Currents of Faith: Open and Unfolding Reflections

I'd like to ask you to do something that may be a little different than you normally do when reading an online article or email message. If you're like me, slowing down isn't much of an option given the very long list of activities and responsibilities that we are all involved in. Nonetheless, as your eyes roll over and your mind moves through the following bolded words, I want you to stop for a few moments on each one, and simply reflect, taking note of what sorts of emotions, images, and associations occur as you do so. What are your immediate impressions? What thoughts seem to flow freely and without any conscious or intentional effort on your part? Here are just a few among the hundreds one might choose: racist, right-wing, radical, conspiracy theorist, liberal, islamo-facist, anti-semite, extremist, left-wing, terrorist, ultra-conservative, cult, evil, ultra-orthodox, fundamentalist, satanic, imperialist, heretic.

Since that day over five years ago when I sat, as I'm sure you did, stunned, silenced, and fixated hour after hour on those mind-numbing images that initially seemed so totally surreal, I've repeatedly reflected, more deeply than ever before, on both the power of language and the language of power. In particular, I've become increasingly concerned about how words manifest our prejudices in how we label or name that which we perceive as other, foreign, and alien to our own (of course) normal and (obviously) acceptable sensibilities. All too often under these circumstances the titles which we affix to that ideology, philosophy, individual, or group which is deemed incompatible with our own (always appropriate and acceptable) standards of thought and behavior, become so many different forms of psychological or existential weaponry. Indeed, when a lack of understanding, tolerance, or acceptance takes place, there seems to be an unfortunate tendency in many of us to hurl sweepingly negative judgments upon those whose modes of thought or being-in-the-world appear contrary to our own. And, as the list of words above indicate, such stereotypical departments of defense unfortunately come in the form of catchy one-liners, memorable phrases, or simply single iconic word-images which are always designed to capture the (presumed) destructive essence and influence of the (presumed) alien.

Although I certainly wouldn't characterize myself as a pacifist, I see very little hope to think that a stronger, faster, or more elite military can possibly provide the ultimate, or even primary, solution to the extremely daunting ideological, religious, political, and economic challenges facing the citizen of planet earth in the first decade of the twenty-first century. And, if physical imposition of power—be it in the form of military, militia, sect, or clan—represents one extreme form of domination, my strong sense is that linguistic imposition of power represents an equally harmful form of coercion. Otherwise stated, I find little hope for the sort of deep-seated changes that need to occur when such powerful verbal WMD's continue to carry such a massive influence.

I do not, for example, see a great deal of value in many of the influential cable news programs, led by the so-called “talking-heads” (itself obviously a highly pejorative term), where the situation is such that she or he who is able to either shout the loudest, or come up with the catchiest and most-searing one-liner, “wins” the debate. Here, quite often, even before the yelling begins, even before both sides re-establish their impenetrable epistemic barriers, and even before the spokespersons entrench themselves within their inevitable “I and It” form of communication, he or she who is in the position of host, moderator, or anchor, often sets the stage with evocative labeling words, words of power, (often, but not always) designed to instantly create a negative and damning portrait of their supposed interlocutors. Only once the targets have been softened with verbal missiles, the catch phrases have been levied, and the “choir” has been resoundingly and reassuringly convinced that the hero/host stands no chance of ever losing his or her seat of power, can the battle begin. In short, once the straw men have been huffed, puffed, and (all-but) blown down in the setup piece by the always superior victor/host, does the “discussion” ensue.

In this way, it is only after the one who speaks second has already essentially (and ironically) had their voice removed, do such stultified forms debate take place. I often wonder why it is, after having been rendered, for all intents and purposes, mute, having lost any real hope of being heard, making a difference, affecting one's partner in dialogue in any significant way, or simply coming to a mutual understanding; why such opponents still try to speak to each other at all. It seems to me that at this point, either the two will simply talk past one another, or if speaking to each other actually does take place, they will constantly keep their force-fields up to deflect any and all attempts to allow the other to offer any significant insights. In so many ways, therefore, it seems a pointless and futile exercise.

So, for example, when anyone who questions the official reports surrounding the events of 9/11 goes on a talk show, and the host sets up the interview by labeling him or her a conspiracy theorist before the conversation begins, I think their [the critic’s] chances of being heard by the audience becomes virtually nil. By simply blasting the words conspiracy theorist against one's opponent, I think effective dialogue is, at that point, cut off. How so? Because everyone knows that conspiracy theorists are crackpots, typically led by both inferior and ulterior motives, or necessarily having an axe to grind or chip on their shoulder. Such sycophants could never be guided by thoughtful reflection and honest consideration of evidence and argumentation. By the very definition of the pejorative term applied, they are that which is unacceptable, misguided or confused at best, and pernicious and evil at worst. Simply put, they are the other who is not just different and tolerable, but the alien enemy that must be rooted out using whatever means available.

Where, in the midst of such name calling, can honest, open, and critical forms of debate take place? Why have so many of us, myself included, become so entrenched in our own modes of thought/being, that we find it nearly impossible to genuinely consider the possibility that someone else's (opposing) point of view just might be equally as valid, compelling, and adequate as our own (perhaps even moreso)? Why is it that we are often unable to allow another's epistemic horizon to penetrate our own, and humbly allow our self to, at a minimum, come to understand the position of our interlocutor as well as we understand our own; and, at a maximum, to become deeply affected by a previously foreign horizon that may very well beneficially expand and creatively shape our own? Once one has been identified as a terrorist, a neo-conservative, a heretic, a racist, or a fundamentalist; from that moment on, they simply deserve no voice. Furthermore, their radical ideologies must be ignored, rejected, refuted, or eliminated.

And, I want to be absolutely clear that this is a problem throughout (i.e. at all points on) the political, ideological, philosophical, or theological spectrum, and occurs in numerous and diverse settings. To be sure, I’m genuinely looking in the mirror as I try and look out beyond my own historically situated and culturally conditioned existential and hermeneutical borders. Thus, in one sense, this reflection is an all too inadequate attempt to advocate an existential sort of fusion of contemporary horizons—to borrow a phrase from Gadamer. Thus, I want to raise a strong voice of criticism against those individuals who stubbornly refuse to genuinely consider any evidence which might serve to disquiet or undermine their dogmatically held beliefs, and advocate a deep dialectic of openness, toleration, and respect.

For example, the idea that those who take the U.S. government to task for potentially grievous errors in foreign policy should simply be dismissed as unpatriotic, or simply labeling any and all criticisms of the State of Israel in its treatment of Palestinians as anti-semitic, are the sorts of responses that must be overcome. Again, one of my chief concerns is with those who begin by naming others who are even open to the possibility of alternative viewpoints as necessarily defective, deluded, confused, misguided, or any other of the myriad of other-silencing set of adjectives.

If the entire tenor of debate in our increasingly polarized world continues to hinge upon either the use or acceptance of one extreme or the other, when in fact each side views their opponent from precisely these sorts of contrary positions, and when, in reality, both sides typically hold a more nuanced position than is granted, then I see little hope for improvement. Existential walls will never be razed, emotional barriers will never be crossed, and epistemic bridges will never be raised, so long as such words of power (e.g. “axis of evil”) continue to guide our own wills to power. If such divisive rhetoric of kill or be killed is indeed unavoidable, then truly Martin Buber’s conception of the “I and Thou” interrelation between and interaction of humankind is little more than an idealistic and naive form of deluded optimism. And, given the realities of human history, perhaps it is. As Reinhold Neibur so poignantly reminded us in the opening line of his magnum opus: “Man has always been his own most vexing problem.”

In spite of such sentiments, however, I happen to self-identify with a tradition of faith that maintains both a formal and a foundational commitment to the Christian imperative of the love of God, and the love of all human beings (and all creation for that matter). I don't mention that to take a self-righteous turn at this point, rather, simply to highlight this profound notion and reiterate that such principles of mutual consideration and love, are a fundamental part of all the world's great religious faiths. Why is that? There may be numerous reasons, but one seems to be that it is such a manifestly obvious, intuitive, and compelling aspect of what it means to speak of human flourishing. Yet, it undeniably remains the case that it is extremely difficult to allow bridges to overcome such deep-seated chasms when another stands in an existential orientation to the world diametrically opposed my own. And, given that such fundamental differences and tensions are a fundamental aspect of human being-in-the-world, it would not be either wise or realistic to think they can ever be completely overcome or resolved. However, a limited amount of reconciliation can be achieved, and the damage and destruction that results from the perpetuation of extremism can and should be significantly refashioned into healthy forms of tension.

Am I, therefore, advocating a free for all, where any and all speech, action, and understanding must be treated equal? Aren't I clearly falling into the incoherent and fallacious philosophy of radical relativism? Certainly not. Providing a defense for that claim is beyond the scope of this essay, but I am simply suggesting that no voice, no matter how apparently radical, should have its vocal cords ripped out by the bantering rhetoric of mutual intolerance and desired annihilation, where productive forms of debate and constructive forms of criticism are preemptively destroyed by name calling. I am advocating that we put a stop to such terminological warfare that employs words which often have a much more profound significance than we, in our short-sightedness, realize. We would do well to work much harder at engaging in peaceful forms of resistance, first seeking to understand the other as a thou and not an it, always considering the very real possibility that one's enemies might very well have entirely legitimate and valid concerns, and even further, that we may need to allow those perspectives to consciously shape our own as a result.

Perhaps we can cast aside our verbal weaponry and psychological manipulation, doing all within our creative power to foster a fusion of alien horizons (note the word fusion, and not agreement). Such approaches, however, require self-restraint, wisdom, and a willingness to sincerely engage with one’s supposed enemy. In short, I am trying to advocate a kind of intellectual honesty and humility that manifests a genuine willingness to change, openness to repent, and sensitivity to growth that this very difficult process of being-in-the-world should exhibit. For all the disparity, conflict, and contention throughout the world, there remains in me something deep-seated that feels hopeful that the divine lure towards increased goodness, beauty, truth, and love will continue to break through the overwhelming dark clouds of violence and rhetoric, casting a beacon of light upon the possibility of humanity’s verbal humanity to one’s self and the other.