Stability in Advent: Sunday of Faith

Green Candle with icons

Today, we light the green candle of faith to remind us of our faith in the promises of God and the coming of His Son.  Let us reflect on the great mercy bestowed upon the world by Christ’s first coming and remove those obstacles which prevent us from sharing the gospel with others and readying ourselves for his return.

Isaiah 9:2, 6-7, 40:3-5, 52:7

I hate losing.

Sure, depending on the game or activity, I can probably handle the loss with a reasonable amount of grace. That still doesn’t make the sting of loss any less bitter. It also doesn’t help if the situation has more serious ramifications than a game of monopoly, chess, or a video game with friends.

And if you’re being honest, chances are good you and every other person you’ve encountered probably feels the same way.

This year being an election year, the concept of you or your party losing an election only intensifies the feelings of dread and despair. And given the increasing sense of polarization in the country, it is doubtful that we’ll see many well-wishers for the new or returning administration. Surprisingly, or unsurprisingly for those who study history, this is not a new feeling.

In first century Judea and Galilee, the Jewish people were the losers. Their Hasmonean kings, who descended from the legendary Maccabee family, had been overthrown by the Roman general Pompey the Great. In their place, Herod the Great ruled as a client-king to Rome (read “as a puppet figure”). To make matters worse, Herod was both cruel and an Edomite a descendant of a nation antagonistic to Israel. Couple that and the fact the Romans treated the Jews as second class citizens in their own land, it would be fair to say losing can lead to a dark time in people’s lives.

But it is in this setting that today’s reading is brought into fruition:

“The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them a light has shined.”

In the darkest moment of these people’s lives, “a great light” has come into the world to shine upon them. As the prophet Isaiah continues, this light is a continuation of the kingdom of David which the people no doubt longed to return to.

No doubt someone might point out that the first coming, or advent, was solely spiritual in nature and not political. However this separation of the two is no where to be found in scripture. In fact the opposite is true!

Consider the genealogies of Christ during these days. If his coming were only spiritual, why not claim only a spiritual descent from David? After all, anyone of faith can claim Abraham as father without being of the line of Abraham (Rom. 4:16, Gal. 3:7-9). Consider also Christ’s exchange with Satan in Matthew (4:8-10) and later with Pilate in John (18:33-37). Not once does Jesus renounce his political mission. Rather he goes beyond the material world and lays claim to a kingdom that does not end as the Davidic and Hasmonean dynasties did.

This was same the message of St. Augustine of Hippo in his magnum opus The City of God which he wrote following the sack of Rome in the fifth century. Though the political world around us seems to be in shambles, it is important to know that there is one political state, one realm not shaken. Though some may rail and protest over injustices, both perceived and real, there is a kingdom where such injustices do not occur nor are they permitted. And it is to this kingdom and this king we are first to concern ourselves. Let all others shake out and fall where they may.

This year, as we gather around the Thanksgiving and Christmas tables, let us refrain from bitterness over the election and place our trust in the coming king whose birth we prepare to celebrate.

The Great Divide

Americans are quite familiar with partisan propaganda and bickering.  They’ve assumed, and quite correctly too, that it is just the nature of American politics.  Republicans and their minions will be fighting the good fight against the left-wingers, while Democrats and their cronies will continue a never ending crusade against the conservative infidel.  And we the people love it.

We can’t get enough of it.  You are hard pressed to find a movie, blog, newscast, or sermon that doesn’t include some political bias.  This isn’t anything extraordinary since everyone has certain convictions which govern their life and actions, even those regarding government.  But we don’t like to admit it.  We want to believe that everyone around us is exactly like us.  And if we do meet someone who does disagree, we tend to trivialize it as an anomaly rather than a reality.  Which is why our view toward political gridlock caused by partisanship is so oxymoronic.

When Bill O’Reilly, Piers Morgan, or Diane Sawyer decry how Congress is being held up because one party is refusing to play pretty, we get really upset.  It is unlikely that you’ll hear anyone say, “I’m glad to know Congress can’t anything done” or “The best part of movie was how it setup a straw man argument of my political views and totally destroyed it!”   Yet as I mentioned earlier, we love it despite how we feel about it.  The reason for this is how we are currently living our lives and how outside factors are manipulating us.

Think about it.  Who are you going to socialize with more?  The people who disagree with you 100% of the time?  Or those who do agree?  Unless you thrive on conflict, you’re going to interact with the latter because there will be less tension and greater opportunities to explore common interests.  This in turn creates bonds which help build a stable community.  Don’t believe me?  Look at your neighborhood.  Chances are good that you and your neighbors belong to the same party, are in the same income bracket, and probably attend the same synagogue, church, mosque, etc.  Obviously there will be some exceptions and even then the difference can be pretty minor.  For example, you might go to a Southern Baptist church while the family across the street attends the local Disciples of Christ.  Or you might a registered Democrat and your neighbor a Republican, but you both vote for the same person in the general elections.  If you look at Nate Silver’s article from the NY Times, you’ll read that there are fewer and fewer swing states in presidential elections.  Gerrymandering, the process of redistricting states to a person’s or party’s political advantage, might have something to do with this. But Silver believes its impact is not as big as previously thought which leaves room for individual decisions to influence how states are becoming more polarized.

So are individuals ultimately the reason for this “great divide” in American politics?  Not necessarily.  Consider that when you buy a house you have tens if not hundreds of factors affecting your decision some of which may not have anything to do with politics.  And it is unlikely that you’ll be surveying potential neighbors about what they think when you’re looking for a new home.  In fact the polarization may be an indirect result of those other factors.  For example, if you are looking for a city or state with low taxes you are probably going to live in a conservative if not Republican leaning community.  Or if you want to live in a city, chances are you’ll be surrounded by Democrats.  But again there are exceptions to this.  The point is that some of our desires for a community tend to overlap with the characteristics of a political ideology.  And considering higher wages and easier access to transportation we have now to years past, it isn’t too surprising that people are moving to or building communities that seem to accept only one kind of mindset.

Another factor is the expansion of communication technology, particularly in the form of social media.  Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are designed to show you things that you like or have in common with others who may not live in the same state or even the same country as you.  They are also breeding grounds for dissent.  Because online forums and Facebook pages aren’t bound by geographical boundaries, they allow people from multiple communities to read what one person or group has to say.  And that is when things get interesting.  If someone says that abortion should be banned at the national level, a person from state that endorses abortion will find that comment frightening and mean-spirited.  He or she will respond out of emotion because it appears that an opposing view is threatening his or her community.  It may not be the first or even the second, but eventually the fact that someone is declaring an idea that is so antithetical to the commenter has reached their community and others will become too much.  Or perhaps someone chooses to be a “troll” and purposefully goes about haranguing people because they need attention and love to see people get upset.

And it isn’t the average Joe with access to computer who’s adding fuel to the passions of the people.  Politicians and newscasters are part of this as well.  News anchors and TV producers know that sensationalism sells and the best way to get ratings is to find or make someone a victim and someone or something the oppressor.  Elected officials know this as well.  If a new bill about immigration reform can be construed as an attack on unemployed American workers, then they’ll do it to get votes and to damage the image of the other side.

And do you want to know what the sad thing is?  We the people are the ones allowing this occur.  We cry out for “bi-partisanship” yet we don’t really practice it ourselves.  We want everyone to be open-minded, yet we balk at the idea of someone thinking differently.  If change is to occur-and it must if we want a government for, by, and of the people-then we need to start accepting that we live in a pluralist state and that compromise isn’t a dirty word.  This doesn’t mean accepting everyone’s views as being equally valid or living in neighborhoods that may be hostile toward you.  But it does mean taking a deep breathe before writing a spiteful reply to a YouTube commenter.  It means not rubbing it in when the other side’s candidate loses the election.  It means saying, “Alright, for both of us to live together peacefully, what can be done that will meet our satisfaction?”  The great divide will not disappear.  But it can be bridged if both sides meet the other in the middle.