I know my Evangelical friends believe humans are sinful from birth and our main work is to save them from their just deserts. But we are also a very nice species. The vast majority of us hate conflict, we’re easily hurt by slights, and we care about stray animals and lost children to the point of obsession. We can be awful, but most of us are rather polite, and all of us are desperate for love. We are so desperate we have a hard time saying “No,” even when we ought to, if we think it detracts from getting or giving love.
No is often important
Whether we like it or not, though, sometimes saying “No” is very important, and loving. Here is an example of when saying “No” was surprisingly effective. I’ve heard of it happening this way many times:
A mate appeared in the TV room at an unexpected time and turned off the tube. They said, “We need to talk. I can’t keep it in anymore. I want a divorce. You are terrible.” Their partner said, for once, after years of going up and down with their mate, “Well. I guess you’ll have to decide what you need to do.” The mate said, “No. I don’t want to file for divorce; you need to do it.” The partner said, “Well, I am not going to do it” — for once, they said, “No” to their dysregulated mate. They did not get mad and add fuel to the mate’s anxiety-making fire. They did not withdraw and reinforce their fear of abandonment. They calmly said “No.”
The instigator stormed out. It could not be predicted what was going to happen next. It was tempting to go find them and reassure them, or fight with them, or offer a grievance just as powerful as theirs. But the partner did not do it. An hour later, the mate came back and said, “I’m sorry. I should not have said what I said. You are my life. I can’t imagine the future without you.” The “No” actually helped their mate get a handle on what they wanted apart from the fury of their overwhelming feelings.
How to helpfully say “No” is basic training for working with “borderline personalities” (another label which probably needs retiring). I had to learn that the hard way when I was a pastor, since dysregulated people look for love where people will say “Yes” (like in the church), even though their desperate anxiety will usually get them kicked out — the seminal book about them is I Hate you, Don’t Leave Me. I actually invented a few “contracts” that helped people find their way in, safely.
Saying “No!” is crucial when responding to anyone who is acting irrationally or contrary to their own best interests. If someone presents to us and we are drawn into their mania or anger or despair or any unconscious reaction, we should probably say, “No. I don’t want to do that with you,” before we jump in, get hurt, and start hurting others.
Right now we all could use a refresher course on saying “No.” Our surprisingly irrational, megalomaniacal new government keeps turning off our TV and saying something dreadful. Fortunately, we are not married to our leaders. But the need remains. Before we get enmeshed in the dysregulated, abusive pattern being presented, we need to say and act “No.”
Say no to psychopaths
The president is not a normal person. Right now we he is challenging all of us to think about our boundaries, or whether we even have any (“officers” are driving up in unmarked vans, in hoods, to snatch people off the streets these days, after all). And A.I. is collecting what I write — maybe monitoring what you are reading; who knows what can be done with that when the president is so capricious! If he were your houseguest (which is unlikely due to his germ phobia) he’d rearrange your rooms to suit himself and dare you to say “No.” You probably wouldn’t say “No!” because you care, and because dealing with a person who brazenly does not care is hard. But we need to say “No!!”
This week’s brazenness has School Boards and Universities all over the country wrestling with whether to say no to the regime’s attempt to roll back anything that looks like preferential treatment to people of color, including the ancestors of slaves. Some programs I love and support are now causing problems with Universities charged with getting rid of them. Here are people near Nashville having the problem:
People are worried that something resembling a “DEI expenditure” will be in the budget somewhere and potentially noticed by some new bureaucrat rooting out diversity, equity and inclusion and rooting in uniformity, inequity and exclusion (as Pete Buttigieg aptly points out). Are we going to say “No” to uniformity, inequity and exclusion or not? Or will we rush to ChatGPT and ask it to scrub our statements? Again, what would Jesus do?
There is no real process for losing the funds, of course, yet. We’re still just under the onslaught of dubious presidential decrees and illegal impoundments. But schools are conforming because they fear they’ll lose some funds, get outed on Truth Social, or infuriate donors – they can only imagine what might happen. And they do imagine it and act on their fear. That’s the authoritarian playbook in action.
Many states have hopped on the bandwagon and begun to pass bills to eradicate DEI. Here’s a list of bills and what they mean [link]. In my opinion, they mostly just demand we stop saying “No” to racism and pretend white supremacy is equality. But you can decide for yourself.
@diddlyfrickinsquat the cherry on top of this is that my undergrad is in history… I’m so numb at this point #cabaretmusical #thoughtdaugher #returntotiktok #dearcolleagueletter
It got started with the “dear colleague” letter
It is unnerving when you wake up one day and a previously-unknown bureaucrat gives you an order. Educators got a letter designed to undo decades of assistance to students who bear the weight of systemic racism. Last week many of them finally read the “Dear Colleague” decree from the soon-to-be-dismantled Department of Education issued on Valentine’s Day under the authority of Craig Trainor, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. You should read it. It is a breathtaking sea change. I’ll give you some highlights that show you why people are wondering who they invited to spend the weekend. I highlighted my highlights:
- Educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon “systemic and structural racism” and advanced discriminatory policies and practices. Proponents of these discriminatory practices have attempted to further justify them—particularly during the last four years—under the banner of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (“DEI”), smuggling racial stereotypes and explicit race-consciousness into everyday training, programming, and discipline.
- Nebulous concepts like racial balancing and diversity are not compelling interests. As the Court explained in [the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard], “an individual’s race may never be used against him” and “may not operate as a stereotype” in governmental decision-making.
- Although SFFA addressed admissions decisions, the Supreme Court’s holding applies more broadly. At its core, the test is simple: If an educational institution treats a person of one race differently than it treats another person because of that person’s race, the educational institution violates the law. Federal law thus prohibits covered entities from using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.
- Other programs discriminate in less direct, but equally insidious, ways. DEI programs, for example, frequently preference certain racial groups and teach students that certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens that others do not. Such programs stigmatize students who belong to particular racial groups based on crude racial stereotypes. Consequently, they deny students the ability to participate fully in the life of a school.
- All educational institutions are advised to: (1) ensure that their policies and actions comply with existing civil rights law; (2) cease all efforts to circumvent prohibitions on the use of race by relying on proxies or other indirect means to accomplish such ends; and (3) cease all reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or aggregators that are being used by institutions in an effort to circumvent prohibited uses of race. Institutions that fail to comply with federal civil rights law may, consistent with applicable law, face potential loss of federal funding. Anyone who believes that a covered entity has unlawfully discriminated may file a complaint with OCR. Information about filing a complaint with OCR, including a link to the online complaint form, is available here.
Anti-racism is now racism. Animal Farm and 1984 will soon be banned from schools, I suppose, since we’re supposed to unlearn what Orwell taught us. I will let you dialogue with Trainor’s claims, since an argument can be made. But I find his thinking a short step away from a slave being told, “You should be happy you have a Christian master.” Regardless, the main message that came to me and educators I know was, “There is a new sheriff in town. Change your mind and change your ways, or you won’t get your share of the tax money.”
If I lose money as a consequence, will I still say “No?” Will the institution fire me if I suggest resistance? Will I stick out, in contrast to compliant people, and my family will wonder what I’m doing to them?
Again, what would Jesus do?
Since Jesus was a teacher without an institution and a psychologist without a license or guild, I guess it is kind of obvious what he would do. He found it quite easy to say “No” to all sorts of dysregulated regulators — people who actually believed the Son of God was going to ruin their world! He’s never been too tied to the present homeostasis.
I don’t think Jesus cares much about the latest status quo, he has deeper things to do. When he says from the cross, “Father forgive them for they don’t know what they are doing,” that is his most loving “No.” Your borderline loved one does not really know what they are doing, either. Donald Trump and Elon Musk do not really care what they are doing to you as long as they rule you. Jesus on the cross is a big “No” to that, and big “No!” to whatever destroys love and peace. The cross is a big “No!” to sin and death, right? The resurrection is a big promise that you will flourish, one way or another, later if not now, if you say “No” with Him.
I am going to try to keep saying “No!” in direct and loving ways, as needed. The easiest way to do that is, in the case of Trump/Musk, to get out on the street with a sign and 5000 friends. (You see my latest sign above from April 5 in DC).
The hardest way to say “No” is when I have to say it to a co-worker who wants to advance a truth that is not true like, “Educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism.’” Or you have to speak to your mate and say, “No. I do not want to do that with you. I’d rather relate to your true self. I’d rather both of us relate to God right now.”
I think one of the messages of the Gospel is “Say ‘No’ now. Things will not get better or just stay the same.” If you go along with the powers you might “gain the world and lose your soul.” Paul says it clearly:
Be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his power; put on the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil, for our struggle is not against blood and flesh but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to withstand on the evil day and, having prevailed against everything, to stand firm. — Ephesians 6:10-13
I know, Master Trump says DEI is the devil and Venezuelans are demons, and that uniformity, inequity and exclusion is the law now. Yes, I am saying “No” to that and “Yes” to freedom, forgiveness and fellowship. And I think we all need to say “No” now, because it may soon be too late to say anything at all.