Bend or Break

Old Panama City

New Panama City

I’m a nervous flier at the best of times, and if seated just behind the wings, the perception that they might be bending during turbulence evokes visions of dire consequences . . .  if they should happen to break off. I’ve been assured that their flexibility saves them from breaking, that a rigid wing structure would make safe flight impossible.

      That’s my comfort when caught in turbulence.

      It may not be a totally apt metaphor for the divisive political situations we find ourselves in, but if it were, it would remind us that when rapid change occurs (political, social, religious “turbulence”), it’s not rigidity that will carry us through to calmer times, it’s flexibility. Furthermore, it’s probably somewhat unfair to equate rigidity with conservatism and flexibility with liberalism, but there’s an element of truth in doing so.

      A website that contrasts “stuff” might be helpful in understanding the worldview gulf between conservatives and liberals in the USA. It provides an illustration of flexibility vs. rigidity, for instance, in the case of same-gender marriage: conservatives (republicans, for arguments sake) hold rigidly to the rightness in preserving the traditional definition of marriage; liberals (democrats, for arguments sake) take the flexible approach, namely if changing the definition helps us to a better future, then change it, for goodness sake.

      Conservatism tends to reach back to the past for it’s supports: constitutions, bylaws, confessions of faith, scriptural interpretations, “we’ve always done it this way and it worked” pronouncements provide the arguments that ought to prevail—obviously. Flexibility viewed through that lens is indicative of weakness or revisionism—or both.

      For liberalism, the past used in this way can be a stone in the shoe; it restricts necessary adaptation to changing conditions. Seen from their angle, liberals are like a team trying to drag the cart out of the mud, conservatives are rigidly hanging on to the tailgate, trying to hold it where it is. “The devil we know must be better than the devil we don’t know.” “What was good for our ancestors must be good for us.”

       The past provides plenty of arguments to be used in preserving/conserving values and rules, arguments hard to refute because “they’re right there in black and white.” Rigidity can “prove” its legitimacy by waving reams of historical documentation in the faces of the population. Flexibility doesn’t have that luxury; has as its primary arguments logic, reason and a reliance on observation and experience—plus a willingness to take risks in the interest of adaptation to change. Its foundation rests upon hope in the future and the essential goodness of mankind. The Harper years—for Canada—amounted to little more than a stubborn delaying tactic—a hanging on to the tailgate of the cart. In it’s admittedly inept election practices, Canadians indicated their disillusionment with rigidity and opted for the parties whose platforms reflected flexibility. Pipelines are no longer a political slam-dunk, unions are no longer enemies but potential partners, federal and provincial governments can work together, bombing Iraq and Syria is no longer the obvious way to engage against terrorism, etc.

      In terms of the same-gender marriage question, adamant as conservatives may be, the future will see such marriages as normal, will not differentiate legally or socially between same-gender and opposite-gender couples. Flexibility has ascertained that such equality promises a better future for all of us than its opposite. In the end, rigidity always gives way to flexibility.

      If, on the other hand, the rigid view that mankind is essentially evil prevails, then, of course, it could follow that liberalism will have led us down the garden path to perdition. Did I mention that flexibility is risky?

      When it comes to defending our worldviews on the basis of what Jesus teachings tell us, I would leave that to the reader, keeping in mind that either position can be proof-texted to one or the other conclusion. I would just remind readers that Jesus quarrel with the priesthood and the political leadership of the Jewish people was definitely not with their flexibility.