In This House, We Believe… [Insert Dogma List]

Standard

One could say, that as one raised in a religiously fundamentalist setting, I’m especially sensitive to the signs of this mindset. And, by signs of fundamentalist mindset, sometimes literally signs. Whether it be their fifteen passenger van plastered with “Jesus loves you” stickers or a sort of passive-aggressive message using a judgmental sounding Bible verse in their front lawn. This sort of display is their version of Evangelicalism.

This Evangelicalism, if it can truly be called that, has never really appealed to me for various reasons. No, there’s nothing wrong with religious expression in words. But, that said, this is not the “true Evangelical faith” that early Anabaptist leader, Menno Simons, highlighted in a poem that used the words of Jesus urging faith of action rather than mere words. It comes off as more of a virtue signal, arrogant, like the Pharisee praying loudly about his own moral superiority to the Publican, than it does real self-sacrificial love and true Christian virtue.

Are you convinced?

Some of problems with this sort of thing is that it can give a security of doing something when it is likely of very negligible value. No, I’m not saying that we can’t put our signs up and also minister in more effective ways. However, this sort of well-intentioned effort can easily be misunderstood and actually detrimental to the cause. It can also tell people something about us that we do not intend. Preaching and proselytizing certainly has a place, but this kind of signage is not a replacement for that and can also put an unintended highlight on an overly simplistic perspective.

Public Displays of Progressive Religion

There are many well-intended people who sympathize and support the far-left. The left does a good job of seizing upon social issues and creating compassionate sounding slogans that have broad appeal. There is no need to question the sincerity of those who believe leftist dogma. However, the dogmas themselves should be examined.

In my own community, a college town, there are many yard signs proclaiming the virtues of the inhabitants. From the signs in various languages telling passersby “no matter where you are from, we’re glad to have you as our neighbors” to the ever-popular “black lives matter” proclamation that has popped up everywhere, these people feel the need to signal to the world with their political platitudes. Of course, with political platitudes, there is often over-simplification and misrepresentation of complex issues.

This essay is a closer examination of the “we believe” sign and what it misses…

The mantra

Each of these points, while having one face-value meaning that most would agree with, is loaded up to be partisan accusations. In other words, if you disagree with their interpretations, disagree with the narrative that they accept uncritically, then you are the problem. They assume that everyone who disagrees with their sloganeering is a denier, racist, bigot, xenophobe, or generally hateful, and yet they themselves aren’t nearly as virtue-filled as they presume themselves to be and are often in closer alignment with the violent and abusive elements in our time than those whom they condemn.

The display of these dogmas is truly a sign of ignorance rather than virtue or enlightenment. It is a sign that the occupant is probably a leftist Kool-Aid drinker and not a free-thinker forming their own opinions based on the facts.

Let’s unpack these statements…

Black Lives Matter

An Associated Press story from 1997 cited a poll that indicated almost nine out of ten black teenagers said that racism had a negligible impact on their lives. However, if we were to do the same poll today, I doubt we would get the same results. What changed? Has this country actually become more racist in the last two decades or is there something else going on?

The implication of the statement “black lives matter” is that black lives do not matter to many of us. That, of course, is not true. Speaking for myself, I took the idea to heart that “content of character” matters more than color skin and try to treat everyone according to their actions rather than their superficial differences. I’m also fully cognizant of the past injustices faced by many black Americans, along with the continuing differences in outcomes, and this is all concerning to me. There is no denial on my part.

But the left does misrepresent the issue. The left denies that individual behavior matters. They would have us believe that the exceptions, where a black person engaged in criminal or otherwise suspicious activity and has a negative outcome, an anecdote, is somehow representative of “systemic racism” against all black people. This, of course, is completely racist and wrong thinking. No, if Barack Obama had a son he would not be like Trayvon Martin, he would be like Obama’s daughters who went to elite schools and live extremely privileged lives.

This popular assumption that police brutality is exclusive against black men is in denial of the many (lesser-known) examples of white people who died in similar circumstances. Names like Daniel Shaver, Tony Timpa, or Zachary Hammond, and many others may not be part of the “say their names” list, they are certainly not household names like George Floyd, but they also left behind loved ones and were potentially the victims of injustice. White men are, in fact, disproportionally killed by police when crime rates are factored into the analysis.

It is a huge disservice to the black community to tell them that the unfortunate outcomes are all about skin color and completely leave out other very significant contributing factors. The truth is that anyone engaged in criminal behavior, using dangerous drugs, and actively resisting arrest is at many times more risk at a violent end than those who do not do these things. There is zero evidence that a law-abiding black person is at more risk of being a victim of police brutality and, if anything, given the excessive coverage of a handful of cherry-picked anecdotes, black lives matter more.

The “black lives matter” narrative is false. Black men are not being hunted down and killed. Many black people are quite successful and would be even better if they were not lumped in with those few “bad apples” that are having negative outcomes related to their own decisions. What has changed since 1997 is that, for divisive political reasons, racial minorities are being constantly told that everything is a result of their skin color. The left has taken control of the black vote through fear-mongering and many well-meaning people think that they are helping to further the myth.

No, this is not to say that racism does not exist. When a troubled white teen, Dylann Storm Roof, murdered nine people, all black, in their house of worship during a Bible study, it is quite clear that racism is a serious issue that must be dealt with.

However, it is equally racist, and likely much more damaging, to play white savior, or to hold black people to a lower behavioral standard. The racism of lower-expectations is a tacit agreement with white supremacy and unhelpful. Racial minorities are not children in need of our special protection, they can and should be treated like unique individuals and responsible for the consequences of their own behavior like anyone else.

Unfortunately, the black lives moniker is being used to push a far-leftist ideological agenda. The organization Black Lives Matter is thoroughly Marxist and has little to do with actually addressing issues that lead to negative outcomes. Feeding black anxieties, thinking that we are helping people by making them feel even more different than they already feel, is wrong and racist. Frankly, once the thin veil of good intentions is removed, putting “black lives matter” on a yard sign is patronizing and pandering, it is a promotion of racial tribalism and exploitative.

Woman’s Rights Are Human Rights

There are many who seem to think that the fantasy world of “The Handmaid’s Tale” is somehow representative of the real world. Protestors donning bizarre red robes and white bonnets, ironically attack and extremely accomplished woman, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, on the basis of fiction induced hysteria.

Cringey.

Barrett, by reasonable measure, by being nominated to the most powerful lifelong office in this country, would disprove the narrative that women are being denied equal rights. But, because of her Catholic faith, and anti-religious bigotry, she is being treated as if she is unqualified and dangerous by those who clearly cannot discern between reality and a television drama.

This idea that women are being denied human rights, which is implied by “woman’s rights are human rights,” is based on the assumption that equality of opportunity should lead to equality of outcomes. It is an assumption that denies the reality that people are different, choose willingly to do differently than others do, and thus do not have the same outcomes.

In other words, if there is a wage gap between genders that does not indicate discrimination on the basis of gender and could be explained by a long list of differences in interests and performance.

More to the point, the reason I do not earn the same as a CEO is not anything to do with my height, gender, or race. I do not earn what a CEO does because I have no desire to enter into the hypercompetitive world of business, to climb the corporate ladder, and do as they do. Sure, I could claim that it has something to do with my height or what have you, CEOs do indeed tend to be taller than average men, but I’m also not a candidate to do the work of a corporate executive based on many other things and would be foolish to suggest that I have a right to their greater compensation.

Another idea is that a woman should be granted special privileges, like free reproductive services and paid maternity leaves, or she is somehow being denied a human right. This is contradictory and absurd. Nevertheless, it is also part of the sentiment behind the statement on these signs. The idea that a woman deserves extra compensation and should be entitled to more legal protections, because of her natural differences from a man, goes directly against the notion of equal treatment.

Women, as those having capacities different from a man, should and do have unique opportunities and privileges from men. That is good. Men should be required to pay child support if they are a party responsible for the conception of a child. They should probably also compensate her for the wages she has lost due to her pregnancy and their copulation together. However, a woman should not have a special right to be exempted from the results of her own choices. Birth control and other products that must be paid for or provided by others are not right.

But the bigger issue on the minds of many women is the abortion question. Abortion, by the left, is often framed as a women’s rights issue. They speak of a woman’s right to choose and yet neglect the true crux of the matter. Those who are opposed to abortion do not make an argument against human rights for women. No, what is truly at stake, the real issue, is whether or not the fetus (which could be female) also has human rights and thus legal protections. Much of the anxiety about women’s rights stems from a gross mischaracterization of the alternative view.

As a religious conservative, I’ve run into a few misogynists and some patriarchal abusers. Yes, women have too often been given a second-tier status and this mistreatment should be addressed. However, first the most part, women are held in high regard and respect even in the most traditional religious circles. People have different perspectives on what role people should play in society, some think a career or money is more important than family and relationship, some rare individuals may favor denying equal rights to women.

But, that said, there are many more who believe the unborn should be denied rights. An honest discussion about abortion would be one where it is accepted, as a precondition, that both sides are arguing for human rights and irrational dystopian imaginations remained in their place as cheap entertainment.

No Human Is Illegal

It is really strange that the same people who would flippantly dismiss rights for the unborn suddenly become extremely upset with those who believe that we should have border enforcement and designating immigrants by their legal status. This comes across, again, like the other statements, as being moral grandstanding and not a truly well-thought-out position.

The statement is really no different from saying “no human is a bigot” and, if applied consistently, would mean no labels with a negative connotation ever be used. But we know that the left has no problem with applying adjectives when it comes to describing the perspectives of those who dare to question their dogmas. Terms like racist, homophobe, sexist or hateful are thrown about freely, as accusations, with very little thought of the very real damage done to the targets. So the left really has no problem with using negative words about other humans when it furthers their own agenda.

Worse, the far-left, Antifa in particular, without a doubt, does use labels as a means to dehumanize. Any disagreement with their current position could lead a person to being called a “Nazi” and murdered. It has happened on a couple of occasions, a person peacefully stands up to mob violence is killed execution-style and this heinous act is justified as “killing a Nazi” and celebrated. If the elimination of hurtful terms is really the goal, then we should start with the accusations, oftentimes unfounded, that lead to human lives ruined by “cancel culture” Marxist mobs and all stand together against extrajudicial killings for any reason.

Mostly peaceful protests

As far as the term “illegal alien” used to describe those who illegally cross our border at night or illegally overstay their visas, we could call them “undocumented immigrants” and attempt to solve the problem through semantics. But, either way, an intelligent person understands the need for border security and vetting of those who wish to enter. It is not fascist or dehumanizing in the least, to make distinctions between legal classifications, there are citizens and non-citizens, legal and illegal immigrants, each of them has different rights given their legal status. Sure, we should most definitely treat all humans humanely, yet that does not change the legality of a resident alien.

Furthermore, as someone who has friends who would love to enter this country, who as a citizen has had to go through intrusive (arguably dehumanizing) airport security screenings and customs, I’m not sure why there should be special treatment for those who cut in line or disregard the correct process. The left loves regulations, they have no problem with onerous controls over speech or what a person can and cannot own. They dehumanize through their collective judgments all of the time. But then, suddenly, when it comes to a group to exploit for political gain, cries out “think of the children” or “oh, the humanity!”

Strangely, for caring so much about humanity, there is so very little concern about the son of a Presidential candidate with a laptop hard drive apparently containing images of underage girls and was recently turned over to authorities. It isn’t supposed to matter that this same left-leaning candidate has family financial ties to the biggest human rights violators on the planet, a country that dehumanizes ethnic minorities and others to the point of harvesting their bodily organs without their consent.

So, sure, maybe we need to find a better way of screening those who wish to enter our own country, but quibbles over language certainly aren’t helpful in that regard. Changing description or denial of the consequences associated with uncontrolled borders doesn’t make the problems go away or any less real.

Science Is Real

This statement is most likely in regard to climate policy and the Covid-19 pandemic response. It is ironic that those who want to claim to be on the side of the scientific and real would implore us to “believe science” as if to disagree with them is to be in denial of the scientific method. Although, as someone who has rejected religiously inspired pseudoscience and is alarmed at the increased popularity of flat-Earth theories, it is not that I totally disagree either.

However, I do digress, when politicians start to throw around words like “settled science” or “scientific consensus,” that is unsettling to me as someone who knows well enough that all conclusions must be questioned. That is science. Even physics, a hard science, was upended by the mysterious ways of the smallest particles or Quantum Mechanics. The simple understanding of the physical universe, provided by Classical physics, no longer works at this smaller level and there is yet to be a theory to unify the two. The point being that science doesn’t settle anything and a consensus is always something that changes as new evidence or a better explanation becomes available.

So, yes, science is real, but so are X and Y chromosomes and the fact that the unborn do not share their mother’s DNA. Those pronouncing “science is real” as a response to unpopular or minority opinions should learn how to argue their own positions convincingly, with science, rather than dogmatically bludgeon the conversation to death with tripe slogans. A person is not a “denier” for their questioning of the current models or opposition to those who wish to use their fears as justification for political policies that take away rights and are economically disastrous.

Disparaging a person as “anti-science” is not an argument, it is a manipulation tool, a slur, and only proves that the mean-spirited person using the term is trying to shut down the conversation. How quickly we forget the history of established authorities who did the same thing to the great minds who stood up to the status quo. A truly scientifically minded person understands that our understanding of the world is continually evolving and never ever completely settled. If anything, it is Big Tech monopolies, run by leftists, who are anti-science for their silencing of dissent.

In the end, pounding the phrase “science is real” is no more useful than a religious fundamentalist shouting “God is real.” Both statements prove nothing as far as the claim being made and, if used in such to way as to end a debate, only prove the real ignorance of the user. The people putting up signs with “we believe” have crossed over from science into a religious territory and are proclaiming dogma rather than proving anything of scientific value. They may think they are showing their superiority to dogma spewing Evangeli-cons, but are really only revealing their sameness.

Speaking of sameness…

Love Is Love

Love is love. Likewise, marriage is marriage. Those arguing on the side of same-sex unions being legally recognized as “marriage” have done a great job of framing the debate about the definition of marriage in terms of love. And, true, there is no way to quantify or measure love. So if marriage is indeed only about recognizing love, then so be it, let us deny no one the opportunity to marry anyone or anything they choose to love.

Nikola Tesla, for example, a brilliant man, loved a pigeon:

“I have been feeding pigeons, thousands of them for years. But there was one, a beautiful bird, pure white with light grey tips on its wings; that one was different. It was a female. I had only to wish and call her and she would come flying to me.
I loved that pigeon as a man loves a women, and she loved me. As long as I had her, there was a purpose to my life.”

However, marriage was not traditionally about love only and nobody actually has a right to have their feelings legally recognized.

I mean, there’s no reason for me to judge Tesla for his strange love of a particular pigeon and I suppose there would be no harm in the state labeling that relationship in any manner they wish, but should that make a marriage?

I’m not convinced that every relationship is of equal value to society as the only relationship that can produce another generation of humans. A biological male and female, unlike other love parings of humans, has the unique potential to produce children. Well-adjusted children are needed for economies to grow and civilizations to thrive.

Marriage was instituted as protection for women, who tend to bear the brunt of the sexual union and reproduction process; and to create a stable family unit for the good of children. Fatherless homes are a better predictor of negative outcomes than race. It is the one thing that links inner-city gang violence and suburban school shooters. Yes, absolutely, there are many wonderful single mothers, two men or two women could also do a splendid job of raising a child, being in an unconventional home doesn’t doom anyone to failure, but if diversity is strength, and science is real, why be a denier?

The one thing disturbing about the redefining of marriage is this focus on love being a synonym for sexual gratification. Marriage, in the Orthodox Christian context, was synonymous with martyrdom and denial of ourselves for the good of another. It is little wonder that so many marriages, based upon these superficial self-centered ‘love’ relationships, end in divorce. In the end, the traditional should not blame those who have further redefined the meaning of marital love. There has been plenty of selfish and uncommitted love to go around in their own ranks.

In the Philippines, a marriage can only be annulled, which is to say it can only be undone by proving (through a psychological examination) that a person was “incapacitated” at the time at which they entered the relationship thus the union is deemed to be illegitimate, completely null and void. That means, in legal terms, something called marriage was not a marriage and suggests that true marriage requires something more than a piece of paper. Marriage, at the very least, is not only about the feelings that two people have or have had for one another.

Love is love. But not everything called love is love and not everything called marriage is marriage. Take that to mean what it means. Or maybe words are only words and meaning is meaningless and everything is nothing?

Kindness Is Everything

Kindness, “the quality of being friendly, generous, or considerate,” is certainly not how I would describe many leftist pundits, professors, pontificators, and protestors. Like that tolerant loving woman who screamed at and flicked off Trump supporters before wrecking her car…

A kind leftist

Sure, kindness is something, but so is introspection and being a bit more conscious of the unkindness done in the name of kindness. This statement captures perfectly the oversimplification of complex topics that the entire “we believe” list represents. It indicates a lack of serious introspection on the part of those who have sympathized and/or support the political violence that has plagued our cities.

It is not friendly or generous to call someone a Nazi for disagreeing with you nor is it considerate to advocate and excuse taking from others. It is not kind to believe that anyone who disagrees with one’s own narrow perspective is intolerant, hateful, and deserves to be silenced.

If kindness were everything, then Antifa violence would be condemned, like the KKK before it, rather than downplayed or ignored. If kindness were everything, the knee jerk resistance to everything the President says or does would end. If kindness were everything, having a different perspective of when human life begins would not be mischaracterized as “war on women” or any other such slanderous fantasy nonsense.

In reality, kindness is not everything. Martial love, even redefined, is alway to the exclusion of others. Why else would we marry anyone? The consensus of social elites and established institutions has been wrong many times before. Science questions science. That is how we advanced. It is not dehumanizing to identify someone as a jaywalker who jaywalked. But it is dehumanizing to kick someone in the skull because they aren’t a Marxist thug. There is legal and illegal. Human rights should extend to all and not only those who have a voice to protest. And last, but not least, behavior matters.

A sign for our times?

Virtue starts with humility, not yard signs or mindlessly repeated mantras. Statements, especially those that come across as veiled accusations, are not an effective way to produce change. It is a religious fundamentalism in a new ‘progressive’ package. And may, like the old fundamentalisms of the past, be too oriented on religious displays or devotion in the external social realm and not enough on inner spiritual transformation. It is easy, on a sign, to proclaim love for the world. But very hard to treat the ‘deplorable’ neighbor across the street as a person with a valid perspective even if different from our own.

And that’s not to say that those putting up these signs are smug and sanctimonious. Not at all! Many progressives, my friends, are genuinely compassionate people and do practice what they preach. They were taught a certain perspective or values, it feels right to them, and are simply doing what they were programmed to do in the same manner of any other religious fundamentalist. But too often their repeated statements become a wall of ignorance and are, in fact, dogmas rather than reasoned out positions. A sign certainly is not going to convince anyone to believe as they do. So what is it really about?

There Can Be No Understanding in the Absence of Faith

Standard

Recently a business page erupted over an earlier post that had offended some. The post, a rather mild meme suggesting that we not judge anyone on the basis of outward appearance, was removed and the owner immediately apologized. They claimed that they had not intended to post the meme, that they did not agree with the content, and this explanation was plausible given that the account doesn’t usually post anything besides menu items.

And yet this did not please the mob. These hate-filled individuals continued to assail the business even in response to the post expressing solidarity with their particular cause. There was blood in the water, the sharks circled with merciless indifference to the pleas and the appeasement strategy clearly was not going to ward off the continuing attacks. They were going to be branded as a horrible and insensitive person no matter what they said. No explanation good enough. Nothing they did prior mattered and there was no way to atone. Last I saw they were open talking about closing up shop as the verbal onslaught carried into a second day after another vain attempt to explain.

The perpetually offended can only ever see through the lens of their victimization and can’t ever be pleased. The mistake many people make, like this hapless small business owner, is that they assume they are dealing with someone like them, someone who can be reasoned with, who wants stability and peace. But I knew a few of the characters in this mob. These weren’t all good people trying to make the world a better place. No, not at all. Some, despite growing up in the same community as me and given every opportunity for success, had made a career out of conniving and seem to thrive on creating chaos for good people. They force others to tiptoe around them while themselves being totally uncaring about the suffering they cause others.

Of course, if you call these clingers to grievance out on their hypocrisy they will suddenly find religion and retreat to “only God can judge me!”

Grievance, in the case of this type of person, is a manipulation tool. It is exploitive of a cultural propensity towards compassion. Those who ply the grievance trade are not interested in solidarity or equal treatment, they are miserable people who want supremacy over others and thrive on creating conflict for their own gain. The only way to win is not to play their game.

The Victim Gambit

Years ago I had been invited to join an online discussion forum. I signed up with a sort of naive optimism, thinking it would be a place for intelligent conversation about things pertaining to theology and my religious sect. But my delusion did not last for long. The site was a lightning rod for the damaged and disgruntled, many of them ex-Mennonites or sexual abuse victims, some of them back for their revenge and others to commiserate.

Of course, I had a great amount of compassion for those who had bad experiences. There was no excuse for what they had gone through and I would gladly stand with them against the abuse they had experienced. However, their experience did not reflect my own nor the values I had been taught and I refused to be the whipping boy for things that had nothing to do with me. I’ll take the weight of the world upon my shoulders sometimes, but I’m not one to allow myself to be bullied.

It was in this encounter with grievance personified that I learned an important lesson. You cannot negotiate with those clinging to and defined by their grievance. Even goodwill gestures will eventually be reinterpreted in ways that a normal and healthy mind could hardly even imagine.

Case and point?

There was a woman on the site, maybe ten years my senior, with a slow burning hatred towards men. She had been sexually assaulted years ago and was completely devastated by the experience. But despite this pity me presentation, they struck most people as being a somewhat reasonable voice and who, along with me, had been given moderator powers. Of course it was important to me to have a positive working experience with them for this and other reasons. I did some outreach and very soon learned of her unfortunate experience many years ago and deduced that it still played an outsized role in defining her worldview.

One Sunday afternoon this chronically depressed individual was expressing their misery and woe, again, and I decided I would do something to try to cheer them up. I drove a little over an hour to where they were to chat face to face and had some vague hope that this would help our communication online as well where my voice or intent was frequently misunderstood by them. The afternoon didn’t go badly, as I recall, and she invited me to McDonald’s nearby for a snack. I had thought about paying, but was slow to the draw as I considered how that would be interpreted and decided we should both pay for our own so this would not be misconstrued.

This kind gesture would come back to haunt me. A few years later I did begin to date and things online began to deteriorate. My moderator counterpart had started to act like a jealous lover and I was too dense, at the time, to figure it out. It all culminated with a bizarre accusation from my girlfriend’s mother (also in a very abusive relationship) using the unique semantics of my moderator counterpart. I knew the source and confronted the source. But I was met with denials, they straight up lied to me about their attempt to sabotage my relationship and claimed to not know what I was talking about. However, eventually, keeping up the pressure, they did confess to the nasty gossip they spread and that could have been the end of it.

Unfortunately, that I had caught them did not improve our relationship. If anything, it made them more determined to undermine me. They had the ear of the site founder (someone who was not frequently on the forum and missed much of the ebbs and flows of things) and, over a moderation technicality, playing the victim, petitioned to have me removed. He obliged the request and I was livid. Had I kept my wits and been a bit more coniving or even just explained my side in more measured tones, I would likely have done better. Still, she had far more practice at her gambit and had been behind the scenes undermining me as well.

Now I had a grievance too. I had always taken the role of feeding controversy to help keep up traffic to the forum. It was all harmless fun for the most part, bantering back and forth. But this time I was not in a playing mood, this person had attempted (and failed) to destroy my new relationship, now they retaliated against me for exposing them (in private) by “having my head” as a moderator and so I took it up with the newly minted replacements. It was in this discussion where an accusation came out, from her, that left me completely aghast.

Yup. That’s me!

She accused me, on the basis of my goodwill visit to her years ago, of being a “cheap date” because, out of an abundance of caution and as not to mislead about my intentions, I did not pay for her Big Mac!!!

What?!?

The insane part is that none of these new moderators called her out for this insanity and it would not have gone over well if I too directly explained why she had absolutely no appeal to me. The designated victim always gets special protection. I suppose it would be cruel to say that this bitter, self-pity consumed and misandristic woman was one of the least attractive people I’ve ever met and had absolutely zero chance of a romantic relationship with me? However, with my help, she was able to successfully poison my relationships there and had me flailing without recourse. Little did I know that even a sincere act of kindness could be weaponized against me.

Good Faith Vs Everlasting Grievance

Good faith refers to the foundational assumptions one must make about their counterpart in a negotiation. All relationships are, to a certain extent, a negotiation and we must trust the intentions of the other person or a productive relationship is impossible. If a person always interprets everything you say or do in the most negative light possible there is no way to effectively communicate. If you express sincere intentions or do something friendly, a poisoned person will see this as an attempt to manipulate and essentially bribe them.

Most go along with the victim gambit out of misguided compassion or for fear that they may become the next target of hate if they were to speak honestly against the ‘victims’ own abuses. Many believe that if they continue to give in to demands, if they keep giving special deference to those possessed by their grievance, that over time this special niceness will somehow heal this wounded individual. But the reality is that those looking the other way and excusing the abuses of the abused are not helpful. No, in fact, they are enablers of abuse, they are allowing others to be harmed.

A grievance should always be heard. We should always be willing to address the conditions that lead to abuse and give those harmed by abuse a chance to express themselves. However, there are some with a grievance who are sincerely looking for answers and others who are merely using their bad experience as political leverage and a means to gain power over others. This latter group is faithless and cannot be satisfied.

Score keeping kills relationship

Those in the grievance industry may claim to be interested in conversation, but are truly out for blood and the conversation is only a means to gain entry, a foot in the door tactic or Trojan horse. Whether they are trying to sell you a bill of goods or lay waste to your city, there is no good faith in their effort. When you refuse to give in to every demand, if you stand up to their abuses, the faithless aggrieved person will lash out in anger, they will make nasty and absurd personal accusations, then blame you for their hatred. You are not dealing with the person, you are dealing with their demon that will never be satiated and must be exorcized.

When even good faith efforts to bridge a gap in understanding, when the perpetually offended person refuses to see that the problem (which was set in motion by something external) is actually originating with them and how they subjectivity process, they cannot be helped before they are able to acknowledge this and there is no option left besides distance. Those who continue to dwell in their grievance, even after being heard over and over again, should be ignored.

What Would Jesus Do?

Let’s talk about Jesus. But not the milquetoast happy hippie Jesus that many superimpose over him. Let’s talk about the real Jesus who made no apologies, who spoke critically about those who harbored resentment in their hearts and are consumed by blinding hate. There is a time to test the spirits and put some distance between ourselves and those who who absolutely refuse to hear truth:

If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.

Matthew 10:14 NIV

This idea that love means infinite niceness and refusal to walk away from anyone is wrong. It is because so many coddled those with a grievance, allow them to continue in their self-deception, that these people learn to use pity and guilt as a means to get what they want. As long as there is incentive to use their grievance in this way they will never reach the end of themselves and get the help they truly need.

Again, not everyone is worth our time trying to understand:

Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Matthew 7:6 NIV

Incidentally, that is preceded by this:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Matthew 7:1‭-‬5 NIV

Those who are blinded by grievance are always righteous in their own mind. They are so focused on the sins against them (real or otherwise) that they cannot see that they are the same or worse than those whom they accuse. As justified, without introspection, they are free to heap condemnation on others. They, more often than not, project their own cancerous attitudes onto the imperfect actions of others and can twist even the best-intended goodwill gesture into a terrible transgression. If you open the door for them they will see it as a form of abuse.

It takes wisdom to discern between the person lashing out who can be helped with just a bit of love and those who will only use your concern for their well-being as a means to try to enslave you to their putrid grievance demon. Those who mercilessly assail a small business owner for an errant social media post even after the owner apologized and completely disavowed the message, are beyond what normal compassion can help. Don’t allow them to win, do not play their game, their aim is only to destroy you and are only using your mercy as a means to draw you in close enough to plunge their crooked grievance knife.

Walk away!

Leaving those absent of faith, especially those who claim to be Christian yet are unrepentant about their toxic and hateful attitudes, is sometimes the most loving thing we can do. It can be the only way that finally do reflect on their own true spiritual darkness and reach for the light and love of salvation. Or, at the very least, the distance we keep between us and them prevents us from being poisoned by them. Love never means enabling sin.

Good faith begins with living out, “forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us,” and all people acknowledging their culpability in the mess as a starting point. Those clinging to an oppression narrative, enveloped in grievance culture, cannot truthfully pray that prayer and should not be considered part of the community of faith until they do. Good faith means understanding “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,” and forgiving our enemies.