Try to chase Janice away if you want -- but then also consider this.
Our Sunday school discussion this morning was over global warming -- in
fact, our discussion leader had a publication which was probably
authored by you, George (how many George Murphys are writing on this?)
although unfortunately we didn't actually delve into that. What we
actually ended up discussing was the partisanship and division over this
and why do some Christians (obviously none of us sitting there) are so
adamant in their opposition.
The whole thing left me depressed afterwards because such things
(inevitably it seems) are pep rallies among all the converted. If you
are in a rare (extremely rare!) situation where your discussion group
includes opposing viewpoints on this, then one of two things happen:
If *convictions* are the dominant force in play (truth over
relationship) then a shouting match eventually erupts and people leave
-- maybe for good to go join groups who will understand them. I.e. back
to the pep rallies where everybody agrees and everything becomes 'oh so
obvious'. Or if relationships are the dominant force in play
(relationship over truth) people bite their tongues and the opposition
simmers below the surface and the actual discussion remains polite, and
many (maybe even a majority) will, in the name of civility, suppress
their own opinion but secretly entrench themselves in it. Some valuable
listening may occur but more often it is just stubbornly opposed people
sticking it out together and getting used to each others arguments (...
there he goes again ... I'm tuning out ... yada yada yada)
Gone from all of this is any real interest in truth (especially on the
side of those who wish to avoid any economic impositions at all costs --
so they use whatever argument is most useful for accomplishing this
defense). But even on the pro-stewardship side which tends to lay the
greater claim for itself of being interested in truth, the pep rally
atmospheres are frustratingly devoid of any bridge-building insight or
real attempts to understand the fears or root objections of the
opposition.
Despite all the expressed wishes that this be a 'non-partisan' issue,
that simply is not the reality of it. It is hopelessly partisan and
that part of it will probably need to be addressed. If there isn't much
hope of that happening, then the only question remaining is can you
impose your political will over the objections of your adversaries?
Because that is what it will come to. And of course, failing that,
nature herself will outvote us all and mercilessly impose any due
penalties for our recalcitrance. --or maybe we discover we weren't as
smart as we thought.
Either way I'm keeping my bicycle in running order and using it all I can.
--Merv
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Mar 25 23:03:18 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Mar 25 2007 - 23:03:18 EDT