The Struggle for the Ideal
During the 2016 election cycle and after, there were a lot of times when people would make the statement, "This is not who we are as a country."
I appreciate the sentiment, but the statement clearly is not true. This may not be who we all are, but it certainly is a portion of the country. The violent, racist, misogynistic, intolerant voices that have dominated the political narrative are, indeed, a part of who we are. That doesn't mean they have to be defended, but saying that they are "not who we are" is only true in the sense that by "we" one means their own particular group.
As a Christian, there are plenty of instances when I hear someone claiming Christ and then saying something that I feel is so vastly out of touch with the Christian faith that I, too, would be willing to say something to the effect of "that isn't how most Christians are" reminds me that I have heard and sometimes used that same argument for Islam. I have said that many, if not most, of the Muslims in America have little or no ties to the ideology of radical fundamentalism so rampant in the terror-stricken Middle East.
However, it is the same argument being put forward by people who are saying that America is not a racist country, or that we will not tolerate violence, or that we are not addicted to guns, or whatever else. It isn't true. Not completely.
Because what we are doing when we say something like this is really trying to talk about an ideal. When I say that the radical fundamentalists are not true Muslims, I am suggesting that there is such a thing as a true Muslim. Or, in the same manner of speaking, I suggest that there is a real Christian. Likewise, saying that racism is "not who we are" is suggesting that there is a real "who we are." And there isn't. There is an ideal, but even that is something that is generated from particular communities, from particular narratives, or specific means of interpretation.
In the case of Christianity, the fact of denominations points to the reality that what it means to be a Christian is highly interpretive - and it has been since the beginnings of the Christian movement. Some believed, as is evidenced in the letter to the Galatians, that it was wrong to eat particular foods, especially those listed in the Torah. Other Christians, who had not come from a Jewish background, did not see the need to adhere to a Levitical code to be a Christian. Dietary concerns were a huge hurdle for the early church. As was divorce. As is homosexuality. As is racism. As is particular understandings of communion. All of these issues continually separate the denominations from one another and all of them remain separate because of their ideal of what it means to be a Christian.
As such, when I am dismissive of someone because of how they represent Christianity, I am merely saying that my ideal of what it is to be Christian is contrary to the example being put forth by another individual.
This seems to be the difficulty facing our country at the moment...among other things, I suppose: we do not have a clear ideal of what it is to be an American. For those fringe movements that have gained a foothold in the media and in the rhetoric of politicians, the ideal American is far, far different than one that might be articulated by, say, Maya Angelou. They both have their ideals. But with the election of such a bombastic President who seems to be completely unconcerned about the power of his words, we have entered a time in which we are not just seeing a shuffling of politics and a plethora of groups vying for power, we are also seeing the country wrestling with the idea of the ideal.
This is also to say that old ideals have reached a point where they no longer hold. It tends to happen to some degree with each generation - rebelling against norms, making their own social ideals, and so forth, but in the last three years, that shifting of the American ideal has moved at record pace and in drastic measures. The tectonic plates of American culture and what passes for acceptable have shifted with seismic effects. The aftershocks are still on their way.
I appreciate the sentiment, but the statement clearly is not true. This may not be who we all are, but it certainly is a portion of the country. The violent, racist, misogynistic, intolerant voices that have dominated the political narrative are, indeed, a part of who we are. That doesn't mean they have to be defended, but saying that they are "not who we are" is only true in the sense that by "we" one means their own particular group.
As a Christian, there are plenty of instances when I hear someone claiming Christ and then saying something that I feel is so vastly out of touch with the Christian faith that I, too, would be willing to say something to the effect of "that isn't how most Christians are" reminds me that I have heard and sometimes used that same argument for Islam. I have said that many, if not most, of the Muslims in America have little or no ties to the ideology of radical fundamentalism so rampant in the terror-stricken Middle East.
However, it is the same argument being put forward by people who are saying that America is not a racist country, or that we will not tolerate violence, or that we are not addicted to guns, or whatever else. It isn't true. Not completely.
Because what we are doing when we say something like this is really trying to talk about an ideal. When I say that the radical fundamentalists are not true Muslims, I am suggesting that there is such a thing as a true Muslim. Or, in the same manner of speaking, I suggest that there is a real Christian. Likewise, saying that racism is "not who we are" is suggesting that there is a real "who we are." And there isn't. There is an ideal, but even that is something that is generated from particular communities, from particular narratives, or specific means of interpretation.
In the case of Christianity, the fact of denominations points to the reality that what it means to be a Christian is highly interpretive - and it has been since the beginnings of the Christian movement. Some believed, as is evidenced in the letter to the Galatians, that it was wrong to eat particular foods, especially those listed in the Torah. Other Christians, who had not come from a Jewish background, did not see the need to adhere to a Levitical code to be a Christian. Dietary concerns were a huge hurdle for the early church. As was divorce. As is homosexuality. As is racism. As is particular understandings of communion. All of these issues continually separate the denominations from one another and all of them remain separate because of their ideal of what it means to be a Christian.
As such, when I am dismissive of someone because of how they represent Christianity, I am merely saying that my ideal of what it is to be Christian is contrary to the example being put forth by another individual.
This seems to be the difficulty facing our country at the moment...among other things, I suppose: we do not have a clear ideal of what it is to be an American. For those fringe movements that have gained a foothold in the media and in the rhetoric of politicians, the ideal American is far, far different than one that might be articulated by, say, Maya Angelou. They both have their ideals. But with the election of such a bombastic President who seems to be completely unconcerned about the power of his words, we have entered a time in which we are not just seeing a shuffling of politics and a plethora of groups vying for power, we are also seeing the country wrestling with the idea of the ideal.
This is also to say that old ideals have reached a point where they no longer hold. It tends to happen to some degree with each generation - rebelling against norms, making their own social ideals, and so forth, but in the last three years, that shifting of the American ideal has moved at record pace and in drastic measures. The tectonic plates of American culture and what passes for acceptable have shifted with seismic effects. The aftershocks are still on their way.
Comments
Post a Comment