Our world is increasingly divided. You didn’t need me to tell you that, I know. Everyone can feel it and see it. Everywhere. But there is a heightened sense of divisiveness today. It is more obvious and, definitely, more intense and, at times in our communities, nastier than I have ever seen before. Why is this so?
There are multiple factors in play, and there is also an array of new technologies that allow people a voice in a way we’ve not seen pre-Facebook, pre-Twitter and pre-social media, generally. I believe that social media has created an environment where keyboard warriors can rant and argue and condemn in a manner that they would probably never do if they were having a decent face-to-face conversation with another human being. The advent of social media platforms has provided pretty much unregulated forums for a new kind of nastiness to be launched – instantaneously. There is a boldness and meanness that is easier to perpetrate now, for whatever reason you might disagree with someone else, and with little consequence. I suspect that the relative anonymity of social media allows our darker side to be far less restrained. Some of the worst outcomes of this has been witch hunting that has led to a new kind of social “burning at the stake in the village square” kind of thing – it’s called cancel culture.
But social media platforms are not the cause of all this, they are just the means to that end. The causes have been fermenting for many decades. The power of social media has simply accelerated things. There have always been disagreements between people. But, on the whole, the nature of public discourse has been polite and respectful of differing points of view. Not anymore. Former deputy prime minister, John Anderson, in his podcasts, often laments the disappearance of respectful social discourse and polite public debate which used to be about the battle of ideas, not a punch-on between debaters.
Identity politics is a key factor in all this. Identity politics is based on a particular identity, such as race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social background, or any social, or ideological class. Each group bands together in a tight political alliance to promote their ideals and progress their agendas. This kind of grouping, in itself, is not new, of course. Political parties have been doing this for centuries. But identity politics operates to the exclusion of others to the point where conflict is inevitable if anyone dares to disagree with them. A new tribalism has arisen in all of this where group is against group, not the whole and its greater good.
The rise of this identity politics dynamic has been aided and abetted by the politicisation of practically everything. Glaring examples of this has been the AFL in recent years expressing their support for the LGBTI community (even having a Gay Pride round of footy, where players are forced to wear a Gay Pride jumper, whether they wanted to or not), lending its support to the Black Lives Matter movement (remember all those footballers forced to “take a knee” before a game, whether they agreed or not?) and, more recently, they campaigned for the Yes case for the Voice riding roughshod over the contrary views of tens of thousands of footy fans. Sheer arrogance. Then there is QANTAS and other big corporations all doing the same, spending millions of dollars of company money to fund the Yes case of the Voice campaign. The AFL now sees itself as a political force, not a peak sporting body. Shareholders in companies that donated millions of dollars to the Yes case of the Voice campaign are rightfully angry at the political use of company funds on non-core business activity. These are just a few examples. Not that long ago a fine Christian man was forced to relinquish his new appointment as CEO of the Essendon Football Club (not a day in the job) – that was identity politics, too. He was “unrepresentative” of the club’s membership base, according to the club president. I mean, had he discussed this with the members? No. He reacted to the shrill demands of a very small identity politics group. We could go on and on here but I think you know what I am saying. The politicisation of everything has morphed businesses, corporations, peak bodies and many not-for-profits into instruments of political power – and they seem quite happy to wield that power over the rank and file.
Just this week an inner-city council (take a wild guess which one!) has flown Palestinian flags at half-mast and will do so for a month. Then it passed a formal motion calling on Israel for a ceasefire in the war on Hamas terrorists. When since have local councils had any kind of mandate to make political statements and perpetrate political stunts on its ratepayers who are not even allowed to attend council meetings and ask questions? Then there is gender ideology which has developed its own list of rights – none of which have yet been formally legislated – but there is a strong push for gender self-determination laws ramping up in every state jurisdiction.
Just about everything we do as a society has been politicised and this has left an open door for identity politics to gain more influence and drive the public narratives – very loudly. Oh, and before I forget, one of the deceptive tools of identity politics is the reshaping of language from the misappropriation of personal pronouns to the adoption of new descriptors. Just read any daily newspaper and you see many references. One of the most common descriptors at present is “progressive”. The ACT government has been described by 11 journalists (and still counting) as a “progressive government” for decriminalising illicit and highly dangerous drugs for personal use. Left wing governments pursuing hard left social policies are now “progressives”. If you dare to disagree, well, you ain’t progressive, are you, and we all know that has to be a bad thing.
The politicisation of everything has blurred boundaries and caused deep uncertainty for the Australian public, especially uncertainty in relation to freedom of speech. Civil debate has become near impossible. The battle of ideas is pretty much gone and different opposing groups now bludgeon each other with the blunt instrument of the rights to which they think they are entitled, and which no one can dare question. All of this – and a few other depressing developments have caused fissures to become factures and eventually division across the country in recent years. So, how do we live amongst all this as the people of God? What are our responsibilities right now? Two key biblical principles show us how and what.
2 Corinthians 10:3-5 (NIV)
“For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does.
4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments (logismos) and every pretension (hoopsoma) that (knowingly and arrogantly) sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”
We need to be teaching each other to identify reasonings and arguments that sound logical and, perhaps, tolerant, but that are absolutely contrary to God’s Word – and teaching our kids to do the same. Yes, that does take time. The results of this is that we live in such stark contrast to the world. But then, how we express that in our Christian lifestyle is just as important. Jesus said it …
Matthew 10:16 (NIV)
“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.”
In other words, we don’t engage the public debates in the same way as the world does. No. We are gracious but uncompromising with the truth of God’s Word – it is not a blunt instrument of rightness we wield to destroy another. So, grace and shrewdness – a strong discerning prophetic intelligence for the demolition of thought-houses. These are not the weapons of the world.
One more thing. Above all we are peacemakers.
Matthew 5:9 (NIV)
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”
We have a mission. This will require of us love and unity in the household of God as we ourselves respectfully debate ideas, valuing each other above the idea, or we will have no valid voice ourselves for the mission of Christ. In a divided and fractured world only the church can model unity and bring the Peace of God to bear in thousands of different ways. The church needs to lay aside, for now, useless debates, and focus on the greater kingdom idea – God’s ideas – of peace, love, grace and reconciliation.
Pray into these things.
Ps Milton