Difference v. Opposition

 Friends, 

I won’t be the first or last to observe that we have deep divisions in our society. However, without descending into rose-colored glasses, I want to push back on this notion a little bit. We tend to name our differences in the most oppositional terms - red/blue, us/them, in/out, left/right. During our Lenten season, we are very deliberately trying to address those differences as polarities, and our discipleship journey as living in the tension between those polarities. Last week, for example, we looked at the story and the context around the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), to explore what it means to live between “neighbor” and “stranger.” This week we are looking at the story of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38-42), to explore what it means to live between “faith” and “action.” We do this work liturgically and sermonically during Saturday and Sunday worship, and explore them more deeply through our Text Studies, which you can see here.

In my own faith journey, I have found two ideas to be particularly helpful when trying to live as a disciple of Jesus Christ in a world that often defines itself in terms of extreme either/or choices. The first was a simple passing statement that I once read – written by or about Jaques Derrida – that we have the tendency to treat “difference” as “opposition.” Once we adopt oppositional thinking, then for one idea to be “right” the other must necessarily be “wrong.” If one is “good” the other is “bad.” When differences are entrenched as oppositions, we lose the language of “better or worse” and the art of compromise becomes “selling out” or “caving in.”  When we structure challenges as “red/blue,” “us/them,” it becomes easy to identify ourselves by our differences and ignore our commonalities. A better approach is to recognize that the “opposition party” (see how we talk?) is not always wrong and we’re not always right. To act otherwise is both unwise and contrary to some good Presbyterian theology that sin is universal (affecting “us” as well as “them.”) 

The second idea that I have found helpful is more of an approach than a comment. The theologian Paul Tillich began his systematic theology by describing “ontological polarities” of human existence. By “ontological,” Tillich is attempting to name something that is true about human beings generally, deeper than our cultural or historical particularities. By “polarities,” Tillich is recognizing that human life is often lived within the pull of very different, but real parts of who we are. For example, we live within the tension of “freedom and destiny.” Of course we have freedom. We think, we deliberate, we choose, and we either reap the rewards or suffer the consequences. On the other hand, of course we are destined. We didn’t choose to be left-handed or right-handed; tall or short; straight, bi, or gay; or to be born in our country during our time. All of that was given to us and we cannot escape it. Still, we have freedom. One could say the destiny of our DNA, culture, disposition, etc. set the menu from which we exercise our freedom. It’s not freedom or destiny; we live within the polarities of freedom and destiny. 

To me, it seems altogether insightful and true to experience to approach theology – God before us and us before God – in terms of the polarities that structure our experience. That is why I appreciate the approach that our resource, “A Sanctified Art,” has provided for us during Lent. Last weekend, we looked at the tension between “neighbor and stranger” and this week “faith and works.” We do not approach those differences as incompatible oppositions. We can explore living in then tension between them, not simply living according to one or the other. 

And that brings us back to the starting point of this missive. One outcome of our Lenten journey may be that we develop an ability to resist the oppositional presumptions of red/blue, us/them, in/out, and left/right. Perhaps we will recognize within ourselves principled opinions that cross over oppositional thinking. Perhaps we can recognize that quality within our neighbor as well. Part of the reason Paul Tillich begins his theology with recognizing our “ontological polarities” is to remember that whenever we speak of God we are always doing so from a limited human framework. That is a humble starting point and one that we can exercise with regard to the big questions that vex us politically as well as the differences we see between ourselves and our neighbors. If our Lenten journey can get us a little farther down that road of walking humbly, it will be a faithful journey indeed. 

Mark of St. Mark