Respectful Conversations about Divisive Issues: A Place to Start

/in /by

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you for a reason for the hope you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15, NIV)

A Myth that Precludes Conversation

Over the last few years, I had the opportunity to engage other Christians in conversations regarding the following controversial issues about which Christians have strong disagreements: American politics; the evolutionary creationist/young-earth creationist debate; immigration reform; and same-sex marriage.

Christians hold widely divergent views on these “hot-button” issues. One of the most important results of my in-depth conversation with Christians who situate themselves at opposite poles on these issues was to dispel a very prevalent, pernicious myth.

The myth is that Christians who line-up on a particular side of the issue are “inferior” Christians who are more committed to a social or political position than to biblical authority. That is simply not true as a generalization. In my conversations, I have found that there are equally committed Christians on both sides of these issues who aspire to be faithful followers of Jesus Christ and who hold a “high” view” of Scripture, with much of the disagreement emerging from differing interpretations as to the meaning of relevant biblical passages.

This erroneous myth is destructive because it precludes the possibility of having respectful conversation about disagreements. After all, if you decide up-front that “they are the bad guys,” there is no point in talking: “I have the Truth, you don’t, end of conversation.”

Once you realize that there are faithful, deeply committed Christians on both sides of these issues, you have taken the first foundational step toward having a respectful conversation about your disagreements. How should you then proceed? I will suggest three practical steps that you can take when engaging someone who disagrees with you (on any issue, in any setting).

Steps toward Respectful Conversation

The first step toward facilitating a respectful conversation about a controversial issue is applicable in those situations where you don’t know very well the person who takes an opposing view. In such cases, take the time to really get to know the person who disagrees with you.

A Christian scholar friend of mine told me about an evolution in his response to his critics during Q& A sessions after making presentations at academic conferences. He moved from being defensive to personal engagement. After one presentation, he sought out his most vocal critic and invited him to dinner. Over a good meal, they got to know one another on a personal level, trading outlandish war stories about campus politics at their respective schools and even exchanging soccer coaching tips for their daughters.

By discovering that they had some of the same joys, fears and challenges in life, they started building a relationship of mutual trust, which opened the door for the second step of engagement: uncovering the reasons for your disagreements about certain issues. Even for persons you think you know well, you don’t know them well enough to sustain a respectful conversation until you adequately understand the reasons they have for their beliefs about a given issue.

Everyone has reasons for what they believe, which includes you and the person who disagrees with you. Therefore, it is important to get those reasons out on the table at the very beginning of a conversation. You can do this by simply asking, “Why do you believe that?”

In settings where you are engaging a person whose background differs widely from yours, her reasons may be revealing and helpful as you seek to understand her better. Her interpretations of relevant biblical passages and her other beliefs will be informed by the particular faith tradition in which she is immersed. Her beliefs will also be informed by her personal biography, the experiences she has had in life. Her beliefs may also be informed by her gender and her socio-economic-status. These elements of what scholars call her “particularities” or her “social location” provide some of the reasons for her beliefs. The same is true for you. You need to uncover those reasons or your conversation will hit a dead end.

To uncover the reasons for the other person’s beliefs, you need to listen well; not being quick to talk. By your listening well, the other person will see that you are really interested in understanding their reasons for the position they are taking; you really want to understand their point of view, trying your best to empathetically “put yourself in their shoes.”

When the other person sees that you understand their reasons for the position they are taking, then it is time for you to start talking, sharing your beliefs and the reasons you have for your beliefs. When your respective reasons for your differing beliefs are out on the table, then you have laid the groundwork needed to navigate the third step of engagement: uncovering some common ground and illuminating remaining differences sufficient to be the basis for ongoing conversations.

In what follows, I will call my first two steps my “getting to know you” phase. My experience suggest that these first two steps are the “place to start.” These steps must be taken before there is any hope for fruitfully embarking on the third step in subsequent conversations.

A Biblical Rationale

My proposed strategy for respectfully engaging those who disagree with you flows from my Christian commitment. Jesus calls all who aspire to be his followers to “love our neighbor” (Mark 12:31). To get to know someone well enough to create a safe, welcoming space for that person to express their beliefs and their reasons for holding to those beliefs, and then having respectful conversations in an attempt to uncover our agreements and illuminate our disagreements is, for me, a deep expression  of love for that person. So, the strategy I have suggested for engaging those who disagree with me is not peripheral to my Christian faith; it is a center-piece of my Christian faith; it is my understanding of how I should love those who disagree with me.

Obstacles to Respectful Conversation

The obstacles to actually implementing the strategy for respectful conversation that I am proposing are enormous. I will briefly point to a few of these obstacles.

The first obstacle is lack of humility; my believing that I fully understand God’s Truth about the issue. Because we are all finite, fallible human beings, we all “see through a glass darkly” (I Corinthians 13:12). None of us has a God’s eye view of the Truth about the issue at hand. Therefore, we can learn from those who disagree with us.

This does not mean that I should be wishy-washy about what I believe, or that I should succumb to a faulty relativism. As 1 Peter 3:15 suggests, I should be prepared to state my beliefs with clarity and deep conviction. But I may be wrong. So, I need to model that unusual combination of commitment and openness to correction that Ian Barbour points to as a sign of “religious maturity”: “It is by no means easy to hold beliefs for which you would be willing to die, and yet to remain open to new insights; but it is precisely such a combination of commitment and openness that constitutes religious maturity.”

Another obstacle is lack of patience. The conversations on controversial issues in which I have participated in recent years have barely scratched the surface relative to my proposed third step, and, therefore, as far as I can tell, have not led to momentous changes in the beliefs of the participants. But an absolutely necessary strong foundation of mutual understanding and mutual trust had been laid by the two “getting to know you” steps that will enable participants to better grapple with the substance of their agreements and disagreements in ongoing conversations. The initial conversations in which I have participated need to be followed by ongoing conversations. And, as I am fond of saying, one cannot judge beforehand the results of a respectful conversation. We will all need to be patient and see what emerges from such ongoing conversations since that will take time.

But I have seen significant changes in how those involved in these initial conversations now view those who disagree with them; they have come to trust their integrity as brothers and sisters in Christ. They have come to understand and appreciate the ways in which the other person aspires to be a faithful follower of Jesus. They have embraced the opportunity to have Christian fellowship with one another in the midst of their disagreements.

In a world where Christians too often demonize other Christians who disagree with them on controversial issues, such changes in how we view those who disagree with us are no small accomplishment and they open the door for fruitful ongoing conversations (Step 3) based on mutual understanding and trust; conversations that will require much time and patience. They may also be significant steps in the direction of an answer to the prayer of Jesus that all Christians “may be one” (John 17:21) in the midst of their disagreements.

A third obstacle is fear. I can hesitate to propose an unpopular minority position on a controversial issue because I fear that others, including family and friends, may call into question the integrity of my Christian commitment.

At the institutional level, there is often fear that to even allow discussion of some of these controversial issues in churches, denominations, para-church organizations or Christian institutions of higher education will lead to schism or a diminishing of membership or constituency support, and there is ample evidence that this has already taken place.

These risks at the institutional level are real and should not be taken lightly. But I pose a question to the leaders of such Christian institutions, based on my unswerving commitment to the belief that all Christians, and their institutions, ought to always be striving to gain a better understanding of the “Truth” (as only God fully knows it) about any given issue: If faithful Christians have disagreements about a given issue, should that override the fear that seems to preclude creating safe spaces to respectfully discuss these disagreements?

The following words of 1 John 4:18 too easily roll off my tongue, but they may be calling all Christians to take the risks associated with an unyielding commitment to seek after Truth: “perfect love casts our fear.”

I Have Seen it Happen with my Own Eyes  

Talking about words that too easily roll off the tongue, my proposed strategy for facilitating respectful conversation may elicit expressions of agreement, in the abstract. But does that strategy really “work” when you manage to gather in the same room those who disagree strongly about a given controversial issue?

At one level, I am not concerned about whether my proposed strategy “works.” I have argued that it is the “right thing” for Christians to do, as a deep response to the commandment of Jesus that we who claim to be his followers should love those who disagree with us, independent of the results of such respectful engagement.

But a marvelous bonus is that, in addition to this intrinsic value of respectful conversation, such conversation also has the potential to have enormous instrumental value in the form of laying the foundation from which conversation partners may inch, however so slowly, by means of subsequent conversations, toward a greater understanding of God’s Truth relative to the difficult issue being discussed.

Lest you think this is wishful thinking in the abstract, I will provide some compelling empirical evidence for this assertion from two recent conversations in which I have participated, focusing on my claim above that the initial “getting to know you” phase of a conversation can effect a significant change in “how those who disagree with one another view each other” (the tell-tale sign that a “genuine conversation” has started, as suggested by the Mennonite scholar Carolyn Schrock-Shenk in the book Stumbling Toward a Genuine Conversation on Homosexuality, edited by Michael A. King, Cascadia Publishing House, 2007, p. 15).

The setting for the first conversation, in the summer or 2013, was Point Loma University in San Diego, where The Colossian Forum (TCF), for whom I serve as a Senior Fellow,  gathered a group of nine scholars who disagreed strongly about the “Origins” issue of “how” God created the universe, with the starkly contrasting views being young-earth creationism and evolutionary creationism. We got to know one another by reading scripture and praying together, and participating in a variety of informal activities, ranging from enjoying meals together to a splendid hike on the shore of the Pacific Ocean. And we talked respectfully about our disagreements.

Over these few days together, I didn’t witness huge changes in the beliefs of participants about “how” God created. But I did witness a portion of the gradual changes in how participants viewed those who disagreed with them. One young-earth creationist has changed his view that a particular evolutionary creationist who he engaged at this forum was a “dirty, rotten compromiser,” and has apologized to that other scholar and has committed to apologizing to all those to whom he portrayed the other scholar in that negative light. In the other direction, this particular evolutionary creationist has changed his view that the young-earth creationist was not interested in doing “credible science,” and now views him as a fellow highly-qualified scientist, who struggles, as he does, with reconciling scientific findings with his interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis.

The climax to our time together in San Diego was when, in our closing session, we each prayed for the person seated on our right, whatever his/her views on “how” God created, thanking God for that person and praying for specific needs that we learned about during our time together. The person on my right had recently lost his teaching position and was struggling to keep food on the table. I prayed that God would graciously provide for his needs, and it made no difference that we disagreed about “how” God created the universe.

The setting for the second conversation, also hosted by TCF in the summer of 2014, was Calvin College. TCF gathered together about 25 Christian scholars, practitioners and pastors, including gay Christians and “straight” Christians, to talk about “Christian Faithfulness and Human Sexuality.” The featured presenters included a prominent gay Christian who believes in the moral legitimacy of lifelong, committed, monogamous same sex-marriages and an equally prominent gay Christian who disagrees, believing that gay Christians are called to a life of celibacy. The four days of conversation were intense and challenging, while being respectful.

Once again, I didn’t witness sea-changes in the views on the participants about LGBT issues during these conversations, since we didn’t get far into Step 3. But as we got to know one another better, again through worshiping together and sharing meals and informal conversations, I did witness an increase in mutual understanding and mutual respect among those who disagreed strongly about these difficult issues, with a growing appreciation that all participants aspired to live faithful to their respective understandings of what it means to be a follower of Jesus.

A humorous incident that brought home this change in how participants viewed those who disagreed with them occurred when a gay Christian said to a “straight” Christian with whom he had strong disagreements words to the effect that “based on my reading of much that you have published, I came to Grand Rapids prepared to dislike you. But now I find that I like you.” Although these two participants had some tense exchanges at these meetings, I believe they have laid the foundation for some fruitful subsequent conversations.

Some readers may view the above two examples as my making too much fuss over very modest accomplishments. But to change your view about someone who disagrees with you is no small accomplishment and is increasingly rare in our day, both inside and outside the Church. I will grant that these examples represent only a “beginning” in an attempt to gain greater clarity as to God’s Truth about some very difficult issues. These initial “getting to know you” conversations need to be followed by more in-depth conversations about substantive agreements and disagreements. But I believe it is the only fruitful place to start.

My Personal Aspirations

Closing on a personal note, I share with you the ideals to which I aspire whenever I engage someone who disagrees with me, confessing that I often fail to measure up to these ideals

 

·       I will try to listen well, providing each person with a welcoming space to express her perspective on the issue at hand
·       I will seek to empathetically understand the reasons another person has for her perspective
·       I will express my perspective, and my reasons for holding that perspective, with commitment and conviction, but with a non-coercive style that invites conversation with a person who disagrees with me
·       In my conversation with a person who disagrees with me, I will explore whether we can find some common ground that can further the conversation. But, if we cannot find common ground, I will conclude that “we can only agree to disagree;” yet I will do so in a way that demonstrates respect for the other and concern for her well-being and does not foreclose the possibility of future conversations.
·       In aspiring to these ideals for conversation, I will also aspire to be characterized by humility, courage, patience and love
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
It is my hope and prayer that all who read this musing will also consider embracing these ideals because I believe they are a deep expression of what it means to love the persons with whom you disagree, to which Jesus calls all who profess to be his followers. 

Respectful Conversation as a Deep Expression of Love

/in /by

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you for a reason for the hope you  have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15, NIV)

Over the last few years, I had the opportunity to engage other Christians in conversations regarding the following controversial contemporary issues: American politics; the evolutionary creationist/young-earth creationist debate; immigration reform; and same-sex marriage.

Christians hold widely divergent views on these “hot-button” issues. One of the most important results of my in-depth conversation with Christians who situate themselves at opposite poles on these issues was to dispel a very prevalent, pernicious myth.

The myth is that Christians who line-up on a particular side of the issue are “inferior” Christians who are more committed to a social or political position than to biblical authority. That is simply not true as a generalization. In my conversations, I have found that there are equally committed Christians on both sides of these issues who aspire to be faithful followers of Jesus Christ and who hold a “high” view” of Scripture, with much of the disagreement emerging from differing interpretations as to the meaning of relevant biblical passages.

This erroneous myth is destructive because it precludes the possibility of having respectful conversation about disagreements. After all, if you decide up-front that “they are the bad guys,” there is no point in talking: “I have the Truth, you don’t, end of conversation.”

Once you realize that there are faithful, deeply committed Christians on both sides of these issues, you have taken the first foundational step toward having a respectful conversation about your disagreements. How should you then proceed? I will suggest three practical steps that you can take when engaging someone who disagrees with you (on any issue, in any setting).

The first step is applicable in those situations where you don’t know very well the person who disagrees with you. In such cases, take the time to really get to know the person who disagrees with you.

A Christian scholar friend of mine told me about an evolution in his response to his critics during Q& A sessions after making presentations at academic conferences. He moved from being defensive to personal engagement. After one presentation, he sought out his most vocal critic and invited him to dinner. Over a good meal, they got to know one another on a personal level, trading outlandish war stories about campus politics at their respective schools and even exchanging soccer coaching tips for their daughters.

By discovering that they had some of the same joys, fears and challenges in life, they started building a relationship of mutual trust, which opened the door for the second step of engagement: uncovering the reasons for your disagreements about certain issues.

Everyone has reasons for what they believe, which includes you and the person who disagrees with you. Therefore, it is important to get those reasons out on the table at the very beginning of a conversation. You can do this by simply asking, “Why do you believe that?”

In settings where you are engaging a person whose background differs widely from yours, her reasons may be revealing and helpful as you seek to understand her better. Her interpretations of relevant biblical passages and her other beliefs will be informed by the particular faith tradition in which she was raised. Her beliefs will also be informed by her personal biography, the experiences she has had in life. Her beliefs may also be informed by her gender and her socio-economic-status. These elements of what scholars call her “particularities” or her “social location” provide some of the reasons for her beliefs. And the same is true for you. And you need to uncover those reasons or your conversation will hit a dead end.

To uncover the reasons for the other person’s beliefs, you need to listen well; not being quick to talk. By your listening well, the other person will see that you are really interested in understanding their reasons for the position they are taking; you really want to understand their point of view; trying your best to empathetically “put yourself in their shoes.”

When the other person sees that you understand their reasons for the position they are taking, then it is time for you to start talking, sharing your beliefs and the reasons you have for your beliefs. When your respective reasons for your differing beliefs are out on the table, then you have laid the groundwork needed to navigate the third step of engagement: uncovering some common ground and illuminating remaining differences sufficient to be the basis for ongoing conversations.

My proposed strategy for respectfully engaging those who disagree with you flows from my Christian commitment. Jesus calls all who aspire to be followers of Jesus to “love our neighbor” (Mark 12:31). To get to know someone well enough to create a safe, welcoming space for that person to express their beliefs and their reasons for holding to those beliefs, and then having respectful conversations in an attempt to uncover our agreements and illuminate our disagreements is, for me, a deep expression  of love for that person. So, the strategy I have suggested for engaging those who disagree with me is not peripheral to my Christian faith; it is a center-piece of my Christian faith; it is my understanding of how I should love those who disagree with me.

The obstacles to actually implementing the strategy for respectful conversation that I am proposing are enormous. I can only point to two of these obstacles in this limited space.

The first obstacle is lack of humility; my believing that I fully understand God’s Truth about the issue. Because we are all finite, fallible human beings, we all “see through a glass darkly” (I Corinthians 13:12). None of us has a God’s eye view of the Truth about the issue at hand. Therefore, we can learn from those who disagree with us.

This does not mean that I should be wishy-washy about what I believe, or that I should succumb to a faulty relativism. As 1 Peter 3:15 suggests, I should be prepared to state my beliefs with clarity and deep conviction. But I may be wrong. So, I need to model that unusual combination of commitment and openness to correction that Ian Barbour points to as a sign of “religious maturity”: “It is by no means easy to hold beliefs for which you would be willing to die, and yet to remain open to new insights; but it is precisely such a combination of commitment and openness that constitutes religious maturity.”

Another obstacle is lack of patience. As far as I can tell, the conversations on controversial issues in which I have participated in recent years have not led to momentous changes in the beliefs of the participants. But an absolutely necessary strong foundation of mutual understanding and mutual trust had been laid that will enable participants to better grapple with the substance of their disagreements in ongoing conversations. As I am fond of saying, one cannot judge beforehand the results of a respectful conversation. We will all need to be patient and see what emerges from such conversations since that will take time.

But I have seen significant changes in how those involved in these initial conversations now view those who disagree with them. They have come to trust their integrity as brothers and sisters in Christ. They have come to understand and appreciate the ways in which the other person aspires to be a faithful follower of Jesus. They have embraced the opportunity to have Christian fellowship with one another in the midst of their disagreements.

In a world where Christians too often demonize other Christians who disagree with them on controversial issues, such changes in how we view those who disagree with us are no small accomplishment and they open the door for fruitful ongoing conversations based on mutual understanding and trust. They may also be significant steps in the direction of an answer to the prayer of Jesus that all Christians “may be one” (John 17:21) in the midst of their disagreements.

Closing on a personal note, I share with you the ideals to which I aspire whenever I engage someone who disagrees with me, confessing that I often fail to measure up to these ideals

 

·       I will try to listen well, providing each person with a welcoming space to express her perspective on the issue at hand
·       I will seek to empathetically understand the reasons another person has for her perspective
·       I will express my perspective, and my reasons for holding that perspective, with commitment and conviction, but with a non-coercive style that invites conversation with a person who disagrees with me
·       In my conversation with a person who disagrees with me, I will explore whether we can find some common ground that can further the conversation. But, if we cannot find common ground, I will conclude that “we can only agree to disagree;” yet I will do so in a way that demonstrates respect for the other and concern for her well-being and does not foreclose the possibility of future conversations.
·       In aspiring to these ideals for conversation, I will also aspire to be characterized by humility, courage, patience and love
 

It is my hope and prayer that all who read this reflection will also consider embracing these ideals because I believe they are a deep expression of what it means to love the persons with whom you disagree, to which Jesus calls all who profess to be his followers.

LOSS OF TRUST IN GOVERNMENT IS DEVASTATING

/3 Comments/in , /by

A common theme emerged in the reflections of the political pundits on the three recent sources of political crisis: the administration’s talking points on the Benghazi attack; The IRS targeting of conservative organizations seeking 501 (C) 4 tax-exempt status; and the Justice Department’s subpoenas of the phone records of Associated Press reporters. In each case, there was a devastating effect on the level of trust in government.

This eroding level of trust among politicians contributes strongly to the current political gridlock. Those who clamor for “small government” now have more ammunition for questioning any new government programs because government just cannot be trusted to implement any new legislation.

This erosion of trust is even more evident in the abysmal level of confidence in government reported by citizens. This lack of trust on the part of citizens poisons their views on the acceptability, or lack thereof, of major proposals for legislation currently being debated in Congress. For example, in discussing with a pastor friend of mine the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill currently being debated in the U. S. Senate, I applauded the “balanced” nature of the proposed legislation, in that it has strong law and order measures at the same time that it provides a tough but fair pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants (see my May 1 Blog Musing, “The Elusive Search for Balance in Political Legislation”).

The reaction of my friend was sobering: “Yes, but my conservative parishioners are not in favor of this comprehensive plan because they don’t trust the Obama administration to actually implement any law and order measures (e.g., stronger border security) that may be part of a comprehensive package that Congress approves”.

It is hard to overestimate the damage that this loss of trust in government has on political discourse. The brokenness of political discourse among citizens needs to be addressed. But I will focus the remainder of this musing on the appalling state of political discourse among politicians. The problem lies primarily in the ways in which politicians typically engage those on the other side of the aisle.

A bedrock pre-requisite for politicians who disagree with one another about any public policy issue being able to identify the “common ground” needed for governing is that they first achieve a high level of “mutual trust and respect.” Political scientist Stephen Monsma has eloquently elaborated on this pre-requisite in proposing a “Dialogue Model for Cultural Engagement” in stark contrast to the prevalent confrontational model.[1]

In brief, Monsma argues that the first step in his three-step dialogue model is “establishing a spirit of mutual trust and respect with those with whom one disagrees,” either by “establishing personal face-to-face relationships” or, if that is not possible, by engaging “in dialogue in a thoughtful, honest, respectful manner in your writing, speeches, or artistic endeavors” (pp. 28-29). Establishing this relationship of mutual trust and respect will make it “harder for you to write off the other person, and the other person will have a harder time writing you off, as stupid, biased, or evil. It becomes harder for persons in a dispute to demonize the other as foolish or bad” (p. 29).

Monsma’s second step in the dialogue model is an extension of the first step: “Coming to understand why those who are opposed to us take the positions that we see as being wrong” (p. 30). It is when we get to know others in a relationship of trust that we come to a mutual understanding of how our respective social locations inform our differing perspectives on the issue at hand, which will prepare us to talk respectfully about our disagreements.

It is only after we have engaged one another in these first two steps that we may be prepared to take the huge third step: “that of persons on the other side altering their position – or you, perhaps, altering your position – so as to reach greater, even if not complete, agreement” (p. 30).

I whole-heartedly embrace Monsma’s Dialogue Model for engaging those with whom you disagree. In fact, my entire web site is based on this model. But to suggest that this model is feasible in our current political climate appears to be ludicrous. So what can realistically be done to improve the engagement between politicians?

If you are hoping that I will provide an easy answer, you will be sorely disappointed. Trust cannot be legislated. It can only be earned. And restoring trust that has been lost is an extremely difficult task that typically takes a long time. So, I can only propose a modest first step.

Monsma’s model for dialogic discourse suggests that politicians need to get to know one another better on a personal level, so that they gain clearer understanding of the reasons for their disagreements and earn each other’s respect despite their differences.

Such “personal engagement” between politicians on opposite sides of the aisle, including opportunities for greater social interaction, seems to have virtually disappeared from the current political scene. The result is that those who disagree about important public policy issues typically view each other not as friends, or at least collaborators, seeking what is good for the country, but only as combatants.

As modest as this first step sounds, it will require an enormous shift in how politicians currently engage one another. It is my hope that more politicians will try this “personal” strategy, which should also be pursued to change the mode of engagement between political pundits and other citizens who now prefer to demonize one another. I believe that such a strategy can be a small seed that begins the long, arduous process of rebuilding trust in government. 

 

[1] Stephen V. Monsma, “Called to be Salt and Light: An Overview” in Harold Heie & Michael A. King, Editors, Mutual Treasure: Seeking Better Ways for Christians and Culture to Converse (Telford, PA: Cascadia Publishing House, 2009), pp. 21-36.

THE ELUSIVE QUEST FOR BALANCE IN POLITICAL LEGISLATION

/in , /by

The biggest obstacle to politicians actually governing rather than posturing is the erroneous belief that my side has a monopoly on how to solve the public policy problem at hand and the views of the opposition have little or no value. It’s my way or the highway.

This “either/or” rather than “both/and” thinking typically leads to the proposal of inadequate one-dimensional solutions to multi-dimensional problems, when what is needed is to strike a proper balance that addresses the various dimensions of the problem. Examples of the failure of political legislation that refuses to seek a proper balance are legion.

The stalemate in attempts to solve the Federal Budget Deficit problem results from one-dimensional thinking on both sides of the aisle: either we cut expenditures or we increase revenues. No solution is in sight unless we pursue both strategies, creating a workable balance between them.

The recent failure of proposed gun control legislation reflects a failure to adequately recognize and address the multiple dimensions of the problem of violence in America. The choice is not between either addressing the mental health and “culture of violence” problems that beset our nation or enacting some common sense gun control measures like strengthening the system for background checks. It has to be both.

I am encouraged by the balance that I perceive in the proposal for comprehensive immigration reform that is currently being debated in the U. S. Senate. For those legitimately concerned about law and order issues, the proposed legislation includes strong measures for strengthening border security and combating visa overstays. But it also provides a viable pathway to citizenship for those undocumented workers who are making an enormous contribution to our economy and our country and whose families are being decimated by current immigration laws. However, in the early stages of the debate on this proposed legislation, one-dimensional political voices are already being heard. Time will tell whether this balanced approach has any chance of being legislated.

The need for multi-dimensional solutions to problems extends to American positions on thorny foreign policy issues. Consider, for example, our stance regarding the seemingly intractable conflict between Israel and Palestine. There is absolutely no hope for a solution unless it is recognized that the only viable solution will need to treat both Israelis and Palestinians “justly” (enabling both peoples to flourish). And America will be on the wrong side of history if it fails to advocate for such a balanced solution.

I could go on. But by now you get my point.

If I am right about the need to seek a “proper balance” between competing views on most domestic and foreign policy issues, then that points to what I believe to be two primary reasons for the current gridlock in Washington.

The first reason is that proposing one dimensional solutions to multi-dimensional problems is a piece of cake. It all too easy to argue for either/or solutions that lend themselves to 60 second sound bytes or bumper stickers, and to simply demonize those who do not agree.  Seeking for multi-dimensional solutions is demanding work. It requires that you actually engage those who disagree with you in respectful conversation as you seek to forge a workable balance between competing viewpoints, which is an enormous task since there will be much disagreement about how to define that balance.

A second and even more ominous reason for the current political gridlock is that in our current political climate those who seek for balanced solutions will likely be punished. This is due to the huge lobbying efforts and obscene amounts of money that are expended on promoting the election of one-dimensional politicians and thwarting the political aspirations of those who wish to engage in “principled compromise” with members of the other party toward balanced solutions to our most pressing societal problems. This will not change until the American public refuses to elect politicians who are committed to one-dimensional either/or thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Future of Evangelicalism

/in /by

I invite all my web site readers to follow along and contribute to a new electronic conversation that I will be hosting, starting on May 1, on the topic “American Evangelicalism: Present Conditions, Future Possibilities.” I am guessing that the views that will be expressed on this topic will range from “there is no viable future for Evangelicalism” to “Evangelicalism can have, and should have a vibrant future”. Allow me to conjecture as to why such a wide range of viewpoints may emerge.

It may depend on how one defines some key words and phrases. I will illustrate by reflecting on what are often taken to be pillars of Evangelicalism (drawing on the work of Christian scholar David Bebbington).

The Centrality of the Biblical Record:  Mark Noll has referred to this pillar as “a reliance on the Bible as ultimate religious authority.” But there are narrow and broad views as to what that means. The narrow view is a “Biblicism” that views the Bible as the only source of authority and understanding for the Christian. A broader view, which I embrace, is that whereas the Bible is the primary source and ultimate authority for my understanding of the Christian faith, it is not the only source and authority. Other sources include the Christian tradition, reason, and experience, and knowledge that is uncovered by study in the various academic disciplines.

The Centrality of Personal Commitment to the Christian Faith: Once again, this phrase can be interpreted narrowly or broadly. The narrow view can be called “conversionism;” the view that you aren’t a Christian unless you can point to a time and place when you made a decision to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior (being “born again” at that time). A broader view, which I embrace, is that a Christian is one who aspires to be a “follower of Jesus” by personally appropriating the gift of grace made possible through the person and work of Jesus Christ, and that there is no one prescribed means for such personal appropriation (e,g., it can emerge gradually).

The Centrality of Evangelism: Christians are called to share the “gospel” (the “good news” of restoration made possible by Jesus Christ). A narrow view of such “evangelism” is that the only message we are called to share with all peoples is that God  intends to restore individual persons to a right relationship with God. A broader view of evangelism, which I embrace, is that the “good news” applies to all of God’s creation, not only individuals. The person and work of Jesus Christ are decisive for the restoration of all aspects of the created order, including the natural world and societal structures.

So, whether you think that Evangelicalism can, and should have a vibrant future may depend on whether you embrace the narrow or broad views of the “pillars of Evangelicalism” that I have summarized above, or something in-between.

Of course, what I say above could be all wrong. Thankfully, I have recruited “primary contributors” for this upcoming conversation who have much more expertise on this topic than I do. I can hardly wait to read what they will have to say about present conditions and future possibilities for American Evangelicalism. I invite you to will follow this conversation and contribute your own reflections by submitting comments.

To give you a sneak preview of what is to come, the seven sub-topics that our primary contributors will address (one topic per month, from May through November 2013) are as follows (in the order presented)

1. Evangelicalism and the Broader Christian Tradition

2. Evangelicalism and the Exclusivity of Christianity

3. Evangelicalism and the Modern Study of Scripture

4. Evangelicalism and Morality

5. Evangelicalism and Politics

6. Evangelicalism and Scientific Models of Humanity and Cosmic and Human Origins

7. Evangelicalism and Higher Education

I am pleased that over 20 Christian scholars have committed to being “primary contributors,” including Vincent Bacote (Wheaton College), Randall Balmer (Dartmouth College), Amy Black (Wheaton College), Jeannine Brown (Bethel Seminary). Peter Enns (Eastern University). John Franke (Yellowstone Theological Institute), Stanton Jones (Wheaton College), Richard Mouw (Fuller Theological Seminary), Soong-Chan Rah (North Park Theological Seminary), Sandy Richter (Wesley Seminary), Sarah Ruden (Wesleyan University), Corwin Smidt (Calvin College), Theodore Williams (City Colleges of Chicago), John Wilson (Books & Culture), and Amos Yong (Regent University).

Anytime after May 1, you can contribute to the conversation in a moderated forum by submitting a comment on any posting.

[For an elaboration on the above reflections, including the citations for the scholarly works noted above, see my essay “What Can the Evangelical/Interdenominational Tradition Contribute to Christian Higher Education” under the “Publications” icon on this web site]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Engaging Politicians about Immigration Reform

/in /by

Those of us who have been advocating for immigration reform have been encouraged by the Bipartisan Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform that is being discussed by the Senate. But what is the best way to make our political representatives aware of our support of this proposal? I submit for your consideration some strategies that we have tried in northwest Iowa, the potential success of which remains to be seen.

It appears that we first got the attention of Senator Charles Grassley from Iowa, the leading Republican on the Judiciary Committee that is debating this proposal, when a good number of the 800 plus local residents who had signed a petition “To Fix Our Broken Immigration System” (still available for signature at www.ouriowaneighbors.org) flooded his Sioux City office with phone calls encouraging the Senator to support this measure. In a follow-up phone call a staff member expressed surprise that so many persons from Sioux County had called. This led to the Senator agreeing to a telephone conference call with a representative group of local supporters of this Bipartisan Framework.

So, on March 4, seven of us, representative of the agricultural, educational, and faith communities in Sioux County, had a cordial and respectful conversation with Senator Grassley, and his assistant, Kathy Neubel. We were encouraged by his stating up-front that he was on the line primarily to listen to us. And we gladly embraced his commitment to listening. Our ensuing conversation leads us to make two recommendations for your consideration if and when you engage your political representatives in support of comprehensive immigration reform.

Speak or write from your heart about your first-hand experiences with your immigrant neighbors. I am guessing that many politicians who will decide the fate of the current proposal for immigration reform have had minimal experience “rubbing shoulders” with immigrant populations. When you get to know your immigrant neighbors and listen to their stories of joy and pain, your perspective changes. You will no longer see them as abstract “statistics” (as in “how can we get more of the to vote for us next time”). Rather, they are flesh-and-blood human beings whose pressing needs for assistance and dignity must be addressed.

Those on our end of the telephone line were eloquent and passionate in sharing their joyful and painful experiences with their immigrant neighbors. Representatives of the agricultural sector spoke convincingly of the marvelous work ethic of their immigrant employees, and stated bluntly that they “would go out of business” if it were not for these excellent workers. An educator spoke of the diligence of the children of undocumented immigrants in their school work and of the pressing need for some workable version of the DREAM ACT that would safeguard their interests and future. A local minister spoke of his exposure to the devastating effect that current immigration laws are having on the unity and stability of immigrant families in his congregation. These were not abstract pronouncements. We hope that Senator Grassley felt our pain and the pain of our immigrant neighbors.

Remind your political representative that some aspects of proposed new legislation addresses his/her previous concerns. When Senator Grassley did speak, he reminded us of the position he has stated in writing in the past: “Knowing what we know now [from what didn’t work in the reforms enacted in 1986], any immigration reform bill must include tough and effective enforcement measures and adequately enhance legal immigration opportunities.” We then reminded Senator Grassley that, in addition to “proposing a path to citizenship for unauthorized  immigrants,” the proposed framework makes that pathway “contingent upon securing the border and combating visa overstays” (italics mine). And the proposed framework also calls for a strong employment verification program as well as measures for “improving our legal immigration system.” These are measures for which Senator Grassley has been a past advocate and they are all incorporated into the proposed Bipartisan Framework. We believe that this reminder should count for something as the Senator considers the total proposed framework.

Allow me to conclude by reporting on one “disconnect” in our conversation. Both Senator Grassley and his assistant expressed the view that the Democrats are succumbing to pressure from the unions to NOT make provision for the hiring of lower-skilled immigrant workers. I am not in a position to address the adequacy, or not, of that view. But that is clearly NOT what the Bipartisan Framework proposes. A clergyman on our end of the telephone line graciously quoted, verbatim, the following words from the proposed Bipartisan Framework: “Our proposal will provide businesses with the ability to hire lower-skilled workers in a timely manner when Americans are unavailable or unwilling to fill those jobs” (and our agricultural representatives attested to a high level of such “unavailability and unwillingness”).

 

 

 

 

It’s not My Way or the Highway

/in /by

The surest way to shut down a conversation, or to prevent one from beginning, is to believe that “I have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” and everything that the person on the other side of the aisle or table believes about the topic of conversation is “false.”

This lack of acknowledgement of human fallibility and finitude, and absence of the slightest hint of humility, leads to either/or positions: “We either do it my way, or you can hit the highway.”

This either/or posturing runs rampant in current political discourse. Consider, for example, three political issues that will dominate political discussion during the next few months: the Federal Budget Deficit; Immigration Reform; and Gun Control.

Some will argue that the only way to address the enormous federal budget deficit is through cuts in expenditures. Others will argue that the only solution is increasing revenue. It’s nor either/or. It has to be both/and. There is little hope for solving the Federal Budget Deficit problem unless a balance is struck between the need for cuts in expenditures and the need for increased revenues.

Some will argue that the only way to address our problems with undocumented immigrants is to improve border protection and to punish those who have broken the law by entering our country illegally. Others will argue that the USA needs to provide a viable pathway to citizenship for those undocumented workers who are making an enormous contribution to our economy and our country and whose families are being decimated by current immigration laws. Its not either/or. It has to be both/and. Those who have broken the law should be punished in some appropriate way (but far short of deportation). But they also need to be given the opportunity to gain citizenship and flourish in our country.

In the current debate on gun control, some argue that we must address the “culture of violence” in our country and the lack of adequate mental health care for those having the potential to commit acts of violence due to mental illness. Others argue that Congress must legislate some common sense gun control measures. It’s not either/or. It must be both/and. We cannot address this multi-faceted problem with violence unless we take a both/and approach that seeks a proper “balance” between various strategies.

To be sure, seeking a both/and solution to a complex is no easy task. It is much easier to argue for either/or solutions that lend themselves to 60 second sound bytes or bumper stickers. Those committed to finding the “best balance” between competing views will often disagree strongly about what the “best balance” is. Much further conversation will be needed regarding any given issue. That is why venues for “respectful conversation” among those who disagree with one another are indispensable for future political discourse.

This suggests to me a greater need for what some pundits have called “governing from the middle,” not being beholden to the extremists in either major party who have no interest in seeking common ground. Of course, this is much easier said than done since enormous amounts of money are expended on promoting the election of extremists and thwarting the political aspirations of those who wish to engage in “principled compromise” with members of the other party toward “balanced” solutions to our most pressing societal problems.

The overarching lesson for all of us, in the political realm and everywhere else, is that since no human being has a corner on all of the truth about any given issue, we need to listen and talk to one another so that we can learn from each other’s best insights to identify the common ground needed to live well together.

As a Christian, I believe that my providing a “welcoming place” for someone who disagrees with me to express and talk about those disagreements is a deep expression of what it means for me to “love that person,” to which Jesus calls me.

 

 

The Great Reversal on Immigration Reform

/in /by

I have often expressed my dismay at a political system where politicians focus on getting elected rather than on governing. That brokenness reached new levels in the recent great reversal on the part of numerous leaders of the Republican Party relative to immigration reform. But let me start at the beginning.

In the fall of 2012, a number of us who live in Sioux County in northwest Iowa decided that we needed to speak out on behalf of the growing number of new Hispanic neighbors in our communities who had no voices in the political process. Prompted by our commitment to the teaching of Jesus that those who claim to be his followers need to care for the  marginalized in society (Matthew 25), we started by holding meetings in a local church where we talked with (not at or about) many of our new Hispanic neighbors.

Their stories broke our hearts; especially stories of the ways in which current immigration laws are decimating many of their families, separating parents from each other and from their children. We could no longer remain silent. So, we launched an electronic petition drive to gather signatures of those who would support our concrete proposal to “Fix our Immigration System” (which can be accessed at www.ouriowaneighbors). We gathered over 800 signatures.

We sent our petition to the offices of Christie Vilsack and Steve King, who were vying for the 4th Congressional District seat in Iowa as the Democratic and Republican candidates respectively. We got the attention of Ms. Vilsack who graciously met with 22 of us to listen to and discuss our concerns. Despite his strong, sometimes vitriolic, rhetoric opposing any version of a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, Congressman King indicated the possibility of meeting with us, but that did not materialize before the November 6 election (which he won handily). We hope this will soon happen.

Why did we take this political initiative on the part of our new Hispanic neighbors? Surely not to get elected, since with the exception of one participant who was seeking re-election for a local office, the rest of us were not seeking to get elected to political offices. We did this because we believed it was the “right thing to do” as our response to the call of Jesus to “love our neighbors” (Mark 12: 31).

A few weeks ago, the great reversal took place. Prior to November 6, the idea of immigration reform was anathema to the most influential members of the Republican Party, epitomized by Mitt Romney’s call for “self-deportation” for undocumented immigrants. Shortly after Election Day, numerous leaders in the Republican Party joined in a groundswell of public assertions that now is the time for immigration reform.

It is not appropriate for me to judge the motives of others. I only have access to what people say and do. Therefore, I listened intently to the reasons these Republican leaders gave for this great reversal. I waited, in vain, to hear just one Republican politician or pundit say that our country now needs immigration reform because it is the “right thing to do” to help foster the unity and flourishing of our Hispanic neighbors. The reason given by everyone I heard speak was some variation of the theme that a primary cause of Mitt Romney losing the election was because he garnered just 27 % of the Hispanic vote; and if Republicans want to regain the presidency they need to get more Hispanic votes, which could be brought about by now pushing for immigration reform.

I am pleased that immigration reform will be on the national political agenda in the near future, even if not always for the right reasons. Of course, it is not only Republicans who have stood in the way of significant reform of immigration laws the past four years. I am disappointed that president Obama broke his promise to address immigration issues during his first term. I look forward with anticipation to seeing what “common ground” emerges as Republicans and Democrats address immigration reforms during Obama’s second term.

But it still grieves me that the reasons given by Republican leaders for this great reversal on immigration reform once again focused on getting elected, rather than on what the focus should be: governing in a way that helps all Americans to flourish. I hope and pray for the day when a focus on fostering the “common good” will be the rule and not the exception in politics.

 

Individuality or Community: A False Choice

/in /by

One-dimensional political commitments, on both sides of the aisle, have made “middle-ground politics impossible.” That is a concern expressed by E. J. Dionne Jr. in his splendid book Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent (Bloomsbury, 2012, p. 248).

Dionne traces the root of our current political gridlock to a faulty reading of American history. He asserts that the “true American trajectory is defined by balance,” which includes “an understanding of the indispensability of both the individual and the community” (p. 123, italics added). Dionne maintains that “our quest, from the very beginning of the republic, [has been] to achieve individual liberty rooted in a thriving sense of community and mutual obligation” (p. 242).

In our contemporary situation, Dionne asserts that the tension between these two dimensions is “reflected in the Tea Party’s focus on liberty, self-reliance, and the unencumbered individual, and Occupy Wall Street’s emphasis on equality, interconnection, and social obligation” (p. 246).

Dionne is clear on where he thinks the imbalance between these two indispensable dimensions currently lies: “Radical individualism is as close to triumph as it has been at any point since the Gilded Age,” adding that “whether it will succeed or fails is now the central question in American politics” (p. 242). And he suggests that a failure to balance these two indispensable dimensions will destroy both dimensions, for “A purely individualistic society cannot maintain the solidarity and social cohesion that are a prerequisite for preserving freedom” (p. 97).

I believe Dionne has captured the root cause of our current political malaise, a false choice between individuality and community. It is not either/or, it is both/and.

The indispensability of both of these dimensions, in proper balance, is clear in the teachings of Christianity. Each human being, created in the Image of God, is uniquely gifted, and must have the freedom to express those gifts in a manner that expresses his/her individuality.

But the Christian concept of freedom is not to be able to do as you please, but is freedom intended to enable you to serve others in response to the commandment of Jesus that we love our neighbor as we love ourselves (Galatians 5: 13-14).

Of course, the political challenge, then, is to forge the most appropriate balance between the two legitimate dimensions of individuality and community. But that calls for “middle-ground politics.” There is certainly much room for disagreement about the most appropriate terms of this balance. But in our current political climate it is virtually impossible to even begin talking about the contours of such a balance, since far too many politicians and citizens, on both sides of the aisle, will only acknowledge the legitimacy of one of these two dimensions.

I have no easy solution to this quandary. As one citizen who is committed, on religious grounds, to the legitimacy of these two dimensions of what it means to be human, I aspire to model this dual commitment in all that I say, write, and do. I can only invite others who, for whatever reasons, share this dual commitment to do likewise. This includes rejecting the posturing of politicians who are one-dimensional, and advocating for and casting votes for politicians who share a commitment to fostering both individuality and community and indicate a willingness to engage those with whom they disagree in respectful conversation toward the end of forging a proper balance between these two indispensable dimensions of our shared humanity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does Civility Work?

/in /by

In commenting on the reasons for the latest deluge of vitriolic negative advertisement released by both the Obama and Romney campaigns, a political pundit gave a simple explanation: “Civility doesn’t work.”

But there is a prior question that must be addressed before one can discuss what “works,” or not: What is one trying to accomplish?

If the primary goal of politicians is to get elected or re-elected, then there is ample evidence that negative advertising works and civility doesn’t work.

But imagine with me the possibility of politicians being committed to the goal of “governing;” proposing and passing legislation that promotes the common good. For that hypothetical goal, it is clear that “incivility doesn’t work;” civil political discourse is required. Politicians on both sides of the political aisle must listen to the each other’s points of view, and talk respectfully about their agreements and disagreements as they seek to forge legislative common ground.

The prevalence of political posturing in place of a commitment to “govern well” is likely to become painfully obvious once again in the aftermath to the recent tragic massacre in Aurora. What possible reason is there to allow any U. S. citizen to purchase an assault weapon? Freedom without limits is license. Why is it so difficult for those on both sides of the political aisle to find the common ground of legislating “reasonable limits” on the freedom to purchase guns? I think that a major reason for this failure is that taking a courageous stand on gun control is viewed by many politicians as committing political suicide (for an extended conversation on gun control, see the “Alternative Political Conversation” on that topic, to be launched elsewhere on this web site on August 8).

As if the call to politicians to commit to the goal of “governing” is not radical enough, try to also imagine what seems like an even more utopian goal: Political discourse that is informed by a commitment to creating a polity where all persons are treated with the decency and respect that is due to another human being. For that lofty hypothetical goal, it is also clear that “incivility doesn’t work;” civil political discourse is required. To accomplish that goal, we must respect each other enough to listen well and then engage in civil conversation about our disagreements.

I can only imagine the protests of some of my readers: “get real, Harold, that isn’t the way politics works.” That shot of realism is well taken, given present practice in the political realm. But if politics is the endeavor by which citizens seek to uncover and promote a common good that will enable human beings to flourish, both individually and collectively, then the problem lies not with the two lofty goals that I embrace, but with the impoverished goal of just getting elected.

So, what to do? A possible place to start is with us, the Electorate. We reward those who resort to viscous negative advertising that demeans other human beings by electing them to office. We reward those who resort to political posturing in place of governing by electing them to office. We provide little external incentive for politicians to “govern well” or to treat their political opponents with dignity and respect.

And some of us who profess to be followers of Jesus are among the worst culprits. Too many of us have uncritically jumped on the bandwagon, adding our voices to the prevailing incivility of political discourse. That is especially tragic since my two loftier goals are deeply informed by a Christian faith perspective (at the same time that they can be shared by all persons of good will because of our common humanity). To commit to governing in a way that seeks a “common good” is a deep expression of what it means to “love my neighbor,” to which Jesus has called all Christians (Mark 12: 30-31). To create a welcoming space for someone who disagrees with me and to talk respectfully about our disagreements is another deep expression of what it means to love that person.

As the political pundits are quick to point out, “Christian Voters” are a significant portion of our Electorate. So, now would be a good time for Christians to stand up in huge numbers and say “we are fed up with the incivility in political discourse;” “we will cast our votes only for those who are committed to “governing well” and for treating their political opponents with dignity and respect;” “our Christian convictions will settle for nothing less.” That dream pushes utopianism to a new unprecedented level. But, through the eyes of faith, I dare to envision that possibility.