Reframing the Culture Wars
I've been thinking a great deal lately about the culture wars. Calling them wars is an appropriate way to describe the fighting, but I think that taking the analogy too far is more hurtful than helpful.
For example, a real war really requires everyone to fight. Families fight fear and anxiety when their loved ones fight in combat. War time shortages cause those many degrees away from the actual fighting to contribute to the war effort by conserving.
All analogies break down someday, and a key area where this one breaks down is that most people don't need to be fighting in the culture wars. In my opinion, the majority of us--especially us Christians, shouldn't be fighting in the culture wars. The first commandment is to love God, and the second is to love our neighbors. For me that is more than enough.
It got me thinking about alternatives to fighting. How can those of us, for whom the stakes aren't so high, respond to the conflict? What can we do to bridge the gap and live and work more effectively with neighbors with whom we disagree?
Rather than simply ignoring the questions entirely, one possibility is to transform the either/or questions into new questions that are open-ended. This would take the pressure off of already heated debates, and it would encourage new dialog that might reveal a surprising number of areas where the two sides agree.
Here are two examples:
"Should GLBT people be allowed to be priests or bishops?" could turn into "What are the characteristics of a good priest? In what ways is a priest responsible for modeling morality and stability in a parish? In what way should a priest's family's health play into his or her consideration for the ministry? How should a discernment committee weigh problem areas in a candidate's past?"
"Is it appropriate to refer to God as, 'She'?" could turn into "What are the names of God? Why have the obscure ones from the Bible become obscure? How can a person with trauma from abuses of power and authority approach God during the healing process?"
There would, of course, still be the temptation to go back to the original questions, but I think that (in most cases) the second questions could be more interesting and enlightening. At the very least, they'd be different than the standard fare being served up on these those topics these days.
Comments, Trackbacks, Pingbacks
The URI to TrackBack this entry is:
Leave a comment
Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
For my money, the best advice on how to handle the messier side of the culture is to find ways to witness in it and not just to it. Check out _The Gutter_ by Craig Gross. I think he's got a good handle on this idea. He's the founder of Tripple X Church dot com (when I try to actually write the address I cannot post). Incredible ministry, way outside the box, and right where the culture is instead of lobbing bombs from the sidelines.
Comment by J-Tron [Visitor] · http://www.j-tron.org/propaganda — 08/01/07 @ 13:35
I love your recommendations for dealing with the culture. Good thoughts there.
The situation I was referencing, though, was one where two people or a group are having a debate, and they get caught in a stalemate with those first questions. The assumption is that the conversation is happening with Christians, who are not in decision making roles already immersed in Christian culture.
The problem with the first questions are that they go nowhere. When you have two sides that are thoroughly entrenched in their view points, picking away at the same question doesn't help. Conservatives see GLBT ordinations as a morality issue. Progressives see GLBT ordinations as a rights issue. That's a recipe for disaster. However, reframing the questions so that they are open-ended forces conversation. You can't just yell, "Yes!" and "No!" at each other anymore--at least, not at first. These questions have the added benefit of being bigger questions--especially the first set. GLBT issues play into the question of what makes a good priest, but focusing on that is taking the conversation off topic.
As for why we didn't go for the better questions first, I don't know. I haven't been alive for the entire conversation, and I've been an Episcopalian for much less of it. For all I know, the fight could have started with those questions. In my experience, though, the questions that come to mind first are the ones that are the most controversial. People, also, just plain like to fight. :)
Comment by kristy [Member] · http://kristy.fremde.org — 08/02/07 @ 14:27