*

pre-pre-script: you may notice my color-coded use of asterisks throughout this post. they are not intended to disrupt the flow; they only thread an idea's mention with its explanation further along. i'm aware there are other typographical symbols available when using multiple notations; i simply chose this route for fun, given the title of the piece.
pre-script: this post contains within it the thoughts that came to my mind when writing the post-script here. therein stems the notation i had left unresolved. this is that asterisk.

"In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right?"
-Pres. Abraham Lincoln, 1861 Inaugural Address

in the context of this foundational quote, Lincoln was addressing two militantly oppositional sides. but his words were not impersonal, as we often find ours to be when discussing such* things. at the time of the American Civil War, Christians existed on both sides; and neither renounced their faith to choose one. that is to say, Christians on either side might accurately use personally held beliefs (Scripture) to support their cause. it is with this in mind that Lincoln's speech brings up God's sovereignty, that he as a peacemaker, when faced with Solomon's splitting kingdom, calls on God's "eternal truth and justice, be [it] on your side of the North or on yours of the South."
it is certainly not our right as citizens to judge the actions motives of a leader, past or present (Eccl 8.4, I Tim 2.1-8), and however highly i hold this point, this post is not about that. because, more broadly than the historical context of the initial quote, the concept of "bipartisan politics" came to my mind, and that not without experiential consideration*. yet firstly, i say "bipartisan" because that is the sort of domination we find in American politics today; it should be obvious that more than two political parties exist, and the truth behind this quote is not limited by there being only two. during the 1860 election, for example, four candidates ran for president: two Democrats, and two former-Whig members--the Whig party having been divided into the founding of what we now call the Republican party, and those who would not choose Republican or Democrat.
those who know me personally know of my stance in politics. this is not about that either. i only mean to convey that, as Lincoln spoke eight-score-and-one-half years ago, two sides so clearly against what the other stands for are each, at the very heart, so sure of being the correct one. and yet, i am loath to find that such a divorce exists in most every social relation there is. it is why people form parties, sects, alliances and cliques. it is why debates are the learned man's gladiatorial entertainment. *no one truly cares what the other [side] thinks: so long as one is right, the other must be wrong.

take from that statement what you will. there are certainly those who do not believe in absolute truth, but that does not keep most of the world from acting as though there were. and claiming a personal stance outside of any given argument does no service if the argument persists. as Jesus and Lincoln said, "a house divided...cannot stand" (Mk 3.24*). what i am referring to here is called peace, and a brief grasp on semantics will serve you well.

"I don't want no peace. I need equal rights and justice."
-Peter Tosh

i have witnessed this phobia frequently enough to experience the deliberate perpetuation of argument. i had touched upon one such moment in my life at the close of the post linked two sentences ago, but the point is this: many people say "peace" when they mean "status quo," and so the concept of "keeping the peace" implies "avoiding [further] confrontation." this is why Peter Tosh doesn't want peace: because the powers-that-be say that there already is peace. wherever there is oppression, this unbalanced perspective exists. whenever there is a difference in opinion, agreeing to disagree is not peace; it's ignorance.
biblical peace requires reconciliation*. it speaks of wholeness, completion, perfection. on earth, it is most often a goal to be attained, because it is so easy to stray from it, to put all our efforts toward "ourselves" instead of "us." but, when we see injustice, we are to fight it (Prov 31.8-9, Zech 7.9-10, 8.16-17); our actions ought to consider others (Php 2.3-4, Eph 5.21, Gal 6.10, I Cor 12.24b-26); our thoughts ought to be spurred toward forgiveness (Col 3.13-15, Lk 12.57-58b) and understanding (Rom 12.16a, Php 2.2, I Cor 1.10). now, *reconciliation means "bringing together again" (roots, re-; council), and much more than any human relation we can apply it to, it is the heart of the gospel.

"...that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them."
-II Corinthians 5.19a

"...[His will,] to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ."
-Ephesians 1.10

so, too, peace is not simply two (or more) parties coming together, settling differences on common ground, and then returning from whence they came. it is more like a [perfect]* marriage, no? it is a house united (Mt 19.6). and it is not coexistence on good terms; it is certainly not coexistence on opposing terms. it is the union of two puzzle pieces to the point where the lines and curves which had once self-contained each no longer remain. when Lincoln quoted Jesus, he knew that peace was on the horizon; he simply didn't know which side would be responsible for it.

"I do not expect the Union to be dissolved--I do not expect the house to fall--but I do expect it will cease to be divided./ It will become all one thing or all the other."
-Abraham Lincoln, 1858 Debate

the Spirit (Jn 14.26) spoke of peace as an objective truth: in the light of eternity, the Christ's death brought the reconciliation that was needed since Adam broke council with God (Rom 5.19, I Cor 15.21-22). this peace was preached by angels at Jesus's birth (Lk 2.14); this is "the good" of Romans 8.28. but Jesus also spoke of division as the [untimely] result of his coming (Lk 12.49-53, 21.16). just as the Civil War had to be crossed for the American government to be united on the other side of it, so, too, did the Christ's first coming start a war (Jn 15.22-24) to be finished with the second (Rev 19.11). he makes war, so that peace can be established.
peace is not just the opposite of war, but the promise that war has no more grounds (Is 2.4). the peace of Solomon's reign which saw God's temple built came after the wars of David's reign (I K 5.3-5); likewise, our eternal peace comes after its enemies are defeated (I Cor 15.24-26, 15.54). *the truest marriage ceremony is one of finality (Rev 19.7b, Eph 5.32). it marks the union of God with His servants (Rev 21.2-3) not despite, but wholly without the temptations of infidelity (Is 25.7-8, Rev 21.4, 21.27, 22.3a).

so, where do i go from here? back to the start. *i knew two people so adamantly against each other's political alignment--each listening to talk radio hosts and politically charged news stations to support their own beliefs (or, perhaps, to guide them)--who joined sides, as it were, to condemn me for a particular choice of action during the onset of the state's health emergency last year. granted, this was not the first time they'd come to agreement about one thing, namely, my wrong; i'd felt their judgments many times prior to 2020. but my choices were never made out of deliberate disobedience to the one or the other. rather, i choose to act by strict understanding of the laws which are above even them. and though it can certainly sound as though i were speaking of biblical commands, between these two people, it was always a matter of governmental law and policy.
now, standing in the middle of the two, i've heard such things spoken about the other side that they start to sound alike. vehemence is not indicative of truth, however; nor is confidence. or else satire would not be such an undying form of comedy. but with how opposed liberals and conservatives are today, is there any doubt that each has "faith of being in the right?" if given the opportunity of blaming the other, each side will take it. and surely, one side can be right, but certainly not both. it is perhaps wiser to say that each side has some things right, but that a peaceful union of ideals within politics is actually counterproductive to the system. the nation has developed organically by the push and pull of its democracy, and yet, at least half of its people will always be dissatisfied with its current leaders.

in seeing how political views divide people, i am reminded how religious views do the same. but if a person on one side [or facet] of democracy can claim it to be the only right and true one, why, then, is religion weighted unequally? especially when politics is undoubtedly a manmade institution.

in memoriam: K.A.B. 09-03-21

post-script: *the verse using "house" is 25, whereas 24 conveys the broader concept of a "kingdom." arguably, Lincoln meant his word-choice to convey familial nature; Jesus used these two phrasings to rebuke his mockers (Lk 11.17-20).