A Like Minded Church Plays Footsie with The Law of Group Polarization

There are some churches and church pastors who genuinely believe that the most faithful expression of their faith is to be with “like minded people”. Who does not like to be with others who are like minded? I love to be with people who remind me of my favorite person (myself)! Beyond the comfort of being with others who do not challenge us beyond what where we are willing to be challenged, those advocating for a like minded church assume that the church would somehow be better.

It is argued that a like minded church would be more “faithful” or more “efficient”. This assumes that if a group of people could stop arguing about the same issues or people THEN (and only then) could we get to the “business” of making disciples. The like minded church dream assumes that revisiting the same matters is somehow unfaithful. It is as though the like minded church would rather stop wrestling with the same person for so long and walk away with two good hips. The like minded church is suspicious of limping and cannot imagine that there is any blessing in wrestling.

In addition to these basic theological concerns, we ought to have with a like minded church we also should be concerned about the harsh and empirically proven Law of Group Polarization. And what is this law?

Cass R. Sunstein’s paper described like this (bold added):

In a striking empirical regularity, deliberation tends to move groups, and the individuals who compose them, toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by their own predeliberation judgments. For example, people who are opposed to the minimum wage are likely, after talking to each other, to be still more opposed; people who tend to support gun control are likely, after discussion, to support gun control with considerable enthusiasm; people who believe that global warming is a serious problem are likely, after discussion, to insist on severe measures to prevent global warming. This general phenomenon -- group polarization -has many implications for economic, political, and legal institutions.

You read this right. After being with a like minded group that discusses an issue, you will become more extreme after the discussion than you were before the discussion.

And so here is the great irony, those who advocate for being a church of “like minded people” as a haven against undesired change are playing footsie with the law of group polarization. To put this more plainly, being with others who are like minded will change you and your views - you will become more extreme.

This is the law of group polarization. The temptation to create a like minded church (or country) is powerful, but it is to be rejected for what it is. A pathway to justifying our self-righteousness. And I think we all have read how Jesus feels about self-righteousness.

Frontier and the UMC

In my undergraduate studies I was introduced to this idea called “Frontier Thesis”. Upon reflection, I wish we spent more time unpacking the thesis, but we did not. Taken from the Wiki on the subject the thesis in a nutshell:

In the thesis, the American frontier established liberty by releasing Americans from European mindsets and eroding old, dysfunctional customs. The frontier had no need for standing armies, established churches, aristocrats or nobles. There was no landed gentry who controlled most of the land and charged heavy rents and fees. Frontier land was practically free for the taking. 

This thesis promoted by Frederick Jackson Turner suggests that the frontier provides a vision for a utopia. In the frontier there would be no need for bureaucracies, rent, institutions or even standing armies because the land was “practically free for the taking”. Of course the land was not free for the taking. There were millions of people living on those lands, and they were not “free for the taking.” These lands were conquered through enslavement, killing and displacement. The frontier continued to be the draw for so many people because of the perception that there would be more land and resources for everyone. If you arrived somewhere and there were already people on the land, you could kick them off with a guilt free conscious not only because of racism but also with a sense that there was more land “out there” they could go to.

We hear echos of this today when someone says, “This is America and if you don’t like it you can go somewhere else.” Even if it were possible to easily move from your home, which it is not, the assumption is that there is always “another” place that you can go. There is always a frontier, there is another place that we (or you) can expand to in order to allow for a utopia.

Frontierism, at it’s core, suggests that there is no problem that cannot be fix through expanding. Putting the double negatives aside, it assumes that every problem can be fixed by expanding. Of course there are some problems that can be addressed by expanding. For instance, expanding access to the ballot box by expanding voting measures. However, not every problem can be addressed by expanding. Additionally, expanding creates more problems than we care to admit.

In the UMC we face a set of denominational issues before us: declining of membership, aging membership, decline of finances, etc. As it stands now, the solution being offered is some version of the frontier myth. If we expanded our market then our problems would be resolved. If we had more disciples. If we had more money. If we had more churches. If we had better and more leaders. If we had more robust theological education. The assumption is that if we had more then we would not be in the trouble we are in.

It is argued that expanding can solve problems, but if we are honest we might come to see that expanding is constantly good at one thing - masking.

Expanding masks problems rather than address or fixes them. For instance, if the UMC had growing membership and bank accounts to the brim, our problems would still exist. We would not see the structural and systemic problems of our denomination. We would be too juiced up on all the new and expanding churches, and not have time or interest to the underlying and hidden problems. And here is perhaps the greatest problems that needs to be addressed:

The mythology that expanding is the solution is part of the problem because it masks.

I am reminded of the late Carlo Carretto who wrote:

How baffling you are, oh Church, and yet how I love you! How you have made me suffer, and yet how much I owe you! I would like to see you destroyed, and yet I need your presence. You have given me so much scandal and yet you have made me understand what sanctity is. I have seen nothing in the world more devoted to obscurity, more compromised, more false, and yet I have touched nothing more pure, more generous, more beautiful. How often I have wanted to shut the doors of my soul in your face, and how often I have prayed to die in the safety of your arms. No, I cannot free myself from you, because I am you, though not completely. And besides, where would I go? Would I establish another? I would not be able to establish it without the same faults, for they are the same faults I carry in me. And if I did establish another, it would be my Church, not the Church of Christ. I am old enough to know that I am no better than anyone else.

We can expand by starting new denominations, but we are only continuing to mask the reality that expanding (which is a form of expulsion) only continues to divide the house. And as we know, a house divided cannot stand. The house is the myth of expanding and one of these days that myth will fall. Until we repent of our addiction to the frontier myth we will always be willing to divide the world with the false belief that the divisions will bring utopia.

Maranatha!

I Don't See Demons

I am now 38 years old, on my way to obtaining a doctorate, father of two, co-pastor of a wonderful church, and one who is categorized as progressive to post-liberal and I confess that I believe in real demons. I have for years now.

The bad news is that the demons don’t reveal themselves to me.

The worse news is that they don’t have to.

Years ago one Christian, Abraham, asked his teacher, Poemen, about how the demons fight. It is assumed that Abraham desired to know how the demons fought in order to defeat the demons himself. Sort of a “know thy enemy” approach.

When Poemen heard the question, he was shocked. Poemen was shocked to hear that the demons actually fight Abraham. One might be tempted to think that Poemen was a liberal “enlightened” Christian who did not believe in demons and was trying to teach the student that in fact there are no such things as demons. Rather, Poemen was shocked to hear that Abraham thought he was worthy enough for the demons’ time.

Poemen knew there are only a limited number of demons and so they have to be judicious in how they spend their energy. They have to pick fights with people who are real threats to the kingdom of division and injustice. Poemen knew Abraham well enough to know that Abraham was not a real threat to the demons so they would not spend resources to fight him. According to one translation Poemen’s response was:

Is it the demons who attack you? It is not the demons who attack me. When we follow our self-will then our will seem like demons and it is they who urge us to obey them. If you want to know the kind of people with whom the demons fight, it is Moses and those like him.’

I am like Abraham, I think that I am struggling against demons of fear, anger, lust, hatred and division. If only this were true! The reasons I don’t see demons is that I am not worth their time. I am distracted enough fighting with my own will that I don’t need any help from demons to pull me from the love, mercy and forgiveness of God. I am doing a fine job on my own.

I believe in demons and they are alive and well in this world. They torment my fellow sisters and brothers who are very real threats to the kingdom of division and injustice. I pray for those who threaten the work of the kingdom of division and injustice because they are very much under attack. Those who are helping to usher in the Kingdom of Mercy and Justice - those are who the demons spend their time tormenting. These are the ones who are helping to usher in the Kingdom of God:

Patrisse Khan-Cullors, Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi, William Barber, Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, Liz Theoharis, Ibram X. Kendi… or as Poemen described them those like Moses.

As for me, I am so bound to following my own will that my first action is to repent so to learn the will of God. That means I need to listen less to my own mind and more to those like Moses.

One day I hope to see a demon because then I will know that I am a real threat to the kingdom of division and injustice.

Lord have mercy.

Disgust, Anger and Clothed In Pseudo-Righteousness

Recently, Abilene Christian University's Dr. Richard Beck spoke at the church where I serve as co-senior pastor and he said something about disgust and anger that is relevant to the current situation within the UMC.

First, when we experience disgust our reaction is to pull away. We see this in our daily lives to be sure, but we also see this in the stories of Jesus. When there was a person considered disgusting, such as a leaper or a bleeding woman, the crowd stepped or pushed away the one thought of as disgusting. This is natural and helpful as disgust is a safeguard toward contracting sickness. We tend to stay away from sick people and even disgusting places (hospitals, garbage, sewers, etc.)

Second, when we experience anger our reaction is to move toward. When we are angered by someone driving on the road we will often drive quickly pass them or even tailgate them. Angry people are more likely to strike another person or at least yell at them so that our voice even moves toward the other person. Anger drives us to protest and act in ways that can be healthy, such as the theological notion of righteous anger.

Within the UMC there are two different postures toward the issues of LGBTQ inclusion and I propose if it is helpful to think not in terms of conservative/liberal but the animating emotions of disgust/anger.

Photo by Andre Hunter on Unsplash

There is a direct and an indirect expression of disgust happening in the UMC. The direct expression are those who personally want to pull away or leave the denomination. This position cannot abide in a denomination that they are disgusted by. The indirect expression of disgust is when we make a way for others to leave. We are not the ones who are leaving, but when we make a direct way for people to leave then we still have our disgust action met – there is a separation.

The other animating action is that of anger. These are the ones who are fighting and protesting for their position. These individuals are on the left and right but the action is the same – to drive toward the other in an attempt to subdue, convince, and/or conquer the other. There is also a direct and indirect form of the anger expression. Those who are directly protesting and those who are using the rules of the system to ensure their position is safeguarded and even bolstered. Either way, there is a direct and active engagement with the Church that is driven by anger.

The reality is those experiencing disgust or anger within the UMC have much to teach us and still much to learn.

Disgust teaches us that boundaries are important and that violations of those boundaries for many people trigger disgust. This means that when boundaries are violated or moved then there are many who have a core reaction similar to drinking their own spit. While the spit is in their mouths it is easy to swallow, however when asked to spit into a cup then drink it, disgust sets in. The boundary of where spit resides was moved and thus becomes disgusting – even if the spit is only seconds out of the mouth. Boundaries help keep people safe and disgust alerts us to a boundary violation and asks us to pay attention to this violation, because it may be harmful.

Anger teaches us that it is important to engage with rather than back down from those injustices in the world. And like disgust, anger is triggered when there is a violation. Anger alerts us to these violations and asks us to pay attention to the violation because there may be harm happening.

For as much as those disgusted or angry have to teach us, they also have much to learn. Specifically the limits of disgust and anger. As a Christian, I believe that Jesus shows us where those limits are and also shows us that if disgust and anger move us beyond these limits then we need to abandon disgust and anger all together.

When Jesus is confronted with people considered disgusting of his time, Jesus understands. Perhaps Jesus even experienced a bit of disgust when he encountered a woman whom he would not move toward, but in fact insinuated she was a dog. When the woman responded that even dogs eat from the scraps of the master’s table, Jesus realized that his disgust too him too far – he called a woman a dog! At that point he abandoned his sense of disgust and boundary keeping and healed the woman’s daughter (Matthew 15:21-28).

When Jesus experiences anger he is quick to realize the damage anger can cause. For instance, as soon as Jesus says to Peter, “Get behind me Satan!” the very next line reads, “Then Jesus told his disciples, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” (Matthew 16:22-24). Notice the twist here, Jesus does not banish Peter but invites him to get behind, one might say follow, him. In this moment of anger, even Jesus invited the Satan to follow him. Meaning that even when angry, Jesus invites the one he is angry with to stay in the relationship. If you are choosing to remain in relationship with someone then anger has to give way to love.

The United Methodist Church has a conversation on her hands about how to include ministry with LGBTQ persons. Some are disgusted and others are angry at this discussion. Both disgust and anger are helpful – until they are not. We have reached a point where disgust and anger are no longer helpful.

Any plan that is brought forth that does not hold us together in unified relationship reflects not the unity of the body of Christ but the emotional needs to resolve our own disgust and/or anger.

As Jesus said, you will be known by your love for one another. Or perhaps when Paul said that we are one in the Body of Christ. Or perhaps Revelation’s image of the peaceable kingdom where the lion and lamb are together. The Biblical witness is continually calling humanity to set anger and disgust aside for the sake of being in loving relationship. May my beloved UMC confront the disgust and anger in our lives, repent of the temptation of the pseudo-righteousness on full display that is only there to mask addiction we have to disgust and anger. Come Lord Jesus!