The Voice of Reason

Troubled times call for a voice of reason. Someone to stop and make the conflicting parties acknowledge the issues which each rightfully feels warrant their position and then work towards an accord for all to be satisfied and accepted. Yet, what is there is no reason? I don’t mean the catalyst which began the escalation, I mean the ability to decipher and answer the questions, why, what, when, where and how.

What if you don’t know the reason well enough to be reasonable, to act reasonable, to seem reasonable so much so that all your thoughts and their resulting actions appear to everyone as unreasonable. Is it possible to have a reason that is so selfish that it is unreasonable to everyone else but you and you’re perfectly willing to live with the results of that?

What if the reason for every conflict was simply because no one wanted to accept the reasonable response from someone everyone thought to be unreasonable? What if this response of reason was so perfect in its capability to nullify all conflict that people found it to be unreasonable? What if this reasonable response forced everyone to accept an unreasonable action and its result to eliminate the conflict and all conflicts to come? What if unreasonable parties refused to accept the reasoned action unable to recognize its long-term consequences, but the action was carried out anyway? Would these parties be required to formally accept the reasonable act before their peers in order to receive all benefits from it or would they be able to continue living in their unreasonable circumstances while permitting the benefits of the reasonable action to continue working around them?

How would we recognize that a reasonable action has been already conducted which addresses all conflicts? Is there a means of reason which will distinguish this action particularly if the action at the time it was conducted was deemed to be unreasonable? If unreasonable parties found a reasonable action to be unreasonable at the time of its accomplishment, would not all reasonable results from this action to date be viewed under the specter of unreasonableness and prevent even reasonable people from recognizing the reason for the action?

What if the reason for all the conflicts about gender roles, marriage partners, political affiliations, lifestyle choices, race relations, debt obligations, misconduct in the workplace and home, plus any of a number of reasons to be mad at some else, were addressed by, and completed in, a reasonable action deemed to be unreasonable by unreasonable people? Can unreasonable people be expected to understand, let communicate to future generations, a truly reasonable action which addresses all conflict heretofore deemed unreasonable?

Is it truly unreasonable to expect unreasonable parties to come and reason together if they are unwilling to accept a prior reasonable act designed for their discord? Is it proper to dismiss the reasons for their actions as being unreasonable if they haven’t accepted a prior action, and the benefits it has afforded them, during the course of their lives, up to, and including, their most recent conflict?

Can we all agree that the singular characteristic of the voice of reason is found in a word? Why do we find it so unreasonable to accept the grace, for it is grace we seek in every conflict, offered from this word? Is it ever reasonable to find grace unreasonable if its purpose has always been to promote accord?

What reason could be more vital to our well-being as a people than trying to understand the unreasonable act of God becoming a human of reason, in an unreasonable social structure, betrayed, judged and sentenced to death, brutally beaten, crucified, buried, resurrected, and ascended as the reasonable action of love of the Creator for His creation? What if we are never able to find reason in these actions? Would it then seem reasonable to dismiss them even though others refuse to? How is it possible that we believe our reasons for every conflict outweigh the reasonable actions of love taken by our Creator to secure our ability to not only reach, but live in, accord with one another?

Reasons, anyone? I’m open to any reasonable response. Can the same be said for you?