How the Christian Value of Truthfulness Could Inform The Aftermath to the Mueller Report

/in /by

In my forthcoming book Reforming American Politics: A Christian Perspective on Moving Past Conflict to Conversation, I propose that one “Way Forward” for Christians to work toward such reformation is to eschew the hyper-partisanship that is evident when the first question that is asked about any public policy issue is “What does my political party say?”.

Rather, Christians should substitute their “Christian lenses” for their “partisan political lenses,” by “digging deep down” to uncover the “Christian values” that should inform their position on the particular issue, values such as love, humility, courage, truth, justice, patience and hope.

In this musing, I will propose a possible aftermath to the Mueller report that could emerge if Christians took seriously the Christian value of “truthfulness,” as called for in the biblical exhortation for Christians to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4: 15) and the biblical teaching that “love … rejoices in the truth” (I Corinthians 13: 4,6).

But my proposal is not just intended for consideration by Christians. The value of truthfulness is a “human value” that should be shared by all persons of good will, whatever their religious or secular faith commitments. Therefore, my proposal calls for a collaborative effort on the part of all who embrace the value of truthfulness.

It should be obvious to any American citizen who has not been living under a rock that the value of truthfulness is notably absent in most of the current debate about how to process the Mueller report. Consider, for example, the debate as to how to process Mueller’s letter of response to Attorney General Barr’s four-page response to the full report that emerged from his extensive investigation. Mueller expresses his dissatisfaction with Barr’s response to his report as follows:

[The Barr memo] did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of the investigation … this threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the department [of Justice] appointed the special counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigation … There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.

It is obvious that Mueller is questioning whether Barr’s four-page report adequately captures the “truth” relative to the matters that were investigated. Therefore, anyone who is committed to the value of truthfulness should want to provide Mueller with an opportunity to explain how he believes the truth was compromised. Whether President Trump committed an impeachable offense cannot be discerned until Congress hears Mueller’s reasons for his dissatisfaction with  Barr’s report. Any claims to “transparency” are nullified by attempts to prevent Mueller from testifying before Congress. And asking for such testimony from Mueller is not a “do-over” since it is covering new ground; the reasons Mueller has for his rejection of the Barr report.

The quest for “truth” also requires that Congress hear from other persons, such as Don McGahn, whose testimonies can shed further light on the question of whether President Trump obstructed justice. 

Orchestrating such Congressional hearings is not an instance of “politicizing” the issue in a partisan manner. Rather, it is required by the Constitutionally mandated responsibility of the legislative branch of government to provide “oversight” of the executive branch, Carrying out that mandate can be viewed as a commitment to be “true” to the U. S. Constitution. 

Of course, President Trump is strenuously resisting all such attempts at Congressional oversight. That should not thwart Congress in carrying out its Constitutional responsibility. If Congress does so, the outcome of this current deadlock will likely be settled in the Courts, which is another legitimate expression of the separation of powers that America’s Founding Fathers had the wisdom to establish.

At what point in time, if any, in this “messy” process are impeachment proceedings called for? My view is that it will be only after the Congressional hearings that I call for above have been completed that the House of Representatives will have sufficient clarity as to the “truth” regarding whether President Trump has committed offenses that warrant impeachment proceedings. And if such impeachment proceeding are initiated, that is NOT an expression of partisan politicizing. Rather, it is another instance of Congress carrying out its constitutional responsibility.

Of course, many Democrats are concerned that the House initiating impeachment proceedings will be “political suicide,” since there is little to no chance that the Senate will impeach the President and any attempt to do so will simply reinforce President Trump’s very effective political strategy of painting himself as a victim of a giant hoax.

My response to that concern is that it is another instance of the hyper-partisan politicizing that is eating away at the foundations of American Democracy. Impeachment proceedings ought to be initiated only because Congress judges that it is the “right thing to do” in light of the mandates of the U. S. Constitution. But deciding on impeachment proceedings on that basis, will require commitment to another “Christian value (and “human value”) beyond truthfulness that is also sadly lacking in the political realm: Courage.

It appears that I have succumbed once again to my penchant for “outlandish naivete” in light of current political realities, especially in my call for processing the Mueller report on the basis of a commitment to the value of “truthfulness.” I close with a reflection on the cause of that possible “fatal flaw” in my proposal, with a reminder of how I have chosen to address that cause.

The rampant problem with current American politics is NOT that politicians and their supporters do not believe in the “truth” of their political positions. The problem is that they typically hold to their truth-claims with a vengeance, believing that they have captured the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the political issue at hand and the positions taken by their political opponents are absolutely devoid of any elements of truth.

As I report in my forthcoming book, this dogmatism that my beliefs about what is true are unassailable, (“I can’t possibly be wrong”), which too easily morphs into fanaticism, is a symptom of the “tribalism” that increasingly infects every area of discourse, not just politics. The tell-tale sign of such tribalism is an “us-versus-them” mentality that effectively silences “them” (They are wrong, “me and my group” are right, so why should we even listen to them?). If one takes the position, as I do, that “political equality” involves everyone having an equal stake in the political system by having their voices heard on “an even playing field,” then such silencing of the “other” is pernicious and certainly does not contribute to the quest for truth about the matter at hand.

The increasing pattern of tribalism in our culture does not bode well for my proposal that the doing of politics should be informed by the quest for truth, and my further argument (in my forthcoming book) that bipartisan “respectful conversation” about political disagreements is the best way to gain a better approximation of that truth. 

So, because of the prominence of tribalism in our culture, I hold out slim hope of convincing a large number of Christians, and others, in the abstract, that they should pursue the truth by means of respectful conversations about disagreements. So, what to do?

About eight years ago, I decided that the only way to combat such tribalism was not to complain in writing, but to model a “better way”; a “Christian way.” Hence I initiated my Respectful Conversation project on my website, informed by the primary premise that providing a welcoming space for someone who disagrees with me to express that disagreement and then to talk respectful about that disagreement is a deep expression of love (which is too often neglected or violated by many who claim to be followers of Jesus, who commanded his followers to love others). It is my hope and prayer that those who follow my website will go and do likewise, entrusting the results to God.

Healing and Bridging Divisions by Getting to Know One Another

/in /by

In her insightful book Political Tribes, Amy Chua points out the truth that all human beings have a need to “belong,” which causes us to value our associations with one or more “groups.”

But, as professor Chua then goes on to elaborate, many of our group identities too easily morph into an “us-versus-them” tribal mentality that demonizes other groups that disagree with our group. Relative to political issues, this conflict often emerges from a belief that “me and my group” have the “truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” relative to the public policy being discussed and those in “that other group” are “all wrong.” This tribal mentality becomes particularly pernicious when an unwarranted extrapolation is then made from “they are wrong” to “they are evil” and not to be trusted.

One tempting solution to this rampant problem of destructive divisions among us is to suggest that all of us need to submerge our various group identities. We need to become a homogenous culture in which our differences are downplayed. That is a terrible idea for a number of reasons. 

Most obviously, that suggestion asks you to deny “who you are”; to turn your back on the valuable aspects of your personal pilgrimage that have shaped you.

Secondly, eliminating group differences nullifies the great potential that our differences have to enrich all of us. The rich diversity of beliefs and practices of different groups in contemporary American culture can be navigated in a way that is mutually beneficial for all of us. I will begin  to elaborate on this bold claim by sharing with you a part of “my story,” which includes my commitment to a number of “groups” that I highly value.

I am a Norwegian American (the twin son of immigrants from Norway who learned to eat lutefisk every Christmas eve; surely an acquired taste).

I am also a St. Louis Cardinal baseball fan (although I was born and raised in Brooklyn when the LA Dodgers were the Brooklyn Dodgers, the Cardinal great Stan “The Man” Musial was my boyhood hero – I remember being dumbfounded when a friend of mine had the audacity to suggest that Gil Hodges, Dodger first baseman at the time, was a better all-around baseball player that Stan The Man. How wrong-headed is that?).

I am also a professing Christian, having made a commitment to be a follower of Jesus at the tender age of 13, without having a clue as to the many surprising twists and turns I would experience over a lifetime based on that aspiration.

I am also now a registered Democrat (although my first presidential vote in 1956 was for Republican Dwight Eisenhower). 

That is just a part of who I am; just enough to introduce you to how I think all of us should navigate the disagreements that emerge from our differing group identities: We should get to know those who disagree with us on a personal level. Developing such personal relationships will open up the possibility of the emergence of a sufficient level of mutual understanding and, hopefully, mutual trust, to enable us to then talk respectfully about our disagreements, thereby providing an entre into fostering the “healing” and “bridging” that is sorely needed among groups that are presently demonizing one another. I further propose that the best way for us to get to know each other on this personal level is for each of us to listen carefully to the other’s story because many of our disagreements may be deeply informed by the unique aspects of our respective personal pilgrimages.

Rather than arguing in the abstract for my proposed strategy for addressing disagreements, I will illustrate with a few examples from my experience, after mentioning, in a lame attempt at a bit of humor, that one of my current best friends is a Chicago Cubs fan (bridging a divide that I once thought was beyond reconciliation).

When Pat and I retired (sort of) in Orange City, Iowa in 2003, members of the local Latino population were just faceless statistics; we didn’t know any of our Latino neighbors personally. That changed when I had the opportunity to provide leadership for an Adult Discipleship class on “immigration issues” in my home church. Right from the start, we decided to avoid the common inadequate practice of talking “about” our Latino neighbors; choosing rather to get to know them by listening to their stories and  talking “with” them.

One story I heard broke my heart. A Latino mother told us that every morning before her daughter went off to school, she would cry because she feared that when she returned home, mommy would be gone; taken away for deportation. That story changed my life. I could no longer sit around ignoring the pleas for help from my new Latino friends. I became heavily involved with a local advocacy group, CASA of Sioux County (Center for Assistance, Service and Advocacy) whose vision is for “transformed northwest Iowa communities that welcome, empower and celebrate people from all cultures.” 

Our efforts at CASA include hosting an annual Latino Festival that celebrates the riches of local Latino culture and builds bridges between our Anglo and Latino populations. On the “advocacy” front, we had the opportunity to meet with our congressional representative Steve King in an attempt to curb his viscous demonization of our Latino neighbors and advocate for comprehensive immigration reform. As far as I can tell, we didn’t change King’s perspective, possibly because he hadn’t taken the time to get to know our Latino neighbors.

The moral of this story is that by taking the time to get to know our Latino neighbors, we Anglos have been able to take some modest steps to heal the wounds of division and build bridges between our two communities. We wish congressman King would do likewise.

It is much harder to get to know someone on the internet. But, against all odds, I have been able to see a measure of  mutual understanding and trust emerging by means of electronic conversations (eCircles) on my website, as reported in three of my most recent books, with a fourth book (Reforming American Politics) soon to be released. In each case, my strategy has been to identify conversation partners who I know to have significant disagreements about contentious issues, asking them to abide by my proposed “guidelines for respectful conversation” as they exchange electronic responses to “Leading Questions” I posed designed to draw out their areas of agreement and disagreement.

Although my conversation partners only got to know and understand each other from a distance, I believe it is fair for me to say that they effectively modeled the building of bridges between persons having differing stories that reflect, among other things, membership in different groups. Some past wounds may also have been healed.

Emboldened by these experiences of seeing some healing and bridging of divisions when persons commit to getting  to know one another, starting in April, I will be moderating a face-to-face conversation on the theme “President Trump and Visons for America” that will feature four local residents who describe themselves as “general Trump supporters” and  four local residents who consider themselves to “generally” be “non-Trump supporters.” Before anyone presents his/her vision for the future of America and an assessment of the extent to which President Trump is fostering that vision, or not, we will start by getting to know one another by listening to each other’s stories, with a focus on those aspects of personal pilgrimages that have shaped their visons for America and their assessments of President Trump.

I will be developing a way to report on this round of face-to-face conversations on my website (possibly by means of audio podcasts). It is my hope the results will lend further support for my thesis that we can all work for healing and bridging of divisions by getting to know one another, especially if we start by sharing our stories with one another (for a marvelous read that focuses on the importance of storytelling for bridging divides, I highly recommend Justin Lee’s book Talking Across the Divide: How to Communicate with People You Disagree With and Maybe Even  Change the World). 

Disagreement is Easy; Agreement Takes Time

/in /by

In his book Biblical Authority After Babel: Retrieving the Solas in the Spirit of Protestant Christianity, Kevin Vanhoozer shares the following insightful reflection on why “disagreement is easy” for Christians while uncovering agreements is much more challenging.

“[I]t is easier to disagree than to agree. Agreement requires patient listening, and time. It is more convenient simply to categorize others as “wrong’ Christians. Such mental shortcuts enable able us to make snap judgments, but labeling fails to do justice to others” (207-208).

This reflection adds another important dimension to a primary obstacle to hosting “respectful conversations” about contentious issues that I noted in my last Musing (“My Books May Make Most Readers Mad”). In that musing, I pointed to the primary obstacle of the difficulty in our culture that is plagued by tribalism of finding persons who embrace the rare combination of holding to their beliefs with deep conviction while remaining open to the possibility of learning something from someone who disagrees with them.

As if this obstacle was not big enough, Vanhoozer points us to another significant obstacle: the addiction within our culture to “speed”; wanting quick answers to complex problems; choosing the “easy” path of dismissing out of hand those who disagree with you rather than making the significant commitment of time needed to patiently listen, talk about, and possibly even learn from the contrary views of others. 

If you dig beneath the surface of this additional obstacle, you will see that for Christians it reflects a lack of genuine commitment to some Christian virtues to which we quickly give lip service but too often fail to exemplify: humility and patience. As Vanhoozer goes on to say.

“Dialogue requires us to become the kind of people who can accept correction: humble and patient interlocutors” (208).

So, the obstacles to my dreams for more “respectful conversations” among Christians regarding contentious issues proliferate. But, as I concluded in my last Musing, I am not deterred. I am convinced, more now than ever, that engaging in respectful conversations is the “Christian way” to engage those who disagree with you, based on the foundational premise that providing a safe and welcoming space for someone who disagrees with you to express that disagreement and then to talk respectfully about your disagreement is a deep expression of love for the other, to which Jesus calls all who claim to be his followers. I am called to be “faithful” in pursuing and modeling that goal, leaving the possibility of “success” in the hands of God.

 

Will my Books Make Most Readers Mad?

/in /by

I recently completed a seven-session small group face-to-face conversation, involving nine persons, in my local Orange City (IA) community about my book Respectful LGBT Conversations. Attendees fell into the following three categories regarding their beliefs about same-sex marriage: affirming; opposing; undecided.

The reactions of attendees to my book depended on which of these three positions a given attendee embraced. I will briefly elaborate, hoping that my reflections will be of help to any of my website readers who may be contemplating hosting small face-to-face conversations about   human sexuality or any other contentious issue.

An “undecided” member of our group expressed deep appreciation for my book because it presented cogent arguments on both sides of the sub-topics that were addressed. She found that to be very helpful as she attempts to evaluate the relative merits, or not, of the “affirming” and “opposing” positions.

But a member of our group who situates himself in the “opposing” category stated quite bluntly that he didn’t have the slightest interest in reading my book (a bit strange since my class was advertised as a discussion of my book).

Furthermore, a member of our group in the “affirming” category reported that in a brief conversation about my book that he had with a gay friend, his friend was not interested in what my book had to say.

Why did these latter two persons have no interest in my book? Hopefully it is not because they have reason to believe that it is poorly written. I didn’t have the chance to pose this question to the gay friend of one of my group members. But from the comments made in our conversations by the group member in the “opposing” category (who, by the way, dropped out after attending two sessions), I surmise that his mind was made up about the status of same-sex marriage and, therefore, he saw no potential benefit in engaging with the arguments presented by those who disagreed with him. After all, if one already knows the “truth” about the issue at hand, there is no point in engaging with those whose views are “false” (other than trying to “convert” them to your point of view – I have insufficient evidence to judge whether this group member had that purpose in mind).

Given my perception of the appalling current state of public discourse about contentious contemporary issues, the lack of interest of these two persons in talking about views they do not embrace does not surprise me in the least. This reflects the scourge of the dominant tribalistic “us-versus-them” mentality, where “me and my group” have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the issue at hand and there is not one iota of truth in the contrary positions taken by “those other people.”

But I will go out on the limb even further. I suspect that not only will the majority in our tribalistic culture have a lack of interest in listening to and talking about beliefs they do not hold; the very suggestion that they should engage those who disagree with them in this respectful way may make them downright mad. My suspicion is based on some hard-earned experience. For example, when I recruited as a conversation partner for my eCircle on “Reforming Political Discourse” a Christian who declared himself as an “anarcho-communist,” I was asked, in effect,  “how dare you give equal time to a Christian who has such wrong-headed views?”; “how can he even claim to be a Christian?” I invited him because you don’t love someone who you have silenced. He accepted my invitation. But that made at least one of my critics mad.

Another way of looking at this problem brought about by rampant tribalism is that it is increasingly hard to find persons who embrace that rare combination of holding to their beliefs with deep conviction while remaining open to the possibility of learning from someone who disagrees with them, as expressed by the following definition of “religious maturity” proposed by Ian Barbour (which I quote every chance I get):

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 inquiry that constitutes religious maturity (Myths. Models, and Paradigms, 136).

But I have found a reasonable number of Christians who embrace this rare combination of commitment and openness; those conversation partners featured in the four eCircles that I have hosted on my web site. And it is my hope and prayer that their effective modeling of this rare combination in the three books that have emerged from these eCircles, and the fourth book (Reforming American Politics) that will soon be released, will inspire many other Christians, and others, to orchestrate “respectful conversation” projects in their spheres of influence.

That hope is difficult to sustain in our tribalistic day. But I persevere because I believe it is the right thing to do; the “Christian way” to engage someone who disagrees with you, and I entrust the potential harvest of my planting such “tiny seeds of redemption” into the hands of God (Matthew 13: 31-32).

Starting with Foundational Christian Values

/in /by

What follows is a response to an inaugural posting by Jim Skillen, founder and retired President of the Center for Public Justice, for an electronic conversation he is hosting on “Reformational Explorations.”

In his inaugural posting, Jim Skillen proposes three tasks for our collective consideration, the first of which is to “clarify the norms or standards by which we make judgments about what is positive or negative, constructive or destructive” relative to the “quality of public governance.” He asks specifically whether there are “criteria” for making such judgements.

I will share my initial reflections on this first task, starting with a painful story of what transpired in an Adult Discipleship class that I was facilitating at my home church in Orange City, Iowa.

In this class titled “Christian Perspectives on News Headlines,” we were discussing President Trump’s proposal to limit “chain migration” (or “family reunification,” depending on which side of the political aisle you sit). I asked the attendees what they thought the teachings of the Christian faith had to say about this contentious issue. The attendees invariably shared the perspective of their respective political parties about this issue. “TIME OUT,” I pleaded: “I didn’t ask you what your political party said about chain migration; I asked you what your understanding of the Christian faith might say about this issue,” 

By quickly politicizing this issue, my class attendees failed to dig deep down beneath the surface of political rhetoric to uncover the “values” that were at stake; the values that they would consider to be “Christian values” (not necessarily the values embraced by either major political party).

In order to avoid making that same mistake, and inching toward my initial reflections on the “criteria” that Jim wants us to explore, I will briefly outline some “Christian values” that I try to  start with when making any decision as to what to do or say, in the political realm or anywhere else. 

First, I embrace the broad Kuyperian view of God’s redemptive purposes for the world that includes not only personal redemption but also the redemption of all aspects of creation: Marginalized minority groups that suffer injustice groan for redemption; those ravaged by war, sickness and poverty groan for redemption, as do broken personal relationships, unjust political and social structures, and a polluted environment. Implicit in this understanding of God’s redemptive purposes are certain Christian values such as justice, health, peace, shalom (positive relationships with other persons and all aspects of God’s Creation) and a flourishing environment (which, for later purposes, I will hereafter refer to as my “outcome” Christian values). 

But I am also committed to another set of Christian values that are attitudinal (enduring dispositions that I aspire to exhibit), often referred to as “Christian virtues.” These include the Fruit of the Spirit enumerated in Galatians 5 as well as humility, courage, hope and an insatiable aspiration to understand the “truth” as God fully understands that truth (because this set of Christian values deeply informs my beliefs about how I should “engage” others, I will hereafter refer to these as my “engagement” Christian values).

There is an obvious interplay between what I have called “outcome” values and “engagement” values. For example, I seek to foster the “outcome” of peace among those in conflict, while my mode of “engagement” with others as I seek that outcome should be informed by an enduring disposition of being“peaceable.” Nevertheless, this distinction between “outcome” and “engagement” Christian values is essential to my attempt to answer Jim’s call for “criteria” for judging the “quality of public governance.” That will take some explanation.

In a nutshell, I am making a distinction between the “outcomes” I believe I should pursue, in the political realm and elsewhere, as I attempt to “partner with God” toward the realization of God’s redemptive purposes and “how” I should go about carrying out those endeavors; my mode of “engagement” with others in the public square who may not share my desired outcomes. 

To get beyond abstractions, I will illustrate with a concrete example from my own experience as co-director of an organization in Sioux County, Iowa (CASA of Sioux County – Center for Assistance, Service and Advocacy) whose vision is the “transformation of Northwest Iowa communities that welcome, empower and celebrate people from all cultures.” In particular, we have been advocating for a number of years for greater justice for our increasing numbers of Latino neighbors, many of whom have been marginalized.

One of CASA’s recent initiatives has been to advocate with our local and state political representatives for legislation that would enable all immigrants to our area, documented or undocumented, to obtain drivers licenses. We view this as a win-win-win opportunity – good for immigrant families; good for those who employ immigrant workers; and good for public safety (since obtaining such a driver’s license would require passing driving tests).

How have we gone about advocating for such legislation? By having some face-to-face respectful conversations with political representatives who disagree with us about this issue. Have we been successful? Not yet! Ironically, the greatest opposition has come from the law enforcement community whose purpose is to promote public safety. But we have not given up since working for any kind of immigration reform is a marathon, not a sprint. We need to exhibit a significant measure of the “engagement” Christian values of patience and hope, and “love,” the Fruit of the Spirit that is central to my understanding of how Christians should engage those who disagree with them about public policy issues. Let me elaborate a bit.

There is universal agreement among Christians that we are called to “love our neighbors” (Mark 12:31). But there is much disagreement about “how” that love should be expressed. My efforts to be an agent for God’s redemptive over the past eight years have focused on an oft-neglected expression of such love, as captured by the following premise (which succinctly captures the central aspect of my “engagement” Christian values):

Providing someone who disagrees with you a safe and welcoming space to express that disagreement and then to talk respectfully about your disagreements is a deep expression of love.

A corollary to this premise is that “you don’t love someone who you have silenced.”

As an aside for readers who may be interested, the major vehicle for my attempts to put this premise into practice in recent years has been my “Respectful Conversation Project” on my website www.respectfulconversation.net, in which I have attempted to model “respectful conversations” among Christians who have strong disagreements about some contentious issues, including the nature of political discourse, with this latter project soon leading to a book titled Reforming American Politics: A Christian Perspective on Moving Past Conflict to Conversation (please excuse this self-serving plug). 

So, at long last, what are the “criteria” that I would like to propose for your consideration for making judgements about “what is positive or negative, constructive or destructive” relative to the “quality of public governance?”

In brief, the major criterion for me when evaluating any proposal for public policy is whether the proposal fosters the accomplishment God’s redemptive purposes such as the “outcome” Christian values that I have suggested above. And the major criterion for evaluating the manner in which those who disagree about the merits, or not, of any given public policy proposal is whether the mode of public engagement about the issue exemplifies the “engagement” Christian values that I have suggested above, with special emphasis on the oft-neglected deep expression  of love that I have proposed.

I conclude by anticipating a possible disagreement that readers may have with the above reflections: My proposed criteria for both the content and mode of engagement relative to any public policy issue reflects my understanding of Christian values; but those Christian values are not necessarily shared by others in our pluralistic society. Is that not a fatal flaw in my proposal? 

No, it is not a fatal flaw, but it presents a considerable challenge. In brief, I draw on my understanding of Roy Clouser’s cogent argument about the “myth of religious neutrality” in his fine book having that title. 

No one comes from nowhere! Everyone comes to the public square to discuss public policy proposals with a set of value commitments. My value commitments are informed by my Christian faith commitment. Others come to the public square with value commitments that are informed by their particular religious or secular worldviews.

But these sets of value commitments are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Therefore, the public conversation that I call for should  start with each “conversation partner” laying bare his/her value commitments, on an “even playing field,” in an attempt to find some common ground about underlying values that  can then  inform the ongoing conversation.

Recommendations for Small Groups Who Wish to Engage in Face-to-Face Conversations about Human Sexuality Issues or any other Contentious Issues

/in , /by

In my November 11, 2018 Musing titled “Pivoting from Respectful Electronic Conversations (eCircles) to Face-to-Face Conversations About Human Sexuality Issues or Any Other Contentious Issues,” I reported on an unfinished local face-to-face small group conversation about my book “Respectful LGBT Conversations” that “started well but then deteriorated.” That series of face-to-face conversations has now been completed. The following recommendations for orchestrating future face-to-face conversations about LGBT issues or any other contentious issues emerged from reflections from those who attended this completed conversation on LGBT issues as to “lessons learned” (what worked and what didn’t work).

ATTENDEES

In order to avoid the conversation becoming an “echo chamber,” it is important to “recruit” attendees who will represent a fair balance of differing views about the topic at hand. This is best done NOT by issuing a broad invitation (to members of a church or community) and “hoping that a good balance will emerge.” Rather, a better approach is to decide beforehand on the differing types of positions that can be taken on the issue; then issue personal invitations (one invitation to someone known to hold each position). When such initial invitations are accepted, then ask each such person to identify other church or community members who he/she believes will hold to a similar position, to whom the planners can then extend similar invitations (while encouraging that first person to encourage the new invitees to accept their invitations)

If the results of the conversation has the potential to significantly impact the well-being of one or more groups of church or community members, then representatives of such groups MUST be “at the table.” For example, despite the strengths of the procedures used in the case studies presented in the Respectful LGBT Conversations book, all three persons who provided leadership for these case studies reported that a flaw in their procedures was that gay persons were not adequately represented “at the table.” Therefore, the conversation too easily became an exercise in into talking “about them” rather than “with them” (as if they were “issues” and not “persons”).

Because of the logical flow of the conversation sessions that will be recommended below, it is important that all attendees attend all the planned sessions, with no attendees allowed to join the conversation after the first session (except under very unusual circumstances)

TWO EXPECTATIONS THAT ALL INVITEES NUST AGREE TO UP-FRONT BEFORE BEING ACCEPTED AS PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONVERSATION

A. AGREEMENT AS TO THE PURPOSE OF THE CONVERSATION, AS FOLLOWS:

  • Although participants will be expected to present their views on the issue at hand with clarity and deep conviction, the purpose of the conversation is NOT to “win the argument.” Rather the purposes are:
    • To give a “fair hearing” to all points of view by focusing on “listening well” to viewpoints you do not share in an attempt to adequately understand the reasons that the “other” has for his/her viewpoint.
    • After all the differing viewpoints are “out on the table,” the conversation will move to attempting to identify areas of agreement and disagreement, including illumination of disagreements sufficient to make ongoing conversation possible.
  • To model “respectful conversation” among person who have strong disagreements (made possible by the second expectation now presented)

B. AGREEMENT TO ABIDE BY A SET OF “GUIDELINES FOR CONVERSATION – For example, the guidelines that were agreed to by all the conversation partners in our LGBT conversation, with one possible exception indicated below, were as follows:

  • 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.

Unfortunately, in our LGBT conversation, there is some question as to whether one of the two the two “late arrivals” who held traditional positions on same-sex relationships adequately understood or actually agreed to either of these two expectations, because he was not present the first session where these expectations were reinforced (which deficiency will lead to one of our further recommendations below).

GETTING THE CONVERSATION STARTED: INSURING A “SAFE SPACE”

The first session together is the most important in that is sets the stage for the modeling of respectful conversations in all subsequent sessions. The first thing that must be established in this first session is that each participant, whether he/she holds to a “conservative” or “liberal” viewpoint on the issue, will be provided with a “safe space” to say whatever is on his/her mind without fear of being personally attacked or demonized.

Our recommendation for creating such a “safe space” is for the first session to begin with a review of the purpose and guidelines for conversation that all participants have already agreed to, to be followed only by time devoted to “getting to know one another” without any presentations or conversation about differing viewpoints on the issue at hand. This can be accomplished by the Moderator posing the following questions to each attendee, with a time limit presented (possibly 4-5 minutes) for each response, without allowing for any interruptions by other attendees.

  • Who are you? (Briefly introduce yourself to us)
  • Why have you joined this conversation? What do you hope to get out of this conversation? What is at stake? – wherever possible draw on aspects of own “story” that inform your response to these questions

The most valuable lesson we learned from our LGBT conversation is the importance of “building initial personal relationships of mutual understanding” (which hopefully leads to mutual trust) before embarking on the presentation of and discussion about differing viewpoints on the topic at hand.

A marvelous testimony to the central importance of “getting to know” a person who disagrees with you was the report from our married lesbian couple that “with the passage of time” a local doctor who was originally strongly critical of their same-sex relationship and not “friendly to them” has now become “friendly.” Our educated guess is that a good part of this change in attitude is that he has “gotten to know them better” by means of doctor/patient relationships.

THE SECOND SESSION: UNINTERRUPTED LISTENING TO VARIOUS VIEWPOINTS ABOUT THE ISSUE AT HAND WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Now that the stage has been set to promote respectful conversation about differing viewpoints, it is time for each participant to briefly present, without interruption (possibly in 5-7 minutes) his/her response to a question or two posed by electronically by the Moderator prior to this second session; questions intended to help all attendees to understand his/her position on the issue at hand. For example, for a small group conversation that Harold is beginning on March 13, 2019 on the topic “President Trump and Visions for America,” each of the 8 participants from the local community, equally divided between “general supporters” of President Trump and “general non-supporters of President Trump, each attendees will have 5-7 uninterrupted minutes to respond to the following two questions:

  • What is your vision for the future of America?
  • To what extent do you believe President Trump is facilitating, or not, the accomplishment of your vision for the future of America?

THE THIRD SESSION AND BEYOND

After this second session recommended above has been completed, the discussion group will now be well prepared to sort through their agreements and disagreements about the issue at hand in a respectful manner that is informed by a good preliminary understanding of the initial viewpoints of all the participants.

Some “heavy lifting” by the Moderator must now begin. To facilitate this, it is necessary that the presentations in the first two sessions be recorded and possibly transcribed for the Moderator’s careful review for the purpose of formulating a set of Leading Questions for the third session that will attempt o identify points of agreement and illuminate remaining areas of disagreement. (to be distributed electronically to all participants prior to the third session)

This formidable task for the Moderator needs to continue for the fourth and subsequent sessions, with the Leading Questions for each subsequent session emerging from the substance of the previous session.

READING MATERIAL FOR THE CONVERSATION.

No consensus emerged as to the suitability of the Respectful LGBT Conversations book as background material for this conversation. One of the attendees who was undecided as to same-sex relationships suggested that this book was very helpful to her because of her “undecided” status, in that it fairly presented both sides for each subtopic on the part of two conversation partners who had the competence to cogently present credible opposing viewpoints; both of whom held to a strong belief in the full authority and inspiration of scripture (while disagreeing on the best interpretation of certain biblical passages).

On the other hand, the author of the book (Harold) wondered out loud whether in this age of increasing “tribalism” (an “us-versus-them” mentality where me and “my people” have all the truth about the issues at hand and “you other folks” are all wrong), this book will only make both sets of tribalists “mad” because they are not interested in listening to a point of view other than the one they already hold, which appears to have been the case for the traditionalist who joined our group for just two sessions who bluntly stated that he had absolutely no interest in reading this book.

Obviously, more conversation is needed as to the best choice of reading materials for future conversations about LGBT issues.

CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS ABOUT THE VIABILITY AND IMPORTANCE OF BEING A 3RD WAY CHURCH

Recall that a 3rd way church is one where no church-wide position is taken as to the appropriateness, or not, of same-sex relationships, but, rather the challenging attempt is made to love each other as brothers and sisters in Christ in the midst of disagreements about this issue.

Although no consensus was reached as to the viability of trying to be a 3rd way church, the following compelling observations were made during this last session:

  • It is relatively easy for a “straight” Christian to transfer to another local church, but where can a gay Christian (“like me”) find a loving place to worship if there were no 3rd way churches or “affirming” churches available?
  • A cogent concluding observation for an “undecided” member of this class was that she was hesitant to agree to attend this class because she loved the lesbian couple that agreed to attend, and was fearful as to how they would react to her honestly saying that she was “undecided.” She is still undecided at the end of this class, but now feels “liberated” because her gay sisters in Christ have, in this class, expressly given her a “safe space” to declare herself as “undecided” (all three of them being members of a 3rd way church in Orange City).
  • This observation fits well with the suggestion made by Mennonite Scholar Carolyn Schrock-Shenk that a conversation about contentious issues, like human sexuality, may not “change minds” about the issue at hand, but could have the marvelous result of changing one’s perspective about the person holding to a differing viewpoint (which is no small accomplishment).
  • A strength of being a 3rd way church is that it models the possibility of maintaining the “Christian unity” for which Jesus prayed in the midst of disagreements as to issues related to human sexuality, which is no small accomplishment in this day and age when many churches and their denominations are “dividing” over disagreements about such issues.

A Bipartisian Victory that Calls for a Conversation about Separation of Powers

/in /by

One of my strongest recommendations, and, many would say, my most naïve and unrealistic recommendation for a “Way Forward” in the concluding chapter of my forthcoming book Reforming American Politics is that politicians and their supporters reach across the aisle in an effort to find enough areas of agreement to forge a coherent position that captures the best insights of those on both sides of the aisle or table, even if neither side receives the “full loaf” they were hoping for.

A while back, my hope for such a bipartisan legislative “compromise” on an important pubic policy issue was buoyed when a bipartisan “gang of eight” in the U. S. Senate passed a bill in 2013 for comprehensive immigration reform that included both improved border security and an arduous pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants that included the imposition of fines for having entered the country illegally (hence not being “amnesty” since amnesty means “no punishment” and fines are a form of punishment). 

But that was only a partial victory that was soon shattered when this bill died in the House of Representatives. In my book, I speculate that a contributing factor that made this victory short-lived was that, unlike the Senate, the House did not call together a bipartisan group of their members to talk through their disagreements in an effort to uncover common ground.

Since that exemplary example of bipartisan legislation on the part of the Senate in 2013, there have been all too few examples of such reaching across the legislative aisle. But my hope for a flourishing of such a bipartisan approach to legislation received a “spark” on February 16 when a bipartisan conference committee of Senators and House members agreed on a bill for a “compromise” package of immigration reforms that included $1.375 billion for a border “barrier,” which was then approved by both legislative chambers.

But, of course, that was not the end of this story. The distinction between how the lawmakers who reached the compromise and President Trump responded to the compromise is critical.

The lawmakers on the conference committee acknowledged that the law they passed gave no one everything they wanted but gave everyone something; the very nature of compromise. So, they could accept the bill that was passed.

President Trump, on the other hand was very unhappy with the bill, although he reluctantly signed it. But, contradicting his proposal in his recent State of the Union address that “we must reject the politics of revenge, resistance and retribution – and embrace the boundless potential of cooperation, compromise and the common good,” President Trump then did an end run around Congress by declaring a state of national emergency and pleging that he would find more money for his wall by tapping into funds that Congress had approved for other purposes (including military construction projects and some counter drug initiatives). It is this action by President Trump that calls for a conversation about when the exertion of  power by the Executive branch of government violates the separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches that our Founding Fathers so wisely established.

That will surely be a heated debate that hopefully can be orchestrated in a respectful manner; possibly going all the way to the Supreme Court. I do not have the expertise in Constitutional Law needed to sort through this complex issue. But I will offer two suggestions as to possible starting points for conversation

First, the National Emergency Act does not give a clear definition of what constitutes a national emergency. This omission creates great uncertainty and disagreement as to whether a given situation qualifies as a national emergency.

For example, politicians and pundits on the political Right point to the many cases in the past where presidents have declared national emergencies that have not been contested.

The response of politicans and pundits on the political Left argue that this proliferation of presidential declarations of national emergencies (starting long before President Trump came into office) have moved our government toward an “imperial presidency” that has diminished the proper role of Congress; especially the “powers of the purse” established in Article 1 of the U. S. Constitution; going on to argue that what makes President Trump’s recent declaration different from all previous declarations is that he has taken Executive action to spend money on initiatives to which Congress has passed legislation that explicitely denies such funding.

It is obvious from this impasse that the conversation that is needed should start by seeking  to more clearly define what constitutes a “National Emergency.” And President Trump did himself no favor when he declared that he didn’t really have to declare a national emegency to get his wall built; he did so only becaue he wanted to get the wall built “quickly” – which gives a strange meaning to the word “emergency.”

But there is a broader aspect to the conversatiuon that is needed; an aspect that emerges from the attitude that President Trump has taken toward the institutions of government thoughout his presidency that has now culminated in the current debate about his recent declaration of a national emergency.

In brief, President Trump has consistently shown disdain for the institutions of government beyond his Office and for the separation of powers so carefully delineated by our Founding Fathers. Two major examples are his consistent, ongoing view that the Department of Justice exists to foster his purposes and his neglect of the recommendations of various national intelligence agencies relative to the threat that Russia poses to our democratic way of life. This self-centered disregard for the constitutionally mandated roles for the institutions of government and the separation of powers is the bigger problem that begs for ongoing conversation. This is indeed a “constitutional crisis” and the separation of powers that has been the bedrock of the American democratic system must be protected against the onslaughts of President Trump and anyone else.

A Christian Perspective on the Political Divide in America

/in /by

The following is an edited version of my responses to a series of questions posed to me by Matthew Kimbara, a high school senior at the Christian Academy in Japan, an international school in Tokyo

#1: What has been your work in relation to uncivil political discourse?

To say that political discourse in Americas is “uncivil” is understatement. Those having disagreements about political issues often resort to viscous name calling and demonization of the “other.” Why is that?

I propose that the root cause of the vitriolic nature of much current public discourse in America, political or otherwise, is tribalism, an us-versus-them mentality in which me and “my people” have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the issue at hand and “those other people” are all wrong. Such tribalism, which has been called “affective polarization,” reflects a deep emotional attachment to the in-group and a visceral reaction against the opposition – the out-group. In light of that emotional attachment, there is no incentive to have conversation with “them” to discuss and evaluate whatever reasons each side may have for their contrary beliefs.

Such tribalism becomes extremely destructive when an unwarranted extrapolation is made from  a belief that the other is “wrong” to a belief that the other is “untrustworthy, immoral and threatening,” which leads to demonization.

Around 2011, I became dismayed at the vitriolic nature of public discourse in America brought about by tribalism, especially in politics and, sadly, in the Christian church. What to do? 

Out of curiosity, I did some research on blogs on the internet. What I found was appalling. A blog posting might elicit numerous comments from readers. But virtually all the comments were very cryptic, either praising the blogger or, more frequently, vilifying the blogger, with none of the comments “advancing a genuine conversation.” There had to be a better way to deal with disagreements on the internet, possibly even a “Christian way.”

In pursuit of that “Christian way,” I decided to initiate a “Respectful Conversation” project on a new website (www.respectfulconversation.net) intended to “model” respectful conversation among Christian who have strong disagreements about contentious contemporary issues.

As can be seen from my website, the vehicle I used for such modeling was to host four 8 to 11 month electronic conversations (eCircles); with each conversation followed by my publication of a book intended to capture the highlights of the conversation. The format for each month-long subtopic for each eCircle was to identify two “conversation partners” who I knew to have strong disagreements about the sub-topic at hand; each of whom posted three 3000-4000 word essays. In their first essays, they responded to a Leading Question or two that I posed. The second postings were devoted to their identifying areas of agreement and disagreement in their first essays. The third essays were  devoted to their perception of the sub-issues for which continuing conversation needs to take place. 

The four eCircles dealt with the following topics: An Alternative Political Conversation; A Future for American Evangelicalism; Human Sexuality; and Respectful Political Discourse. The titles of the books that emerged from these eCircles can be accessed on my website, the latest of which will be released in the Spring of 2019, titled Reforming American Politics: A Christian Perspective on Moving Past Conflict to Conversation (more about the content of that book later).

Prior to being accepted as a “conversation partner” for any of these eCircles, each invitee had to agree to abide by a set of “Guidelines for Conversation” (also available on my website) intended to ensure that their electronic conversation with a partner would be respectful in the midst of major disagreements. It is my judgement that my conversation partners exemplified respectful conversation to an admirable degree (which can only be verified by reading their various postings). A perusal of their postings will also reveal that when the partners were actually willing to “listen” to one another, a significant degree of mutual understanding emerged, leading to an encouraging measure of mutual trust. As a result, while many disagreements remained, the partners were able to uncover areas of agreement, where each partner benefitted from the best insights of the other. 

A very important result that often emerged from these conversations is that while a particular partner’s overall perspective on the issue at hand may not have changed significantly, his/her perception of the “other” often changed dramatically. Rather than viewing the other as an enemy to be demonized, a mutual understanding emerged that each of them aspired to be “faithful” to their understandings of their faith commitments, with their disagreements often reflecting their differing Christian pilgrimages and other particular aspects of their respective social locations. Most importantly, it soon became apparent that each of them was fully committed to the inspiration and authority of the Bible, with their disagreements often reflecting different interpretations of some biblical passages (thereby recognizing that the Bible is not self-interpreting; the hermeneutical task must be undertaken).

The major premise underlying all of this internet work flows from my Christian faith commitment. Jesus calls all those who claim to be his followers to “love their neighbors” (Mark 12:31). I believe that a deep expression of such love for someone who disagrees with you (albeit woefully neglected by many Christians) is to create a safe and welcoming space for that person to express that disagreement and then talk respectfully about your disagreement. A corollary of that premise is that you don’t love someone who you have silenced.

#2. In your experience, how has the nature of the current divide between the left and the right affected your own communities?

Before responding to this question, I will set a context.

As described above, most of my attempts to model respectful conversation have taken place on the internet. I am now in the midst of pivoting toward attempting to model respect in small group face-to-face conversations in my local community in Sioux County, Iowa. To get started in this new direction has been an enormous challenge because tribalism is thriving in my community. In the realm of politics, Sioux County is reported to be the second most politically conservative county in America and my initial attempts to get diehard Republicans and members of the much smaller group of staunch Democrats in the same room together for conversation have been unsuccessful (Interestingly, I have found that the majority group of Republicans have been the least interested in talking with those from “that other party”).

But I have had a recent success. Starting on March 13, 2019, I will begin hosting a series of face-to-face conversations on the topic “President Trump and Visions for America.” After much effort, I have managed to recruit four local residents for this conversation who situate themselves as “general Supporters” of President Trump and four local residents who consider themselves to be “general non-supporters” of President Trump (I say “general” for both groups because none of those who have agreed to participate in this conversation say they are “for” or “against” everything President Trump says or does).Although the logistics have not yet been worked out, I plan on presenting this conversation on my website in the form of podcasts of the answers that my conversation partners give to Leading  Questions that I will pose prior to each of our 5 to 7 sessions. I look forward with great anticipation to this upcoming series of face-to-face conversations.

All of the above is prolegomena to my answering the above question. In brief, despite the rampant tribalism in my own community, we seem to be able to “get along with one another.” But we “get along” primarily because we don’t talk to each other about contentious issues. That leads to a very anemic negative view of “living together in peace” as “avoiding conflict.” (in our coffee fellowship after the Sunday morning worship service it is much safer to talk about the fortunes of our favorite local or national sports teams than it is to talk about contentious political issues).

What we need to work toward locally is a more robust positive view of living together in peace in the midst of strong disagreements about politics or anything else. We need to create more safe spaces where we can talk openly and respectfully about our significant disagreements as deep expressions of the love for one another to which Jesus calls those who profess to be his followers (which happens to be the vast majority of the residents of Sioux County). It is my hope and prayer that the face-to face conversation that I will begin hosting on March 13 will be first step toward that end

#3. How does the nature of this current divide between the political left and right compare to similar divisions in the past?

I start with a disclaimer. I am far from being an expert on the history of American politics. 

However, I will venture the general observation that a strength of the “American experiment” since the days of the “Founding Fathers” has been its strong commitment to Democracy as opposed to authoritarian forms of government. Such “democratic governance” is “messy” and has led to “political divides” throughout the history of America. Our challenge is America is not to eliminate political disagreements; that would work against our democratic ideals.  Rather, it is to learn how to navigate those disagreements in a respectful manner.

As to the “magnitude” of political divides in America during my lifetime; many political scientists in America believe that a significant increase in the “nastiness” of American political discourse was bought about by Newt Gingrich in the late 1990s when he served as Speaker of the House of Representatives. His basic approach to doing politics was to sow division between the two major political parties. And this “brokenness” of political discourse in America has only increased during the last 20 or so years.

#4.  What do you think a significant improvement in this area would look like? 

My seemingly impossible dream for politics in America, and everywhere else, is for there to be a huge proliferation of respectful conversations among those who have strong disagreements about public policy issues toward the goal of finding common ground for living well together or, in cases where not much common ground can be found, to come to sufficient mutual understanding and trust to be able to live well together in the midst of our disagreements.

And I am hoping that these respectful conversations about political issues will take place in local communities, such as schools, churches and voluntary organizations, as well as within local, regional and national legislative bodies.

Within legislative bodies, I am hoping that these respectful conversations will lead to a significant increase in “bipartisan” legislation, in sharp contrast to the extreme “hyper-partisanship” that is presently dominant due to the scourge of tribalism.

One hopeful sign that has emerged in American politics while I have been writing this document is that a bipartisan group of 17 members of the Senate and House of Representatives in America have just passed bipartisan legislation relative to immigration reform that President Trump has agreed, reluctantly, to sign (later today). As with all bipartisan legislation, no one is happy about all the details of the approved legislative package. Good bipartisan legislation requires “compromise” all around, where nobody gets everything that they want, but everyone gets enough of what they want.

Of course, the challenge we will face in America these next few weeks or months is the issue of whether President Trump can “build his Wall” (on the southern border with Mexico), without this bipartisan legislation providing sufficient funding for that objective, by means of an “Executive order” that declares a “national emergency.” I cannot overstate the importance of that issue since it has the potential to strike at the very heart of the “separation of powers” (between the Executive and Legislative branches of American government) that our “Founding Fathers” had the wisdom to establish.

#5. How hopeful are you that this vision of improvement will become a reality?

A first reading to my response to question #4 above may lead you to believe that I am hopelessly naïve and completely out of touch with the present realties of American politics. Is this all a grand exercise in wishful thinking? How hopeful am I?

My answer depends on which “lens” I wear. From a “human perspective,” I am very pessimistic. The scourge of tribalism is so pervasive in America that the dreams I express above appear to have little chance of being realized. I cannot possibly “succeed.”

But as a professing Christian I am not called to necessarily be successful. I am called to be faithful. Based on the parable of the mustard seed told by Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 13: 31-32, I am called to plan tiny “seeds of redemption” in my spheres of influence, entrusting the harvest to God. So, when I look at the current political scene in America through the “lens” of “faith,” I am optimistic.

#6. What can individuals like me do to solve this problem?

Far be it from me to tell others who profess commitment to the Christian faith what “seeds of redemption” they should be planting in their various spheres of influence. The marvelous thing about the biblical teaching about the “Body of Christ,” as elaborated in 1 Corinthians 12, is that God’s redemptive purposes for the world will be fostered by each professing Christian contributing in accordance with his/her particular God-given gifts. 

I believe that my recent focus on orchestrating respectful conversations about contentious issues fits well with the gifts God has granted to me and comports well with a deep expression of the love for others to which Jesus has called all Christians. I will thank God if any reader of this document who professes commitment to the Christin faith decides to “go and do likewise” in their particular context. 

For readers of this document who do not profess commitment to the Christian faith, I can only say, without elaborating, that the “values” that are the foundation for the above reflections are not just “Christian values”; they are “human values” that I believe should be embraced by all human  beings whatever their religious or secular worldview commitments. In particular, all human beings should love others and a deep expression of such love is to create a safe and welcoming space for those who disagree with you to express and talk about those disagreements.

“No Wall Money in Government Funding Legistation: Eliminating the Possibility of Genuine Negotiation

/in /by

 To invite someone to have respectful conversation with you about your disagreements while stipulating what the results of your conversation must be eliminates the possibility of a genuine conversation. As I never tire of saying, “one cannot predict beforehand the results of a respectful conversation.”

As I heard recently on national news, that charade has happened once again relative to the current bipartisan conference committee negotiations regarding immigration. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi laid down a pre-condition for negotiations: “No wall money in government funding legislation.” If the conference committee negotiations, which have barely begun, are to be genuine, Speaker Pelosi should not stipulate up-front what must come out of those negotiations.

As also reported in the media, Speaker Pelosi did appear to cut the committee some slack by expressing openness to some type of “physical barrier.” Is the disagreement then semantic; hinging on a possible distinction between a “wall” and some other type of “physical barrier?” If so, the conference committee should be given the opportunity to sort out that apparent distinction.

President Trump is not to be spared from my concern about setting pre-conditions that eliminate the possibility of genuine negotiation. Later in the day when the two media reports noted above came out, President Trump changed his earlier view that the “wall” could be some other sort of “barrier” to a stronger assertion that “a wall is a wall” and any negotiations that do not acknowledge that are a “waste of time.” If that is now a pre-condition for him signing the legislation that emerges from the bipartisan conference committee, that also eliminates genuine conversation about an important aspect of what the committee should be talking about.

In brief, we can’t know beforehand what genuine negotiation within the conference committee will yield and no one should set pre-conditions on what can and cannot emerge.

But each of us can hope. As I hint at in my Musing of January 25 (“Starting with a Political Non-Starter”), here is what I hope results from these current negotiations: a “big” piece of legislation that includes a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers; an extension of Temporary Status Protection (TPS) for those seeking asylum from horrendous conditions in their home countries; and some beefed-up border security measures, including greater use of technology, more personnel at the borders and, yes, some more “physical barriers” in selected “priority areas” that may even include some type of “wall.”

A common response to the hope that I express above is that it is unlikely that the conference committee can agree on such a “big” piece of legislation. Therefore, the committee should be encouraged to seek agreement only on improved border security measures. If that can be accomplished, then broader issues involving the Dreamers and TPS can be addressed later. My concern with that sequential approach is that if agreement is reached only about border security measures, there will not be adequate political incentive to address these broader issues. Besides, part to what such broader bipartisan negotiations may yield are “trade-offs” relative to this multiplicity of related issues.

Speaker Pelosi and President Trump can also express their hopes as to what emerges from the conference committee negotiations. But to impose those hopes on the committee violates a proper separation of powers and a proper understanding of the role of Congress. Neither I, nor Speaker Pelosi, nor President Trump, nor anyone else should stipulate up-front what the results of such negotiation must be. To do so eliminates the possibility of genuine negotiation.

STARTING WITH A POLITICAL NON-STARTER: AN EXAMPLE OF GENUINE NEGOTIATION

/in , /by

In my forthcoming book on “Reforming American Politics,” I propose three major strategies for a “Way Forward” that could move the current sad state of political discourse from conflict to conversation; the most audacious of which is: In your political activities, always seek for a both/and position relative to any public policy issue that reflects a balanced synthesis of the best insights of those who have disagreements, and encourage political representatives on both sides of the aisle to do likewise.

To take this bit of advice beyond being a pious platitude (or, in the minds of some readers, to demonstrate how unrealistic it is), I will illustrate its application by considering a possible “negotiation” regarding President Trump’s January 19, 2018 proposal on immigration, the highlights of which were as follows:

  •  5.7 billion for steel barriers in priority areas
  •  675 million for increased drug technology at ports of entry
  •  130 million for canine units, including training and more personnel
  •  800 million for humanitarian assistance
  •  782 million for 2750 additional agents
  •  563 million for 75 new immigration judges
  •  Three years of protection for Dreamers
  •  Three years of protection for refugees having Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s immediate reaction (even before Trump’s proposal was officially presented) was to call it a “non-starter,” essentially because it included money for a “wall” (of sorts) and it did not end the government shutdown.

I believe that Pelosi calling Trump’s proposal a non-starter was a mistake. Trump’s proposal may have been a very inadequate proposal and may have been only a re-hash of previous unacceptable proposals. But it was President Trump’s “starting point.” So, to call it a non-starter was to forfeit the possibility of any negotiation that could improve on this starting point.

What might be the substance of such negotiation? I will illustrate in an unusual way; by sharing snippets of a conversation I would like to have with President Trump about selected aspects of his proposal (which of course will not happen), saving for later some reflections on how Pelosi might engage in a similar negotiation (which could happen).

HAROLD: Mister President. I appreciate your returning to your previously expressed concern for the plight of Dreamers; those children of immigrants who were brought to America by their parents at a very young age through no choice of their own. But to only propose a three-year extension of their DACA status is to perpetuate a grave injustice. These Dreamers have not broken any laws and. therefore, deserve no punishment. Justice requires that they be provided with the pathway to citizenship for which you once expressed public support.

Furthermore, Mister President, I appreciate your proposal to extend Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for three years for those who are fleeing natural disasters, persecution (or death) or armed conflicts in their home countries. For me that is another justice issue, since I believe that justice demands that we take the steps necessary to address the needs of other human beings who have been marginalized and oppressed. But this suggests that America take steps to address some of the poor conditions that prevail in these neighboring countries (which is a significant part of the “humanitarian crisis” that you refer to; which I believe should be the major focus of the 800 million in “humanitarian assistance” that you have proposed).

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I will consider the concerns and remedies you have expressed. But will you likewise consider some of my major concerns and proposed remedies? For example, we need to increase border security in ways that will minimize illegal immigration and combat the flow of drugs into our country. And many of our border agents tell me that some type of physical barrier (a wall or whatever) are needed at certain segments of the border to help achieve these results.

HAROLD: I agree with the need for improved border security, which could take the form of more physical barriers at selected places along the border, as well as other means, such as greater use of technology. But if the primary concern is with the flow of drugs into America, we will need to increase the use of drug detection technology at legal points of entry, such as airports, since that is where the major flow of drugs takes place.

But my agreement with you about the need for greater border security and the need to curtail the flow of drugs into America masks our significant disagreements as to the magnitude of the funding that is needed to address these problems. You propose 5.7 billion for “steel barriers” in “priority areas” along the border, plus approximately another 2.2 billion for other measures that you perceive as necessary to improve border security. My initial thinking is to agree with the proposal from Democrats that a total of about 1 billion should be spent on border security measures. We are obviously miles apart on the funding needed to improve border security and how this funding should be used. This suggests that we both need to go back to the drawing board. To get that re-thinking started, let us split the difference as to total funding; assuming that a total of 4.45 billion is available (halfway between 1 billion and 7.9 billion). We both need to develop new proposals as to how that 4.45 billion is best spent to improve border security.

To end this imaginary conversation at this point would be to ignore the huge elephant in the room, the partial government shutdown. So, I can imagine our conversation continuing as follows:

HAROLD: Even if we can reach some kind of agreement relative to the changes in your starting proposal that I outline above, we appear to be at an impasse relative to the  government shutdown for which you have publicly taken responsibility.  You call for legislative action on your starting proposal before re-opening the government. I believe the government shutdown must be ended immediately.

My argument for ending the government shutdown immediately is another justice argument. To be sure, the concept of “justice” is “contested,” with room for disagreement as to what it means to “do justice.” But if one starts with the general view that doing justice calls for treating all people “fairly,” then, despite some legitimate disagreements about the meaning of “fairness,” there is no way to argue that it is “fair” for a government employee to be deprived of the means to keep food on the table or medicine in the cabinet because of a political dispute about immigration. Government workers who are no longer being paid have done nothing to deserve that punishment. That is a clear injustice. To make matters worse, there is also strong evidence that national security and even the strong American economy are being increasingly compromised by the shutdown.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: If I give in on the government shutdown, there will be no incentive for Democrats to vote for any of the changes in border security or related immigration issues that I have proposed. If I end the government shutdown, there will be no reason for the Democrats to come to the negotiating table.

HAROLD: I understand your concern, but the Democrats have made it clear that they  will not negotiate until you end the shutdown. And any plans to have the Senate and the House approve separate plans that the other chamber will reject is a dead end exercise in political posturing.

There may be a way out of this impasse. Rather than having each party meet in private to develop plans that the other party will clearly reject, which seems to be the current approach and is clearly not “negotiation,” exert your presidential leadership by declaring that you will end the shutdown on the condition that a bipartisan approach to genuine negotiation about immigration issues be followed in both chambers of Congress, similar to the way in which a bipartisan “gang of eight” Senators came up with a proposal for comprehensive immigration reform in 2013. To those who question that bipartisan approach because the Senate immigration bill of 2013 died in the house, I respond that this may have been because the House rejected the “bipartisan negotiation” approach that worked in the Senate.

Now that I have ended my imaginary conversation with President Trump. I may have only convinced most readers that I am totally out of touch with political reality, which is true if you accept the adequacy of the current way of doing politics, which I do not. So. I will close this Musing with some reflections on the example of “political negotiation” presented above that anticipates some possible objections from readers.

THE WAY PRESIDENT TRUMP TALKS TO OR ABOUT THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH HIM DOES NOT FIT WITH THE WORDS YOU HAVE PUT INTO HIS MOUTH

You are correct about that! The words I put into President Trump’s mouth in the above imaginary conversation were meant to focus on the message, not the messenger. For example, I avoided what he might have said as an impulsive response to my suggestion that his proposal for only extending relief for Dreamers for another three years was inadequate, which could well have been to vilify me for even suggesting that idea. Such a harsh response could prematurely end the conversation before it hardly got started.

The tone of my words and the words I have put into President Trump’s mouth in the above example reflect, without apology, the way I believe persons who have disagreements about political issues, or anything else, should talk to one another about their disagreements, As I elaborate in the closing chapter of my forthcoming book, this belief flows from my deep commitment to certain underlying values like love, humility, respect, patience, hope and an unswerving commitment to seek after the “truth” about the issue at hand. As one who aspires to be a follower of Jesus, my commitment to these values flows from my understanding that they reflect the teachings of the Christian faith. In particular, I believe that a deep expression of the love for others to which Jesus calls those who aspire to be his followers is to create a safe and welcoming space for the other persons to express disagreements and then to talk respectfully about the nature of of our disagreements. But these values to which I am committed are not just “Christian values”; they are “human values” that all persons of good will should embrace.

 

But there is little evidence that President Trump embraces these values. His first impulse is to vilify anyone who disagrees with him. That is wrong in and of itself.  But it is also an ineffective political strategy. There is great wisdom in the proverbial teaching that “a soft answer turns away wrath” (Proverbs 15:1).

So, what would I do if in an actual conversation with President Trump, he vilified me? I would not respond in kind (as one person has put it, I would not allow him to determine my behavior). I would still present the arguments I present above, assuming that President Trump does not walk away from the negotiating table. If he storms out on me, that is his choice. But that leads me to reflect a bit on how Nancy Pelosi could, in actuality, engage in the type of negotiation that I imagine above.

WHAT COULD NANCY PELOSI DO WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP’S NON-STARTER?

I have no idea if Nancy Pelosi shares any of the arguments that I have included in my imaginary conversation with President Trump, which focus on my understanding of what it means to “do justice.” But she could present her own arguments in opposition to Trump’s proposal and counter with her own alternative proposals, which is what negotiation should be all about.

But, having said that, I would commend for Pelosi’s consideration my proposal for trying to break the current impasse about whether the current government shutdown needs to end before any negotiations can begin by suggesting to President Trump that he should end the shutdown on the condition that some type of bipartisan approach to negotiation be taken, similar to what the Senate “gang of eight” did in 2013. 

I close this Musing with two general recommendations that I believe are pertinent to engaging in genuine negotiations with those with whom you disagree on immigration issues (which I believe are also applicable to disagreements about anything else).

DON’T POLTICIZE EVERYTHING 

In an Adult Discipleship class that I was leading at my home church, I asked attendees to express their beliefs about President Trump’s proposal a while back to curtail the family reunification component of immigration. To a person, attendees parroted what the political party they belonged to said about that issue, with Republicans preferring to use the phrase “chain migration.” But I wasn’t asking them what their political party of choice believed about this program. I was asking them what they believed the Bible taught that might be relevant to this issue.

The prominent mistake that my Christian attendees were making was to substitute a “political lens” for a “Christian lens.” To quickly politicize every issue is a common mistake for Christians and everyone else.  

I intentionally avoided making that mistake in my imaginary conversation. I did this by avoiding any reference to either my political party (Democrat) or President Trump’s political party. Rather, I drove the conversation down to a more foundational level by seeking to uncover the operative value commitments that inform the beliefs of the two conversation partners. (in this conversation the meaning of the value of “justice” being the key issue).

Of course, not all citizens share my value commitments as a Christian. Therefore, at this deep level of conversation, disagreements as to the adequacy of differing value commitments still abound. But at least the debate is being carried out at a deeper level than “what does my political party say.”

HAVE THE COURAGE TO RISK MAKING EVERYONE UNHAPPY

I imagine that my proposal in my imaginary conversation with President Trump that funding for all border security measures be limited to about 4.45 billion rather than the 7.9 billion proposed by President Trump or the 1 billion proposed by Democrats will make both Democrats and Republicans unhappy. So be it!

The scourge of contemporary politics is tribalism, an “us-versus them” mentality where “my party” has the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the issue at hand and those in the “other party” are all wrong, at best, or downright evil, at worst.

Such tribalists will not settle for “half a loaf;” it’s “my way or the highway.” Such extremists, in either political party, eschew any attempts to reach across the aisle to seek a balanced synthesis of the best insights from both parties. What scares me most about the current political scene is the gradual disappearance of “moderate” politicians who reject tribalism, the root cause of which is that doing politics has become more about getting elected than governing well.

Therefore, my call for “genuine negotiation” about disagreements in the political realm may not gain much traction in a culture that is becoming increasingly tribalistic. But, given my value commitments as a professing Christian, it is the right thing for me to do.

[Authors Note: What a difference half-a-day can make when it comes to political discourse. I composed the above Musing on the morning of January 25, when the government was shut down. Half a day later, the government shutdown was revoked for three weeks. Although that makes some aspects of the above reflections inapplicable, I decided to post this Musing for two reasons. First, this piece still illustrates my understanding of how “genuine negotiation” should be carried out toward the goal of seeking for a both/and position relative to a public policy issue that draws on the best insights of those on both sides of the political aisle. Secondly, who knows what may happen in the next three weeks. The government may again be subject to another shutdown, in which case my recommendation that President Trump not propose such a shutdown provided that both chambers of Congress agree to “bipartisan negotiation” (such as carried out by the Senate gang of eight” in 2013) may be relevant].