Holy Disunity

How What Separates Us Can Save Us

Layton E. Williams

• Publisher: Westminster John Knox Press
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781611649659
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

These days, there's no dirtier word than "divisive, " especially in religious and political circles. Claiming a controversial opinion, talking about our differences, even sharing our doubts can be seen as threatening to the goal of unity. But what if unity shouldn't be our goal?

In Holy Disunity: How What Separates Us Can Save Us, Layton E. Williams proposes that our primary calling as humans is not to create unity but rather to seek authentic relationship with God, ourselves, one another, and the world around us. And that means actively engaging those with whom we disagree. Our religious, political, social, and cultural differences can create doubt and tension, but disunity also provides surprising gifts of perspective and grace. By analyzing conflict and rifts in both modern culture and Scripture, Williams explores how our disagreements and differences—our disunity—can ultimately redeem us.

Chapter One

The Gift of Difference

I was a weird kid. I’m not an entirely unweird adult, but I was a really weird kid. Those who knew me then could regale you with stories of my humorously awkward and off-kilter behavior. I was a bleeding-heart, exceptionally sensitive, precocious, and rebellious child born into a conservative, disciplined, traditionally religious southern family in Georgia. I was the youngest, an artist and deep thinker. I talked a lot—mostly to adults, had a penchant for imaginary friends, and cried myself to sleep often over the thought that people somewhere in the world were hurting and I couldn’t stop it.

I have often thought that I was born missing some internal mechanism that tells a person what is socially appropriate and what will immediately launch you into the social exosphere. Even my best efforts to be cool, popular, or just plain palatable failed spectacularly. I instinctively spoke whatever crossed my mind and, apparently, what crossed my mind was not common thought. I usually didn’t realize I’d said or done something weird until the laughter or awkward silences came. And I never seemed to learn from my mistakes, though I certainly tried.

Sometime in adulthood I discovered the Enneagram—a centuries-old system of personality study that identifies nine primary types based on core values and fears.¹ In the description of Type Four—sometimes called the Individualist and other times the Romantic—I found resonance, validation, and self-acceptance. Type Fours build their identity around the sense of difference they feel between themselves and the rest of the world. They worry they’ll never be truly understood. They worry even more that there’s nothing unique to understand about them at all. It’s common for Enneagram Fours to feel that they are missing some piece of being human that everyone else has. In learning this language to describe my own experience, I learned to value the gifts of being different, and it absolutely changed my world.

But at age ten? Or thirteen? All I could feel was the overwhelming weight of not fitting in, not being whatever it was that I was supposed to be. In this regard, school and birthday parties and hobbies were all a constant source of stress and self-doubt. The only exception, the memory of which I feel not just in my mind but in my whole body, was church. Though I was loved by my family, I always felt clearly different, determined as I was to march to my own drum. In that context, whether it was true or not, I tended to interpret my difference as a shortcoming, something to be overlooked, overcome, or compensated for. At my church, I felt so naturally at home that it never even occurred to me to question whether I belonged.

My mom and stepdad joined Saint Luke’s Presbyterian Church in a northern suburb of Atlanta when I was six years old. My mom was in Presbyterian Women, taught adult Sunday school, planned Rally Day skits and the annual Sandwich Project. My stepdad taught elementary Sunday school classes for years. They were both elders. These days, half my pastor friends grew up with pastor parents. But as a kid all I knew was that my parents weren’t just Presbyterian. They were super-Presbyterians. I spent countless hours roaming the halls of my church, relatively unsupervised while my parents attended this, that, or the other committee meeting. I still contend I know the building better than anyone, right down to secret passageways and hidden rooms.

Thanks to my parents’ position in the church community, I felt entirely comfortable and at home with the people too. By age eight, I was writing letters to the pastors offering my advice on children’s programming and ideas for church-wide picnics. My parents’ friends were like surrogate aunts and uncles, their kids like my cousins, my youth pastor some strange blend of mentor, friend, and second mom. My church community was no doubt imperfect—a lesson I would learn more than once in later years—but the message it unquestionably sent to me during the delicate years of my childhood was, “You are loved, exactly as you are.”

When I was twelve, the father of my best friend from church died by suicide. He was close friends with my parents too, and I’d spent enough time around him that he felt almost like family, as so many of my parents’ church friends did. I had run up to him with my friend at church a week or two before, babbling about one thing or another. My mom and stepdad tried to keep quiet about the news for fear of upsetting me, but when I asked them where they were headed in church clothes on a weeknight they had to tell me, “a visitation.” I asked for every detail, and then promptly locked myself in the bathroom and broke down. I had lost my great-grandmother a couple years before, but I had never experienced a death like this. My dad had struggled with depression and suicidal ideation—a fact to which my own relentless snooping and disregard for boundaries had exposed me at an early age. His dad had also died by suicide, not long after I was born. The concept had been a haunting specter for me previously, but my friend’s father’s death made it real.

I struggled to place my overwhelming grief. A night or two later, I found myself once again at our church, wandering the halls while my parents attended an event. I ended up in the dark sanctuary. I had gathered in my wanderings the materials for a makeshift altar. At the top of the steps that led to the chancel, in the very center of the open space between the pulpit and lectern and just in front of the Communion table, I laid out my offering. A soft piece of tissue, and on top a beaded cross that I had made, surrounded by dandelions and other weedy flowers I’d found on the church grounds. I’d made the cross with a mix of red beads and white beads with letters that spelled out “I cared.”

I left it there in the sanctuary with my tears and my young bewilderment and went home. When Sunday morning came, I returned to the church for worship with my family and found that my grief offering was still there. I was, I think, equal parts shocked, flattered, and embarrassed. It was an ugly little thing. Out of place and awkward, as I so often was in those days. Common sense would have dictated that someone would quietly and gently remove the thing, disposing of it somewhere or maybe tracking down the owner to return it, all before the congregation made its way to Sunday services.

But there it remained. And when the time came, my youth pastor invited all the youngest children of the church to gather on those steps as they did every Sunday for the children’s sermon. She pointed out the little altar, and she invited the children to look at it. I think she said something about a God who cares and our call to care for each other. Honestly, I don’t remember. What I remember is sitting in my pew and watching this unfold, watching my creation and the grief that propelled it handled with care, respect, and honor. I remember understanding in that moment—with a sort of wondrous and unforgettable certainty that went all the way down to my bones—that I not only belonged in that community, but that I was recognized as someone who added to the church. That the very things that made me different and weird were received as a gift and offering. I suspect I will never forget that feeling. Nor will I forget how rarely in this world our differences are received in such a way.

Fear, Prejudice, and Normativity (How Difference Separates Us)

It’s a little sad to me now to think that kids can know that they don’t fit in at such an early age. It doesn’t take us long, does it? From the day we’re born we begin learning about similarity and difference. As toddlers we learn how to tell shapes, colors, letters, and numbers apart from one another. We learn how to match things that are alike. And all the while, we’re also being taught that there is right and wrong. A right and a wrong answer. A right and a wrong thing to do. A right and a wrong way to be. At some point, we also learn that “right” equals “normal” and that normal is good. And we learn that “different” is bad or wrong.

Of course, learning to determine the differences and similarities between things isn’t inherently a problem. In fact, it’s an important part of development. So is learning right from wrong. But this distinction between “normal” and “different” often develops based on majority experience. If most people do or think or act a particular way, it becomes normalized.

Problems develop when we construct social and cultural hierarchies and barriers based on normativity, which turn realities of difference into justifications for fear, prejudice, and discrimination. While difference itself is natural, it becomes divisive when we assign value to differences that are inherent. It’s one thing to say that people have a different race or a different ethnicity. It is, of course, another thing entirely when we say that one of those races or ethnicities is the norm, and moreover that the “normal” one is good, while the others are bad. We have obviously seen this play out in history in horrific ways, and it is still at play in horrific ways today.

This system of privileging certain identities and characteristics as normative, and therefore better, applies to gender, class, sexuality, place of origin, type of family, intelligence, ability, and on and on. We have woven value hierarchies based on normativity so intricately into our society that we barely notice how deep it goes. And the more “normal” we are, the less likely we are to notice. There are normal and abnormal hobbies, normal and abnormal ways to feel about a popular thing or person, normal and abnormal life timelines. If you like soccer, love Brad Pitt, and get married and have kids, you’re normal and that’s good. If you like rock collecting, think Brad Pitt is ugly, and never have a relationship at all, you’re not just different—you’re weird. And weird carries with it a cost, in social capital at least. Obviously, these ways of being outside the norm carry less of a cost than some of the other types of difference named (like race, gender, etc.), because not only have we added value hierarchies to normalcy, we’ve also added a value hierarchy to types of difference.

The issue separating us here isn’t that we recognize or acknowledge difference. The goal certainly isn’t erasing differences or imposing sameness. This isn’t about “everyone on the soccer team gets a trophy.” This is about asking why we’re giving metaphorical trophies for things like being white, or male, or American—or for that matter, for liking the right things or people. More deeply, the issue is that we not only value conformity and normativity and dislike difference. We fear difference. And in our fear, we cast out those who are different; we deny them place, belonging, safety, and sometimes equity and justice.

When someone is different from us in a way that means we cannot easily relate to them or their experience, we distance ourselves from them and circle the wagons around those whom we consider the same as us. This is especially true for those of us whose qualities and characteristics are deemed most normal and good, and who rely on that system of value for security. Acknowledging that others are different requires us to either label them as “less than” or confront the possibility that some of our value and power is undeserved. We attempt to justify our fear by demonizing those who are different. We transform our fear into hate. And then hate, too, becomes normalized.

There’s another thing worth pointing out about assigning value to normativity. When we base our standards of normativity on majority or dominant experience, we expect those with other needs to either adapt or be excluded. Even at our best, we often treat differing needs as a burden or hurdle to be overcome, rather than simply . . . a difference. This bars some people—especially those with differing abilities—from full participation in community, and in their absence, ideas of what is majority experience or normative get further entrenched because they aren’t there to challenge the dominant narrative. It’s worth asking whether normativity is really more myth than actual functional reality. And even if it’s not, it’s worth asking: is normal really better?

“God’s People” and God as “They” (Difference in the Bible)

An honest look at Scripture reveals that much of the Bible is as likely to reinforce the idea that differences are bad as to reject such a narrative. The story of the ancient Israelites depicted in the Hebrew Testament is one of a people set apart, specially anointed, protected, and loved by God. Many of their countless laws served to protect and highlight their cultural distinctiveness as a people. Non-Israelites, from the Egyptians to the Canaanites to the Moabites and so on, are generally depicted as evil oppressors or sinful idolaters or both. Over and over again, God rains devastation down on those who are not “God’s people” while sparing the Israelites with whom God has established an everlasting covenant through Abraham. On the one hand, these ancient stories played a key role in solidifying the identity of the small and often beleaguered nation of Israel. However, some of the biblical stories—in both Testaments—that depict other people as bad or unclean have been used well into the modern era to justify hate and bigotry. For example, the curse of Ham that occurs in Genesis 9 was used by Christians, Muslims, and Jews alike to justify the enslavement and horrific treatment of black people for centuries.

The Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 serves as an etiological myth explaining why the world has different peoples and languages. According to Genesis, at one time all people—who were not so many generations removed from the garden of Eden, and not far removed at all from Noah—were still connected and still spoke one language. They decided to build a mighty tower, determined to make it so tall that it could reach God in heaven. And they worked together to make it happen. Yay for teamwork! Except, God did not appreciate their attempts to match God’s might, so God punished them by giving them all different languages so that they couldn’t understand each other anymore or coordinate their efforts. Unable to communicate, they abandoned the tower and scattered to the four corners of this world, separated by tongue and identity.

In this story, our differences—some of them anyway—are a punishment from God intended to divide us and break down communication. And we have been divided, it seems, perpetually ever after. Even Jesus, the Son of God himself, showed bias and prejudice. When he encounters the Syrophoenician (or Canaanite) woman who is seeking healing for her daughter, he rejects her, essentially calling her a dog, because she isn’t a Jew (Matt. 15:21–28; Mark 7:24–30). Luckily, when she pushes back, he checks himself and praises her faith. This move is one of many during his ministry when Jesus makes it clear that the gospel isn’t only for a certain kind of person. But it’s also a moment that reminds us of Jesus’ humanity, and that he was born into a world defined by difference and judgment.

Despite these instances, the Bible is also chock-full of stories about the acceptability—the holiness, even—of difference, and it starts right at the beginning. In Genesis 1, we’re introduced to a God who is described as “they.” Verse 26 tells us that God says, “Let us make humankind in our image.” Not me. Not mine. God, in this very first chapter of the Bible, is referred to in the plural. Scholars will tell you that the reason for this pronoun trickiness is because when ancient Judaism arose, polytheism was the standard. No one assumed there was only one god. Not initially. Down through the years, some Christians have also sought to explain this plurality by claiming that it references the heavenly host—all the angels that serve at God’s beck and call. But this plural language also helped early Christians first imagine the Trinity. In the Trinity, and in this origin story, we learn that God contains difference within God’s very self, multiple persons distinct yet entwined, somehow both one and three. How can difference be inherently bad, if it’s a part of who God is?

The diversity within God’s own self is further reflected in what God creates. Countless different animals, plants, land formations, stars, grains of sand. Each its own individual being. Each unique. And all beloved and blessed by God.

And even though Jesus has his moments of prejudice, in Jesus we have a teacher who chooses repeatedly to keep company with those whose differences have made them outcasts in society: those who have disabilities or illnesses, those who are sex workers, children, lepers, tax collectors, and criminals. Jesus sees each person he encounters as worthy of love and care. He preaches that we are to love those who are different from us—even our enemies. In the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–37), Jesus challenges long-held prejudices by making the hero of his story not a rabbi, or even another Jew, but a Samaritan. Of all the people who pass by the man wounded on the side of the road, only the Samaritan stops to help him.

Interestingly, while the Bible makes clear in this story that Samaritans and Jews are not allies, they may not be as different from one another as we think. According to Samaritan tradition, they had been one people until the Babylonian captivity, when the tribes of Judah were exiled. The tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (Joseph’s sons, from whom the Samaritans claim descent) remained behind. While they were separated, their beliefs and traditions evolved in different ways. When the Babylonian exile ended and the two groups faced one another once again, each group thought it had maintained the true faith while the other had strayed. People who had once understood each...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Foreword by Diana Butler Bass
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1. The Gift of Difference
• 2. The Gift of Doubt
• 3. The Gift of Argument
• 4. The Gift of Tension
• 5. The Gift of Separation
• 6. The Gift of Vulnerability
• 7. The Gift of Trouble
• 8. The Gift of Protest
• 9. The Gift of Hunger
• 10. The Gift of Limitations
• 11. The Gift of Failure
• 12. The Gift of Uncertainty
• Questions for Reflection and Discussion
• Notes