics should be. But we need to restore the boundaries between the political arena, and neutral civic space. Because the workings of our democratic institutions and processes are a good chunk of the space where rebuilding that common heritage is going to take place, if we are able.

I think if I am called upon to seek and hold political office, my first two promises will be to not make everything political, and to not promise the world. I really want to have a good conversation about the nation and its people. I'd rather lose having committed some mythical "heinous" gaffe in the attempt to have a meaningful discussion than to not have one at all.

Not that I've always been known for level-headedness, but it's worth a go, eh?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un