You can listen to this post read aloud or you can read it for yourself:

I write this post with much trepidation. Politics is one of those arenas I have inwardly resolved to steer clear from publicly. Yet that said, this is not really a commentary on politics. It’s a commentary on binary systems and their inherent pitfalls. Since it’s an election year here in the United States (and a mere eleven days beyond the attempted Trump assassination), politics just happens to be the subject of my application. But I will not be commenting directly on specific candidates, parties, behaviors, or stances. This post is more of an invitation for you to consider your stance on how you approach politics (or any other apparently polarized or binary sphere of your life). Tread courageously.

Few people can discuss politics anymore without creating divisive reactions. I suspect a lot of people fall into the category of either being so confident in their political stance that they announce their positions with authoritarian confidence, caring little for who they bowl over along the way or they tend to hide and not speak up at all because stating one’s mind seems like a precarious minefield. Even in safe relationships I bring up the topic of politics with hesitation, moving onto ground that feels tenuous. Most of the time I don’t want to turn an interaction of relationship into an interaction of embattled opposite forces. Bringing up the topic can change the very energy in the room.

Even here in Nebraska where we have a unique state legislature with a single house and representatives without any official political affiliation, bifurcation is happening. My husband had a personal conversation with a state legislator in the last year where it was acknowledged that there used to be a lot of bipartisan collaboration. It wasn’t about Republicans and Democrats. It was about Nebraska and the good of the state. But that is no longer the case. Although representatives are not officially named as belonging to one party or the other, the general public knows who belongs where and voting on issues has divided down bipartisan lines. There has been no lack of grid-locked legislative sessions.

None of us have to go far to witness this national reality on social media. The vitriol flies. Assumptions and judgments run amok. People aren’t listening. They are reacting and justifying.

I left social media at the start of the 2020 pandemic because social media tends to lend itself to these binary reactions. Even the response tools provided are binary. Thumbs up, or thumbs down. There’s not much variety to be nuanced, to agree in part but not all. Or to empathize with the experience but disagree with the conclusion. Or… And the element of being online seems to allow quite normal people, who would never be so rude in person, to become brazenly harsh, demanding, or judgmental. The algorithms reward controversy and outsized reactions. Those posts get more attention, more response. And the cycle perpetuates.

The main thing I want to draw your attention to about all this is how binary this system (and even our responses to the system) are by nature. Red or blue. Right or wrong. Like or dislike. Inclusive or non-inclusive. Black or white. Winners or losers. It’s two opposite forces pitted against one another, and often locked into what seems like an unresolvable gridlock.

None of this is going to get us anywhere.

The Law of Three

I mentioned in the last post that I’m taking an online spiritual course called The Divine Exchange with Cynthia Bourgeault. She’s been teaching us about ternary systems versus binary systems (three parts instead of two). Here’s my best attempt to explain a really complex concept in simple terms (for a fuller explanation I recommend Chapters 2 & 3 of her book The Holy Trinity and the Law of Three which I will quote from):

            There’s an affirming force.

            Then there is a counter denying force.

            (Don’t get stuck in thinking of these forces in binary terms such as good and bad or positive or negative. They are just two oppositional forces that offer some kind of resistance to each other. They can just as simply be called first and second forces.)

            To reach the reconciling, a Third Force must arise that is somehow outside and other (or even within) to cause a shift and synthesis. To break the binary lock and make room for something new to grow or arise in its place.

            Then the cycle can eventually begin again.

Here’s a concrete example to help you wrap your mind around this: seed/earth/sun=sprout

“Seed, the first or ‘affirming’ force, meets ground, the second or ‘denying’ force (and at that, it has to be moist ground, water being its most critical component). But even in this encounter, nothing will happen until sunlight, the third or ‘reconciling’ force, enters the equation. Then among the three they generate a sprout, which is the actualization of the possibility latent in the seed—and a whole new ‘field’ of possibility” (16).

Bourgeault is teaching us to watch for this pattern and work with it within our lives. One of the first places I see application is within my marriage. A marriage is between two individuals, an affirming force and a denying force (again, don’t think positive and negative; just two forces at times in opposition). We could apply this to any relationship in some ways, but in marriage there are two people in a relationship of permanence from which is there is no easy out or escape. If we’re honest, how many of us find ourselves caught in the same repetitive loop in the relationship, stuck in the same spots, having the same fights? It can be a binary gridlock. So I find myself wanting to get curious about inviting a Third Force into this dynamic. It might come from my own internal opening, practices such as Centering Prayer. It might come from an outside source, like the wisdom our counselor has to offer. Some might call it a form of mercy or grace. But the result should be that my husband and I could turn from being poised against each other to turning to look or move in the same direction towards something else.

There is debate within the field of this study over whether or not the third force is “discovered in a situation or is it created? Or is it invoked? Is the missing piece already right there under everyone’s nose, or is it specifically catalyzed by the infusion of a particular kind of conscious energy?” (The Holy Trinity and the Law of Three, p.45). Bourgeault believes it’s probably a case of both/and. She prefers the idea that “third force is midwifed, and the midwife is our conscious attention” (45). Whatever it is, and wherever it comes from, the Third Force will throw off the symmetrical binary nature of the relationship and introduce an asymmetry that can bring change and hopefully growth.

It always contains an element of surprise—I didn’t see that coming. It also doesn’t take sides. Third Force’s “most powerful telltale is the sense of satisfaction attending it. Unlike a compromise, which so often leaves both parties feeling unfulfilled and still polarized, there is an ‘aha’ quality to a Law of Three solution that allows first and second forces to relax their grip and quietly retire from their respective posts. The new triad is free to arise” (42).

Applied to Politics

Another area I readily find opportunity for application is in politics. The more I listen and observe the bifurcated nature of what is going on nationally and even globally, the more I feel sick within my being. As long as we stay within the polarized nature of the system, change will not be possible. I find myself holding this knowledge within my being and hoping or praying for some kind of alternative, a Third Force, to come into being to surprise us all.

I’m not really talking about a third political party in the United States. Granted, a viable third party could make the political landscape more diverse and balanced, but I don’t think that is the solution that I’m yearning for. A third party is still stuck on a practical, cerebral realm of existence. Third Force includes a shift of being. It’s a dynamic flow, a way of relating. It’s a spiritual reality.

I’m not holding any fantasies that my thoughts or contemplation on this will change a national system. But I do think we are each responsible to nurture the fields of influence that we do have. I listened to a webinar recently that brought up the weight so many people feel about what is going on globally. One thing the speaker said was that we can’t change war on a global level, but we can eliminate it from our living rooms and our bedrooms. I find that beautiful, and convicting. If each of us took up that goal and responsibility, eventually, the global-sized wars would somehow take care of themselves.

So here follows my practical thoughts of application on this subject for where we find ourselves in the current political climate:

Stop making assumptions about the other side.

How much of our political discourse is filled with all-or-nothing phrases that pass judgment on the other side? Everyone who votes for Trump is not a white supremist or a Christian nationalist. Everyone who votes for Biden is not a communist or a baby-killer. Knowing someone’s political affiliation does not tell you everything about that person. Have you bothered to work to understand? Why does that person think the way they do? Have you ever asked and really been willing to listen, not just listen to refute or respond?

Don’t view the other side as the enemy.

Bourgeault emphasizes that according to the Law of Three, “What appears to be the resisting or opposing force is never actually the problem to be overcome. Second force […] is a legitimate and essential component in every new arising: no resistance, no new arising!” (39). So the beauty of approaching situations of all kinds with this mindset is that it’s not the other party that is the problem. We both need something that has not materialized. Perhaps we both want something good for the country. That person on the other side of the aisle that you hate (or at least hate their ideas) is also made in the image of God. They carry divine DNA in their being. And on a spiritual plane they are connected to you. We all impact each other. They are not the enemy.

This current election in the USA will go on. A candidate will be chosen. On our current trajectory, whichever side “wins” or “loses” will rejoice or bemoan the fate of the country. People will continue to dig in their heels in a bifurcated system of us versus them. The election will only be a continued perpetuation of a two-part system. The Law of Three invites us to look towards something more. “According to the Law of Three, once an impasse has constellated, it can never be solved by going backward but only forward, into that new arising that honors all the players and brings them into a new relationship” (39). Did you hear that? Honors all the players.

Our enemy is something beside the other party. Probably our own ego, our own false operating system within each of us, trying to get its way. Over-identifying with a certain label, agenda, or political party is an ego-centric way of forming an identity. You are more than a label. So is the other person.

Don’t place your hope in any political party or system

Every political figure in any and every party is flawed and broken. Trump’s past is riddled with questionable sexual encounters with women. Biden’s history has been steeped in power-hungry, financial greed and corruption. Even the more “honorable” players are not immune to the effects of power and the pull of the ego. We all are. So don’t put your hope in any of these people. Don’t put your hope in a political system. No election, even if it turns out the way you want, will solve any of these large, long-term problems.

Our hope must come from somewhere deeper and more secure. Personally I find it more important for me to invest my energy and time in learning how to be fully present and engage spiritual dimensions, than I do traveling down the rabbit hole of the news cycle. Regardless of who wins or loses the election, the spiritual realities I cultivate in my life will still be with me. I’d rather trust in them.

Don’t conflate spirituality with political parties.

Don’t do it. No matter who your candidate may be. Even spiritual authors who I deeply respect and love to read—authors who teach on non-dualistic thinking or who push at the boundaries of where they see faith gone wrong—even they tend to betray bits of their politics in their writings and when they do I feel the sandpaper rub. Is the implicit implication that all non-dualistic spiritual seekers should see politics like they do? Do they think I should vote or not vote for the same candidates? I doubt they mean any shame or duality in their statements, but I find myself having to resist the shame all the same. Or to embrace the dissonance I find within those moments.

I write this less than two weeks after a failed assassination attempt on President Trump. At his Republican National Convention speech he refers to the moment as divine providence. I’m willing to go there. God doesn’t want Trump dead. God doesn’t want any political figure dead. He doesn’t want assassination violence. The near miss of that bullet and the timing of Trump turning his head does seem miraculous. However, Trump also went on to essentially offer this as evidence that “God is on our side.” That, I have to say is not true, if it’s meant to mean that God is on the side of the Republicans.

I have a news flash for you. God doesn’t take sides. He’s not a Democrat, and he’s not a Republican. He’s not even an American. To view God as such is incredibly small-minded. I personally think it is never the business of a religious institution to tell its congregation how they should vote, or even imply that one or the other is the more moral choice. The truth is there are hateful, broken people on both sides of the aisle. And there are genuine, compassionate people on both sides of the aisle.

If your moral convictions influence how you choose to vote, by all means. But don’t be brazen enough to think thoughts such as, “How can that person be a Christian and vote for…” Don’t do it. I’m going to be bold enough to state that there are policies and agendas on both sides of the aisle that honorable, faith-based people espouse with conviction. I also believe there are policies and agendas on both sides of the aisle that reflect the abundant heart of God and also grieve God. Sit with that for while.

Get curious over your own internal reactions.

We all vote for who will make us feel the most comfortable and the least anxious. What we feel most anxious about will vary from person to person. We want to feel economically secure. We want to be able to put food on the table for our families. We want to have our lifestyle choices respected by society. We want our neighborhoods to feel safe from crime. How much of your vested interest in a political stance is actually more about assuaging your anxieties or insecurities? Are there other ways to address those fears or insecurities in more long-term meaningful ways, methods that aren’t controlled by so many factors outside of your control.

Then, besides our own interests, if we are a bit expansive and others-oriented, then we also vote for who we think will do the most people the most good. Both Democrats and Republicans have vastly different ideas of what this means, but I want to extend the benefit of the doubt that the average voter cares for others and wants what is good for our country. Can we find that in common again?

Notice moments of binary opposition that seem “unresolvable.”

Often with politics my instinct is to run away, because the conflict does seem unresolvable. Someone is going to “win” and someone is going to “lose,” and I have relatively little control over the outcome. So I tend to turn off the newsfeeds, avoid politics as much as possible because engaging with it constantly makes me feel unbalanced internally. Putting boundaries on politics I think is healthy. It’s often a toxic field of polarized vitriol. I also don’t need to check my news feed before I go to bed. That’s not a way to invite relaxed sleep.

However, politics is also part of the world I live in. So completely running away and burying my head in the sand is likely not a viable option either. Being present includes being present to the polarity that exists around me. Also being present to the polarity that exists within myself. If I’m uncomfortable, why? Hold that question. Sit with it. If I’m angry or black-and-white in my response to an event or issue. Pause. Hold that response. Is uttering those words aloud going to add to the life and compassion of the field? Or just dig the polarization deeper? All of these things can become opportunities to work with the Law of Three, ways of being present, and understanding psychological and spiritual realities.

Is this bifurcated system an irresolvable problem? I don’t know. I don’t have any brilliant political ideas, but I know that part of the answer is watching for those polarized binary moments and attempting to open and bring something else into the mix instead. Can we learn to really see each other—really see each other? Can we train ourselves to hold presence differently in our lives, and in the lives of those around us? I have to hope that there is more beyond politics, and that someday all this bifurcated resistance will transform into something new. These are the growing pains of our society. What will you and I do with this current moment of being?

References:

• The Holy Trinity and the Law of Three: Discovering the Radical Truth at the Heart of Christianity by Cynthia Bourgeault

---

If you’d like to receive my writing delivered direct to your inbox, subscribe below. To contact me with any thoughts, questions, or response, feel free to use the contact form on my website.

Also, a new Parenting resource page is available on my website, a collection of books and ways to approach spirituality for kids in a contemplative, nuanced fashion.

Be well.