I’ve been doing some thinking about the prevalence of anger in our society in conjunction with the increase in intolerance of differences. I remember when I went back to the Lutheran church after an absence of 15 years or so, having read about the merger of ALC, AELC and LCA and responding to their motto of “Unity Without Uniformity.” The organizations really didn’t merge very comfortably, and “without uniformity” really meant “without uniformity coming in,” but with the expectation uniformity would shortly result. Not a uniformity of skin color or nationality or other irrelevancies, but a uniformity of thought and language, goals and ongoing culture. 

There is, first, the point that when high church and low church merged and the national organization set off in the direction of “higher” church, there was an understandable hesitancy on the part of the folks at the other end of the spectrum. The “magical” thinking also was off-putting. As though God could be invoked (i.e., summoned into action) by recitation of certain words or the carrying out of the proper rituals! It’s in a totally different category from the admonition in Philippians: “Don’t worry about anything; instead pray about everything; tell God your needs, and don’t forget to thank Him for His answers.” Sometimes it was carried to an extreme that seemed to parallel the use of candles and invocations and kabalistic symbols. 

I’ve been out of circulation in those environments for a long time, but it seems to me that aside from the movement toward high church, those excesses of magical thinking have faded into the background. In its place, I see a polarization in process as people on both ends of the spectrum (figure of speech, only) try to firm up their world views and beliefs into absolutes that they can stand upon. They fight off their lack of certainty by establishing a house (seemingly, built upon a firm foundation) that will stand against whatever might be contrary to their particular set and arrangement of facts. 

I see a lot of anger at not being able to impose one’s own viewpoint on the rest of the world. There is a need for agreement, a need to establish specific, universal standards of “right” and “sinful” and the need to both know and be right. No risk taking, just certainty. One who does not agree must be deluded or deliberately blind or evil. 

I have a certainty of eternal life. I know that I have already passed out of death and into a new life. But my knowledge is limited, and there are always risks, I’m always finding new layers of understanding, and I’m still seeing imperfectly, through that obscured mirror. I’m less certain now than I was thirty years ago, when it comes to lots of things having to do with walking by faith and what God might be leading other people to in their lives. 

I don’t want to argue with people who feel safer with proclamation than dialogue, and I don’t want to live in an environment that is, for want of a better word, uncivil. I love my family deeply and cannot imagine a more stimulating setting in which to learn and grow, but it was also a battleground of strong opinions and stronger personalities. Always worried that someone is going to forget zirself and throw something at someone. Too much adrenaline!

 I think it’s helping me, in any case, to write some of this stuff down. I get a clearer look at what’s going round in my head.