Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Cutting Personal Ties Over Ideological Differences
It seems that Progressives have a harder time having personal relationships with people with whom they disagree than do conservatives. Why?
In this post, I am using “Progressive” as shorthand for a broad range of left-ish people and policies on ideological, political, and cultural issues because that seems to be the term the people with those views prefer, even though the true definition may be narrower. And I’m using “conservative” as shorthand for a broad range of right-ish people and policies even though there is lots of debate about who and what is properly covered by that word.
Surveys and anecdotal stories seem to show that if a friendship or interaction with a family member is ended over ideological, political, or cultural differences, the ending is more likely because the Progressive (or leftist or modern liberal or Democrat) does the ending. Democrats say they are less likely than Republicans to be willing to initiate a friendship or to date a person of the other political party.
Are “Progressives” really quicker to sever personal ties over ideological differences than do “conservatives”? If so, why?
In my church congregation, Progressive-oriented members are leaving the congregation (thereby functionally ending many of their relationships with other members of the congregation) after the congregation voted by a wide margin to reject a “Progressive” path on church policy and rules and to follow a more “conservative” path.
The United Methodist Church denomination (UMC) is in the process of splitting up. The history of the split is a bit messy to explain, but I’ll try to keep it brief. Strong internal forces in the denomination are driving more “Progressive” policies and rules of operation into the UMC denomination. “Conservative” congregations that object to the yet more Progressive direction the UMC denomination is going and seems certain to continue going, are leaving (“disaffiliating from”) the United Methodist Church denomination. There are other Methodist and Wesleyan (John Wesley was the founder of Methodism) denominations to which the conservative congregations can go, and in some cases have already gone. According to some temporary denominational rules, there is a brief time window in 2022 and 2023 in which a congregation can leave the denomination while keeping the real estate the congregation uses. Before and after that window, a congregation that leaves the denomination does so without the real estate, and possibly subject to some other financial penalties. So if a congregation thinks it will ever want to leave the UMC denomination, now is the time to do it. (I realize that the conservative congregations are leaving somewhat contradicts my thesis, but in discussing my thesis I am focused on personal relationships, not institutional associations.)
Our United Methodist congregation voted at the end of January 81% to 19% to leave (disaffiliate from) the United Methodist Church (i.e., 81% voted for the “conservative” outcome). The denomination’s regional body for our part of the country will in June confirm that vote, and our disaffiliation will be finalized in August. Hundreds of congregations in our region are working on the same timeline. Our congregation has about 300 adult members. So it’s large enough a person could worship somewhat anonymously, but small enough that with some effort a person could put faces and names together for most of the people there.
Many of the 19% of congregation members who voted against disaffiliating from the United Methodist Church (i.e., support a more “Progressive” direction) have already left our congregation to seek a congregation that is staying with the United Methodist Church. This baffles many of us who are staying with the congregation. Nothing about the congregation has changed because of the vote, nor are there any plans to change anything in the future, other than removing the word “United” from the signs in front of the building. In its 160-ish years of existence, this congregation has been part of at least three different Methodist denominations. The current pastor has been at the congregation almost five years. He is also leaving the United Methodist Church, and wants to remain with our congregation, so preaching and teaching aren’t changing. So why do so many of those who favor more Progressive policies feel the need to leave the congregation immediately, functionally severing many personal ties they had to other people in the congregation?
Many of the people who favor more conservative policies have said that had the vote gone the other way (i.e., if the congregation had voted to stay with the UMC as the UMC moves on a more Progressive path), most of us would have stayed with the congregation unless or until some new Progressive denominational policy directly affected this congregation (such as hanging a “pride” rainbow banner, a new pastor performing a same-sex wedding, or preaching a heresy like Jesus isn’t really divine, or Jesus didn’t physically rise from the dead, or any of a number of other elements that have appeared in some UMC congregations but not in ours). But until something local changed, “conservatives” would see no reason to leave the congregation, with the accompanying disruption to personal relationships.
Mrs. Tabby and I were worshipping with a Presbyterian Church (USA) congregation as that denomination came apart in the 2010s, also over a conflict between Progressives who were relentless in their demands for significant changes in denominational policies and rules, and conservatives who insisted denominational standards should remain closer to traditional church teachings. As the denomination moved decidedly in a more Progressive direction, Mrs. Tabby and I resigned our formal membership, but continued to worship and participate in congregational life with our local congregation. We had strong connections with the people there. For a while, the Progressive denominational policies had no discernable effect on the local congregation. But then the pastors became more overt in preaching from Progressive perspectives so that it became harder and harder for us to encounter God in worship. But it had to go pretty far before we finally stopped participating because it was painful to interrupt the relationships with the people there, even those with whom I had significant disagreements.
So I have trouble understanding the people who are already leaving our current congregation over a vote that has no discernable practical effect on their personal church experience.
One point of explanation I have gleaned from some conversations with people who have left the congregation is that some of the people with Progressive views were surprised at the lopsidedness of the vote in the “conservative” direction. And some of those Progressives are certain that holding conservative views on church policies and rules is a clear sign of an intolerant bigot. So the vote revealed to some of the Progressives that they were worshipping among a congregation full of intolerant bigots. And unless they’re going to convert those conservative intolerant bigots into the better ways of Progressivism, they’re better off not being around such a concentration of people with such odious views. [The people who favor the more Progressive UMC describe the split as solely about whether to endorse same-sex romantic arrangements, so they see conservatives as inherently bigoted. People who favor more conservative policies point out that whether to endorse same-sex romantic arrangements is merely the currently most visible symptom of a push to discard a whole raft of church teachings and traditions. So the two sides can’t even agree on a description of the issues.]
I know conservatives are leery of being among significant concentrations of people who hold views or behave in ways the conservatives consider undesirable out of some concern that we or our children be led astray or corrupted. Conservatives who seek a sober life stay away from large concentrations of drunks and users of illicit drugs. Conservatives advise their children to cultivate relationships with people having admirable traits, and to stay away from people with traits that the parents see leading to problems. So I understand the concern about being “corrupted” by the influence of those around us. But it seems Progressives have a much lower threshold when they fear people with conservative views will “corrupt” them.
Is fear of being “corrupted” by the “intolerant bigotry” of “conservatives” what keeps “Progressives” from associating with people who disagree with them?
Or do “Progressives” just feel “icky” being around people who disagree with them on fundamental points?
And why do “conservatives” seem so much more willing to associate with people who disagree with them on such fundamental points?
I suppose I should really ask this of actual Progressives, but my questions often seem to come across as accusatory rather than seeking information, so they often are not productive.
Published in Culture
I saw these and my first thought was “So, my advice to my sons is: To find a sensible lady, check her reaction to these supposed “red flags”. If she is part of the minority in this survey, she’s worth further investigation.” This saves everyone a lot of wasted dating time! Brilliant! (I’m only jesting a little….)
I agree we’re more divided than ever before in my lifetime. More tribal.
But, it’s still my experience that left-leaning people are more likely to write-off longtime conservative friends/family than the other way around. And, I think it’s because, deep down, written on their hearts, they know they promote lies (two men or women can be “married”) and anti-human ideas (environ-mental-ism). For example, if you get the life issue wrong (“I set before you life and death. . . choose life!”), you’re likely to be wrong on just about everything, including “the science” (males and females are distinct and are not interchangeable).
And, it’s always the case that someone living a virtuous life and standing firm for ideas that promote human flourishing will stand as a rebuke to those who. . . don’t. It’s the virtuous man’s existence that is discomfiting, without him even having to say anything or argue his position.
Lefties don’t have arguments — they foster envy, hatred, and division. They suffer a paradoxical god-complex (each man deciding for himself what is right and wrong) and self-loathing. No wonder they’re so unhappy.
And since misery loves company, if you aren’t miserable too they don’t want you around.
This is kinda how I finally got engaged to my wife in the mid-sixties when feminism was rampant. Single females were dropping traditional views rapidly during that period. Just happened that my wife was a recent immigrant from South America so she had not succumbed to all that nonsense.
Great. I think what you are saying is that people who prioritize the teachings of Jesus over those of Paul are dithering loons who don’t know their own minds and who can’t decide about the motivations and mindset of others. Perhaps you are even saying that Jesus was such a one.**
Whereas, everything, everywhere, all at once, is apparently all perfectly clear, every day, every way, to you.
Lucky you, to know the minds of men and of God without doubt.
What “seems easier [for me] to remember” is the way Jesus treated the adulteress during her time of sin. Kindly. While telling the mob to stop throwing stones.
It would be marvelous if we all repented the first time, once and for all, and “sin[ned] no more” from that point forward, ever. Maybe you’re capable of that, and of judging whether or not others meet your standard. Hallelujah! If that’s the case. Good on you!
But many of us aren’t quite so holy or so self-righteous. And perhaps it’ll take us several tries to perfect it.
I think Jesus understood that.
A wise pastor once said to me: “Why do you think we have church services every week? It’s because we have to keep reinforcing the message, because people forget from week to week, and they backslide, so we have to get them back with the program.”
I think Jesus knew that. And that’s why He behaved the way He did.
Again, I don’t want to take anything away from the holy and the saved. But the rest of us?
We try. Sometimes we succeed. Sometimes, it’s two steps forward, three steps back.
We do the best we can. If that’s not good enough for you, then I’m sorry. Not so much for myself, as I am for you.
**BTW: I think, as if we needed a pedant here, that Jesus’s example was actually the former example rather than the latter. Perhaps Paul should have paid more attention to it.
BTW, this is what makes the Left so deadly dangerous. First they concentrate power at the top, then the most hate-filled and ruthless take over, then mass murder of anyone standing in their way ensues.
The virtuous man stands out in this scenario and shames the tyrant. He must go.
It was over a decade ago that a friend and I said our kids might be among the first martyrs in America. My kids have learned to get along with in the current culture, sadly. But, her kids are the types who stand out as counter-culture.
God save us all.
Dear Abby – or maybe it was Ann Landers – put it more simply: Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.
Saint John Chrysostom: The Church is a hospital, and not a courtroom, for souls. She does not condemn on behalf of sins, but grants remission of sins.
Thanks!
But, for all that, it doesn’t do so by repealing sins.
I’m more than happy to cut ties over ideological differences.
And the current ideological differences aren’t things like “should some tax rate be 1.2% or 1.3%?”
I hardly ever wear a tie anyway.
https://germanculture.com.ua/german-holidays/weiberfastnacht-or-kiss-for-your-tie/
Eh, why not?