Summarizing Western Cultural Assets and Liabilities
America is a melting pot, and so not everyone who’s American has a Western mindset. Americans with European descent, as well as anyone who’s breathed American air for a few generations, will likely have adopted several Western viewpoints. We can summarize what we’ve learned from both wildly diverse starting points into a few broad themes. Western culture:
Divides the whole into parts, and focuses on the parts. Ancient Greeks brought us the sundial, for instance, dividing time into measurable increments. Productivity can increase in a Western approach to time, but at the expense of relationships unless we’re conscious of the need for a wholistic both/and approach to time.
Views the world individualistically. Western culture looks at individuals while Eastern culture looks at larger entities: families, villages, or tribes. The most famous verse in the Bible, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son…” (*1) takes on added value when we understand that God doesn’t just love the world generically, but me specifically. Yet many of the statements in the Bible that westerners read individualistically were intended collectively. For instance, “You are the light of the world” is a statement to a whole community, not just each individual.
Makes us especially prone to the “inner press secretary” syndrome due to its hyper focus on the individual. We can convince ourselves of just about anything, and if we only surround ourselves with others who view the world the same way we do, we’re highly unlikely to be enlightened/repent (pick your word based on your worldview).
Defaults to an either/or mindset, not a both/and mindset. And here is where the application to our Donkey Elephant War becomes the most clear. We aren’t forced to choose between voting all R and voting all D, as if those were the only options. We shouldn’t have to choose between protecting the unborn and protecting the immigrant, promoting healthy marriage relationships and promoting healthy race relationships. Our political parties, when they’re functioning as they were designed, should be seen as both/and, not either/or.
Image: liggraphy/Pixabay
Moses’ successor, Joshua, had an encounter that perfectly summarizes the both/and perspective we need if we can rise above the din of battle. We read,
When Joshua was near the town of Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a sword in hand. Joshua went up to him and demanded, “Are you friend or foe?” “Neither one,” he replied. “I am the commander of the Lord’s army.” At this Joshua fell with his face to the ground in reverence. “I am at Your command” Joshua said. “What do You want me to do?” (*2)
Joshua asked an “either/or” question: “Are you friend or foe?” The “man” he encountered answered with a both/and response: “Neither one. I am the commander of the Lord’s army.” Who was this “man”? There are many Old Testament instances like this when an angel (*3) or some other messenger from God appears to people. Often by the end of the story the messenger’s identity has morphed into the Lord Himself. What’s unique here is that typically if people bow down and worship an angel, the angel quickly brings a halt to the worship service, since only God Himself is worthy of worship. Therefore, some have speculated that this might have been a pre-incarnate Jesus.
I believe if we were to ask Jesus, “Are you Republican or Democrat?” we’d get exactly the same answer Joshua got.
Neither one. I am the commander of the Lord’s army, a Kingdom that is far above the donkey/elephant perspective in which you’re stuck.
Yet like we saw in the last chapter, the unity Jesus is praying for transcends political unity, but that doesn’t mean it can’t include political unity. Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s,” (*4) recognizing that political authority has its place here on Earth, just not an ultimate place. Is God interested in politics or spiritual things? Yes.
The word “angel” literally means messenger.