Some of us are old enough to remember the playground taunt, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” That denial of the power of words, of course, was merely to disempower a bully and quite a bit more effective than crying for mommy in most circumstances.
In this age of online censorship and newly invented categories of offense, it is difficult to even claim that words have absolutely no impact on us. Being called a “racist” or “domestic terrorist” does matter, it can come with serious social consequences and be used as a pretext for punishment of political opponents. No laughing matter.
We are governed by words. If we see a red sign emblazoned with the letters S-T-O-P, we tend to comply (at least partially) without much thought. And, whether you want to comply or not, because of written laws, you’ll end up giving the IRS a significant portion of your income. Words can and do hurt your wallet, they limit opportunity and shape outcomes.
We are steered, employed by others to their own ends, by use of description, framing and narratives. For example, whether a deadly conflict is described as being a “military intervention” (Yemen) or as an “invasion” and “aggression” (Ukraine) has little to do with substantive difference and everything to do with how propagandists wish us to perceive the event.
Context provided, what is or is not reported, changes the moral equation.
Those who control social media platforms understand the power of words. They know that awareness is induced through language and that narrative matters. This is why they have taken such interest in curtailing speech and the dissemination of information. Even if corrupted by partisanship, many of them likely see this as their responsibility or a moral obligation.
This deal is dangerous for our democracy. Billionaires like Elon Musk play by a different set of rules than everyone else, accumulating power for their own gain. We need a wealth tax and strong rules to hold Big Tech accountable.
Strange how now she speaks up about potential “dangerous to democracy,” but not when Big Tech was using the pretense of their “community standards” to ban content creators, including a former President, for challenging their ideological agenda and narratives. Sure, they always could conjure their excuses or hide behind “Twitter is a private business, if you don’t like it start your own internet,” disingenuously while suing individuals who defied their demands, but now the truth comes out, suddenly it is all about democracy:
Credentialism much? I guess we should trust the privileged elites who trust the corporate system instead?
To those of us who have faced algorithmic demotion and punitive measures for our wrong-think, doing things like posting the actual flag of Ukraine’s Azov battalion or a quote of Hitler praising censorship intended as ironic, there is appreciation for Musk as a free speech advocate. To those who use the word “democracy” as an excuse to trample rights, this represents an enormous threat to the ability to control narrative.
For those of us who have been paying close attention and involved, we know why Yahoo News, along with other far-leftist run online publishers, have shutdown their comment sections. Sure, they may say this was to prevent misinformation, but the reality is that there would often be factual rebuttals or additional context that would undermine the narrative of the article. It was always about control, not protection.
The war of words is as important as that which involves tanks, bombs and guns. It was propaganda and censorship, as much as physical means, that enabled Nazis to put Jews in camps. This is why Russo-phobia, the demonization and cancelation of a whole ethinic group, over things the the US-led imperial left, is so troubling. President Obama was not accused of war crimes for a brutal AC-130 attack on an Afghan hospital, despite the dozens of verified casualties, why is that?
It is, of course, how the story is presented that makes all of the difference. If a writer wants a leader to appear incompetent they might use the words like “bungled” as the description. If they wish to spin it as positive they’ll say “setbacks” and dwell on framing the cause as righteous instead. Those who want the public to support one side of the Ukrainian conflict will downplay or even completely ignore important context, like NATO expansion, the violent overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected government in 2014, and merciless shelling of the Donbass region.
And this is why Musk promising to restore freedom of speech on Twitter is such a big deal and especially to the current power brokers. The military-industrial complex, which owns the corporate media and many of our politicians, stands to lose billions in revenue if they can’t convince the gullible masses that Vladimir Putin is literally Hitler for leading a US-style “regime change” effort in his own neighborhood.
I mean, how will US political families, like the quid pro quo Biden’s, continue to make their millions in kickbacks (Burisma/Hunter scandal) if Ukrainian’s energy is back under Russian control again?
This is why they’ll fight tooth and nail to keep the presentation of the story as one-sided as possible. They do not want us to hear the facts that may cause questions. They only want us to have their prepacked stawman “don’t say gay” version of their enemies, presented by the late-night funnyman for ridicule, rather than allow a truly informed debate.
Unlike many, the ignorant who accept narratives at face value, the elites with government and corporate power understand that the world is run by ideas. It is how wars are won.
Put away those pink vagina hats, feminists, 2017 might as well be 17 BC, this is the current year, now wearing such a monstrous thing on your head is a clear sign of bigotry and transphobia. How would those ‘women’ with penises feel? A pussyhat is worse than a Confederate battle flag or MAGA hat and completely insensitive.
Transphobic sign from 2017?
A decade ago answering the question of what a woman is would be easy for most people. My mom is a woman. That’s what we call the part of mankind that is able to give birth: A womb-man.
But, in the age of far-left ‘woke’ politics, this isn’t so easy anymore. And this is the reason why, Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Supreme Court nominee, when asked, “Can you provide a definition for the word woman?” replied, “I can’t, not in this context, I’m not a biologist.”
Now, some are calling this question a trap, which it is. It is a question intended to reveal the true character of Brown Jackson and it has. Brown Jackson has shown herself as someone beholden to far-left extremism and unwilling to state a basic understanding that doesn’t need a biologist to get it right.
This is someone whom we are supposed to trust to make judgements on such matters, being interviewed for a job that is all about providing the final legal interpretations. Will she also refuse to weigh in on the language of the law because she’s not one of the writers? “I’m sorry, but I can’t rule on this, I didn’t write the Constitution.”
Alas, I think this is a selective lack of basic comprehension of what even children can figure out. And we all know that it is not fair for a biological male to change his name, take some hormones, and then dominate women. However, in the current ‘woke’ political paradigm one must pretend that a man competing as women is somehow stunning and brave.
The true irony of all this is that the pushers of the very same identity politics that moved Brown Jackson to the front of the line, which is completely about dividing people up into categories as a means to exploit their base tribal instincts, nominated someone who claims to suddenly be unable to distinguish women from men.
Man, I Feel Like A Women
And as far as the appeal to credentialism, I’m not sure any biologist would want to be declared to be transphobic and a bigot. It would be a quick route to losing their job or funding, being cancelled, to risk offending the most powerful of marginalized. Let’s hope this USA Today clip doesn’t represent a scientific community consensus or we’re in for a rough ride:
If this is indeed true, if there is “no sufficient way to clearly define what makes someone a woman,” then the solution to the alleged pay gap is to have more men identify as women, right?
If Jeff Bezos becomes Jen instead, would that be a huge victory for women?
Would it then be sexist to question the business practices of Amazon?
All of this is absurd. A word that can’t be defined is meaningless. We might as well remove it from the census form as it would be impractical to consult a biologist to help decide what gender we on a given day. If it is that difficult to define woman, then we may all be women and who can say otherwise? Who hasn’t sang along with Shania Twain, “Man, I feel like a woman”?
Transgenderism is truly a bigger threat to the special privileges of women than anything patriarchal. It is essentially to say that the category does not exist, that anyone who identities as a woman can be a woman, and therefore all should have access to those spaces typically reserved for women. Lia Thomas has arrived to erase the best efforts of women.
Loss of Meaning and Purpose
The one thing that is hard to define in this postmodern age, where a woman can’t even say what it actually means to be a woman, is our direction. Even with the rejection of God and questioning of truth, a prior generation of academics and scientists could agree on basic definitions enough to advance.
However, as this nihilistic deconstruction of meaning (and thus purpose) continued, as the very things that built civilization have become progressively eroded over time, it is become increasingly difficult to form a productive consensus. If many can’t even be objective about gender and what it means to be a woman anymore, how will we decide anything if this goes further?
Language is becoming detached from the meaning. This is a wedge driven by those perpetually stuck in dithering indecision, who are often insulated from real world consequences, who can afford to live in abstraction and denial. But it is not sustainable, we can’t build strong and safe bridges while declaring engineering and mathematics to be racist.
At some point there is reality, cold and harsh, that doesn’t care about our feelings.
Our elites are basically like those ridiculed for their debates about how many angels could dance on the head of a needle. They have become totally impractical, useless as far as executive decision making and a real threat to social order. Those unable to settle any matter definitively, let alone those truly more complex and nuanced, can’t build a future together.
It is a luxury, the ultimate privilege, to never have to define or decide anything and still be able to live.
The guy, trying to impress his date with his wokeness beside me, doesn’t actually live by the dogmas he is spouting, he can yammer on endlessly about his theories, but to sustain a relationship he’s going to have to make a commitment to something, eventually, or no woman will keep him around for long.
Conflict is everywhere, anywhere there are two are more gathered there is potential for conflict. We currently watch the lingering hostilities between the West and Russia unfold into open war in Ukraine, between people of a common Kyivan Rus’ religious and cultural heritage. The reasons are complex (watch this video for a deeper dive) and beyond the scope here.
Nevertheless, the same things that cause wars between nations also lead to schism and splits in the church, and despite the exhortation of St. Paul to make every effort to maintain unity:
Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
(Ephesians 4:2-4 NIV)
If we would ask most who profess Christ, they would probably agree that the Church should be united, there should not be rifts or denominations, yet that’s probably where the agreement would end. The body of believers has split hundreds of different ways, over matters of theology, history, structure, worship style, politics, or personalities.
But, before we get to the broader conflicts and division within Christianity, I’ll confess that I’m currently in my own conflict. This is why I am both the right and the wrong person to write about this topic. I am the wrong person because the impasse has not been resolved yet despite a small gesture on the part of the other person. My anger has exasperated the issue. And yet I’m also still wanting to find peace with this other person and honest resolution.
Conflict is Nothing New or Unexpected
If an enemy were insulting me, I could endure it; if a foe were rising against me, I could hide. But it is you, a man like myself, my companion, my close friend, with whom I once enjoyed sweet fellowship at the house of God, as we walked about among the worshipers.
(Psalms 55:12-14 NIV)
I believe we can all identify with the text above. We expect an enemy to do us harm and will find ways to maintain distance. However, when someone that we trust acts in a deliberately hurtful way, exploiting our vulnerabilities, the betrayal of a friend is the worst kind of pain. It is hard to come back to the table when someone professing Christ, who worshipped with us, seemingly close in spirit, totally destroys our trust.
That said, restoration of what is broken is part and parcel of Christianity. Indeed, we’re told that if we can’t forgive a person who owes us, then we will not be forgiven by God. (Matthew 6:4,5) This is something that Jesus expounded on in the parable of the unforgiving servant, a man who begs for mercy for a vast sum of money he owed, is forgiven, and then turns around to demand from a fellow servant.
And yet, no teaching of Jesus should be taken out of context either. Jesus was not, I repeat, was not telling us to sweep sin under a rug or not hold people accountable for their abuses. This certainly was not unilateral and unconditional forgiveness without repentance:
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. (Matthew 18:15-17 NIV)
So many conflicts within the Church could be solved if we would go directly to the other person who had caused our offense. This process above is prescriptive and may keep a mere misunderstanding from blowing up into something that leads to separation or divides a congregation. First, before consulting anyone else, we should try to settle the issue amongst ourselves. Then, if that doesn’t work, it is time to seek the counsel of others and confront together. And, if that fails, if they refuse collective council, we should part ways.
It is similar to this explicit command from St. Paul:
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
(1 Corinthians 5:9-13 NIV)
Forgiveness is not the same thing as tolerance for unrepentant sin. The church cannot be a hospital if we let the infection of sin to spread, like a superbug, untreated and ignored. The antiseptic is to confront the issue, to give opportunity for confession and repentance to begin the healing process. But, if the limb refuses treatment, then (as an absolute last resort) it must be amputated to save the body, as St. Paul had asked rhetorically in the lead up to the verses above: “Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough?”
In cases of actual unrepentant sin, conflict is entirely appropriate. The church cannot be allowed to become an incubator for sin. The toxicity can quickly spread and destroy the fellowship and health of a congregation. It takes proactive pastoral involvement, like that of St. Paul, to keep things from spiraling out of control. Yes, we should pray about all things. Sure, we should not judge without mercy and willingness to forgive the repentant. Still, we must confront sin, endure the discomfort of effective conflict resolution, and not simply resign to fate.
Not All Separation is Sin
Too many seem to skip over the book of Acts and miss the opportunity to see how Christianity played out in the early church:
Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord.
(Acts 15:36-40 NIV)
This seemed like an amicable separation between Paul and Barnabas. Nevertheless, it was an unresolved conflict and they parted ways over it. There is no indication that either of the men was harboring an unforgiving spirit or in the wrong for this and, in the end, it probably helped the Gospel to reach more people than if they had stuck together. That is why with my own current conflict I may simply move on rather than make an effort to settle things. It is sometimes not worth the energy to continue with someone that does not see things the way we do.
Going separate ways, rather than trying to push through a conflict, may serve a greater purpose. At the very least, as with Abraham and Lot who parted ways over the turf wars between their respective herdsmen, we’ll gain a little peace. The key is that we don’t harbor ill-will or bring any hostilities with us Note that Paul and Barnabas did not go out and start competing church groups. They stayed within the same body of faith, carried on the same tradition, and simply moved in a different direction.
Is Ecumenicalism the Answer?
A church unified in teaching and mission should be the desire of all Christians. Some achieve this by declaring themselves the remnant and carrying on the great tradition of Diotrephes who turned away even the Apostles:
I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will not welcome us. So when I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us. Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.
(3 John 1:9-10 NIV)
Declaring yourself to be the true church and everyone else imposters is certainly convenient and yet not really employing be completely humble. I mean, sure, when I was Mennonite I wanted a church unity built around the doctrines that I was taught. It is easy to assume that the ground that we stand on is sacred simply because we’re standing on it. However, that is not an attitude or spirit that will ever overcome our existing conflicts.
Many are tempted to see ecumenicalism as the better alternative. Let’s all just give up on the particulars, find our common ground in Jesus, sing kumbaya while holding hands together, and move on, right?
But this is a race to the lowest common denominator, we would need to throw out almost everything to reach some kind of consensus. We would end up with a vague picture of the real Jesus and only end up creating one more faction. That’s the grand irony of universalist, non-denominational or ecumenical efforts, they never do actually solve the divisions and only end up creating another group of those willing to compromise for sake of creating a kind of unity that doesn’t really amount to much.
Pope Francis greets Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople outside the Basilica of St. Nicholas in Bari, Italy, July 7. The pope met leaders of Christian churches in the Middle East for an ecumenical day of prayer for peace in the region. (CNS photo/Vatican Media) See POPE-ECUMENICAL-ENCOUNTER-BARI July 9, 2018.
Eccumenticalism tends to be a denial of the reasons why the conflicts exist. It glosses over serious differences in theology and practice. It appeals to a “can’t we all just get along” sentiment, it is modeled off of the democratic process that many in our time embrace rather than the Gospel, and is not the way of the early church.
How Did the Early Church Settle Disputes?
The early church was not conflict-free. And had a fair amount of heretical teachings and false prophets that needed to be addressed. But one of the big disputes was between the Judiazers, those of Jewish background who wished to impose Jewish law on all new converts, and those who did not see this as necessary:
Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: “ ‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’— things known from long ago. “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.
(Acts 15:1-19 NIV)
This conflict was not solved by democracy or popular vote. No, it was decided by a council of elders and Apostles, who then told the rest of the Church what the right approach would be. It also went against a strict interpretation and application of Scripture. It was both hierarchical and required submission. We might not like that this dispute was decided from the top down. We can question the authority of this council or those that followed after, nevertheless, this was how conflicts over theology and practice were settled.
The Embrace of the Apostles Peter and Paul, Cretan school, Angelos Akotantos, 1st half 15th century
This is the strength of Orthodoxy; Orthodoxy centers on the Orthodoxy rather than hierarchy and that does mean the tradition of the Apostles, passed on “by word of mouth or by letter,” (2 Thess. 2:15) a canon of teachings (including Scripture) that have been established as authentic through councils of the Church, and has been held fast by the faithful throughout the centuries.
So Orthodoxy is the Answer to Conflict?
Many Orthodox Christians will tout their unbroken lineage all that way back to the Apostles. Our way of worship goes back over a millennium, the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom celebrated from the 5th Century on and is unrivaled in terms of the beauty of the content and structure. We are the ancient Church tradition and, indeed, Holy Communion is a mystical experience when in the presence of all those through the centuries who have participated. Such unity!
We’ll talk about the Great Schism and do some of that necessary handwringing about the literally thousands of divisions within Protestantism. I mean, judge for yourself, is there any civilization more divided against itself than the West? Even Roman Catholicism, with its progressive Pope and sex abuse scandals, is quite at odds with itself despite having a defined hierarchical structure.
Had I entered Orthodoxy with blind idealism, expecting the perfect church, I would probably have left even before getting started. The Orthodox may have the richest of Christian traditions, it is certainly a treasure trove for those who appreciate history and want to participate in a Christianity recognizable to those in the early Church. There is also a defined hierarchy to settle disputes. I mean, what could possibly go wrong? And yet the same conflicts of personalities and politics happen here as much as anywhere else.
Pretty much simultaneous to my entering the fold, the Ukrainian Schism took place. The gist of the dispute was that the Archbishop of Constantinople and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew decided unilaterally to grant autocephaly (or independence) to the Ukrainian church. The problem was that this overstepped canonical law and violated the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. For sake of context, Bartholomew is pretty much the patriarch of a city that no longer exists, is supported by American churches, and is acting outside of his authority in a way reminiscent of the very Papal abuse that led to the Great Schism between East and West in 1054.
And then there were those families that left my own parish, led by a homeschooling mom from a Protestant background, who made some vicious (and completely unfounded, I was on the council and reviewed the books) accusations against the new priest. This woman, one of those pious and outwardly perfect types, the kind that can fool all of the frivolous old ladies, sends up all of the red flags of a classic manipulator. Things didn’t go her way and, therefore, that was proof of abuse and fraud. I tried to be her friend. I don’t completely connect with our new priest myself, and yet she’s way out of line.
Of course, I come from a Mennonite background, where no dispute is too petty to divide over. We would part ways over hairstyles.
The most disappointing fissure, however, other than my own personal conflict with someone that I thought was a real friend, is that between Abbott Tryphon and Ancient Faith Ministries. Tryphon, a convert to Orthodoxy, is a great writer and a favorite of my parish priest. I follow him on social media. He had a falling out with Ancient Faith over his more overtly political content. Of course, the accusations fly between sides, some say that one side has been compromised, has connections to this industry, or that, while the other would say it was over someone getting too entangled in worldly politics.
In other words, both sides are making essentially the same claim about the other and it probably does stem from both sides holding slightly different partisan perspectives. I can understand the perspectives that both sides have. I do not see worldly politics as being a good mix with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and yet I also see that a prophetic voice must speak to the issues relevant to the time. Still, Tryphon, though very eloquent, seems the more butt-hurt of the two parties and even alienated some of his own audience with his lashing out.
I would actually side against Tryphon, based on his visible conduct, if it weren’t for one thing and that thing being that I’m just like him when hurt. He’s a passionate man, someone who speaks with conviction, a bit black and white, and completely like me.
Division Makes Us All Weak
There is no religious system or culture that can prevent conflicts. We can go through all of the correct motions, speak all of the right words, have a perfect understanding of Christianity at a theoretical level, and yet totally fail to resolve conflicts.
Returning to the passage from Ephesians, from the start of the blog, the “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” is preceded by “Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.” That’s the hard part. When hurt or offended we don’t want to wait, we want to speak out rashly and let them feel a little of our own anguish.
And yet St Paul does not tell us to bury our grievances in the name of keeping unity and peace either:
Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.
(Ephesians 4-14-16 NIV)
We should not lose our sensitivity:
So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed. That, however, is not the way of life you learned when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body.
(Ephesians 4:17-25 NIV)
Instead, we need to find a way to navigate through conflicts, to speak truthfully and reject falsehood, while still being completely gentle, humble, and patient at the same time. It is both prayerful and proactive. The potential growth of the church is stunted both by those aggressively confrontational and overly passive in their approach. Again, what good is a hospital that only ever talks about infection without ever treating it? Likewise, who would go to a hospital where they a browbeaten and belittled constantly?
Having the right spirit is the start to resolving (or even completely avoiding) conflicts. There is a need for open and direct communication. We should also not let things stretch out too long, where we let things stew, as Ephesians 4:26-27 says: “In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold.” The more that I think about something the more upset I can become. I tend to soften up very quickly when face-to-face with someone, it is harder to hold on to the grievance.
Oh No, Here We Go Again!
When I entered Orthodoxy, trying to put the deep disappointments behind me, and already having the romance question answered by Charlotte, I was determined to remain friendly, and yet aloof and impersonal enough not to get hurt. The people were nice at the small parish, a good mix of ages, coffee hour conversations could go deep and I very quickly warmed up to most of the regular attenders.
In the intervening years, there has been some change and conflict. The long-serving Fr. Dan, who helped to build the parish, retired (his last service my Chrismation) and the search was on for a new rector. Unfortunately, not everyone was happy with the choice and almost immediately set to undermine the new priest. I tried to steer clear of those politics, choosing to remain faithful to the parish community despite my own personality conflicts with the burly bearded Harley riding Baptist convert. He’s a gruff man with a golden heart.
It was in the midst of the pandemic, after that initial quarantine phase in the spring of 2020, that a new person started to attend. She looked like someone who could be cradle Orthodox, with dark curly hair, and her veil with a long dress reminded me of the traditional Mennonite style that I loved. So I pretty much had to introduce myself and make them feel welcomed. I can’t really remember how that went, she was reserved and a little standoffish, and yet Orthodoxy provided a bond that allowed us to develop what seemed to be an authentic brotherly and sisterly relationship.
We spent a fair amount of time talking about our long-distance love interests, we became a sort of two-person support group for those waiting on their significant other to arrive, comforting and encouraging each other, and I found the greatest joy when her tall handsome man arrived one evening for vespers. I was so excited, in fact, that I offered to play the part of the photographer to make sure that this moment was captured.
I didn’t realize then that this would be the high point of the relationship. Uriah’s death meant I needed some space to process and mourn. I pulled back. And pulled back even more after a sarcastic remark was directed at me. It wasn’t meanspirited or meant to hurt, but I simply didn’t have the emotional armor for it and decided to let her be with her new nihilistic Ortho-bro Millennial buddies. A church isn’t supposed to be a social club or clique of cool kids snickering at everyone else, I could find more neutral company until I got my feet under me again, and that’s what I did.
It was mutual avoidance at this point. I wanted space, she never really loved me anyway (later revealing that our friendship was fake when I did try to reconcile) and this was fine.
However, eventually, this arrangement started to wear thin for me. It seemed dishonest or out of sorts with the loving claims we made with our mouths during worship together. It was too reminiscent of those cold shoulders Mennonite girls give when they want the pudgy less than hygienic misfit to get the hint and not Christian. So I did what I thought I do well, wrote an email, shelved that one, and wrote another less emotionally charged version that I sent.
Unfortunately, the signals that I got back were not conciliatory and some of the comments seemed to be very intentionally aimed at my known vulnerabilities, I was falsely accused of being romantically interested (100% not the case) and pretty much had everything thrown back in my face. It was at this point some of my past started to bubble back up, seeing her would trigger severe discomfort and a flight reflex. She did gesture to try to make it right and try I have not seen much evidence of a change of heart either.
Rather than reconcile with me directly and be honest, she seems determined to maintain the distance by getting intermediaries involved. And my initial anxiety attacks have morphed into intense feelings of anger from what feels like a betrayal and lies. I don’t trust her anymore and I don’t trust anyone to mediate. I can’t see platitudes or empty motions as being a way forward and would rather stick to the avoidance strategy. So the one triumph for true brotherhood in Christ ends in a messy quagmire.
It’s Not You, It’s Me
“We have met the enemy and he is us.”
The truth is that my interpersonal conflict, like all in the Church, is a problem with me as much (or more) than it is them. I have trust issues and an impossible ideal, the initial estrangement was my fault, she has her own baggage to deal with and is now moving to protect herself from me. In her mind, and in the mind of her allies, I am the unstable and manipulative party in this conflict. She is, no doubt, being encouraged to write me off and move on. I’ve given her reason (like telling her “stay away from me”) to never talk to me again.
So, what is my reason for spilling my guts in a blog once again?
Maybe so that someone reading can offer a solution or that those who are prayer warriors can help by begging God to remove those blinders from our eyes and free us from the bindings of fear. I had initially loved this person because they appeared to be sincere and that (during a sermon about martyrs and contemplating my own weakness of faith) I decided it would be worth dying beside her rather than leaving her to face death alone. It is tragic that we should end up dying now in opposition to each other due to our past. Please pray for me, a sinner, that I can learn humility and live a life of repentance.
This brings me to the final point and another reason why I’m sharing this openly: We cannot solve those broader schisms and divisions within the Church if we can’t even love those who are right in front of us enough to lower our defensive posture or give a second chance to those undeserving. Healing, within the body of Christ, can only be accomplished by working locally to resolve our own conflicts with humility, gentleness, and patience. We cannot conquer the world for the Kingdom when we’re at war with ourselves.
Furthermore, it takes being at peace with who we are as individuals, petty, unworthy, afraid and broken, to solve our own inner conflicts, before we’re going to do much good in our communities. My own insecurities, no doubt, are what cloud my judgment and lead to the wrong kind of response. The Gordian knot that I project onto this situation is less an external reality and more a reflection of my internal state. I am frustrated with my lack of progress. I did find great comfort in this friend who is complex and conflicted like me.
Now my true character has been revealed. I’m not this wonderful even-keeled guy. My emotions do get the best of me. I’m not at peace with myself all of the time and sometimes do look outward for a resolution to this inner battle. Unfortunately, looking to others for security and stability, will leave us further hurt. They have their baggage too, they respond wrong, misunderstand, misrepresent, manipulate, lie and will otherwise disappoint. That’s why spiritual healing has to start with me—with getting my own conflicted heart right.
When a convoy of trucks descended upon Ottawa to protest the imposition of mandates, Justin Trudeau, the ever so prim and polished Canadian Prime Minister took to the screen to disparage the effort as a “small fringe minority” with “unacceptable views.”
If that sounds like a school teacher scolding a class of 8th graders, that is because teaching was Trudeau’s former occupation before being elected to office on the basis of his good looks, smooth speech, and all-around nice guy appearance. There is a certain demographic that swooned after this young charismatic figure, despite his far-left disposition.
Of course, what works in the classroom doesn’t necessarily make the best approach for leading a diverse nation. A teacher is an authoritarian, they rule over the children either buy their superior knowledge or simply by the hierarchical structure needed to keep order in a school. But that’s not how a liberal democracy with elected representatives is supposed to work.
It is not Trudeau’s job to decide what views are and are not acceptable. And that is the very tone that is starting to provoke a response. People are getting tired of politicians, with no moral authority (see: Trudeau in blackface) or real expertise forcing them to comply and lecturing them about what views are or are not acceptable.
It is fitting that a chaotic sea of truck drivers has risen up to challenge this would-be dictator. Ironically, 90% of the drivers are already in compliance according to Newsweek, and yet they are standing up for their rights as Canadians and saying “enough is enough” after two years of being pushed around by those who have long ago overstepped their mandate to govern.
What Makes A Truck Driver Special?
There is some truth to the idea that truckers are on the fringe. The word “fringe” carries a negative connotation when used in a political context, but is defined generally as “the border or outer edges of an area or group.”
Truckers are strong and independent people who face brutal extremes so that those within the borders of their effort are protected.
Like feminine traits (like compassion and nurturing) are ideal for careers like nursing or teaching, it takes a rugged masculine individual to go out and brave all weather and conditions. Truckers occupy that space between order and disorder. They deal with mud, freezing cold and ice, long hours. They can be out weeks at a time, sleeping in a box behind the cab, living in a solitary space so that everyone else can have their comfortable lives.
It doesn’t matter how you feel when there is work to be done. A trucker’s life is pass or fail. Either you clear the snow off the dump trailer tarp and get loaded or you don’t get home. There is no one to hold your hand, nobody out on the edge in this wilderness cares that you’re offended. You’re on your own, buddy, and better be able to deal with loneliness, make your own decisions, overcome the disorder, and find a way to get moving again.
At the same time, a trucker, a real trucker, is not just a dumb brute holding a steering wheel. They need to understand the machinery that they operate, how to properly secure and balance their loads, how to predict their trip and make their appointment times, many are small business owners and need to keep up with the onerous compliance regime imposed upon them.
Professional truckers are some of the most meticulous and detailed people when it comes to their work and their vehicles. Many spend their free time shining the rims, their weekends doing maintenance work, and are extremely skilled.
One skill truckers have is the ability to think for themselves. They form their own opinions and aren’t going to be pushed around by the popular narratives and certainly not by some coward who will not face them while still collecting a check at taxpayers’ expense.
Meanwhile, truckers go out on the road every week to keep the economy going and support their families, facing adversity on the open road and now in front of the parlament, it is costing them a great amount of money to stand up for freedom.
Which is the true form of a truck driver: They are self-sacrificial.
The Contrast Of Fringe Minorities
Political elites and truck drivers occupy opposite sides of society and only one of them is essential. Truckers could survive, on their own, without Trudeau to lead them and may actually do better without the expense of bloated governments bearing down on their shoulders. The elites, on the other hand, would not be able to live their lifestyle without the workers.
For years, especially the past two, the privileged elites, with their access to political power and ability to broadcast their opinions, have encroached more and more on the freedoms of their fellow citizens. Even before the outbreak of disease they always had a ready excuse why their influence and control should be expanded. They will have us believe that they “follow the science” and represent the expert opinions, that they are more qualified.
And yet, these people at the topmost fringe of the social hierarchy often are far removed from the practical implications of their policies. They may say things like “we’re in this together” and pretend to be one of the people when that is convenient to their ends, yet they never do suffer to the extent that those at the bottom do. In fact, there are many pictures of politicians, who issued strict restrictions, not following their own rules.
It would be one thing if they had faithfully led by example, refused to travel and go out themselves, or at least did not hypocritically attack leaders who allowed freedom while they indulged themselves, but it was always “rules for thee and not for me.” They scared and coerced everyone else into compliance, economically ruinous policies for small businesses while being totally exempted from the pain they inflicted.
The truckers, by contrast, simply did their job, rain or shine, deadly virus or not, delivering the goods that are necessary for civilization to exist. And for this, they are mocked, falsely (and bizarrely) characterized as being racist or sexist for standing up to the rich powerful corporate and state actors. I mean, maybe the media thinks that we don’t see the Sikhs or Native people cheering on and joining their fellow Canadians?
How anyone continues to see these fusspot fakes as being credible is beyond me. But then many are divorced from the harsh realities beyond the safe spaces that others provide for them. Unlike truckers, they are controlled by fear, suffer from a kind of Stockholm syndrome where they believe that those exploiting them (for political or other gains) are their protectors.
The elites are the fringe in Canada. The majority of their countrymen want the restrictions to end and thus, spiritually, are on the side of the truckers rather than Trudeau. Sure, many have been misled by corporate media and mischaracterizations of the trucker convoy by those trying to cast this protest in a negative light. But more are starting to see through the blinders of partisanship and propaganda, they should go meet the friendly truckers.
Do Not Muzzle The Ox
St. Paul, on several occasions, makes reference to Deuteronomy 25:4, the law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” He uses it in the context of being allowed to work for pay and applies it as a general principle. So much for strict literalism and lawyerly application, right?
The ox treading out the grain is used as an analogy of a worker. It is wrong to deny the ox some of the fruit of their labor and it is also wrong to deny a person their fair wages. It makes sense, we should treat those working for our benefit with appreciation and respect.
Sure, a draft animal might not be the smartest creature. But it does deserve what it is due.
And, speaking of muzzles being removed and speaking out against unjust beating, remember the comical story of Balaam’s donkey, where self-important Balaam has a conflict with his transportation. The donkey, seeing an angel with a sword in hand unseen to Balaam, refused to continue down the path and for this suffers abuse. This happens three times before God finally allows the ‘dumb’ animal to speak:
Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?
”Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If only I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”
The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”
“No,” he said.
Then the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown.
(Numbers 22:28-31 NIV)
The hilarious part is that the donkey starts to talk back against the abuse and yet that’s not enough for arrogant Balaam to stop and reconsider.
The donkey, like our trucker friends, reminds his rider that he has been completely reliable up until that point, never complained or caused problems, and was refusing to continue for reasons that his master could not see.
Balaam had spiritual blindness, too caught up in his own dignity, assuming his own superiority to the animal, and was very fortunate to not be killed. The Bible is full of stories about tyrants who refused to listen to the people under their rule and suffered severe consequences.
In a time of mask mandates and slanderous lies against the working class ‘deplorables’ it seems fitting that those of spiritual vision stand up together with the Canadian truck drivers.
What is the highest form of a loving relationship? Many would probably say marriage. Marriage is the recognition of two committing to oneness, involves physical intimacy, and is supposed to last “till death do us part.” What could be more wonderful than romantic love?
But, truth be told, people get into romantic relationships for some very biological reasons. As in pheromones and sexual attraction play a large role. It is why Mennonites marry young, they burn for sexual gratification, and there’s nothing wrong with that. However, while this can develop into something deeper, it does not always and marriage can very quality become an unwanted obligation. Divorce rates would be much lower if people married for deeper reasons than merely getting something for themselves.
And that is why marriage and romance is not the ultimate expression of love. Admitted or not, it usually centers on sexual appetites, this special person may become your best friend and yet that does not negate the start. It began with physical attraction and is tied up in our reproductive instincts. So what is more wonderful?
The Love of David and Jonathan
I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.
(2 Samuel 1:26 NIV)
This lament of David, in the quote above, the phrase “more wonderful than that of a woman” in particular, is supposed to stand out. It is a comparison for sake of showing how special and significant this relationship was to David.
But what made it so wonderful?
David, the Biblical character known for his fight with a Philistine giant among other things, had been secretly picked and annointed to be the next king of Israel. King Saul, despite his unusually tall stature, was a cowardly man and poor leader who blamed the people for his own incompetence. He was jealous and identified David as a rival for the throne.
But Jonathan, Saul’s son, who potentially had more to lose than his father immediately showed fondness towards the newly arrived giant slayer:
After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family. And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.
(1 Samuel 18:1-4 NIV)
They were “one in spirit” and made a covenant to express their love. Which became more important as David’s popularity, as a heroic military leader, grew:
When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with timbrels and lyres. As they danced, they sang:
“Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.”
Saul was very angry; this refrain displeased him greatly. “They have credited David with tens of thousands,” he thought, “but me with only thousands. What more can he get but the kingdom?”
And from that time on Saul kept a close eye on David.The next day an evil a spirit from God came forcefully on Saul. He was prophesying in his house, while David was playing the lyre, as he usually did. Saul had a spear in his hand 11and he hurled it, saying to himself, “I’ll pin David to the wall.” But David eluded him twice.
(1 Samuel 18:6-11 NIV)
King Saul was, quite evidently, a very insecure man and couldn’t stand being shown up. Despite David being loyal, rage would get the better of Saul, as in the account above, and this would become a theme.
But Jonathan warned David and stood up to his father on behalf of his friend:
Saul told his son Jonathan and all the attendants to kill David. But Jonathan had taken a great liking to David and warned him, “My father Saul is looking for a chance to kill you. Be on your guard tomorrow morning; go into hiding and stay there. I will go out and stand with my father in the field where you are. I’ll speak to him about you and will tell you what I find out.”
Jonathan spoke well of David to Saul his father and said to him, “Let not the king do wrong to his servant David; he has not wronged you, and what he has done has benefited you greatly. He took his life in his hands when he killed the Philistine. The Lord won a great victory for all Israel, and you saw it and were glad. Why then would you do wrong to an innocent man like David by killing him for no reason?
(1 Samuel 19:1-5 NIV)
Jonathan, unlike his spiritually corrupt father, Saul, recognized that David had done no wrong and had actually secured their power. He put his neck out for David by standing up to his moody and unpredictable father. He had as much reason to be threatened by the rise of David, he could have simply kept his mouth shut to save his own skin, but instead he risked being the next to have a spear chucked at him defended his spiritual brother.
What Made This Love More Wonderful?
Some modern commentators try to pervert and sexualize the love between David and Jonathan. To them any intimate relationship must revolve around gratification of physical desires. But there is nothing in the text that suggests this was the case.
The fundamentalist religious types also dismiss love and intimacy that does not revolve around romance. They may not try to redefine the relationship of these two characters, but it is also an anomaly and mystery to them. Where I came from, there was no true brotherly or sisterly relationship, it was expected that people find their intimate connection in biological family or marriage.
David and Jonathan had a spiritual connection. It was a love that wasn’t self-centered. Jonathan was loyal, he eventually died beside his father in battle. Likewise, David had solid character, he absolutely refused to kill king Saul, the Lord’s annointed, despite being unjustly hunted and having to run for his life. Their love was more wonderful because it defied expectations, it went beyond the typical and was deeper connection.
Well, as it turns out, I misunderstood Fr. Anthony and must now issue a correction to my last post, this is part of his explanation of the true position on vaccines:
The Patriarchate of Antioch’s Holy Synod has indicated that decisions about vaccines or medical issues in general are a matter of personal conscience and decision.
Fr. Anthony
So, thankfully, there is less conflict than I thought, this basically agrees with what my own bishop has stated, and now I can rest easy again.
That said, the whole matter of vaccines does make for a good thought experiment.
St. Paul is quite clear about respecting the conscience of others over having our own way, that is what it means to follow after Christ who died as an example of self-sacrificial love.
If we can’t give an inch, always have to fight tooth and nail finding every excuse we can muster to be defiant, then I do start to wonder about the truth of that commitment to love.
It would sort of be like the husband who claims to love his wife and then absolutely refuses to respect her wishes in anything because he’s too perfect (in his own mind) to let her preference trump his own.
The truth of a story is not proportional to our investment in it. The Marvel Cinematic Universe, for example, is a movie franchise worth nearly 23 billion dollars and has no basis reality other than locations. And still, despite being complete fiction, people are obsessed. We treat the characters as if they’re real, repeat their lines, cosplay to participate in the fantasy, and it does seem that many would rather be lost in this exciting world of make-believe than live their actual lives.
It is really interesting how outside observers of religions (other than their own) have no difficulty dismissing the beliefs and practices. The claims of L. Ron Hubbard, or Joseph Smith, or Muhammad ibn Abdullah aren’t all that compelling to non-adherents. I mean, come on, riding through the sky on a horse with a woman’s head and the tail of a peacock sounds more like a crazy acid trip than something to take seriously, right? But for this raised in an Islamic country, this makes more sense than Trinity or resurrection.
I’m quite certain that the Biblical narrative, whether Genesis or the Gospels, would have been far less believable had I not been indoctrinated as a child. I mean, it made sense to me then. My parents and every other respectable adult that I knew held to this belief system. It would actually be rather strange had I rejected this outright. It was only later that the vast differences between even various Mennonite sects, and facing challenges to my assumptions, that I even knew how to question.
Of course, this doesn’t make those raised outside of organized religion any more rational. Secular ideas, like Evolution and Global Warming, have taken on their own narrative framework, similar to religion, that far exceeds the actual evidence. Not all of the gaps can be explained by Natural Selection. And climate apocalypticism has strange similarities to the “end times” prophecies common with many caught up in Evangelicalism. Al Gore is basically Harold Camping with corporate sponsorship.
Most of these narratives can’t be entirely falsified. The decades and decades of dire predictions from climate alarmists haven’t come true, yet they keep moving the goal posts, even making claims in contradiction to those prior, and the next generation of conscientious young people are none the wiser. Likewise, the doctrines and practices of traditional religions evolve and get twisted every which way, to the point that you can’t get people raised in the same denomination to agree.
The strangest thing is how these various movements never die even when their claims are falsified. For example, the Seventh-day Adventists arose from the false Millerite prophecy that Jesus would return on October 22, 1844. The date came and went without event. But, despite this Great Disappointment, some who saw their central claim proven false still regrouped and continued on their way again. Perhaps the investment made was too much to simply give it up?
It’s sort of like I don’t expect the “believe science” midwits to ever comprehend how many times the experts get it wrong or reconsider. They’ll probably go on praising Dr. Fauci as a saint even after the puppy experimentation scandal, even after the NIH now admits to funding of gain-of-function research, and probably because it would cause too much discomfort to consider that their trust may have been misplaced.
It takes a boatload of evidence to overturn these narratives we have built up in our minds. Bad ideas, like Marxism, even if they fail miserably in one place, are often recycled and reintroduced. At the same time, credit for plain luck is given to whatever a person wants to have credit. A boom economy, with the President you voted for, and it is obviously a product of wise leadership, right? The sun came up right after you prayed? Must be the grace of God.
All religion, all political ideologies, the trust we have in certain institutions or people, is part of our embracing narratives. Whether you believe vaccines cause autism or ended Polio depends more on who (or what) you accept as an authority than the actual evidence. Past narratives might seem irrational to you, like the idea that autism was caused by “refrigerator moms,” yet made complete sense to many influential and intelligent ‘scientific’ people at one time. Those who go against the currently popular ‘expert’ consensus can expect persecution.
All this to say that we aren’t as good at discerning truth as we imagine. In many cases what we believe is nearly as much fiction as Captain America fighting against Hydra. It isn’t just the conspiracy theorist kooks buying into narratives despite evidence to the contrary, we all do, we all believe a blend of religious propaganda, political indoctrination, and out-of-context or unqualified facts stitched together, and much of it as absurd as the narratives we reject.
In each case a small glitch led to a spiral out of control. The problem being our capacity, as finite creatures, to sift through all of the alarm bells going off and come to the right answer before the clock runs out.
As I write, countless container ships loiter offshore and waiting to be unloaded. It is a logistics nightmare directly the result of lockdown mandates. It is something I had warned about way back when governors were arbitrarily declaring livelihoods to be “essential” or “nonessential” and playing out currently as the slow motion trainwreck of predictable consequences.
To those seeing conspiracy in this, I would suggest Hanlon’s razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
This is what you get when you elect lawyers, with the most political experience, rather than those who understand the basics of business, trade, and supply-chains. Many who hold office, like their constituents, are economic illiterates and can only see what is right in front of their face.
As a TWIC card holder with a long time interest in economics and logistics, I do feel qualified to explain. We have been heading this way for a for decades. The economy has become extremely complex and also increasingly in fragile.
How did we get here?
From Locally Produced To Corporate Globalism
There was a time when most things were produced for local consumption. For most of human history transportation had been very slow and costly. Sure, there was the silk road and the spice trade between the continents. But it was simply impractical, and unnecessary, to ship things long distances. Food was grown close enough to market that it could be brought by horse and cart. Towns had their own millers, tailors and blacksmiths.
Comparatively to modern times, this was very inefficient. In the 1800s one farmer could only feed three to five people and 90% of population lived on a farm. Today one farmer can feed 128 people and only around 1% live on a farm. This is due, in large part, to the internal combustion engine, as well as advancements in agricultural science, and also the ability (with refrigeration) to move vast amounts of fresh produce to far away markets. Meat can be trucked from Texas slaughterhouses to New York City grocery shelves in a matter of hours.
But the bigger revolution has been the imperishable items, the gadgets that require labor intensive manufacturing processes, and generally are produced by the lowest bidder. This is mostly for our benefit. If an iPhone might cost $2000 if it was produced in the United States and thus outsourcing production means that more people can afford to buy this technological wonder. Of course Apple and big corporations are the biggest beneficiaries of this global trade paradigm, still the consumer does get a lower prices.
Slowly, but surely, due to the advantages of economies of scale, small local mom and pop businesses are bought out by ever more expansive corporate conglomerates. Like that old abandoned dairy farm I used to see, from the interstate highway, on the outskirts of Richmond or in upstate NY. Once thriving farms, within miles of the market, are simply unable to compete with those bigger (and oftentimes further away) producers.
Our Very Fragile “Just-In-Time” Supply-chain
Manufacturing our complex technology takes a large variety of materials and components, these are sourced through a tangled web of suppliers. If parts don’t come in from Taiwan, then automobile factories in Michigan sit idle. And you don’t just go out and build a semiconductor industry overnight. Even if it were possible, the raw materials would need to come from somewhere. All it takes is couple links in the chain to be broken, even just one, and whole swaths of the economy will grind to a halt.
In the past there were droughts and famines, countless people died of starvation due to changes in climate. But then the problem was often local, like the potato blight that hit Ireland hard from 1845 to 1852, and contained. The overall system was robust because it was decentralized and full of redundancies. There were places to flee to, like the United States, where there was a chance.
But that’s not the case anymore. Not only are supply lines stretched very thin and delicate, with many moving parts, we also have the ‘just-in-time” manufacturing concept where inventories are kept low as a cost saving measure. Inventory is a big business expense and “lean manufacturing” has been the rage for this reason. The end result being there is no extra capacity in the system.
Ports lack the additional capacity and should never have been shutdown. A minor disruption of an already overtaxed system will very quickly lead to major backlogs and a cascade of failures down the line. It’s not only unloading the ships, but finding space for containers, having the rail cars and chassis to put them on. There was already a shortage of CDL drivers before this started and there is no fast or easy way to fix the situation.
We Need Local Production and Built-in Resilience
We are seeing the weakness of the current economic paradigm in full display and it will likely get worse before it gets better. I would expect slim pickings when it comes to the Christmas season. No, it is not likely that we’ll run out of food or fuel here in the United States. We do produce those things locally and therefore have some security in that regard. However, that doesn’t mean there will be no pain. Prices are likely to continue to rise.
It is a good time to reflect on where we’re headed. Do we really want to continue to outsource our blue collar jobs to countries that do not follow our environmental standards or labor laws? If climate change is an issue, why not use tariffs to bias the market in favor of domestic and local production? Sure, it makes sense for big corporations and their bottom lines to chase cheap labor overseas, but does it serve national security or the betterment of Americans who aren’t privileged with college degrees?
Efficiency is a good thing. It is of some benefit for us to have access to the lower priced labor in the developing world. But then this is not coming at a cost. It may relatively inexpensive to ship things around the globe in some regards, it certainly has made big corporations very powerful (with a lobbying and propaganda arm to match), yet it does come at an environmental cost and has also left the whole economic system vulnerable to collapse.
It is totally wrongheaded to increase taxes on domestic manufacturing and then remove tariffs on imported goods. Sure, this might slow economic growth and possibly even lead to a small recession. But real leadership is about seeing a little further down the road, and being prepared, rather than always doing what is politically expedient. We need a new crop of elected leaders who are locally, and not globally, oriented.
My parents, like my grandparents have remained faithfully devoted to one person their entire lives. This was not always easy, people grow and change, there were failures and financial hardships along the way, and those initial feelings of love faded long away ago. And yet, through these trials of life and tribulations, there has been a stronger bond of love that emerged that is far more profound.
My own life experience has been different from that of my father and grandfather, both whom married in their early twenties and never looked back. They remained fully one woman men. And it doesn’t even seem as if the serious possibility of another woman has ever crossed their minds. That is what I had wanted. Unfortunately, life had different plans for me, I have both imagined myself with many women and have had none. I’m a virgin, having never been married, but have also had my thoughts of liberation from this system that has disadvantaged me.
Call it egalitarian or call it egotistical, but there has also been this alternative of being intimate with multiple women does have some appeal. For me, outside looking in, it could feel a bit unfair that some men could hoard for themselves what some of us could not have at all. So wouldn’t it be better to erase this patriarchal structure entirely and make manifest that heavenly ideal of Matthew 22:30, when we “will neither marry nor be given in marriage” and all are one?
It is no big surprise that sexual liberation is a feature of many ‘Christian’ reformation attempts, including a more radical faction of the early Anabaptist movement in Münster, where they indeed shared more things in common than mere material possessions in their rejection of stuffy tradition. And such things, polygamy and sexual sexual orgies, have been a regular feature of various contemporary cults as well. For whatever reason it does feel right, in theory, but in reality is a self-serving disaster.
From ‘Free Love’ To Hook-up Culture
The 1960s and 70s were supposed to introduce this wonderful new age, free from the bonds of organized religion and stifling tradition. The communal living, the flower children, Woodstock, it all seemed so wonderful in that generation. But, besides music, it has left very little in terms of true positive legacy and ended up an ideal as naïve as the 1950s culture it was supposed to replace. The old hippies are a sort of comical absurdity anymore.
The only actually lasting legacy of that era is the American cultural institution of marriage becoming a mockery of the relationship that my parents and grandparents maintained throughout their decades. Fewer young people are even bothering to say vows as they’ve basically become meaningless in this age governed by immediate feelings and shunning of any type of binding commitment. Many today have never experienced the stability that I have had with two parents who didn’t quit on each other when times got tough.
Worse many in the current generation have gone a step further and pretty much entirely given up on love. They go to Tinder looking for a hook-up, or the whole “Netflix and chill” short-term sexual liaison, which makes very little attempt to treat physical intimacy as something special. It is crass, it is completely centered on the body and cares nothing about the soul. The young and beautiful can trade partners as casually as deciding what fast-food to order in.
Most young people today, even if they do not hook-up per se, think nothing about serial monogamy or living with multiple sex partners over their lifetimes. I’ll hear things like, “how can anyone really know what they want in their early twenties?” It is simply an expectation now that relationships are transitory and not meant to last. Although, for some reason, most do seem to cling to exclusive rights or at least so far as they themselves can’t find anything better.
The Harsh Realities of the Sexual Economy
In the religious subculture that formed me there was always this idea of “meant to be” that accompanied romantic relationship that ended in marriage. Divorce was not an option. The relationship of a man and woman was spiritual. We would barely talk about sexual attraction as a factor in this decision making process. We were told that our being pure and being the right one would bring about success.
This denial of the sexual motivation is what would later lead to my disillusionment when I discovered things truly weren’t as they were being framed. The reason I had been overlooked did not have to do with my character, the impossibly (before I had expressed any interest in her) had told me I would make a “great husband” and wasn’t the first to say so either, but for some reason they weren’t lining up for the opportunity to experience my greatness first-hand.
The reality is that marriage is not only about the completely virtuous pre-destined love of two people as advertised. It is also about climbing the social ladder, gaining access to the resources that another person has, and basically being able to routinely do the nasty with the hottest piece of Mennonite asset available. Yes, it is sexual. Yes, there’s a reason why my Mennonite marriageability rating blog struck a chord with so many in my former religious culture.
Marriage is a type of economic transaction, there is a sexual economy, and some simply bring more to the table in terms of excitement than others. There areas where some of us got the short end of the stick and could not compete. This was not spoken about honestly, for many years it felt like a judgment of my character rather than what it was and would have been much better if it had been acknowledged. At least hook-up culture is honest and doesn’t pretend to be about more than it is.
Why Hook-up Culture Does Not Work
On the surface being able to sleep with anyone seems like freedom. I know it would not take much convincing for me to have sexual relations with multiple women. I mean, there are many different women that I appreciate, with unique personalities, black, white or Asian, all beautiful. Why not take turns, spread the love and share a little, right?
Unfortunately it doesn’t work like that. First, there’s this thing of STDs, multiple partners means a wildly increased chance of an incurable and painful disease. Second, hook-up culture is not free love. No, it is actually more exclusive than traditional monogamy in that only the most superficially desirable specimens have a chance of success. Fall under the height requirement, have a few too many extra pounds, and you’re out of luck with no chance at all.
Yeah, sexual promiscuity may have been good to Wilt Chamberlain, who claimed to have had twenty thousand female sexual partners, but it doesn’t work out the same for the average guy who ends up going home with nothing. This is, in fact, the biggest issue with polygamy, some men get more of what they want, even the women may be satisfied with the arrangement, and yet there are also many disgruntled men without a chance. Marriage increases equity by helping with the fairer distribution of a limited resource.
And, considering how many young women get chewed up and spit out by a world full of guys willing to say anything to “get in her pants” only to change their tune later, the traditional arrangement doesn’t seem so bad after all. It is simply mind-blowing how many women, otherwise intelligent, believe that giving a guy what he wants upfront, without anything in writing to prove he is not simply playing around, will help their chances of securing his continued interest in them.
Marriage is About Equity and Protection
Multiple partners and sexual liberation only benefits some. The current paradigm favors attractive men, who are able to select from a large group of willing women, they get what they want and then are on their way again to the next hot body as soon as things become a little difficult. Meanwhile the guys who fall a bit short of female aspirations get nothing at all, permanently friend-zoned, with no chance of sex.
With traditional marriage there’s also some equity there, or at least in theory, in that the hottest players don’t get everything for themselves.
More importantly, saving sex for real commitment means that a woman is not stuck raising a child alone. It also helps to establish consent. Marriage is truly a safeguard against the exploitation of women. Women literally bear a larger burden from sexual relations, emotionally or otherwise, and are often better off with the less flashy faithful men than those more likely to sweep them off their feet.
Lastly, it is also an arrangement that considers the long-term good. And not only of the children who are provided security from a stable established relationship, but also of an aging woman who no longer has that youthfully attractive body and would be left with nothing. Sure, traditional marriage never guarantees success, nevertheless it is better than the alternative of loveless sex and no commitment.
The nail in the coffin of sexual liberation is that sex is more fulfilling in the context of a committed relationship. This is what makes me most sad about the current pursuit of carnal appetite over a selfless and more satisfying (over time) alternative. My parents and grandparents had it right, that’s what I want more than anything else.
There are some characters you meet online and never forget.
Such was the case with Wayne_in_Maine, who could come off as a sort of cranky or cantankerous old man and yet seemed (even then) to have a golden heart under the bluster. There is a way or an intuition I have, that can cut through the harshness on the surface. I can just know when someone is full of themselves and cruel despite their nice-sounding words or truly compassionate despite their surface-level unpleasantness.
Wayne was the latter kind.
The first thing notable about Wayne was that he was intelligent, he had been a nuclear engineer, could articulate his arguments well, and clearly was not going to be backed into a corner. The second thing was that he had a very unique journey and a different perspective from the other ethnic cultural inhabitants of the MennoDiscuss forum. He had gone from a hippy leftist to a conservative-minded neo-Anabaptist and could speak with authority on matters of science unlike the religiously indoctrinated parroting their fundamentalist teachers.
Initially, I saw him as a sort of threat to my worldview, another person compromised by secular influence trying to get Mennonites to shift to his views, and yet later his perspective would actually strengthen my faith when it faltered against the scientific evidence clearly pointing to the appearance of age in the universe.
Because of Wayne, I learned that young-Earth Creationism (or YEC) is not necessary to have a sincere and grounded faith in Jesus Christ.
In fact, it might actually be a liability and cause many to fall into a serious crisis of faith when they go to university, study biology or almost any science and find out the case for YEC is not as clear as it was presented. That Wayne, a rational mind and well-educated, could both reconcile modern scientific theory and his faith was more useful to me (a critical thinker) than some Hammy tourist attraction put there to feed the confirmation bias of fundamentalist midwits. I came around to his position and haven’t looked back.
I have long respected Wayne despite our sometimes clashing and my occasionally coming away feeling unappreciated by him.
He was a man a conviction. He gave up lucrative career paths, actually tried communal living, literally sold all from what I recall, and had come much further in developing his own perspective than most do.
However, despite my respect, Wayne’s version of Christianity didn’t appeal to me. He had, inadvertently, pushed a friend of mine away from Anabaptism with one of his responses. I still believe his take on the rich young ruler account misses the mark, where he read the response of Jesus as a sort of legalistic prescription rather the same as we understand Luke 14:26 where Jesus says if someone “does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.”
I know, for a fact, that he did not take that literally. He came across, from my limited ability to see, as a very loving father and committed husband. I can’t imagine him hating his family to prove his commitment to Christ. Nevertheless, he was adamant about being completely Anabaptist in his perspective about wealth or warfare, an inconsistency of thought that bothers me about him and others of that fold. It did annoy me too when he characterized the Orthodox tradition as “smells and bells” as if worship was supposed to be something other than a beautiful or full sensory experience.
The Cancer and Change
After I heard about Wayne’s cancer diagnosis, none of our previous sparrings mattered much to me. Wayne, despite our differences, was a true friend and someone that mattered to me. It was especially important to me, given my mourning of Uriah, to talk to someone coming to terms with their poor prognosis and yet not giving up hope.
When I reached out on Facebook Messenger, mentioning Uriah and my desire to meet with him, he replied quickly and with more warmth than I had expected. There was no standoffishness, as had kind of been a feature of his personality, he reciprocated the desire to meet and we talked about various matters of faith.
I took a look at some of the MennoNet discussions he was involved in and got a laugh together about the various bad arguments being used. That’s one thing about him, his humor was dry and always fun, or at least fun when you were on the same side.
It was a sort of therapy, talking to this different side of the pragmatic engineer. Truly, it was special, the man that I saw emerge in this final trial was different. My own thought was that this was the Wayne that was always there under the snide comment and cynicism. Men can put up their walls, to not appear vulnerable, and that was no longer there. We were just two old keyboard warriors with nothing left to prove to the other.
And that’s not to take away from anything he said as far as the grace he was given to endure to the end. It was definitely something spiritual. His testimony of faith was clear. As a friend described him, in this transformed version, “It was like he became a totally different person. Happy, cheerful, optimistic.” He would not be defeated in death and I wanted to hear more about how a rational man, such as himself, given my own struggles, could continue in hope of the eternal.
I had to think of this Scriptural passage:
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. In all this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls.
(1 Peter 1:3-9)
More important than all of his intellectual endeavors and Christian apologetics, theory or theology, is Wayne’s undying faith through trial is of the greatest comfort to those still in the fight. I never did get to have that face-to-face meeting that we had committed to upon his planned move to Pennsylvania to be closer to his daughter and grandchild. We had planned to meet in order to give us both something to look forward to when he did.
Now that meeting will have to change locations. Wayne took his final breaths yesterday evening, on August 12th, a couple of days after his 65 birthday. By God’s grace, in triumph, we’ll see each other on that other side.
I’m sad that Wayne remains a man that I’ve never met, in the flesh, despite our interactions over the years. However, in his terminal illness, there was also a man that I never met, that softer side, and feel blessed have finally met this man. I loved him and believe that he loved me too. I’ll remember our last interactions for much more fondly than our first. It was beautiful to see his golden heart revealed.
Irregular Ideation 