Laying Down My Arms

In my writing over the last few years, I have generally avoided getting into politics, preferring to focus on what’s going on in the American church and its institutions. The last few months have been very politically intense, especially since the Republican candidate won the election and has begun to make his cabinet choices and ramp up his policy rhetoric, moving from campaigning to preparing to implement whatever he intends to accomplish.

I’ve intentionally avoided commenting much on the election results, partly because I was dumbfounded by the choices of the American electorate, even though I’ve somewhat anticipated this outcome for some months now. I might even say I have had a prophetic sense that things are not going to go well for America, and as much hope as I saw in the real excitement and passion in the Democratic Party’s campaign and among the candidate’s supporters, I expected that we would nonetheless see it lose and the MAGA steamroller take over, to the detriment of many.

But that avoidance of the topic of politics was also because I have had a sense that I need to prepare myself to be very uncomfortable for quite a long time to come. Rather than fussing about it publicly, I felt that some inner settling was required first.

But that doesn’t mean I’ve been absent, or ignoring the topic. Rather, I just didn’t think it was the right time to speak yet.

In some sense, I still don’t intend to talk politics directly. It’s not my calling, if you will. Rather, I am interested in speaking to people about topics of faith, not politics. But in this season, it’s pretty obvious that politics and faith are strongly intersecting, and so speaking about one will frequently cross into speaking about the other.

So to that end, I’ve been watching with great interest – since perhaps early summer, when the major political party campaigns really ramped up – the discussion of immigration policy. Actually, calling it a “discussion” seriously overstates the quality of the exchange. I’m not sure WHAT to call it, really – pissing contest, shouting match, showboating, rabble-rousing… who knows. But it’s not much of a discussion.

On the one hand, we had a Democrat candidate who was nearly silent on the immigration issue, pushing back mildly on the Republican talking points but offering little real substantive thinking. On the other hand, we had a Republican candidate who made it nearly central, and rather than offering anything substantive, he spent the entire campaign merely fanning the flames of classism, xenophobia, and fear of the unfamiliar. Absolutely nothing in the campaigns offered a chance to learn from the concerns or ideas of the other party; both parties were utterly locked into a complete intellectual standoff over the issue.

So here we are at the end of 2024, after a bitter and unproductive election season, and the President-elect has tagged his cabinet leaders. But beyond the actual political positions, Elon Musk has become one of the most influential private citizens in the nation – mainly due to his money and ownership of Twitter. And the Republican President-elect, with his history of kowtowing to people with money and influence, has tagged Musk for a high-visibility position, giving Musk a de facto Cabinet level of influence without any accountability to the American public.

And Musk, true to form, believes the world is his to control, and has leaned into trying to force the dialogue and policy into his image.

This hasn’t played well with everyone on the Republican side, however. Purely aside from some very well-founded concerns about his level of un-elected influence and his parasitic sycophantic relationship with the President-elect, the party is not completely unified in its ideology.

In particular, the MAGA branch of the Party, which was absolutely instrumental in cinching the election for the Republican candidate, and which has nearly completely overtaken the Republican Party, has completely adopted the candidate’s hatred of all things immigration, wanting to seal the borders and export anyone who isn’t sufficiently native white European American.

But Musk, an immigrant himself – and possibly an illegal immigrant for a while – is a big fan of high-skills immigration, and recently has posted repeatedly in favor of H-1B visa immigration, which allows highly-trained, highly-educated workers to immigrate into the US. That’s not surprising, since those immigrants are actually essential for several of his mega businesses.

And MAGA did not like Musk’s sudden turn, and started saying so very vociferously – in addition to starting to publicly question Musk’s influence in the pending administration.

So a couple days ago, Musk turned on the MAGA wing of the party and got into a very public argument on his Twitter platform over the matter, first insulting a non-white appointee for a Cabinet position, then going to far as to cancel the premium privileges of at least 15 high-profile MAGA Twitter accounts and apparently nuking large swathes of their follower lists, because they were so bold as to critique Musk’s positions publicly on Musk’s supposedly-public, supposedly free-speech-friendly social media platform.

And thus the fireworks erupted, and for the last few days the argument has been raging.

Naturally, plenty of left-wing, anti-MAGA folks have been gleefully enjoying the fight, doing whatever they can to stoke the fires and egg on the conflict.

In the course of this argument, Musk posted something interesting: “…those contemptible fools must be removed from the Republican Party, root and stem.” “the ‘contemptible fools’ I’m referring to are those in the Republican Party who are hateful, unrepentant racists. They will absolutely be the downfall of the Republican Party if they are not removed.”

THAT did not go over well at all – with the MAGA party whose winning candidate had spent months fanning racist anti-immigrant flames.

(I’ll take a moment here and point out the irony of someone raised in South Africa’s apartheid system and who has repeatedly made racist statements of his own, calling out his favored party for its racism.)
https://futurism.com/civil-rights-groups-horrified-elon-musk-racist
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/17/white-house-blasts-elon-musk-for-promoting-antisemitic-racist-hate.html
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/business/elon-musk-reveals-his-actual-truth/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/elon-musk-x-twitter-antisemitism-hashtags-trending-hate-rcna151945
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/03/elon-musk-racist-tweets-science-video/

Well, watching this sudden kerfuffle between Musk and MAGA over racism and H-1B visas, I’m struck by this thought: I can agree with Musk that racism absolutely needs to be purged from the Republican party, while still vehemently disagreeing with him over many other things, including his virulent racism that he cannot see in himself.

But saying that publicly will probably get me accused that agreeing with Musk is tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Because one thing I’ve noticed is that the divide between political positions has become a deep, deep chasm, almost impossible to cross. It’s gotten to the point where we cannot say ANYTHING that might be perceived as supporting an opponent. One is almost forced to take sides, to throw their full support behind a given candidate or issue, and forsake any chance of thoughtful discussion.

And that’s a sharp failing in modern American politics: the lack of discourse and nuance. If you say anything that appears to align with those whom your tribe sees as unacceptable, you’re immediately “othered” by them. But this throws away the chance to benefit from the other.

One reason that politics used to be more productive is that cooperation and negotiation were acceptable and even encouraged. To be a centrist and a unifier was often praised. But today, it’s vilified, and it’s seen as backstabbing and traitorism against “your cause” or “your tribe.”

Now, there are those who argue that the resulting gridlock is a good thing: a lack of productive movement in politics is better for a libertarian society. Less laws means less restrictions on the free exercise of religion and personal liberty.

Perhaps that’s true, but that also means that we are effectively blocked from fruitfully addressing any of the very real problems confronting us as a society, and as a planet. I’m not so arrogant or immature as to expect that only MY solutions are valid or complete. I have to assume that others have parts of the answer – or even all of the answer – that I lack.

And here is where I will swing back to my preferred topic of late: rethinking my faith.

The fundamental problem that I see in this entire discussion is the perception of those who we “other” as enemy. They’ve ceased being our neighbor with whom we disagree. They’re not our fellow citizens who see a way forward that is different than our vision. They’re not the faithful and moral attendees of a mosque or synagogue or temple or even another Christian denomination. No, we have remapped all of them into enemies in our minds.

And when we make someone our enemy, we place our relationship into battle status, where we assume that everything that they do is a tactical maneuver designed to attack us. We resist whatever they say or suggest, because it must be a trick or a lie. Even if we agree with it, we feel the urge to resist it on principle, lest we be seen by our tribe as supporting our enemy. Even when we talk about trying to get people to agree with us, we use the same language as a military recruiter: we want to “enlist” people to our cause.

I used to see this as a good thing. I was raised on warfare language, both politically and religiously. We Republicans always spoke of our political opponents. Inside the halls of Congress or sitting at the county commissioners’ table, they may use language about “my esteemed colleagues across the aisle” but on the campaign trail it was “gloves off” and full-tilt warfare. And we Christians always spoke of spiritual battles, of donning our spiritual armor, taking up the sword of the Spirit, and resisting the enemy of our souls.

And unfortunately, in this last couple election cycles, that language flowed further down from talking about the powers and authorities, to talking about our fellow citizens and fellow members of the Body of Christ using the same warfare language.

As a result, there was never any room for seeing them as allies or neighbors.

Part of the problem is that we have taken to seeing both the world and the Kingdom as zero-sum games: if you win, I lose. It’s impossible, in that view, for us to both fully benefit from anything. At best we only get a 50/50 split in the results. And because our culture is fully immersed in self-interest, self-promotion, self-preservation, then necessarily we see our opponent as taking away something that is vital to us. We cannot afford to cooperate, or we will lose something necessary for us to live or to thrive.

So where does this zero-sum thinking come from? Why is it so increasingly pervasive?

This may not be a popular answer, but I think this is a natural side effect of a theology where one will either go to heaven or to hell for eternity, depending on the rightness of their beliefs. Yes, that thinking has been around for a long time, but I suspect that the working out of it that produces this divide is relatively recent, as we have lost our sense of commonality, of common union despite our differences.

You see, when you are convinced that YOUR view is absolutely correct, and that the consequence of that view is that you go to heaven to live in bliss for eternity, the alternative is that anyone with a different view must experience the opposite, and it’s vitally important that your position not be disrupted. Yes, you want your opponent to also go to heaven too, but if they’re refusing to join your tribe, then they are creating a tangible danger to your tribe, one that might steal away your friends and family, and subject them to eternal hellfire. Thus, you see them as an existential risk, and you really stop working on their behalf, instead trying to protect your tribe from them, their eternal fate be damned (literally).

It’s not really much different on the political front, either: when you are convinced that your politics are absolutely correct, and the consequence of that view is that your country becomes a Shangri La of blissful prosperity, the alternative is that anyone with a different view must want the opposite, and it’s vitally important that your position not be disrupted. Yes, you want your opponent to also enjoy a prosperous blissful future too, but if they’re refusing to join your tribe, then they are creating a tangible danger to your tribe, one that might steal away your nation and cause it to fail and become a third-world hellhole. Thus, you see the opponents as an existential risk to your own future peace and prosperity.

One of the consequences of believing that universal reconciliation, universal salvation, is the better reading of the Bible’s language about salvation, and a consequence I truly did not expect when I considered the matter a couple years ago, is that abandoning the belief in eternal hellfire freed me from needing to beat people’s theology with my own. I became able to simply let them be wrong, without fear for their salvation, and (perhaps in this case more importantly) without fear for my own. I am no longer responsible for sending them to hell, or allowing them to end up there if I didn’t beat their theology into submission before they died.

It lets me learn from them, dialogue with them, and (very importantly) to work with them to advance the Kingdom of God on the earth, without worrying about which one of us is ultimately correct about some matter of dogma.

It frees me from seeing the entire world framed as a battle where el satan, the Accuser, might permanently steal them from God if I don’t fight every doctrinal error and save their souls from the eternal pit. It doesn’t deny an adversary – but it absolutely does deny that adversary any eternal potency or authority.

In short, it lets me simply love my fellow man, and cooperate with them where it does not conflict with my moral sense, to move the Kingdom forward on the earth.

But what of the politics? We have a nation and its future to consider, that many see as at risk today.

This, I think, is a point where I need to step away from the common consensus about saving America. I agree that our nation’s future is at risk – very much so. And I absolutely don’t mean to imply by any of this discussion that I agree that the politics of the Republican party or of MAGA are the way to “save” it.

But I think the question is, “save what?”

For as long as I can remember, the sales pitch from my Republican peers (that I often echoed too) was that conservative capitalism was the way to maximize the thriving of people, to increase the standard of living, to grow wealth, to provide the most benefits for our descendants. It sounded very altruistic, as if our focus was to bring everyone into a glorious future with us, where everyone was wealthy and peaceful. And the more we exported our politics around the world, the more everyone would join us together around the cornucopia of plenty. It was a grand vision.

But now I see it’s rather more nuanced than that. I’ve learned, from finally listening closely and carefully to liberals and progressives, that this vision was considerably less expansive and universal than I thought. That the raw capitalism I loved was deeply harmful to many people, and also the environment that gives us all life – or that ruthlessly kills us when it fails. That our colonialism and expansionism cause worldwide suffering that’s largely invisible inside our borders and on our American-centric social media. That our particular brand of conservative Christianity suffers from some rather toxic outcomes for certain people groups and demographics. In short, the Elysium is actually something of a dystopia for many people – just not for me and my fellow white middle- and upper-class male peers.

And from the other side’s perspective: there’s quite a bit about liberalism that is dangerous as well. Forced communal systems are easily co-opted and abused to enrich and empower a few. Socialism can easily lower the standard of living for everyone. Excessive focus on individual identity dilutes our shared identity and segregates people into aggrieved groups, all unhappy about the others.

Neither side is without its flaws.

To put a bit more specificity on it, I NEED other people who see the world differently than I do. Who aren’t tied to my own particular views of the Bible. Who aren’t tied to my own politics. We all need such people if we have any hope of moving forward.

So I want to wrap this up with a bit of discussion of the Bible’s view of the Kingdom. Revelations chapter 7, specifically Rev 7:9-17, presents a view of the future of humanity’s relationship with God. Rev 7:1-8 talk about 12 groups of 12,000 people being sealed for the Kingdom. In Biblical language, a thousand is generally a reference to the largest complete and infinite group, and 12 is the number of perfection. The reference to 12 twelves of thousands is essentially the utter perfection of every Jewish tribe being collected together in absolute completion. John hears these numbers, and then turns and sees “a great multitude that no one could count.” More so, instead of just the 12 tribes of Israel, he sees that they are “from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” and “they are before the throne of God and worship him day and night within his temple, and the one who is seated on the throne will shelter them.” They are not there being coerced into submission before the throne – they are worshiping in a way that God responds by providing perfect covering and shelter. John HEARS language of perfection of completeness, and SEES this extending to all possible people groups in an uncountable multitude. It’s really hard to interpret this in any way other than sensing that God intends to redeem the entirety of humanity, in all of its complexity and diversity.

I used to read this kind of Biblical language and assume that this would (a) only apply to those remnant few who gave their hearts to Jesus and held the right beliefs about God and theology, and (b) obviously we faithful Christians would have to export our right beliefs to the whole world to fulfil this prophecy – that until every tribe and tongue and language had heard the true gospel according to right-thinking evangelical Americans, none of this could take place.

Obviously that’s arrogant beyond words. I’ve had to repent of that thinking – to allow God to change my mind. I’ve seen that many other groups have theological views which differ from mine but are deeply valuable to the Kingdom. Many other nations and people groups have thriving churches that I never recognized because they looked so different from mine. There are many different theologies that each expose a critical aspect of God’s nature, that I had never seen in my arrogance. And I’ve concluded that none of them is complete without the others.

And so the takeaway for me, in this season of political upheaval, is to enter into a very intentional season of deep humility. I don’t have all the answers. My theology isn’t the only true vision of God and salvation – and never will be. My politics don’t hold the only key to human flourishing. I can’t do anything by myself, or only with my tribe. In fact, I think it’s highly likely that none of us is CAPABLE of holding all the truth; it’s so vast and deep that we can only approach that Truth together, in our diversity.

And that means that I cannot throw anyone away even when many of their views or beliefs or politics are divergent from my own. I may deeply disagree with things that they promote or believe. But I still need them.

And that means I cannot approach them as “enemy.”

So this season calls me to find a different pathway than Cain, who when God asked where his brother was in Genesis 4:8-10, answered “Am I my brother’s keeper?” It’s one of the great unanswered questions in the Bible, but I do think the answer is obvious: “Yes.” And I have to avoid Cain’s solution to a brotherly conflict over whose worship was right and proper, whose was the better occupation. I cannot shed blood, even figuratively, in an attempt to show that my way is superior.

Recently I’ve seen that the Bible contains an interesting set of bookended stories, setting up a conflict that is resolved many generations later. God divides humanity and confounds their communications at the Tower of Babel, for example, restoring that communication and unity in the Holy Spirit in Acts 2.

And so I see here a call to restore something broken in Genesis 4, the relationship between the first two brothers, as we learn once again to be brothers with all our fellow humans despite differences in worship or differences in culture. It fits into that great overarching theme of scripture: that God will restore all things and repair all relationships. And that often happens through the people of God.

I now have a number of Anabaptist friends, and I’ve learned something from them: laying down our arms can take many forms. And so I think this is in some sense the ultimate fulfillment of that nonviolence: not just laying down our weapons, but at a much higher level, laying down my enemies, because without enemies, there is no need for taking up arms.

I’ll close, then, with the word of Isaiah from Isa 2:2-5:

2 In days to come
the mountain of the Lord’s house
shall be established as the highest of the mountains
and shall be raised above the hills;
all the nations shall stream to it.
3 Many peoples shall come and say,
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the house of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths.”
For out of Zion shall go forth instruction
and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
4 He shall judge between the nations
and shall arbitrate for many peoples;
they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation;
neither shall they learn war any more.
5 O house of Jacob,
come, let us walk
in the light of the Lord!