We are in an age where there are great and deep divisions in our society. Politics, or rather partisanship, is one of those divides. People in different parties see the people in the other party as an existential threat to the nation. And that’s not an exaggeration. Loyalty to party has taken a key place – above many other things. At least that’s the perception.
Religious divides are treated in a similar way – especially within Christianity. The divide can be classified as Evangelical/Fundamentalist vs. Progressive. And in many cases one’s faith is tied directly to one’s political ideology or party loyalty.
I have heard many say that they don’t recognize the Christianity of others who see the world so differently from themselves.
Some question if they should try to continue to convince those that are so very different. Some express frustration that their fellow Christians don’t seem to be open to hearing a different way of seeing things – they seem to be firmly entrenched in their beliefs with no room to budge.
I understand this mentality and thought.
The question is this – can reconciliation actually happen with those who are intent on division, fear, and a heavy concern for being right – regardless of what the topic is? Reconciliation requires both parties (people) to desire to come together, to offer forgiveness where it is needed, and to seek a new start. What do you do when someone has no intention of that? What do you do with someone who is only interested in defeating you and your way of thinking?
You wipe the dust off your shoes and move on. There is no sense in wasting energy and effort on someone who has no intention of developing or mending a relationship. That doesn’t mean you bad mouth someone. You just move on and move forward with the building up of the kingdom of God with those who are willing to building and mend a relationship with.
Trying to convince someone of something they have no openness to is a waste. Sometimes the best way to love someone, which is what we are called to do, is to let them go and move on without them.
Having said all of this, the invitation is always there for renewal in relationship. The invitation must remain open for reconciliation. The invitation for mending should remain. And we continue to pray for healing. We continue to pray. We continue to move forward.
Pastor, I agree with most of your message. My problem is with using the word “existential.” Like “adiaphora” the vast majority of Christians have no idea what you are saying. If you look up “existential” on the web you will still be left bewildered. As applies to many philosophical concepts you need to read the book and complete the semester to get a handle on the term. In your post it is an adjective. Not essential. If we rewrite your sentence as “People in different parties see the people in the other party as a threat to the nation” what has been lost? As I recall, Luther used simple illustrations to explain the Gospel to the people (Small Catechism). He did use some colorful words but I don’t think “existential” was one of them auf dutch.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joe, I understand where you are coming from. A big part of the purpose of my blog is to have a home for all the thoughts that swirl around in head. That way I don’t drive my wife crazy. That means sometimes I use words that aren’t all that common. While I understand what you are saying, I’m always open to questions about what words I use. I used existential because it really does fit the description of how people see those they oppose. Existential essentially means the existence of something on a grand scale. There’s a difference between saying someone is “a threat to the nation” and someone is an “existential threat to the nation.” One is much smaller in nature than the other. The existential threat has to do with the very existence of the nation, not just something that could harm the nation. I hope that clarifies things a bit. I really didn’t know how else to say what I wanted to say without a longer explanation, which would have diverted from the intent of what I was writing.
LikeLike
Thanks, that does help.
As for terminology, in one of his early sermons Pastor Titus used the word “adiaphora.” Maren and I looked at each other and smiled as we knew most of the congregation had no idea what it meant. Playing my own Devil’s advocate, Pastor T could have said something like “not required” but that does not capture the full meaning of adiaphora.
So, I bow and agree with your original use of existential as it expresses more than “human existence” as I found on one web page. As I said before, I skipped that philosophy course and will just think of existential as something dealing with existence on a grand scale.
Thanks for exercising my “little grey cells.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for engaging in the discussion. It’s great to know that there are people who think about what I’m writing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Footnote. Pastor, at my age I do think we live in a nation that is generally atheistic or agnostic. As Lutherans and a fellow with other conservative churches we are faced with a serious decision. Do we believe in a Gospel of The Cross of a Gospel of Glory? The Gospel of Glory is scary. As an old guy I remember a song which said, ” Vote for me and I’ll set you free.” I doubt I could live long on sugar. Whenever I think of the Gospel of the Cross I think of the challenges that God and his church carried me through. As my wife often says, “God never promised you a rose garden.” “Take up your cross…”
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s lots to say about Gospel of the Cross and of Glory. Certainly something for us to consider these days.
LikeLike