The Connection between Donald Trump and the BrExit

     I have been perplexed.  From the rise of Donald Trump to the exit of Great Britain from the European Union.  I did not see the connection in it and the many other events and conflict I saw in the world over the past year or two.  The rise of the ultra-right across the world over the increasingly loud protests of those who counter it. I saw the way people I know and love fell in line, grudgingly, behind Donald Trump. Trump, I believe, is quite possibly the most divisive and dangerous political candidate in recent history. I simply could not explain what was going on here or in Europe. Then I read a scholarly article on Nationalism vs Globalism.  It said that these events were coming from a divide that was growing in the world: Nationalism vs. Globalism. The Nationalists are people who are fiercely loyal to their country and they feel their way of life is being threatened.  Their way of life and values are threatened by the homogenizing of cultures and the influx of immigrants and especially refugees.  It is a force that is shaping the political system all over the western world.  The Globalists are people who consider a unified outlook on world events that crosses national boundaries.

     I noticed how, quite poignantly, Globalism came to the forefront in the Olympic ceremonies that I
watched with my wife this week.  There was a general feeling of unity among the participants that transcended international boundaries as people from every nation cheered the Olympians who came into the stadium, country by country.  The International Olympic Committee even included the Refugee Olympians as an officially recognized entity, who met with the loudest applause and a standing ovation by members of other countries.

     The article I read was based on a lot of recent research into this dynamic.  It was long and difficult, but it completely opened my eyes.  This was a dynamic that gave structure to the events that are happening in our world. But it said that the divide could be bridged.  It spoke to me, a person who falls squarely in the camp of Globalists, and urged me to make attempts to reign in my Globalist perspective.  Why? Because the Nationalists are fiercely defending their way of life, and see any infringement on it, such as the flow of immigrants across the Southern U.S. border, as an assault on their strongly held beliefs. Pushing a Globalist agenda is immediately countered with strong opposition that separates, making the Nationalists more extreme.

     We Christians have a template for this conflict. This whole dynamic reminds me of the two groups of people we come across in Romans 14. There was a raging debate between those who kept holy days and avoided animal products as a principle of their religion and those who did not do these things. Those who did not see these things as necessary were secure in their spirituality. They believed that their faith was not restrained by such tight reigning in of their practices. They were not threatened by those who keep the traditions and did not believe that they themselves, needed to. But those with the stricter views were threatened by this and saw it as a liberal kind of heresy. It was a conflict that threatened to break apart the infant Roman church.  It is a conflict that still goes on in religion to this day.  There are many people for whom keeping traditions and staying in certain boundaries are central to their practice of religion. They are more likely to draw lines in religion and identify as either being inside or outside the groupings they create.  We all have this tendency, and it is especially a strong tendency in religion.  As faith matures, we become stronger and more secure and are not threatened by people who practice differently than us. Paul refers to these two groups of Christians as the weak and the strong in Romans. The strong, those with more libertarian beliefs, have a responsibility because their practices (eating meat, not observing holy days) can cause the weak to stumble. He did not use these terms - strong and weak in a derogatory way.  He just put forth that some people are not dependent on such strict interpretation.  This group had a commitment to not cause those with strict views to stumble, because both were doing it in their pursuit of God.  He clearly put the burden on the strong to treat their brothers and sisters with love and understanding, for the unity of the church.

     I think this is what we are called to, as Globalists.  Our actions, when not born out of love, are met with fierce resistance by the Nationalists with what seems like a religious fervor.  But true followers of God are not of the world, just in it.  We, though we may fall in either group, both answer to a higher authority than the authorities of man.  As Christians we are called to obey our human governments, but to keep our focus on Jesus, who is a unifying and loving force in the world.  We are called to love others outside of our identified group.  Think if every group you could think of on earth took a posture over love toward the "other," the person that is on the other side of the debate.  I don't think it would be anything less than the realization of Heaven on Earth.  Here and now, in the present moment, we would be living in the reality Jesus looked forward to.  Love requires understanding and identification with the other.  We must see ourselves in the opposing group, and look for the individuals who are on the other side of the fence.  We must see in ourselves the tendencies of Globalism as well as the tendencies of Nationalism. We are called, on either side, to love our brother. And I think this is where things are breaking down.  Love is in such short supply in our world.  It takes sacrifice on our part to love the other. It costs us something. We have to identify with the "other." We have to grow beyond the conflict and see ourselves in the person at the other end. We, as individuals, have to be the bigger person in the conflict. Our world desperately needs it.