 |
| Perennially sarcastic Dmitri Kiselyov. Source. |
As Michele Berdy explains, the word refers to "someone whose thoughts, behavior or emotions are inappropriate to the situation or are out of touch with reality." A "neadekvatny" person isn't just being petty and petulant at a given moment, but could be incapable of ever rising to the occasion. And what occasion is more important than that crowning achievement of democracy, the peaceful transfer of power?
It's not just that Trump wants to dispute the results in certain states because his team detects significant irregularities; they could raise those concerns in a calm way, through well-defined complaints conveyed through the court system and the election bureaucracies of the states involved. Naturally, they would also want to get publicity for their complaints -- even that is not out of the ordinary.
What is absolutely beyond the pale is their resorting to inflammatory accusations, charging unambiguously that the Democratic Party is a "mob" that is hell-bent on electoral sabotage to accomplish a socialist coup, despite a) lack of evidence, b) success of many local Republican candidates, and c) the fact that much of the vote-counting bureaucracy is under Republican management. More than that, their allies in the fringes of white evangelicalism are trying to convince their audiences that the opposition to Trump is nothing more nor less than opposition to God.
Am I exaggerating? After all, some of Trump's allies in Congress speak in measured tones to the press, urging us to allow the lawsuits, recounts, and certification processes to unfold until the formalities wind up. It sounds like sweet reasonableness, despite their disregard for the normal practice of conceding when it's credibly determined that the 270-vote electoral college threshold has been passed. Given the lack of normalcy in this pandemic year, maybe we could allow some modest delay to check on actual irregularities.
However, first of all, election officials around the country seem agreed that, in terms of both logistics and security, the 2020 elections went remarkably smoothly. Secondly, the Trump campaign itself has been the very opposite of sweet reasonableness. I am on the Trump-Pence campaign e-mail list, and just sixteen minutes ago I got another e-mail entitled, "Proof of Election FRAUD" -- but with no proof at all in the body of the e-mail, nor even an allegation. It was the eleventh e-mail I received from them just today. I received eight yesterday, including one entitled "📎234 pages of sworn affidavits" (with the paperclip implying attachments, but there were none); and 22 arrived the day before, all begging me to "step up and join your fellow Patriots in the fight against the Left-wing MOB."
 |
| A thirty-six-hour harvest of donaldtrump.com e-mails |
7 comments:
Hello Johan,
In and through the inshining witness of the immanent and self-evident power and presence of Jesus Christ in my conscience and consciousness, I am drawn out of the reflective process (which you have acknowledged you are guided by, profess, and promote) to guide and inform human relations and interactions. This means the continued and direct motion and impulse of the spirit of Jesus Christ ministers my interactions and relationships; without regard for the agency and ministrations of other people (yourself included) and institutions. In this Light, and for conscience sake, by the impulse of Christ's spirit, my participation in, engagement with, and promotion of the reflective nature you are nurturing in this piece would be a usurpation of the unmediated power and presence of Christ's self-evident impulse itself in itself in my conscience to guide and inform human relations.
Hi, Keith! You feel free (as you should) to comment on my observations. Do you have any comments on the conduct of the president? How do you distinguish my behavior from his, and why do I merit your disapproval? Are all political observations -- particularly those motivated by alarm at creeping authoritarianism -- filed under "the reflective process"?
By the way, I'm writing this in a good humor, having prayed for Donald Trump early this morning and having read 1 Thessalonians. I'm not irritated, just extremely curious, because you have commented many times after I've written critically of the president, always contrasting my approach unfavorably with yours, but giving me no clue as to whether you are totally detached from civic life or have an alternate approach that communicates actual discernment.
Johan,
I appreciate your questions and, if you are willing, I would like to address them each individually giving you the chance go respond before moving on to the next.
First, do you really assess my response to your post as a comment on your "observations?" I did not highlight any specific observation of reflection you laid down. Do you see that? I would suggest my response went your process not upon any specific reflection. Do you agree?
I don't care whether you comment on my content or my process. Donald Trump and his team seem to be trying to incite hatred and alienation in our population with results that distress me and seem inconsistent with stewardship, morality, and truth. I grant that I come to these conclusions through a process that is not your process. What, if anything, are you led to conclude about the other actors in the civic arena, whether or not you agree with my process or conclusions?
If early Friends are any model, they frequently felt led to petition Cromwell, Parliament, and the monarch, and they preached against the religion industry in the name of Jesus. Apparently they felt free to analyze and reflect on what they saw. How, specifically, is my process different?
And what do you yourself feel able to say in the face of political, economic, and spiritual bondage?
Is there any sort of division of labor that you'd agree to in the church, whereby those gifted in direct discernment can be yoked with those who try to speak a biblical or prophetic word in today's conflicted realities?
Thank you this response. I will address these further comments and questions once have I have addressed the previous. You asked me:
"Do you have any comments on the conduct of the president?"
No, I do not, for conscience sake, enter into the reflective process to characterize a particular person's personality or behavior. I have not suggested you should conform to my conscience. I am sharing the impulse of Jesus Christ in my conscience.
You also asked:
How do you distinguish my behavior from his, and why do I merit your disapproval?
I do not distinguish your behavior from his; you both draw from engagement in the reflective nature. I would also address my original response to this post to Donald Trump or any other person who does not share your outward political or religious reflective constructs and reflects upon you or any other person.
Here is the response I refer to:
Keith writes:
"In and through the inshining witness of the immanent and self-evident power and presence of Jesus Christ in my conscience and consciousness, I am drawn out of the reflective process (which you have acknowledged you are guided by, profess, and promote) to guide and inform human relations and interactions. This means the continued and direct motion and impulse of the spirit of Jesus Christ ministers my interactions and relationships; without regard for the agency and ministrations of other people (yourself included) and institutions. In this Light, and for conscience sake, by the impulse of Christ's spirit, my participation in, engagement with, and promotion of the reflective nature you are nurturing in this piece would be a usurpation of the unmediated power and presence of Christ's self-evident impulse itself in itself in my conscience to guide and inform human relations."
Again, I would address this to anyone whose interactions and relationships are guided and informed in and through the reflective nature; regardless of their particular outward political, religious, or social identification.
You also asked:
"Are all political observations -- particularly those motivated by alarm at creeping authoritarianism -- filed under 'the reflective process'?"
Yes, for example, 'creeping authoritarianism' is a reflection upon a person's behavior. Being "motivated" by a particular reflective thought is of the reflective nature or consciousness.
As before, I will pause for your consideration and then address your most recent comments and questions.
Johan,
PART ONE
You wrote:
"Donald Trump and his team seem to be trying to incite hatred and alienation in our population with results that distress me and seem inconsistent with stewardship, morality, and truth."
Response: I appreciate you are distressed by the reflections you and others place over against Donald Trump. In the same way that Donald Trump is distressed over the reflections he and others place over against people like you and who you support. Through the immanent, self-evident, unmediated power and presence of the spirit of Jesus Christ in my live, I am drawn out of the reflective nature (and the particular formal manifestations of this nature like stewardship, morality, and truth) to guide and inform human relations.
You asked:
What, if anything, are you led to conclude about the other actors in the civic arena, whether or not you agree with my process or conclusions?
Answer: In the direct and unmediated inshining power of Jesus Christ in my conscience I am drawn out of the reflective process of reflecting upon others ... for the sake of a good conscience.
You wrote:
"If early Friends are any model, they frequently felt led to petition Cromwell, Parliament, and the monarch, and they preached against the religion industry in the name of Jesus. Apparently they felt free to analyze and reflect on what they saw. How, specifically, is my process different?"
Response: While I acknowledge many early Friends reflected upon others in the name of Jesus Christ, early Friends, however, were not a monolith; especially after the first decade of their gathering together. There were also early Friends who specifically testified to being drawn out of the reflective process, to the point where they even questioned the agency of Fox and others who professed and promoted adherence to certain ceremonies, practices, and behaviors, and the overall institutionalization of the gathering which is of the reflective nature. They testified to the witness that Fox was leading the gathering back into that which they had been drawn out through the agency of the inshining presence of Christ.
Johan,
PART TWO
You asked:
"And what do you yourself feel able to say in the face of political, economic, and spiritual bondage?"
Answer: Through the power, presence, and motion of Jesus Christ in my conscience I am not guided by the concept of "political, economic, and spiritual bondage." The awareness of the increase, decrease or stasis of the self-evident and immanent presence of the spirit of Jesus Christ in my conscience and consciousness guides my actions and words. What I am can say, in a particular circumstance, is that I cannot act in a way that results in a diminishment of the awareness Christ's inshining presence in my conscience. I can also say Christ's presence increases or does not diminish in a given action, response or circumstance. Also, there are moments wherein there is an overall general openness to the various dynamics, particular circumstance or situation wherein sustained awareness of Christ's presence maintains in the tension; so that any action or declaration results in a diminishment of the awareness of Christ's living presence in my conscience. It is the very abiding in the tension that sustains Christ's presence; so there is silence and stasis. To sense the significance of the testimony to the witness of Christ's sufficiency itself in itself in the conscience is to see that the agency of reflective constructs in the reflective nature do not guide or inform my relationships and interactions through the direct and unmediated agency and impulse of the living Christ's inshining presence itself in itself in my conscience.
You asked:
"Is there any sort of division of labor that you'd agree to in the church, whereby those gifted in direct discernment can be yoked with those who try to speak a biblical or prophetic word in today's conflicted realities?"
Yes. While, I cannot, in good conscience, deny the visible Church and the gifts of the Skpirit, through the presence of the spirit of Christ in my conscience and consciousness, I am drawn out of the agency of the visible Church or Meeting and the agency of the gifts of the spirit of Christ; as some early Friends were, though not all. I refer you to Paul's discussion of the gifts of the spirit and a different way - 1Cor. 12:31 through chapter 13 ending in 14:1. Paul here does not deny the gifts in general or prophecy in particular. He does, however, speak of a different way wherein prophecy (which is of the partial nature) will pass away when the reflective nature, which sees "but a poor reflection as in a mirror" gives way to the continuous and self-evident and unmediated "face to face" awareness of the immanent presence of Jesus Christ in the conscience and consciousness. Through the agency of Christ's continuous presence in my conscience, I am yoked to the living awareness of the impulse of the Christ's self-evident presence itself in itself; which is drawn me out of (and is drawing me out of) the agency of, or being yoked to, or guided and informed by, those who speak from the prophetic, partial, or reflective nature, concerning conflict specifically or human relations in general.
I believe I have now addressed each of your various questions and comments concerning my original response to this post.
Post a Comment