Traveling in Place

The Rise of Incivility

As if we don’t have enough breaking news to keep up with, Montana Republican Congressional candidate Greg Gianforte has now been cited by the Gallatin County sheriff for misdemeanor assault against a reporter.

An audio recording and eyewitness accounts confirm that, on Wednesday, Gianforte became angry with The Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs, who asked a question about the CBO score of the latest House healthcare bill. Gianforte refused to answer, but Jacobs persisted. Then, Gianforte demanded that the reporter “get the hell out,” complaining angrily that he was “sick and tired of this.” When Jacobs refused, Gianforte grabbed him by the neck, threw him to the ground, and began punching him. Gianforte’s office released a statement defending the candidate’s action against an “aggressive reporter,” but the sheriff’s office investigation has pretty much discredited that version of the story. Jacobs tweeted that the candidate “body-slammed” him and “broke his glasses.” Fox news reporters who were present at the same event said they watched in shock as Gianforte forced Jacobs to the ground and began punching him.

This loss of self-control on the part of a candidate for public office is sad, but really shouldn’t be shocking. It is not hard at all to draw a line from the thuggish nature of the Republican Presidential candidate’s behavior on the campaign trail last year and what happened in Montana yesterday. To be fair, Donald Trump didn’t start drawing that line. He was feeding off of a level of vitriol that was already seething in the electorate among people waiting for somebody – anybody – to channel their gut-level anger at just about everything. At Trump rallies, reporters were taunted, protesters were beaten, and the candidate played to the crowds by yelling such one-liners as, “get’em out of here!” and “I wish I could hit you in the face!”

I’m quite sure that millions of people who voted for Trump did so holding their proverbial noses, judging him to be the least undesirable of two bad options. Still, given his participation in and encouragement of brutish behavior – both personally and publicly – it is understandable that many people interpret his election as the triumph of incivility.

Compare and Contrast...

Do you remember those “compare and contrast” essays you were assigned in school? Today’s news presents us with a subject that is crying out for just such an exercise.

President Donald Trump meets Pope Francis.

Both men are masters at using the media to their advantage. Both of them tend to stray from their scripts, speaking off the cuff and making the bureaucracies behind them very nervous. Both men can fairly be described as disruptive – challenging taboos and questioning long-held assumptions. Both have been heralded as outsiders seeking to give voice to those who have been forgotten by the centers of power. Both are loved by those who admire their willingness to shake up the status quo and hated by those who regard them as traitors to the traditions they represent. Both have sparked fascination and ire around the world.

But they are also as different as they are alike. Francis long ago took a vow of poverty. Trump has devoted his life to getting rich. Before being elected Pope, Francis spent his entire adult life as a Jesuit priest ministering to the poor in Argentina. Before being elected President, Trump made millions in the real estate business. Francis is deeply skeptical of global capitalism. Trump is himself a global capitalist. Francis refuses ceremonial trappings and privileges that separate him from the masses. Trump luxuriates in the gold-plated surroundings of his Manhattan tower. Following the examples of previous popes, Francis has written an encyclical calling on nations to adopt policies that will protect the environment and slow climate change. Trump has publicly called climate change a “hoax” and wants to free industry from regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Francis favors liberal immigration policies that give hope to people escaping desperate circumstances. Trump wants to severely curtail immigration in the interest of national security.

Last night, on the eve of Trump’s visit to the Vatican, Cardinal Peter Turkson offered his own succinct “compare and contrast” assessment. He noted that both men seek to rid the Islamic world of violence. But while Francis calls for peaceful dialogue between nations and religions, Trump concludes a weapons sale to Saudi Arabia.

The Rejection of Nationalism

The sound defeat of Marine Le Pen and the French National Front Party on Sunday was an important affirmation of the European Union and the 62-year-old Western effort to avert any more world wars. Belgium, Austria, and now France have all rejected the nationalist wave that has threatened to sweep the Western world. Does that mean the wave has crested? I hope so. Even here in the United States, where nationalism’s momentum peaked in the election of Donald Trump, the new administration appears to be sidelining strident nationalist advisors such as Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka. Perhaps nationalism has reached its high water mark. On the other hand, every time the President resorts to nationalist rhetoric to stir up his political base, I am reminded that it’s too soon to rest easy.

I know I raised some eyebrows two months ago when I said in a sermon that nationalism is idolatry. I could have made that statement on any Sunday before the November election without causing the slightest stir, because it is so obviously true to anybody with a cursory knowledge of scripture. But in this political climate, even the clear expression of a basic Christian perspective can be regarded as partisan. That’s what happens in a society of creeping nationalism, which, if left unchecked, becomes authoritarian. Eventually, the press is muzzled. Public speech is censored. The state demands total allegiance, which means neither speech nor religion is free.

Nationalism is not simply patriotism. It is not merely pride in one’s national identity. It is the elevation of the state to the level of idolatry. Nationalism destroyed ancient Israel, which was called by God to be different from all the other nations, existing not for its own sake but for the larger purpose of revealing God to the world. When Israel began demanding to have a king “like other nations” (1 Samuel 8:5), its eventual destruction became inevitable. Soon, military might and economic wealth supplanted covenantal community as the aim of the nation’s leaders, who became drunk with the desire for power and global hegemony. Nationalist Israel split into two smaller nation states, one of which