josephholubsermons

Presentation given at the High Country Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in Dillon, Colorado.

ANSWERS OR ENGAGEMENT
Polarity Thinking & Religion and Politics: A Dangerous Concoction

I share with you today a piece from my life journey. It is a mindset that I am intentionally trying to cultivate in my own life and being. It is my quest and my growing edge. I hope it may be helpful to you and perhaps there are some points of commonality we may identify from our individual stories and journeys.

The first sentence of the email stated in bold red letters, “You are going to
Hell!” It was followed by a lengthy diatribe quoting scripture and other sources. Highly inflamed words similar to these occasionally have been addressed to me. They usually come in the form of an email or letter citing something I have said in a sermon, published on my website, or for representing a Christian denomination that ordains people in same gender life-long committed relationships, or over some issue of doctrine and dogma I do not line up with that is considered orthodox. I try not to take it personally even though it is intended as such. In almost every instance, the acidic verdicts roll off the tongues of those who confess Jesus as central in their faith paradigm. It strikes me that the vile condemnations, on the one hand, and the essence of the man confessed, on the other hand, are utterly and wholly contradictory, and it makes me wonder how a person can live inside such an extreme incongruity. Such sweeping condemnations seem to be a characteristic of our age more than ever before, and we see it and hear it in both the religious and political realms on a regular basis. No longer merely confined to an extreme fringe, it seems to be creeping into everyday mainstream discourse.

Our nation (and world) is increasingly estranged by a tribal mentality, coalescing into well-defined camps that lob shells of harsh rhetoric at each other, the primary goal being to advance and defend one’s answers and positions and to discredit and defeat those on the other side who are perceived not to be the loyal opposition, but as adversaries and enemies. Words like negotiation, compromise and common good have little or no meaning in rigid tribalism. In fact, those kinds of things are perceived as treasonous and disloyal to the tribe’s cause whatever your tribe might happen to be.

I am almost 64 years old, and I cannot remember a time when public and religious discourse was so dysfunctional. So, what is going on?

I do not claim to have any special insight, but perhaps a piece of it is that a great deal of emphasis has been put on finding absolute answers to the complex issues of our time; answers that are provided solely from the perspective of one’s tribe, and not enough emphasis is put on the process that determines those answers. The method used to arrive at answers shapes the very nature of the answer.

There is a type of thinking that is employed by us all every day, to one degree or another, that is characteristic of the Western mindset especially, but certainly not limited to it. It is called polarity thinking or dualistic thinking. Polarity thinking is all-or-nothing thinking; either-or thinking. Polarity thinking puts one on a quest for the perfect, absolute answer to every question. Once the perfect answer has been achieved or identified, it demands to be defended at all costs, and all other possible answers are dismissed and seen as misguided, mistaken or flat out wrong. Polarity thinking operates with a win-lose mentality in every situation, and the whole idea is to always win and never lose.

Polarity thinking can render one impotent to step back and calmly observe oneself and one’s conclusions with a measure of objectivity. Polarity thinking is blind to recognizing that it always has a preference, prejudice or bias, that is tribally based, and that its answers are colored and affected by them. Polarity thinking assumes that the information it has gathered about something is the sum total of all the information needed to come to a conclusion. When polarity thinking gets entangled with the human ego, the possibility of changing one’s mind or back-tracking from a position once it has been declared is remote – especially if it’s been stated publicly. The pressure to advance the position is legion even if one’s position begins to look increasingly inappropriate and absurd. Polarity thinking sees little, if any, redeeming value in changing one’s mind and doing so is labeled disparagingly – “flip-flopper” is a term often used in the political realm.

One writer, Richard Rohr, describes polarity thinking this way cleverly using a series of “C” words: “it compares, it competes, it conflicts, it conspires, it condemns, it cancels out any contrary evidence, and then it crucifies with impunity.”[i]

Speaking personally, as I step back and reflect upon my own life, I can see that some of the worst decisions I have made, things that hurt others and myself, were largely the result of polarity thinking. However, at those times, I do recall that my intuition was whispering in my ear to consider an alternative, but the powerful force of polarity thinking pulled me along toward an inevitable narrow conclusion and resulting pain.

I must say that polarity thinking is not wrong or bad in and of itself and, of course, we must employ it every day in many situations. We make either-or decisions every day. But it also can be grossly deficient as a process for many of the major complex questions and issues of life. We have not been taught, at a significant level, an alternative way of thinking. The results of deeply embedded polarity thinking have not necessarily served us well and have often resulted in cognitive rigidity, tribal thinking and extremism.

When polarity thinking becomes the default setting in the religious realm, it is my observation that it is a dangerous concoction. I will speak out-of my own religious tradition for it is the one I know the best. Polarity thinking is deeply embedded in the Western Christian mindset, and since the Renaissance, and more specifically the Reformation of the 16^th century, polarity thinking has yielded a plethora of doctrinal and dogmatic expressions in Christianity. Personal salvation and individuation became the overwhelming emphasis of the Christian paradigm, and it seems to me, in the process, Christianity paid a great price. When I look at the broad brush strokes on the canvass of history that Christianity has painted, just since the Reformation, there are several disturbing trends I see:[ii]

· I see that the dominant Christian paradigm has been obsessed with either-or thinking: who’s saved-who’s not; who’s in-who’s out; who’s good and who’s bad; right belief-wrong belief. Christianity has been obsessed with afterlife and how one gains entry, att he expense of attention given to this life and how to live justly and compassionately.

· I see that racism and anti-Semitism were not broadly recognized as a serious issues until 2000 years after Jesus.

· I see the colonies of Central and South America have never been known for even minimal social justice despite their primaryy Christian identity.

· I see the genocide of Native Americans and the enslavement of black Africans was not a problem for many North American Christians.

· I see that sexism did not begin to be seriously confronted until the mid 20th century.

· I see that elitism, classism, torture, homophobia, poverty, health care, the degradation of the environment, and disparity of wealth still go largely unaddressed by many who name themselves Christians.

· I see that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are often at great odds with one another, and live in tension, and even conflict, even though they claim a common heritage of Abraham of the Old Testament record.

· I see that the monotheistic religions have not been widely known for creating shalom. The broad brush strokes on history’s canvass reveal that things like peace-making, non-violence, compassion for the outsider and the poor, an attitude of humility, cultivating dialog have not been the foremost characteristics of the monotheistic religions.

The question that arises out of all of this for me is, Is there another way to think that can serve us better? Is there another way to approach things that is a viable alternative to polarity thinking that can lead me down a different path.

I have been reading (not finished yet) Walter Isaacson’s provocative and fascinating biography of Steve Jobs, the founder of the Apple Corporation. He was innovative, iconoclastic, weird and a genius-like. One of Steve Job’s secrets was that he was unwilling to live inside the boundaries of the given. He adopted as the motto of his company the words, “Think Different.” It would have been more grammatically correct if he would have said “Think Differently,” but, you see that’s just the point. Things like that seem to matter very little to him. Later he added the slogan “Accept Uncertainty.” Think Different! Accept Uncertainty! It occurred to me that those two particular ideas are untenable to polarity thinking, but I have come to trust that they are characteristic of another way of thinking open to everyone regardless of what you call yourself or what label you may wear.

For me personally, the question takes this specific shape: “Does my religious tradition offer another path or paradigm of thinking?” A decade ago I questioned whether I belonged in the Christian ministry anymore. I seriously considered leaving. My views were evolving in a direction that was a departure, in many respects, from the doctrinal and creedal precepts of my faith paradigm. I experienced lack of toleration and ridicule for my viewpoints when I expressed them. I came to the position that I could no longer call myself a Christian, at least according to many orthodox definitions. I concluded that perhaps it would be best if I move on.

What has kept me from doing that (other than my close proximity to retirement) is a growing conviction that at the very heart of my own faith paradigm there is a different way of thinking than polarity thinking. It is a way of thinking that was intrinsic to Jesus. It is revealed in his teachings and in his interactions with people and his own religion. I have a growing conviction it was also a characteristic of the earliest faith communities that formed around him.

Tragically, it is a way of thinking that became a minority way of thinking, was driven underground and has continued to exist as a minority way, especially from the time of Constantine when Christianity was legitimized politically and began to acquire imperial characteristics. The minority way in Christianity is Christian mysticism and the mystics down through the centuries. What has kept me, in part, is a sense of purpose to reconnect my own religious paradigm with its deepest roots – to the holistic or non-dualistic thinking intrinsic to Jesus.

What continues to amaze me about the holistic thinking of Jesus, as opposed to polarity thinking, is that Jesus seldom, if ever, offered rigid and dogmatic answers, but rather moved his disciples, followers and listeners away from specific answers towards engagement of others – especially those that the answers of polarity thinking had marginalized and dehumanized. Some examples:

Ø It was holistic thinking that caused Jesus to call his disciples beyond fear. Fear is the great ally of polarity thinking. Numerous times Jesus implored his disciples to “not fear” or ”to not be afraid.” Jesus knew all about the power of fear. He knew how fear could distort twist and disfigure human lives. He knew how quickly fear could turn into dehumanizing prejudice and even violence. Repeatedly, when fear was gripping his disciples by the throats, he led his disciples through and beyond the barrier of their own fears to engage and even embrace the people and circumstances they feared the most.

Ø It was holistic thinking that caused Jesus to call people beyond their tribal identities. The gospels are saturated with examples of being called beyond narrow and parochial tribal identities. Simeon sings of a light to the Gentiles; Matthew describes foreigners coming from the East to worship Jesus; Luke describes diverse peoples hearing the message spoken in their own language at Pentecost. Jesus holds up Samaritans, Gentiles, women, children and even enemies as models of compassion and faith. His vision called them beyond narrow and ancient tribal identities to create a new reality, a new kind of community, a different world.
Frances of Assisi, centuries later, told his friars that if they found a page of Koran, they should kiss it and place it on the altar. His religious orientation was not fear-based or tribally restricted, which freed him to honor truth wherever it was found.

Ø It was holistic thinking that caused Jesus to call his followers beyond the strict limits of their religion. Religion, by its very nature, becomes dogmatic and draws rigid boundaries. Time after time, Jesus trumped religious law with grace, love and compassion. He and his disciples were harshly criticized for breaking super sacred Sabbath laws, embracing lepers and the unclean, including those outside the boundaries of religion, and blurring the lines between the good and bad. He even affirmed the basic humanity of their enemies and called upon his followers to show love even for them.

But Jesus does not have a monopoly on holistic thinking. A wonderful example of holistic thinking comes to us from Tibetan Buddhism. Young novices in training to be monks are involved in a practice called “consequentialist debate”, a form of holistic thinking. Over a period of three years the young trainees are presented with each and every one of the Buddha’s teachings. Supervised by the older monks, the trainees engage in a process of naming all the difficult and problematic consequences that would follow from observing a specific teaching. After each answer, the old monks clap their hands in approval, and they smile at one another. When all of the possible negative consequences are exhausted, they move on to the positive consequences that would follow from observing a specific teaching. The same procedure is followed until all of the positive consequences are unpacked. It matters not how long it takes, how many hours or days. Again, after each answer, the masters clap their hands, and they smile at one another.[iii]

What strikes me is that there is no declaration of the perfect answer or the wrong answer. The emphasis is on the process and on objective engagement. The trainee is simply being taught how to weigh and discern, see and understand the good and bad consequences – and from that openness and freedom, to learn how to wisely advise others and apply the Buddha’s teaching to real people in real life situations. What an utterly different approach to polarity thinking where answers are ultimate, or the Western debate style where winners and losers are declared; where it is “either-or” and never “both-and.”

I stand before you today with a simple message that has profound implications. We live in a world of complex and monumental problems that traditional polarity thinking has had a hand in creating and is seemingly powerless to address in innovative ways. Whether it be religion, politics, public discourse or the level of the deeply personal, unyielding and rigid answers are often the problem not the solution.

No matter who we are, or how we describe ourselves, or what tribe we belong to, or what paradigm of conviction we assert, perhaps we need to consider a different way of thinking than the cultural default setting of polarity thinking. We need a process that empowers us to engage the reality of our diversity, move us away from strictly thinking tribally; to stand before one another open and vulnerable to the other’s life and context; to see that the complexities of life often require a broader vision of “both-and” as opposed to “either-or”; the humility to perceive that life is imperfect and that the idea of a perfect answer is a delusion; to set aside the need to divide up the moments of our lives between thumbs up or thumbs down, totally right and totally wrong, you are either for me or against me.

I know that proponents of polarity thinking would call this approach wishy-washy or passive. But it is not at all. In engages us in a more positive and hopeful process that can lead to creative approaches and innovative action.

[i] Richard Rohr, Falling Upward, Jossey-Bass, 2011, p. 147.

[ii] Richard Rohr, The Naked Now, Crossword Publishing, 2009, pp. 41-42

[iii] Richard Rohr, The Naked Now, Crossword Publishing, , 2009, pp. 43-45