Resistance

There are many words that are helpful to us, sometimes very helpful, in both negative and affirmative contexts, but words that tend to fall into either excessive adoption or reputation in one direction or another. They may have positive or negative impressions on our feelings, so may be given meanings by listeners never anticipated by communicators in this or that situation, to this or that audience or person.  Audience attitudes related to some words cannot be violated for emotions, even for the purpose of discussion. Resistance is built into the human psyche and should be understood and interpreted.  Even though the N-word is used by some Afro-Americans in conversations among themselves in humor, the use of the word by a member of another race is often taken as near unforgivable offense.  The speaker might never find a way out of an offense in using the word, even for reference.  The word offense happens often in the media, and occurrences make headlines, and may destroy careers.  Recently a television personality was reduced by sponsors for an ill remark that may have been made in passing, but turned into a cause-celebre.  Her highly paid career appointment appears to be concluded.  Other words are made offensive.  References once accepted as normal related to homosexuality are now labeled as homophobic and prejudicial.

I am more interested here in reference to resistance as a word in society.  We use it here as an example of many words that are stretched to mean so many things, and with variant forces of strength or weakness so as to be freighted with meaning that demands the communicator be careful in perceiving meanings.  Concepts and actions ought to be carried along without facing too great resistance just because of the words used.  We are currently faced with periods when the government is shut down, and that partly by the overuse of words like liberal or conservative.  For some persons the words are virtual synonyms for right and wrong. There is a built-in negative and positive meaning to the word resistance.  Several countries are currently engaged in warfare.  That warfare is titled as resistance – presumably to poorly functioning governments and leaders.  By giving the term resistance to the ugliness of killing; to believe it is the only way to solutions; to believe that other nations not joining the resistance should be hated and degraded; to cover the motives of warlike activists who carry their own objectives on the backs of dying persons; to fight fellow resisters who have separate purposes; to relate religion and God to the disorder; and, to destroy a nation’s infrastructure in the name of some announced virtue purpose all give a bad name to the word resistance.

Change is inevitable (as we often repeat).  It is entirely understandable that citizens want change and don’t want change at the same time.  New ideas, new actions ought to be offered the public in bits and pieces.  What has occurred in the past came as the result of the work of those who have gone before.  They did what they thought they ought to do, and lived by it.  Change is so widespread that some must be initiated in order to match what nature brings, what expansion requires, what economics demand, and so the reasoning may be extended.  Communities, nations, and the world need change, and change pushes for recognition.  We resist it because we are uncertain about what it will bring, because we are used to that we have had in the past, because we may be a bit reduced in the process, and so the reasons stack up.  Resistance is a force that keeps us from doing something that will worsen the situation that we would like to correct.  It is also a force that keeps us from finding something better than that which attends.  We should not become the servants of either resistance or change.  Society can learn that by patience, good will, persuasion in ethical and intellectual boundaries, respect for law and duty, we can gain the changes we need – by peace means.

Christians have tools for world order in prayer, in moral concern for the poor and deprived, in the service to others in examples of love, of how to introduce change without great disruption.  The call to governments to work with faith-based groups is a magnificent proposal.  Such an approach does not diminish the separation of church and state.  Governments work with private civil groups.  Government needs faith based societies to do in a personal way what law may find difficult.  Monitored properly such programs would serve massive needs in the world, and bring honor to both government and faith groupings.