Identity (and) Politics

All arguments are turned back as further evidence that the speaker is bound by the determining influence…. This is little more than a sophisticated form of...ad hominem...there can be no logical conclusion about the cause of our opinion inferred from the fact that 63 percent of an arbitrarily drawn class structure of which we are said to be a part have similar opinions.

-- Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction, p. 156 (emphasis in original)

... you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only true issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.

-- C. S. Lewis, “Bulverism”; God in the Dock, p. 273 (emphasis in original)

How many articles have we seen these past few weeks trying to explain why so many people voted for Trump? On both sides of the progressive/conservative divide, it seems people are latching onto the same conclusion: white, rural, evangelical voters are sick of being looked down upon and ignored, and elected someone who will support their interests instead of the liberal elites’. Some people defend them for doing so, and others condemn them. But is it true that all Trump voters had this self-interested motive? I think both those who didn’t and those who did can tell us something about political discourse, specifically what's called “identity politics.”

Firstly, as the two quotes above explain, it is an error to assume that membership in a social class, or self-interest in preserving that class, is the sole reason for someone's decisions. Many who voted for Trump were not excited about him; hence the expression of “holding your nose” while voting. There were grave concerns about the moral direction of the country, including such things as religious freedom and abortion; hence all the hoopla about Supreme Court justices. And many recognized that Trump is by no means a moral paragon, but chose him as the “lesser of two evils” because they regarded Clinton as worse. Not worse for them personally, but simply a more despicable person in general. Plus, not everyone who voted for Trump was white, rural, or evangelical. What were their reasons? Certainly not the ones assumed by so many commentators.

This brings out one problem with “identity politics”: the assumption that everyone in the same social class thinks the same way, or should. Pro-life women are ignored and silenced. Black conservatives, like Ben Carson and Clarence Thomas, are attacked as “race traitors”. The people in Lewis's essay on “Bulverism” shut down their opponents with “You say that because you are a man” or “because you are a bourgeois,” etc. This idea reduces human beings to a collection of labels, or machines that can only act as they are programmed by their environment. Yes, our race, gender, and class might influence our decisions, but that doesn't mean we are controlled by them. Part of being human is the ability to make decisions based on “things unseen,” on ideals and transcendent truths. We can think about more than meeting needs or grabbing for power. To deny that ability for any person or group of people is insulting.

On the other hand, the consensus of journalism is not completely wrong. A lot of people did vote for Trump based on identity politics, specifically white, rural, and/or evangelical identity. Here is a fascinating article that points to over-emphasis on identity and diversity as one cause of the liberal loss. Here is a good summary (I think) of how this idea has impacted the church. In this article by the same author, he explores the nature of ressentiment, a French word sociologists use to mean something more than simply resentment. This is the familiar notion of making victimhood the core of one’s identity, of seeing everything in terms of oppressors and oppressed, with one’s chosen group in the latter category. Weirdly enough, almost every group in the present American culture sees itself this way. Feminists decry rape culture. Black Lives Matter claims the authorities think they don't. Evangelicals see persecution everywhere. As the author says, that's not to say that there is no oppression in these areas, or that they're all at the same level. The problem is the attitude, “when the community thrives on its sense of being injured. The group rallies around its identity in being wronged.” This creates an atmosphere of enmity and fear.

Fear, as we all know, is the path to the Dark Side. And yet, all sides in this election appealed to it. There's been a lot of mockery focused on the millennials who need safe spaces and trauma counseling to deal with Trump’s victory, or the people who take to their blogs and social media to express their fears. But can Trump voters honestly say that they weren't just as scared of a Clinton victory? Before the election, hundreds of articles and blog posts declared in apocalyptic terms that Hillary in the White House would mean the end of Christian America. Another hundred or so claimed that Trump's election would ruin the reputation of the American church. Who's afraid of the Big Bad President? Looks like everyone. This post takes Christians to task for caring more about their own fears and desires than others’, and this one highlights the continuing effects of fear on families across the country. Identity politics pits our fears against each other; as well as our angers, our hates, and our sufferings.

What do we do with all of this?

I don't have all the answers. Neither do the articles linked above, though they have a few good ideas. I would suggest two starting points: First, don't reduce people to their labels. People are complicated. We have many reasons for the things we do, some legitimate and some not. We have our differences, but we are all alike in dignity. Grant that dignity to those who disagree with you. Hear their concerns and search for common ground. Second, don't be ruled by fear. History is complicated, too. One election may have far-reaching consequences, but so may your choice of hope, courage, and kindness. Let that be your identity. 

On "Christmas" Music

As Ogden Nash once said while complaining about the state of Christmas:

I guess I am just an old fogey.
I guess I am ready for the last roundup, so come along little dogey.

You may think this an odd quote for someone under 25, but I'm about to sound very curmudgeonly about certain so-called "Christmas" songs.

There is a radio station in my hometown that prides itself on playing nonstop Christmas music from the middle of November until the end of December. I listened to it on my way home today and heard not one song that even mentioned Christmas. I heard "Let It Snow" twice. I heard "Walking in a Winter Wonderland", "Frosty the Snowman", and (surprisingly) "My Favorite Things". As each song came on, I thought to myself, This is not a Christmas song. This is a winter song. "My Favorite Things" is barely even a winter song, in so far as a few of the things mentioned (warm woolen mittens, sleigh bells, snowflakes, and "silver-white winters that melt into springs") have to do with winter. Now, it's not that I don't like these songs. They're fun to sing, especially when one needs some comfort in a Minnesota blizzard. But they have nothing to do with Christmas except that Christmas takes place in winter. In places where winter is not cold and snowy, such as Arizona, Central Africa, or, hm, maybe Bethlehem, where the first Christmas took place, these songs have no meaning at all. Granted, this is Minnesota, and these songs may get us in a festive mood, so they can be appropriate. But when these songs are all you hear, you are not hearing Christmas music.

In the middle of all the wintry festivities, Whitney Houston sang "Do You Hear What I Hear?" This song comes closer to being a real Christmas song. It's not about snow or sleigh bells, but about things and people that were actually present when Christmas began. Or so it seems. But take another look (or listen). In the first place, Ms. Houston left out the first verse. A lot of artists do that. They skip right to the verse that has the title in it, leaving out the night wind asking the little lamb, "Do you see what I see?" and pointing out the star. But the star is the only thing in the song that points to Bethlehem, to Jesus. Otherwise, the child could be any child, the song any song, the king any king at any time. Even an atheist could appropriate the song and say, "Yes, children are a source of goodness and light in this world, and if they're suffering, we should give them money" and leave it at that. And even if you leave the first verse in, there are other problems in trying to link this song with the first Christmas. Leaving out the poetic license that "wind and sheep don't talk", there are a few major problems with the mighty king. For one thing, the only "mighty king" we hear about in the story didn't bring Christ silver and gold or think He had come to bring goodness and light. He certainly didn't proclaim Him to people everywhere. He was Herod, who tried to kill Him. If you want to apply it to the wise men, you're forgetting that they were magi, astrologers, like the wise men of the book of Daniel, not mighty kings. For another thing, the mighty king's announcement undercuts a major feature of the story: Jesus didn't come with a worldwide announcement from a mighty king. He didn't blow trumpets or advertise, or throw Himself off the pinnacle of the temple. He came humbly, revealing Himself to shepherds and fishermen and tax collectors, and yes, powerful people who were humble enough to receive Him as their Lord. If you miss that point, you miss a lot of the grace and power of the central event of Christmas: the Incarnation.

As I pulled into the garage, the station finally began to play the intro to "Joy to the World". I sighed with relief...and then gritted my teeth again as I realized it was instrumental. No one was singing. There were no words expressing the triumph of God's kingdom. Maybe that's too much to ask from a secular radio station that doesn't want to offend anyone. And "Joy to the World" would certainly offend any rebel sinner who really thinks about the words. The Lord is come; let earth receive her King. The Savior reigns. He rules the world with truth and grace, and makes the nations prove the glories of His righteousness. This is a real Christmas song that was, ironically, not written for Christmas. It expresses the hope of the eschaton, the end of all things consummated in Christ. He will indeed rule all things. On that day, heaven and nature will sing. Fields and floods, rocks, hills, and plains will repeat the sounding joy. His blessings will flow far as the curse is found. But even now, He has begun the work of subduing all His enemies and bringing the kingdom of heaven. A lot of people don't want to hear that; but I do. I want to be reminded of the midnight clear when the angels bending near the earth declared that peace on earth and goodwill to men had begun. I want to see how still lies the little town of Bethlehem as in her dark streets shineth the everlasting light. I want to ask again what Child this is whom shepherds guard and angels sing; to haste, haste to bring Him laud. God invaded this crooked world, becoming a helpless infant away in a manger, to save us all from Satan's power when we were gone astray. These are tidings of comfort and joy, not the sentimental longing for a "White Christmas" or a "Winter Wonderland".

Again, such songs, or songs about Santa Claus bringing gifts, are not bad in and of themselves. They're fun, like a snowball fight or a grab-bag party. They're just not the most important or even the most satisfying thing. I am reminded of C. S. Lewis' insistence on putting first things first and second things second. He pointed out (rightly, in my opinion) that if you put second things first, you not only lose the first things, but you lose the second things, too. If all you're dreaming of is a white Christmas, or little tin horns and little toy drums, not only do you miss out on the Incarnation, but those holiday trappings lose what meaning they had. Who hasn't felt the pressure to create the perfect Christmas experience, only to face an emptiness that can't be hidden by tinsel and holly? But when the joy of God's radical grace, His love that humbled Him to the manger of Bethlehem, takes center stage, then all the rest falls into place. We give because He gave. Our hearts are warmed by the light of His love; let it snow! Our Lord was a child and gives us childlike faith; the kids in girl-and-boy land will have a jubilee. Our King is making this world His own and will come again; it's beginning to look a lot like Christmas. Let's add those fun songs and festive decorations to our Advent celebration, like sprinkles and frosting on Christmas cookies; but let's make sure the cookies are there first. Sprinkles and frosting are pointless without them.

My Precious Sister

TV shows and movies always show people who get into physical relationships before or outside marriage: affairs, living together with boyfriend/girlfriend, just spending the night together casually. Most of them seem to assume that this is normal, popular, and even the right thing to do. Some, though, also show the lasting pain that comes of such relationships without commitment. I realize that a lot of people do get into such situations, probably more than I could ever know. But if you are a girl or woman considering or already in such a relationship, I have something to say to you: Don't do it! If you're already doing it, stop! Here is my reason: If a man isn't willing to commit himself to you for life, then he doesn't deserve you. There's a reason people write beautiful songs and poetry about love. It's because God designed it as a beautiful and precious thing, to bless his people. The price he puts on it is lifelong commitment, because that is what love is worth. That's what you are worth, my sister-woman. If you give yourself to a man for any other price, then you cheapen yourself. To put it another way: There's a reason why engagement and wedding rings are made with precious stones and precious metals. You and your love are precious. You're like gold and diamonds. No one sells a diamond ring for a quarter, sister, or even for five bucks. True, gold and diamonds are often stolen. If your gifts and your virginity are stolen, that's rape, and that's not your fault. What I'm warning you against is letting someone buy you for less than you're worth. Don't sell a priceless jewel for a quarter. Don't let any jerk, or even a semi-nice guy, buy you cheap. You're worth a man's life. Just ask the Man who died for you.

"Success"

I just saw something that really upset me. It was a full-page ad for a Christian college in a magazine. The college claimed to be a road to "success". To represent "success", it showed a picture of a well-dressed businesswoman holding a fancy portfolio. That may seem normal to most people. I don't know, maybe as a business student in my own college, I've seen too much of it. But I immediately thought, "Why does everyone picture success as a well-dressed businesswoman with a fancy portfolio? Is that the only definition of success?" I, for one, don't believe it is. As I read the other articles in that same magazine, I saw stories about how Christians were rebuilding hurting communities, planting churches, and growing in Christ. There was joy, hope, and confidence there, and I felt an excitement that maybe, someday, I could be like those people. Only after I had flipped through a lot of the magazine did I find that ad, and it seemed to me incongruous.

What is the definition of "success"? The articles in that magazine would seem to say that loving and serving God and our fellow man would constitute success. That view seems to match up with what God tells us in the Bible. The advertisement, on the other hand, seemed to take for granted that "success" means making a lot of money (at least, enough to wear nice clothes and carry a fancy portfolio) and having status in some business (she looked really important). These things, money and status, are what the world values. Everywhere at school, I hear tips on how to get a "good job", which include dressing for the part like the woman in the ad. Only in the meetings of the Christian college organization do I hear tips on how to grow closer to God and love other people as He does.

I don't mean to criticize the Christian college that placed that ad, or the magazine that printed it. That's why I have deliberately withheld their names. I know that that image, the well-dressed businesswoman or -man, is the image that most people have when they think of "success". I just think that image needs to be rethought.

What about you? What is "success" for you?

Men--this is how I think of you!

This morning, I rushed to the bus stop, late for class. A man was standing there, smoking a cigarette. He smiled and waved at me as I crossed the street, and I wished him a breathless "good morning". When I sat down, I covered my nose and mouth with my hands to breathe without breathing in the cigarette smoke. I looked up, and the man was looking at me, looking concerned. "The smoke," I explained. "I have athsma." Instantly, the man threw away his cigarette. He came into the bus shelter and sat down, saying, "I don't smoke, either. I quit...about two seconds ago." That gave me pause. I thanked him, but I was suddenly cautioius. What he had said was my first clue that he was after me. The second clue was not long in following. "Are you married?" the man asked.
I was completely discombobulated. (If you don't know what that word means, look it up.) I had heard of things like this happening, but had never thought it would happen to me. Unsure what to say, I finally said, "Is that really important?" I pulled out my Bible and opened it to read, hoping that he would take the hint and leave me alone.
He stammered, "Uh...no...I mean...uh...I just meant to say...well, I don't know what to say," he finally finished. I felt like saying, "Don't say anything, then." Instead, I just started reading my current chapter of the book of Hebrews and tried to ignore him.
No such luck. "The truth is," the stranger said, "I think you're a beautiful woman."
Surprised, and maybe a little flattered, and definitely a lot uncomfortable, I thanked him again and tried to return to my reading. "So are you single?" the stranger asked.
"Um..." I stumbled, trying desperately to think of something to say. I didn't want to tell him I was single and raise false hopes, but I didn't know how to tell him I wasn't interested in any type of romantic relationship. My thoughts whirled frantically through my head, unable to form any coherent idea but discomfort and fear...and just then, to my unspeakable relief, the bus showed up. I made sure not to sit near the stranger.

Later this afternoon, a guy friend of mine greeted me in the hallway and paused to talk to me. We made simple small talk, asking each other how our lives were going. He asked what I was up to, and I told him I had just gotten out of class. He smiled and asked jokingly if I was going to relax the rest of the day. I told him about my few responsibilities, but said I would relax as much as I could. He said, "Have fun with that, kiddo!" and took his leave, grinning. We had both been smiling through the whole conversation, enjoying each other's company. There was nothing awkward, nothing embarrassing, nothing to frighten me or disconnect my thoughts. I wished the conversation could have continued.


As I left the building, and while I stood at the homeward bus stop, I pondered my conversations with and reactions to these two men. On the surface, my reactions seemed unreasonable. One man told me that I was beautiful and that he would give up smoking for me, and I couldn't wait to get away from him. The other just asked me how my life was going and made small talk, and I was disappointed when he left. Why was that, I wondered? Then I had the answer. The first man was a stranger; the second was my friend.


The stranger made it clear by his words, attitude, and actions that he wanted me, that he only cared about me because I was beautiful. What would he care what I was doing this afternoon, except as far as it included him? What would he care if I joined a choir, or went to Irishfest, or had family in Iowa? What would he care if I were a college student, a fast-rising career woman, or a waitress at Country Kitchen? What he said and what he did was sweet, but it was superficial. He was only concerned with my body. He liked it, and he wanted it, and was willing to give up smoking to get it. That's what scared me.

On the other hand, my friend wasn't chasing after me. He made it clear by his words, attitude, and actions that he wanted to know what was going on in my life, that he cared about what I did because he cared about my well-being. What would he care whether or not I was married, except as far as marriage or singleness brought me happiness? What would he care that my hair was blonde and messy (which it was)? What would he care about the color of my eyes, or the shape of my legs? What he said and what he did was insignificant, but it was good. He was concerned with my friendship, not my body. He liked me, myself, and was glad to take a few minutes of his day to spend some time with me. That's what I like about him.


Men, take note!!!