Musings on polar opposites and peace

Lately we've seen the UK public plant themselves at two different ends of the spectrum. Racist and antiracist. It was like a real life theatre piece of good versus evil, and on a day of antiracist protests it seems, 'good' won, with the racists predominantly staying home and the antiracists claiming the streets. It was both heartening (to see such support or our black and brown brothers and sisters) and worrying (because the violently intent racists haven't disappeared, they just stayed home for a day). 

However, my thoughts today aren't predominantly about racism. While these events have certainly caused me to keep it in my mind and to check in on my black and brown friends, my thoughts for this blog post have landed on a philosophical topic and I am wondering if seeing such polarisation leads us to believe that there are only ever extremes of views and no room for nuance in the conversation. What I've learnt about racism over the past however many years is that it's highly complex and it's not as simple as pointing the finger at violently racist thugs and saying "they're racist, I am not like that, therefore I am not racist". 

The reality is that I have lived my whole life in a system which upholds racist values, undermining black and brown peoples rights to equity in education, justice, employment and indeed to simply peacefully exist. And I was completely unaware because it just didn't come up, not in my education (where were the history lessons about the Transatlantic slave trade? Not in my school that's for sure) and while I knew people with black and brown skin, I didn't think critically about how their experience might be different to my own and I wasn't encouraged to either. But as Oprah Winfrey (or was is RBG?) said, when we know better, we do better and now, post George Floyd, post BLM, post everything we've been exposed to and heard, there simply is no excuse not to make that self examination and examine the inherent racism in us all.

So just to be absolutely clear at this point, race is not a 'topic' to be debated' but it certainly should be talked about with the aim of shining a light on previous and ongoing injustices our black and brown brothers and sisters experience. So while this has provoked me to think about another area of 'study', this is not me saying that perhaps the racists (at the violent end of the spectrum) have a point. There is no excuse for violence or bigotry against another human, regardless of your political leanings, history or ignorance. This also isn't an argument for the centrists either (after all, who wants to be 'luke-warm'?!), but I do believe that where conversation CAN be had, it SHOULD be had and we should always be hopeful that when people are prepared to come to the table and talk, then change in attitude and even belief systems, is possible.

Unfortunately it often feels like it's IMpossible to have a conversation with someone who holds extreme views and this has been my experience generally. I plant myself on the left politically speaking but the extreme of my left leanings is anarchy and I can't condone that. I know a number of right leaning people who similarly won't condone (and do indeed condemn) far right extremism. I also think that there is no ONE spectrum for this and one person may hold various views which won't always align with for example, their stated political affiliation. So a person like myself holds almost exclusively left affiliated beliefs about politics, social strata and justice... with the exception of a traditional view on marriage. Add my pro-choice (or as I prefer to call it anti-forced-birth) leanings and I am more or less a pariah to both the left AND the right. My observation lately is that people will hold you to the common narrative of a belief system and won't allow for any perceived deviance and one thing that feels at risk in 2024 is nuance and any form of meaningful conversation. The fear of being 'cancelled' now appears to outweigh any other form of negative repercussion.

However, it is ok to be more than one thing at once, it's even seen here in Matthew 10:16 "be shrewd as serpants and innocent as doves". We are also called to peace, in fact, "blessed are the peacemakers" (Matt 5:9) and "wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle and open to reason" (James 3:17). Peace is not a neutral word though and the translation from the Hebrew 'Shalom' is not an absence of conflict, far from it. 'Shalom' means to be in a right relationship with God and with creation. I feel that oftentimes we have taken the power out of the word by making it into something pale and tepid. At worst it can be weaponised against people to let bad things slide. But peace does not mean letting abusers get away with their crimes for fear of creating a fuss or failing to live at 'peace' with one another. In fact that is the very opposite of what peace means. When you put it like that we can start to see that the word is far more active than passive. When Jesus saw and heard that the money-changers had made a mockery of the Temple, he carefully made a whip of cords and drove them all away (John 2:13-15). He didn't fly into an uncontrolled rage, he gave it thought and restored peace to the temple with his actions. While this isn't a call to a biblically endorsed riot (necessarily), it does remind us to pause for thought and seek wisdom and it certainly doesn't excuse us from taking necessary action (had I been in Brighton on the day of the protests I'd have been there).

Holding both shrewdness and peace as non-opposing values should enable you to hold difficult conversations and to have some appreciation for the nuance that is necessary for progressive, strong but always compassionate conversations. It's not wrong to have strong views and opinions. Being willing to come to the table to talk is a powerful act of peace which can have positive impacts on both sides of the conversation. Secondly, being willing to accept that there may even be similarities you can agree on, and recognising the complexity involved in holding diverging views also provides a foundation to build on which won't fall down at the first time things get a little tense.

So all of this got me thinking about the potential for polarisation in my little corner of the world. I speak up on a variety of subjects mainly with a social justice slant. Some, such as speaking up against racism are pretty clear cut on the surface. The human right to exist without prejudice from others is, as I've already said, certainly not up for debate and how people understand racism, in particular institutional racism should most definitely be something white people talk about and unpick. 

Clearly the other thing I talk about is women (in fact probably preoccupies 80-85% of my content) from a variety of directions. Abuse, leadership, eldership, teaching, marriage, biblical narratives, you name it, I've probably touched on it at some point. This one most definitely has the potential for having people running for the hills in exasperation on both sides of the topic. It may come as no surprise at all to learn that I sit in the egalitarian camp, having defected from the complementarian camp around 10 years ago. I've sat around this particular campfire and heard some very compelling arguments on both sides of the argument. I do genuinely believe that where there are excellent scholars of the Bible who cannot agree on this, then maybe, just maybe this isn't something which preoccupies Gods mind as much as we might think it does. I've come to realise that it is super easy to make arguments with straw men on the issue. You only need to read the Bible to see that women are valued partners of men and that God created us as equal image bearers. Any complementarian argument that says otherwise is not really an argument at all. Equally an egalitarian broad sweeping argument that all complementarians have a low view of women, not to mention an unfair conflation with extreme feminism, is also incorrect, and not a view on which to base an argument. Sadly however these views have pervaded common understanding of the conversation and oftentimes prevented a meaningful discussion. 

However unfortunately history is not without consequences (as we have learnt from racism) and while the modern belief system may not have women chained to the kitchen sink, unable to give directions, give advice to her husband or do anything other than lead a Sunday school of children (cheers Piper & friends)... the legacy of misappropriated scriptures and misogynistic intent is still there. So it seems we will be unpicking the damage for a long time to come. It does seem that generally in the UK, a more common iteration of the complementarian stance has unfolded to be a thankful shadow of some of the more misogynistic leanings of the forefathers of the system. Women in many complementarian churches (like my own) are able to thrive in leadership and full servanthood of the whole church body... with the exception of eldership of course.

So I have to be honest, it's incredibly easy to be egalitarian in my setting. Others are not so fortunate and I know of so many women who have left the church on the issue. The leadership here are happy to actively engage with the topic and I've been bowled over by their diligence in learning about the oppression of women. I've also reflected lately that it's also been interesting to me that their reading and study has led them further into their complementarian stance whereas mine only leads me further away and that's ok. We do however have the privilege of reasonableness and respect in our interactions and an active belief in the reality of eternal friendship between brothers and sisters in Christ and this makes all the difference. I am thankful for the privilege but very aware of it which keeps driving me back to the Bible. Because all the time there are still narratives out there which would interpret the Bible in a way that dehumanises women, there will be cause to write about it hopefully in a way that points readers back to a humanising God.