For the past few years, elections in our country has been as close to a dead heat as possible. In some cases, the votes have been too close to count, as in the 2002 Presidential election.
The recent elections have demonstrated that the growing polarity in our country is continuing. More and more elections are turning on a percentage point or less. What exactly are the lines of division? Well, they seem to be numerous.
Perhaps the problem is that we are more focused on the issues than the Prime Issue of our society: How shall we live together?
Senator Barack Obama (D. IL.) told reporter/pundit George Stephanopoulos: “I think that culturally right now we have a system in which we don’t have a broad conversation among people who don’t agree with each other. And one of the biggest challenges I think we face as a nation is, how do we create those spaces? Supposedly the Senate, the body on which I serve, is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world… It’s not happening.”
And its not just Democrats in Congress who are realizing that conversations across the aisle must take place.
After the recent midterm elections, Republicans are finding themselves reaching out in order to accomplish their party’s goals. And the major tool at the disposal of both parties is conversation.
“The message [on election day] was clear: The American people want their leaders in Washington to set aside partisan differences, conduct ourselves in an ethical manner, and work together to address the challenges facing our nation,” Mr. Bush said in a press conference [the day after the elections].
But what about the Church? Throughout history, the Church has divided over issues of faith and theology countless times. Where is the conversation taking place in modernity? And why aren’t united Methodists leading the way?
A glance at the history of United Methodism demonstrates that Methodists have had their share of divisive issues and schism. However, throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries Methodists began to reclaim their unity. This was not a sudden development. It required years of conversation and dialog at many levels of the various organizations involved.
Even as we continue to make strides in the area of reunification with our brothers and sisters of the AME and CME denominations, we are running the risk of schism in modern times over differences most commonly described as “liberal†and “conservative.â€
And it is perhaps the writers of blogs such as this one who contribute most to this problem. Is it possible that hubris has deluded us into thinking that the world reads our blog? Is it possible that we have therefore decided that typing these words and posting them on the Internet is really enough?
In scanning through some of my favorite bloggers, I couldn’t help but notice but the comments and responses were sparse. You may have noticed this blog apparently has an astonishingly low number of comments posted. This is not dialog. Dialog involves an exuberant give and take of shared ideas. Dialog requires movement from a position to at least the consideration of another.
In short, dialog is a rare commodity these days.
While I don’t foresee the constitution of a modern council of Nicea, Trent, or Jerusalem, I don’t see why that would be such a bad idea.
Who is speaking for you? And to whom are you listening?
Recent Comments