Standing Together

Let's be clear: The strong protest against Trump is not ultimately about policy. (He doesn't even know his own policy, so that can't truly happen, and no policy debate can occur in 140 characters.)

It is about him betraying fundamental American values through his disrespect and dismissiveness of other people. It's about his inability to recognize the value of people who are different from him.

Though I didn't vote for him, I have come to deeply admire and respect Obama. It's generally not hard to find something to admire and respect about our Presidents. I can do that for all those in my lifetime. I hope Trump finds a way to act and do something that's worthy of admiration and respect at some point. That's best for us all, even if we disagree with his policies.

But we must stand for respectful, inclusive dialogue, something our president elect seems fundamentally against. Meryl Streep's best line was "Disrespect invites disrespect, violence incites violence. And when the powerful use their position to bully others we all lose." This is true regardless of policy or political party. And it has been evidenced repeatedly in many people's actions in the name of Trump.

Support the Republican, Democratic, Green, Libertarian, or other party platform.

But let's stand together in standing together. Especially on this day remembering and honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Should Tolerance be Limited?

In any time of controversy, there are claims of tolerance, intolerance, and intolerance of intolerance. The last one has gotten a lot of play time post-election, with people claiming those protesting the election and criticizing Trump voters are intolerant in their promotion of tolerance. I understand this argument well, as I claimed and experienced intolerance of different views during my time in Berkeley by some of the residents. Some of the "tolerant" ultra-liberals would write people off for having a view that even remotely smacked of conservatism.

So is that again what is going on now with the anti-Trump sentiment? Should tolerance be completely unconditional? Is intolerance of intolerance hypocritical?

It's probably helpful to start with the definition of tolerance. Google's first definition is:

The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

And since defining a tolerance with tolerate may not be all that great, let's see what Google says about tolerate:

Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

I think this is really helpful, as it focused on allowing difference of opinion. This is really foundational in democratic (as in democracy, not the Democratic party) society. If we cannot allow differences of opinion and get along, society falls apart. Although this is also the reason for many wars over the years. As people live closer together, we have increasing encounters with people who are different from us.

How well we can we deal with that reflects on our level of tolerance. Most folks I know (and likely everyone who will read this) would agree with that basic idea--we want to tolerate differences.

But the reality is we all have our limits. How different can someone be before we say, "No"? What thoughts and ideas are too extreme before they get censored?

The biggest apparent irony is when those who promote tolerance draw the line at ideas that do not accept diversity. Is this contradictory to their tolerant ideals?

I think it's helpful to also get beyond definitions and consider the ideals that drive tolerance. These are oversimplifications, but hopefully helpful.

A major reason for tolerance is driven from a social justice perspective that there is inherent value in each person and in dialogue and discussion reflecting many opinion. It helps enhance and shape greater understanding of the world and ourselves. Therefore, we need to protect ideas that may seem different. This is what's behind academic freedom, the theological idea of soul liberty, discussion groups, and even some parts of freedom of the press. However, this motivator has quite a range of tolerance levels and endorsement of what kinds of things can be valuable.

When someone values tolerance in order to bring people together, limits to tolerance (meaning times of intolerance) make sense. Tolerance is an active process that helps give people recognition. If an idea misrepresents or disregards another group's rights or perspective, tolerance ends. We can see examples of not tolerating murder, rape, many forms of crimes foundationally, not just as a practical element of society.

We can make an argument that Jesus displayed intolerance in the temple when he threw out the vendors. He made many efforts to create an inclusive group, from tax collectors to prostitutes to temple priests, but his tolerance ended when people were stopping other people's access to God.

I would make an argument that tolerance should be limited when ideas misrepresent, disregard, disrespect, and make no effort or willingness to seek understanding of another viewpoint. Unfair intolerance by the tolerant (and yes, it definitely exists) happens when we do not accept a different perspective, but people's rights are not violated, etc. For instance, slavery should not be tolerated. White supremacy/nationalism should not be tolerated. Violence toward any group with provocation (including law enforcement, racial groups, and faith groups) should not be tolerated.

So what has been happening post-election? A lot of misunderstanding! While some may complain just because of a loss and display unfair intolerance, the consistent message I hear is not rejecting ideas just because they don't like the ideas, but because the ideas promoted fundamentally misrepresent, disrespect, and disregard other groups. There is not an effort to gain accurate information or even dialogue.

Many people don't see this. They either haven't heard things that have been said (this has been far more common than I realized) and/or they have trouble understanding how problematic the words are. So I ask all to listen, to truly listen, to the other views and hear the authentic concerns. There are authentic concerns on both sides.

If we can listen with respect and humility, then we build authentic, helpful tolerance. Regardless, many of us will continue to stand intolerant of disrespect, of misrepresentation, and of disregarding other people and groups.

Stop Misrepresenting, Start Listening

Wow, what a week, and how social media has blown up.

Before election day, I shared the photo in this blog, and I think it's time to share it again as a reminder to everyone.

Back in July, I also predicted that many people would have trouble accepting the results, but that part of what makes us great is the process of democracy, not necessarily the results. I stand by both of these posts.

The problem is that people on both sides are not just sharing their personal concerns or convictions. Rather, they are misrepresenting other perspectives, largely from not actually understanding the other side. We have all been quick to talk and slow to listen.

Before creating and re-sharing another nasty meme dismissing and even condemning a different opinion, please try to fully understand it. Please deeply listen to concerns on both sides.

Here are two articles that anti-Trump folk probably should read to understand some of the non-racist reasons people supported him:

• Six Reasons for Trump's Rise That No One Talks About
• Taking Trump voters’ concerns seriously means listening to what they’re actually saying

For the Trump supporters who do not understand the protests, here are some articles and thoughts. Violent protests are not acceptable, and protests do not mean that those protesting don't acknowledge that Trump won fair and square. It's not even about policy issues. It's in alignment with serious concerns people have about his fundamental dismissal of huge groups of people based on inaccurate generalizations, reinforced by the people he is surrounding himself with. People must stand up against injustices, in alignment with a classic Martin Niemöller quote:

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

And some articles that may help the Trump supporters listen to the deep concerns of the anti-Trump movement:

• Why Donald Trump’s Victory Terrifies Some Of Your Ethnic Minority Friends
• Supporting Those With the Most To Lose
• The alt-right movement harassed my family for having black children, and Trump is considering their leader for Chief of Staff (he has now been appointed Chief Strategist)
• Church, We've Got Some Explaining To Do
• America Elects a Bigot
• A Registry
• To my friends who are relieved today
• I Just Wanted to Show a Sign

As Obama said, we all want Trump to succeed. Indeed, that would be best for the country. Success does not mean ostracizing huge groups of this country and world who have been central to making this country great. Success and greatness begin with listening and understanding differing opinions.

Accepting the Democratic Process

I've been on two juries. The first time was a drug possession and selling case. One of the most serious charges (related to illegal weapons, I believe) was determined to be too high and the lower charge that we believed he was guilty of was not an option because of some legal reason (I don't recall). A few people were ready to convict him of the higher charge so he wouldn't "get off." I fought strongly against that, as while our system is imperfect, the thing that unifies us is the process. Our legal system is far from perfect, but there are barriers to wrongly convict people because that's such a major problem. That means some people will "get off." And despite those checks, people still get falsely convicted at a scarily high rate.

A similar process applies to democracy. There is a foundational belief underlying democracy that overall, the People will make the right choice. There's plenty of evidence we can find to the contrary over the centuries of democracy, but overall, things are hopefully moving in the right direction.

We don't like all the results of these processes, but we unify around the process, not the outcome. We accept disappointing results because of this and then perhaps try again later.

I remember how frequently during Presidential Inaugurations, news anchors comment on how peaceful and respectful transitions of power in the US are. However, this year's Presidential election feels different. I've been wondering what Inauguration Day will look like, regardless of the candidate. It seems others have thought the same thing, as a recent Associated Press article explores the same idea about whether a peaceful transition is possible.

Politicians and parties always use hyperbole and strong language to make their case. It's much like what happens between lawyers in a court room (not surprising since many politicians are former lawyers). And yet having seen both the legal process and political process (I interned in the California Assembly), people on opposing sides usually genuinely like and respect each other, even if they genuinely and passionately disagree. Letters from outgoing Presidents to incoming Presidents is very telling of this, as well.

In January, will we be able to continue to demonstrate a strong American tradition of exemplary peaceful transitions of power if our candidate loses?

This professional respect increasingly seems to be getting lost. Hillary is a criminal, and Donald is a dictator. The opposite sides agree with one statement, but not the other. When one gets elected, will the other side accept the Will of the People that is so core to our democracy? What if the claims of the successful candidate are true? When do we accept the democratic process, and when do we need to condemn the results?

It's a slippery slope either way. We know from history what happens when people stay silent too long. We also can see (very recently in Turkey) what happens when a sub-group tries to circumvent the democratic process. Neither option is pleasant, so what's the balance?

I take heart that we have a Separation of Powers. Congress has a huge amount of the actual power. They're the ones who make the laws, not the President. We need policymakers who agree with us there. The President has the most significant bully pulpit in the world and has more power as a representative of this country to the world, so interpersonal skills and wisdom in forging relationships are more central than policy here, in my opinion.

Our County will be tested in the next months. How we respond will be critical on so many levels. I hope we rise to the challenge, and I hope our Constitutionally-created Separation of Powers will not be needed, but will help ease people's angst and mitigate any short-term and long-term problems by the choice we make and have to live with.

At the end of the day, we must remember that a central part of being American is unifying around the Democratic process. And we have to determine how to deal with the consequences of when we don't appreciate the results.

When Do We Engage in Debate?

Once again, great debate is raging in Christendom, casting judgment on who's in and who's out of Christ's love. Much text has been spilled on both sides of the World Vision debate. And I'm not sure much good is coming of the debate itself (likely because it's the equivalent of much yelling). My wife wrote a wonderful response (and I'm quite proud of her eloquence--I'm confident I wouldn't have had that much grace at the time).

As we saw people cite clobber verses that were completely decontextualized, I had an urge to argue their poor hermeneutics, history, and theology. My wife thought no good would come of it, as I wouldn't change their minds.

She's right--no amount of discussion, debate, or arguing will change the minds of people doing the talking. But can it impact those who are listening?

I've been in situations before when I felt the need to offer another opinion, not even necessarily to change the minds of anyone, but to raise awareness that people have honest disagreement and that other conclusions are possible. Last week, I asked if people really always reject the living God when they reject an angry, wrathful God. The problem is that often the only God some people have been told about is that one, narrow view. Without another option, many people feel like they lose all faith by changing their views.

In a similar fashion, if people believe the only way to be a Christian is one particular theological construct, when they have a concern with that perspective, then they either ignore their own reactions (which is problematic in many ways) or they feel like they have to abandon their faith completely. That is not fair (nor theologically accurate to most of Christendom) and only leads to more crises of faith rather than the building up of the body of Christ.

I loved World Vision's initial letter because it beautifully preached the centrality of love and unity in the Gospel. Their bullied retraction was the opposite, overemphasizing one issue that despite what they said, is not central nor fundamental to the Christian faith and never has been (except in a few minority denominations in the past decade).

Will we change the minds of those who publicly decried World Vision's grace? No. But if we stay silent and only allow Pharisaical voices to reign without dissent, then what message are we sending? The method is important, and there are many who responded in a much more appropriate and grace-filled way than I ever could.

But when is staying silent in the face of disagreement the best option? We see both responses from Jesus: from knocking over tables in the temple court to acting rather non-responsive in the face of crucifixion. As with most things, there is likely no perfect rule or formula. Context matters. But I'm not sure silence is always the best policy...

Publicly Criticizing Public Pastors: Helpful or Not?

Recently, I have heard people at what seems like every turn profusely praising a particularly public pastor (like my alliteration there? :) ). Their praise is often presented in ways that indicate they assume everyone else would agree that this man is holy.

However, I disagree. And many people I know disagree. Yet they are in different circles than those singing his praises. I've had an urge to send a Tweet or a blog post or something voicing my passionate disagreement with this individual. But I'm not sure that's wise.

Frankly, most of the time, public criticisms of others (by name) just turn out badly. People misinterpret the criticism, and there's rarely an opportunity to clarify what we mean.

And honestly, how often does such criticism change someone's mind? I've talked a lot recently about how we need to be less worried about changing people's minds and more focused on celebrating Christ.

Here's some of my thoughts as to why it could be good to voice disagreement:

1. I don't like others assuming what I do and don't believe. It's good to clarify one's own perspective and remind people not to assume. At the same time, this again doesn't always really do a whole lot of good.

2. It could be an opportunity to remind everyone that not everyone agrees, even when it comes to "biblical" ideas. People can honestly and biblically disagree.

3. It could provide validation to others who are surrounded by supporters of that individual (or concept) who disagree, but feel like they're alone.

4. It could provide an opportunity to expose people on the fence of ideas to alternative perspectives. So often, ideas (especially religious ones) are presented as THE one and only viewpoint. I think it's really important to inform people of other faithful interpretations.

5. In my opinion, this person's ideas are more damaging than helpful, and frankly unbiblical, in my opinion. It's frustrating to see so many people mindlessly following him. Could voicing disagreement maybe make a couple of people take a second look?

While these may be my motivations (and assuming they're generally good motivations), I'm not sure it would be wise to publicly criticize an individual, even if they have a very public persona. In addition to the points raised above, doing so can damage relationships, making supporters of that person feel personally criticized or attacked.

So what do you think? Is it ever wise to criticize a pastor (or anyone frankly) publicly? I've done so in my book reviews, but try to refrain from it in other contexts (I'm not always successful :) ). Those contexts seem different...