The Good Side
“What is good? Who is right?” many ask.
“God alone”, some would say.
“Then who or what is God?” ask some amongst those.
A select few might pursue an answer—and might even be willing to lose themselves in the question—and ask, and wrestle, and contemplate, and persist, and be willing to learn, and might even allow themselves to change.
Their findings, though, would lead to a problem: God is a mystery, and a contradiction in terms.
He wants to be known, and yet cannot be fully known. He sanctifies some, and yet loves all. He implores us to endure, and yet saves the ones who surrender.
He is only, and yet all: two seemingly opposing concepts.
Even more, God is a Trinity(!) of … of what? Spirit, matter, and oneness? Purity, dichotomy, and reconciliation? Authority, willingness, and medium?
More compounding yet, the beloved creation is created in this image: paradox—diversity—bonded polarity, which is reflected even down creation’s molecule!
“What then?” ask fewer still. “What is right amidst mystery and paradox?”
The least of these remaining seekers might consider that the problem is neither God, nor differences; but rather their own limited framework which has not evolved to possess paradox—an immaturity which cannot grasp that “right” is not one solitary, isolated concept which can be fully contained or manifested individually; but rather it is all things, working together for the good of all things.
If the Triune God is good, then perhaps this is good: paradox collaborating sustainably, mutually, in a way that is both humble and edifying.
Perhaps “right” is not a place or a side on the spectrum; but rather the whole spectrum working together, toward more togetherness.
And then, the only thing out of step with “good” is a total disregard or devaluation of diversity; or fear and suppression of differences; or anything which fosters a fracturing of “whole”-mindedness; or an isolated or elitist nature…
The only one good thing to agree upon is God alone; and the way to reflect this good is not to demand sameness, or merely tolerate differences; but instead to embrace, with fierce respect and utter relief, seemingly opposing concepts, knowing that each completes the other—that one isn’t right without the other.
This is my political statement:
(I like the artist’s word for “opposite”. They call it “complimentary, or complimenting”.)
Let’s not muzzle our complimentary counterparts with a derogatory label. Especially if our definition of “right” has not evolved to embrace paradox.
Let’s not magnify destruction and division that exists on all sides by participating in it, ourselves. Instead, let’s value the person who sees the same thing, but from a different angle—even more, let’s expect that what they have to bring to the table might be wisdom of a complimentary nature, and worthy of the honor of, at least, consideration.
Consider that valuing the complimentary (read: opposing) parties actually glorifies the paradoxical, Triune God (that is, if glorifying means “to reflect; or to magnify, or make bigger by participating in the same nature”).
We have been selectively and specifically placed at certain spots all over the spectrum—not to alienate or even stay put, but to balance and weigh in from our different vantage points, and to work with the whole, toward “good”, understanding that “good” = sustainable, humble, optimal, and edifying wholeness.
Wherever we’ve been put—wherever we are right now, let’s strive to exemplify this side of good.