A Call For Unity

Anthony W. Brooks

Introduction and Thanks

I want to start off with a hearty thanks to everyone who has been reading. Some of you remember my last attempt at penmanship and can recall that that went about as well as Michael Bloomberg’s attempted run for presidency of these United States. This time around I have found the smooth middle that I was missing, so I thank all who have tuned in regularly, and I ask that you spare the 10 seconds or so that it would take to put in your email at the bottom of the home screen to receive my thoughts in your inbox.

This post is a tricky one. I want to try something that is not often done by someone with my epistemological bent and call for unity. Unity is often called for at the end of a political concession speech, and usually is done as a way to soften the blow of their loss to the base. This is not done lightly in most cases, and is usually followed by some not-so-unifying statements on the six o’clock news. That being said, I’m not here for that half hearted charade.

Unity is that thing which entails putting aside any adiaphora and to come together under shared values to battle for common goals. As stated as a sort of presupposition, I am a Christian, so certain things in my mind are not indifferent; namely, anything in the Bible. So I cannot compromise on those things. So let me make a qualification and answer an objection before I tell you what I mean by unity.

“Isn’t that closed minded?”

There is an attempt, however imbalanced, to say that my Christianity is closed-minded and shrouded in too much mystery to make unity possible in any sense, even between fellow Christians. I am perplexed by this because, unless these people can read my mind, I am almost positive no one knows what I actually believe outside of my writing it down. I like it this way. But it is also not closed minded. The only way you can accuse me of being close minded is by saying you are as well, for we all have these things called presuppositions which you can read more about here. That being said, presuppositions can change, and I prefer to be challenged, not shielded, by diverse opinions.

Also, for those fundamentalist evangelicals who like to say I’m being too conciliatory to the enemy, you know what to do to yourself, no interpretation needed.

Qualifications Over, Let’s Begin

I have given my disdain in earlier posts for the political bent of the evangelical church. Not that I don’t think politics is important, but not in the church. I tend to run center on most issues politically. This is a sort of middle way of Christian thinking about race, women’s rights, etc. The church is an autonomous entity that has rules set forth by God, and these rules lay outside of the common realm of human emotion. So if the Bible says men are the only ones qualified for eldership in the church, then that’s what it says, it’s not mine to edit. Nothing against women.

I also think that gay people should be shown equality and respect despite my beliefs about the lifestyle they live. In a free society I have no right to dictate how someone else lives their life, though I don’t think it is the Supreme Court’s authority either.

So what am I saying with those two examples above. I’m saying that unity can have its agreements and disagreements. I can disagree with someone on a moral level and still uphold their personhood and dignity. Political disagreements are not the chief end of man, despite what MSNBC might what you to believe. Feeling the Bern yet?

In a free society we have a responsibility to remember our past and learn from it. If human history has told us anything, it should tell us that revolution only comes at a cost. Very few times has revolution not come to a more destructive conclusion. The American Revolution being one of those few. And this experiment, the American experiment, can only succeed if unity is sought on both sides. Compromise is the only solution. This charade of demonizing the other side and expanding their intentions to monstrous and exaggerated conclusions will not win unity, but foster divisions. This is evil.

Conclusion

There is a reason that I don’t talk about certain things on this platform. I want to edify not destroy. I’m not debating anyone, I am simply putting out my thoughts for others to consider. There was a time where I was eager for an argument, debate, or meme. Now, I see it as fruitless. There are several people, even within my own family, that I disagree with, but I am called to love them even in my disagreement. And trust me, they know where I stand.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Published by A.W. Brooks

I am a husband, father, student, and classical Protestant Christian. My thoughts hold no authority, but they might help you shape the way you see the world. Who knows?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: