Holding onto Power Lightly

/in /by

A good friend of mine from Massachusetts shared with me the following reflections on what she called the “summer of shame” within the Catholic Church where she worships relative to widespread sexual abuse problems: “while our bishops continue to fail to act and do the right things, the laity is shifting around like crazy,” possibly leading to a “smaller and more faithful church.”

A failure to “do the right thing” on the part of those in power is not limited to the Catholic Church. Without seeking to generalize from my experience, I will report on some painful experiences I have had with those “in power” within Protestantism.

All too often. I have found that a number of Protestant leaders are strongly motivated by a desire to maintain their power and they maintain their power by ensuring that they are in control. This motivation leads to a command-and-control view of leadership where the important decisions are made by those “at the top,” without adequate consultation with those who report to them who will be significantly affected by their decisions.

To elaborate a bit, I have had a few painful conversations with Protestant Christian leaders that revealed that the values that they were motivated by had more to do with maintaining their authority and control and the “prestige” of their organizations than with fostering timeless Christian values like love, justice, truth and community.

In his book The Active Life, noted Quaker sociologist Parker Palmer provides important insights into the limitations of a command-and-control type of leadership designed to maintain power, suggesting that Jesus modeled a different type of leadership that fosters the Christian value of community.

Jesus exercises the only kind of leadership that can evoke authentic community – a leadership that risks failure (and even crucifixion) by making space for other people to act. When a leader takes up all the space and preempts all the action, he or she may make something happen, but the something is not community. Nor is it abundance, because the leader is only one person, and one person’s resources invariably run out. But, when a leader is willing to trust the abundance that people have and can generate together, willing to take the risk of inviting people to share from that abundance, then and only then may true community emerge (p. 138).

There is much to unpack from Palmer’s insights. In my own words, the fatal flaw in the command-and-control model for leadership is that the decisions made are only as good as the best thinking and giftedness of the boss who has the power. In stark contrast, a collegial process for leadership, which I have embraced (more about that later) can lead to decisions that reflect the best thinking and giftedness not only of the boss, but also of those members of the community the boss is leading. 

A mis-reading of a collegial approach to leadership is to think it is an abdication of the responsibility of a person “in power” to “take charge” and “make things happen.” I can best point out how wrong-headed this view is by noting my own experiences in relative positions “of power” when I served for 13 years as a Vice President for Academic Affairs at two Christian liberal arts colleges.

I didn’t leave the teaching of mathematics that I loved for a VPAA position because of the supposed greater prestige of my new position. I left for a relative position of power primarily because of a dream; the wild idea that I could expand on my attempts to make connections between my academic discipline of mathematics and my biblical/theological understanding to inspire a whole college faculty to pursue such connections in their various academic disciplines (thereby fostering the Christian value of knowledge about God’s Creation). So, I could now use my relative position of power to seek to implement that goal. 

When I saw that something needed to be done toward the realization of my goal, I didn’t sit around waiting for my faculty to take that initiative. I took proactive steps in pursuit of my vision. But I didn’t proceed as a Lone Ranger. I assigned the initiative to the appropriate faculty committee at the same time that I “put my oar in the water” (as my faculty jokingly described my modus operandi). What this meant was that whatever the issue at hand (e.g. a curriculum change or an academic policy change), I always sent the appropriate committee a detailed document that presented my current best thinking on the issue, with the exhortation that I expected the committee to improve considerably on my initial thinking. What typically resulted was that the final product reflected the best thinking of all of us and, in the process, a strong sense of community was fostered (if that sounds too easy, it wasn’t that easy – for further elaboration see my essay “Planting Seeds for Redemptive Change” in the book I co-edited with Mark Sargent titled Soul Care: Christian faith and Academic Administration). That was my attempt to hold onto power lightly.

But my journey in the corridors of power didn’t end well. At the end of my 5th year of service as VPAA at Messiah College (PA), I was called into the president’s office and told that my employment was being terminated due to my “lack of deference to the President and Board of Trustees.” To make a long and painful story short, my “firing” reflected an irreconcilable conflict between the command-and-control leadership style of the President and Board and my collegial leadership style. My downfall was that I insisted on following the collegial governance process for making academic decisions about curriculum and programs of study spelled out clearly in the Faculty Handbook. Those who had more power than me wanted to bypass those approved governance procedures.

I was glued to my TV for the funeral services for President George H. W. Bush. The splendid eulogies made it clear that he held onto his power lightly. For example, his decision to change his position on taxes, due to an evolution in his beliefs about was “good for the country” probably cost him re-election. The contrast with President Trump is stark. 

My experiences, good and bad, in a position of leadership are an example of an attempt to use power to promote Christian values, as I understand them, in the context of an individual Christian organization. Such attempts get more complicated and controversial when one is dealing with a group of organizations, like churches, falling under a larger umbrella, like a denomination. This brings me back to the second aspect of the reflection of my friend from Massachusetts about the “summer of shame” in the Catholic Church.

Recall that my friend did not only lament the failures of those in power (the bishops) to “do the right thing.” She went on to report on how the laity in Catholic churches were filling in the void by “doing the right thing” at the local congregational level. This local approach fits well with the principle of subsidiarity that is prominent in Catholic social teaching: wherever possible allow decisions to be made at a local level rather than by a central authority.

This principle of subsidiarity makes a great deal of sense to me for all Christian traditions, primarily because it is at the local level that Christians get to “know each other” well (especially by listening empathetically to one another), thereby being attuned to what needs to be done in their local congregations to foster the growth toward Christian maturity of all their congregants.

Of course, implementing the principle of subsidiarity requires an extraordinary measure of “holding onto power lightly” on the part of those having central authority (e.g., the leaders of Christian denominations). And the implementation details are extremely complex – for one example of this complexity, I refer the reader to the section titled “Navigate Denominational Conflict” regarding contentious human sexuality issues in my book Respectful LGBT Conversations (pp. 273-279). But I believe it is the “right thing to do.”

In conclusion, I observe, as an example of gross understatement, that any attempts of finite and flawed human beings, like me, to hold onto power lightly pale in comparison to the example of Jesus who. although he had unlimited power, chose to hold onto that power so lightly that it led to his crucifixion.

Let this same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave. Being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross. (Philippians 2: 6-8)

Pivoting from Respectful Electronic Conversations (eCircles) to Face-to-Face Conversations: A Big New Challenge

/in /by

As reported on this website most of my attempts over the past seven years to orchestrate respectful conversations among Christians who have strong disagreements regarding some contentious issues have been done electronically (through my eCircles), with follow-up books that seek to capture the highlights of these eCircles.

While I am thinking about a possible theme for a new circle, I am now focusing my activities on orchestrating face-to-face conversations in my local community. This presents a whole new challenge. 

In this musing, I will report on one local attempt that was a dismal failure and a second attempt that worked well until it didn’t. My next musing will report on a third initiative that is just beginning. I am hoping that these three reports will be helpful to those readers who want to take the bold and very challenging step of initiating such face-to-face conversations in their local communities.

THE GENERAL CHALLENGE ONLINE AND FACE-TO-FACE

I have found it to be extremely difficult to gather Christians, or any other group, together. either online or face-to-face, to listen to differing views about contentious issues and then respectfully discuss areas of agreement and disagreement. I believe this reflects the us-versus them tribalism that is so rampant within both our Christian communities and the broader culture. After all, if the members of my “tribe” have captured the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the issue and the members of other “tribes are “all wrong,” what is there to talk about?

I believe it is fair to say, perhaps immodestly, that I have met that challenge rather effectively in the various eCircles that I have hosted on this website. My “conversation partners” for each eCircle have demonstrated to an admirable extent that Christians who have strong disagreements about some very contentious issues (e.g., LGBT issues and issues pertaining to American Politics) can express their contrasting positions and their perceptions of areas of agreement and disagreement in a very gracious, loving and respectful manner, provided they all agree before the conversations get started that they will aspire to measure up to certain clearly stipulated “ideals (guidelines) for conversation.”

But I remind the reader of the enormous amount of work that went into recruiting my conversation partners. To recruit 21 conversation partners for my eCircle on human sexuality, I extended 80 invitations. I sent out approximately 110 invitations to recruit my 23 conversation partners for my eCircle on “Reforming American Politics.” Most who declined my invitations expressed very good reasons for doing so; typically, for the many Christian scholars I invited, their busyness with other scholarly and teaching commitments. 

But, although I have no empirical evidence for what I am about to say, it is my educated guess that some of the hesitancy on the part of Christian scholars to join my eCircles reflected a lack of enthusiasm for the prospect of engaging other scholars who disagreed with their particular scholarly findings. To whatever extent that may be true, however, that recruitment challenge for online conversations pales in comparison to the challenge I have experienced in my local attempts to get Christians in the same room for face-to-face conversations regarding controversial issues about which they have strong disagreements. I will now report on two such initiatives.

A FAILED ATTEMPT AT A FACE-TO-FACE CONVERSATION ABOUT AN IMMIGRATION ISSUE

Given my interest in immigration issues, my interest was piqued when a local resident sent a Letter to the Editor to our county newspaper, the Capital Democrat, criticizing our County Sheriff for his policy of not honoring ICE Detainer requests from the federal government after a local offense has been adjudicated. I came to the defense of the Sheriff in my Letter to the Editor in the next issue of the newspaper, at the end of which I included an invitation to all county residents to join me in a group to discuss this debatable issue.

I received 3-4 email responses to my invitation from other local residents who shared my views and would be willing to explain why in a small group conversation. I received no expressions of interest in joining such a discussion group on the part of local residents who took a position that differed from my position.

It is important to point out that this lack of interest on the part of the more “conservative” residents of my county in Iowa did not reflect a lack in numbers. Since it has been reported that Sioux County is the second most politically conservative county in the United States, I believe it is safe to guess that the vast majority of my neighbors would disagree with the position I espoused So, why didn’t they want to join my discussion group? I didn’t ask, so I can only conjecture.

First of all, I believe that part of the lack of interest on the part of my more conservative neighbors reflects the us-versus-them tribalism that is so rampant throughout our country, including Sioux County. Why would I want to talk to Harold and his tribe of fellow “liberals” about this immigration issue when “they” are all wrong? 

But I made a big mistake when I reinforced such tribalism by the very nature of my Letter to the Editor. I revealed my particular position on the immigration issue, thus giving undue prominence to my position. Any invitee with more conservative leanings might guess, erroneously, that I was “laying a trap”: I would recruit a bunch of my more “liberal’ leaning friends to bolster my position in a group discussion; overwhelming those who disagreed with me.

I “threw in the towel.” Since I have no interest whatsoever in reinforcing the prevalent “echo chamber” approach to discourse, where we only listen to and talk with those who already agree with us, I told those who agreed with my position and wanted to join my discussion group that there would not be a discussion group since I failed at recruiting group members who would disagree with them.

A first glimpse of an important lesson emerged from this debacle. Impersonal blanket invitations to face-to-face conversations do not work well. I may have had more success

If I had approached friends one-on-one with personal invitations to participate. This was a lesson that I learned slowly and attempted, up to a point, in my next initiative.

AN LGBT CONVERSATION THAT STARTED WELL BUT THEN DETERIORATED

Shortly after the publication of my book Respectful LGBT Conversations, I advertised an Adult Discipleship opportunity in my home church that would be devoted to discussing my book. Once again, to avoid the echo chamber effect, I noted my desire to gather a group that had a reasonable balance between representatives of three populations: Those who affirmed same-sex marriage; those who did not affirm same-sex marriage; and those who were “undecided.”

The initial response was far from overwhelming. I should have guessed this would happen because, once again, I had extended an impersonal blanket invitation. A married lesbian couple from my church signed up, as did two members who were “undecided.”

So, I talked to friends one-on-one. A married couple from another church in town agreed to attend. But they both took an “affirming” position; creating a further imbalance in representation from my three target populations. I still had no non-affirming representation. So, I extended a personal invitation to a friend from my church who I knew took a non-affirming position. He agreed to attend one meeting. I asked him if he would invite any of his friends who shared his non-affirming position. He agreed to do so, and a golfing buddy of his agreed to attend our second meeting.

Our second and third meetings went well. Since the two now non-affirming members made it clear that they had no interest in reading my book, I made a mid-course correction and devoted these two meetings to simply discussing questions that anyone could raise.

The best part of these two meetings was that the married lesbian attendees were able to “tell their stories” and the two non-affirming attendees listened with respect. No agreement was reaches as to whether same-sex relationships are “sinful.” But we were all listening well to each other; thereby achieving a significant measure of “mutual understanding” that would, hopefully, lay the groundwork for ongoing future conversation.

Alas, at the end of our second meeting of this expanded group, our two non-affirming attendees abruptly announced that they would no longer be attending, without elaborating on their reasons for that decision. So, in our fourth meeting, we finally started discussing my book (the announced intention for this class). In my estimation, these discussions went well. But my hopes for this class were only partially realized because of the absence of voices from those who take a non-affirming position. 

But I was slowly learning how to, and how not to, go about orchestrating such face-to-face conversations. In my next musing, to be posted within a few weeks, I will report on a third attempt that I am just beginning that I believe will “work better” because of lessons I learned the hard way from my first two attempts.

The Nature of Respectful Conversations

/in /by

Although a focus on orchestrating “respectful conversations” has permeated my website since its inception, my understanding of the nature of such conversations has evolved in the process of my hosting multiple eCircles and writing books intended to capture the highlights of these eCircles. What follows is my summary, as of early November 2018, of the essential elements of “respectful conversations” among those who have strong disagreements. 

FOUNDATIONS

UNERLYING PREMISE: An oft-neglected dimension of the call of Jesus for me to love others (Mark 12:31) is for me to create a safe and welcoming space for those who disagree with me to express and explain their beliefs. You don’t love someone who you have silenced. 

THE RARE COMBINATION OF COMMITMENT AND OPENNESS: Holding to Your beliefs with strong conviction while being open to refining your beliefs in light of the differing beliefs of others (A “Convicted Civility”)

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.

Ian Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms, 136

One of the real problems in modern life is that the people who are good at being civil often lack strong convictions and people who have strong convictions often lack civility … We need to find a way of combining a civil outlook with a “passionate intensity” about our convictions. The real challenge is to come up with a convicted civility.

Richard Mouw, Uncommon Decency, 12

A MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN RELATIVISM AND FANATICISM: Believing in “truth” but not willing to resort to violence in light of your understanding of the “truth.”

Openness to the beliefs of others without commitment to your own beliefs too easily leads to sheer relativism (I have my beliefs about what is “true”; you have your beliefs; end of conversation). 

Commitment to your own beliefs without openness to listening to and respectfully discussing the beliefs of others too easily leads to fanaticism, even terrorism. (As C. S. Lewis has observed, to which past and recent world events tragically testify, “Those who are readiest to die for a cause may easily become those who are readiest to kill for it.” – Reflections on the Psalms, 28).

One of the most pressing needs in our world today is for all human beings, whatever their religious or secular faith commitments, to embrace, and hold in tension, both commitment and openness; giving living expression to “convicted civility.”

IDEALS FOR RESPECTFUL CONVERSATION: THE SHAPE OF CIVILITY

All persons wishing to engage in “respectful conversation” with those who disagree with them should personally agree to abide by the following 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

A POSSIBLE OBJECTION: Aren’t you limiting my “free speech” by expecting me to abide by these ideals for conversation?

Yes! Freedom for speech, or anything else, is not “license” (doing as you please). As proposed by Mark Douglas, there are three conditions under which “free speech” needs to be restrained.

RESTRAINING FREE SPEECH TO AVOID VIOLENCE: “Where speech is used to incite, encourage, or valorize violence, it can be restricted or prohibited.”

RESTRAINING FREE SPEECH TO AVOIDS SILENCING CRITICS: “Where speech is used to end conversations, to silence critics, to shout down unpopular positions, to harm through deception, or to reject the diversity of voices, it can be restricted or prohibited.”

RESTRAINING FREE SPEECH TO AVOID TRIBALISM: “Where free speech is used to categorize people, to generalize and then demean people, to reject and then to dehumanize people, it can be restricted and prohibited.”

Speech guided by the above “ideals for conversation” will avoid violence, the silencing of critics and the us-versus-them Tribalism that is so rampant in contemporary American culture.

The Future of the LGBT Controversy will Depend on Who is Given a Voice

/in /by

 In the concluding chapter of my recent book Respectful LGBT Conversations that emerged from my eCircle on human sexuality, I propose some concrete steps for a “Way Forward” for Christians, churches, Christian colleges and denominations currently struggling with issues related to human sexuality. A common element for many of my proposed “next steps” is the need for ongoing respectful conversations among those Christians who have strong disagreements about these contentious issues.

This leaves unanswered the crucial question as to the results that may emerge from such ongoing conversations. Ignoring the suggestion of a number of my conversation partners for this eCircle that it is folly to attempt to predict this future, and tempering my own favorite adage that “you cannot predict beforehand the results of a respectful conversation,” some of my experiences since the publication of my book embolden me to peer a bit into that future.

The context for what I envision for the future is set by two of my proposed next steps for a Way Forward. My primary proposal is the need to Build Relationships of Mutual Understanding and Trust with those with Whom You Disagree (279-282). A second proposal that is a “means” for building such personal relationships of mutual understanding and trust is the need to Listen to the Stories of Your LGBT brothers and Sisters in Christ and Listen to Those Who Disagree with You About LGBT Issues (265-266).

Given that context, two recent sets of experience in my local setting prompt my audacity to predict two directions for what may emerge in the future.

First, I have found it to be a challenge to gather together into the same room for conversation those Christians who embrace a “traditional” view of marriage (reserved for a man and woman) and those Christians who embrace a “non-traditional” view of marriage (God will bless a monogamous, life-long marriage commitment of same-sex partners).

What I have generally found is that the non-traditionalists are anxious to talk, while traditionalists have much less interest in talking with those who disagree with them about same-sex marriage. I think I understand somewhat the reason for such reluctance to engage in conversation on the part of many traditionalists. The non-traditionalists are calling into question the status quo (the traditionalist view) in many churches and denominations. What is to be gained by engaging them in conversation? To do so could upset the status quo. 

The context for a second set of recent local experiences is that my calling for “listening to the stories of your LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ” in one of my proposed next steps had two sources. The first source was the regret expressed by the leaders of my case studies for two churches and a Christian university that a significant deficiency in how they attempted to navigate strong disagreements at their institutions was that they didn’t adequately listen to the stories of the LGBT individuals within their churches or on their campus (238-242).

The second source of my call to “listen to the stories of your LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ” was the powerful effect on me of hearing first-hand stories of how LGBT individuals were seeking to faithfully live out their commitments to be followers of Jesus, and how difficult and painful that has been in their church and denominational settings.

Well, since the publication of my book, I have listened to a few more of these moving stories from LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ, which has amplified the urgency of my call for inviting them to recount their personal stories and for those of us who are not LGBT individuals to listen with great empathy.

My conclusion from these two sets of recent experiences is that the results of my proposed steps for a Way Forward will depend on who is given a voice in future conversations and two distinct directions will emerge, which I will now seek to describe.

One direction that I believe will emerge will be for an increasing number of Christians to create venues that will enable our LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ to tell their stories, whether in churches, Christian educational institutions, denominational meetings, or local coffee shops.

To create such safe and welcoming spaces where LGBT persons are given a voice will require a significant measure of courage on the part of Christian leaders; especially those whose constituents will threaten to withdraw institutional support if LGBT members are allowed to speak up.

When LGBT Christians are given safe and welcoming spaces to tell their stories of how they aspire to faithfully live out their commitments to be followers of Jesus, I believe that all who listen carefully to their stories will be open to taking a fresh look at the Bible, rethinking possible interpretations of those specific biblical passages that appear to clearly condemn same-sex relationships in the context of the overall message of the Bible, similar to what was done in the late nineteenth century relative to those biblical passages that appear, at first glance, to condone the institution of slavery. 

I believe that the hermeneutical conclusion that will be reached by many members of this segment of the Christian church is that the context for those biblical passages that appear to preclude any same-sex relationships is not that of same-sex couples wanting to enter a monogamous, life-long marriage commitment and, therefore, these biblical passages do not preclude such a covenant commitment.

If this interpretation that these particular biblical passages are “silent” relative to the sanctity, or not, of a monogamous, life-long marriage commitment, is the most adequate interpretation, how does one proceed? Members of this segment of the Christian church will typically argue that Christians must discern what the overall message of the Bible is relative to the possible sanctity of such a lifelong commitment. A common persperctive is that the Bible teaches that every human being needs to experience intimate relationships with other people characterized by enduring commitments to give and receive love that seeks to foster the well-being on the other and that for humans who have not chosen their sexual orientation, this means that God will bless a life-long marriage commitment of same-sex partners.

Of course, I am only predicting here that this is one direction relative to human sexuality issues that will emerge among Christians; a direction that will emerge when our LGBT brother and sisters in Christ are “given a voice” in a safe and welcoming environment. 

I believe another direction will emerge. A segment of Christianity will continue to hold strongly to a traditional view of human sexuality without providing their LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ a safe and welcoming space to express their commitment to a non-traditional view.

Evidence for this second direction includes the challenge I have experienced  when trying to get those who hold a traditional view of same-sex marriage into the same room to talk with LGBT Christians and their allies. This stance on the part of many traditionalists amounts to “silencing” their LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ; not giving them a “voice.”

Such “silencing” is not unique to my experience. I know it to be the case within some Christian institutions of higher education, where the existence of a group of LGBT community members is acknowledged, but they have been effectively “silenced” in the larger campus community (e.g., since they are not an officially sanctioned campus organization, they are allowed to hold meetings, but such meetings cannot be officially advertised campus-wide).

In conclusion, as I peer into the future, I believe that the distinction between giving our LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ a “voice,” or not, will lead to the emergence of the two directions I have described, which will co-exist without significant respectful engagement between Christians in the two camps.

But having said that, I believe that those Christians who opt for giving their LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ a “voice” have made the better choice from a Christian perspective. I base this assertion on my belief that all Christians are called to love others, and you do not love someone who you have silenced.

How Can Those who Advocate for Inclusion of LGBTQ Persons in Faith Communities be “wrong” when so many LGBTQ Individuals are Suffering from their Exclusion

/in /by

A friend posed this question to me at a recent meeting. I gave a very inadequate response. I am typically not very good at thinking quickly on-my-feet in responding to unexpected questions. I need a lot of time to think about appropriate responses. So, I hope this written response will prove to be better.

The context for this question was a presentation I made at this meeting in which I proposed that since Christians do not have a “God’s-eye view of the “truth” on human sexuality issues, those holding to a “traditional” view of marriage (reserved for a man and woman) as well as those holding to a “non-traditional” view of marriage (God will bless a monogamous, life-long marriage commitment of same-sex partners) need to be open to the possibility that they are “wrong” at the same time that they present their respective positions with clarity and deep conviction.

To take my response beyond the realm of abstraction, I refer the interested reader to the electronic exchange between Justin Lee and Eve Tushnet during my eCircle on human sexuality on my website, the results of which I reported in chapter 1 (“Voices from the Gay Community”) in my recent book Respectful LGBT Conversations: Seeking Truth, Giving Love, and Modeling Christian Unity. Justin and Eve are gay Christians who disagree about same-sex marriage. Justin holds strongly to a non-traditional view that God will bless a monogamous life-long marriage commitment of same-sex partners and Eve holds just as strongly to a traditional position that Christians whose sexual orientation attracts them to members of their own gender should remain celibate for life. One of them is “wrong.”

If you read their electronic postings or my attempt to capture the highlights of their postings in the first chapter of my book, as well as the comments of some of the readers of their postings, you will find considerable heart-breaking evidence of the truth of the assertion that many Christians have caused many of their LGBTQ brothers and sisters in Christ to suffer greatly. I was particularly moved by the comment of a sixties-something reader whose church experience was so painful that he wonders why he didn’t hang himself in the rafters of an empty garage or jump from the bell tower (3).

Based on my reading of such stories of pain and suffering inflicted on my LGBT brothers an sisters in Christ by other Christians, I conclude, in the closing chapter of my book,  that there is no “Way Forward” until many Christians “confess the harm done and repent” (265).

But the suffering from exclusion that many of my LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ experience continues while Christians disagree about who is “wrong,” a disagreement that will probably not be resolved in the near future. How should that problem be addressed?

Eve Tushnet has suggested that one way to address this intolerable situation is for churches to “rediscover the many forms of love, friendship and care which exist outside of marriage” (4-6). She cites “service” and “celibate partnerships” as two categories for “giving and receiving love.” Wesley Hill, a gay Christian biblical scholar who shares Eve’s belief that gay Christians ought to remain celibate, elaborates on the “gift of friendship” in his thoughtful book Spiritual Friendship: Finding Love in the Church as a Celibate Gay Christian. 

But Eve’s proposal does not address the prior question as to what stance a church congregation as-a-whole can take that will ameliorate the “suffering from exclusion” that many LGBT Christians experience. Three distinct stances have been taken.

Some churches have declared themselves as “affirming” churches that have taken a church-wide position that God will bless a monogamous life-long marriage commitment on the part of same-sex partners. Many LGBT Christians who share that position will find Christian fellowship within such “affirming” churches without suffering the pain of exclusion.

Other churches have declared themselves as “welcoming but not affirming.” An LGBT Christian who believes that same-sex marriage is sin and, therefore, gay Christians should remain celibate, may well find Christian fellowship within such churches without suffering the pain of exclusion; especially if the church implements Eve Tushnet’s proposal (which proposal, I would add, also makes sense for “affirming” churches). But an LGBT Christian who believes that God will bless a monogamous life-long marriage commitment of same-sex partners will likely suffer the “pain of exclusion,” or, at least the pain of being considered a “second-class church member,” despite the “welcoming” sign.

But there is a “3rd way” that some churches, including my home church, have taken, a way that draws heavily on Ken Wilson’s book A Letter to my Congregation. For this 3rd way, the church congregation does not take a church-wide position that supports either a traditional or non-traditional view of same-sex marriage. Rather, the church congregation opts for a church-wide commitment to love and care for one another, whatever view a given member takes on same-sex marriage; embracing one another because we are all “beloved by God” (282-285). As James Dunn has put it, “the other is received as one who is beloved.” 

I am personally attracted to this 3rd way because, during this time of considerable disagreement among Christians as to who is “right” and who is “wrong” regarding human sexuality issues, it promotes “unity” within the Body of Christ that is based on our shared aspirations to be faithful followers of Jesus despite our lack of “uniformity” regarding our beliefs about human sexuality. But, will an LGBT member of such a 3rd way church still suffer some pain, knowing that there are church members who strongly disagree with his/her position on human sexuality? They will have to respond for themselves. So far, members of my home church on differing sides of human sexuality issues are committed to loving one another because we realize that we are all “beloved by God.”

As I re-read the above reflections, I am struck by the tensions between three values that I embrace, as hinted at in the sub-title of my book. I have an insatiable desire to better understand the “truth,” as God fully understands it, about human sexuality and everything else, and I am painfully aware of the limitations on my grasp of that truth due to my fallibility, finitude, and, yes, sinfulness. At the same time, my claim to be a follower of Jesus is authentic only if I “give love to others,” especially the marginalized and those who suffer, like many of my LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ. And as I seek after “truth” and attempt to “give love,” I yearn to contribute to the “unity” of the Body of Christ that Jesus prayed for, which appears to be an impossible dream.

It is my deep conviction that these three Christian values are compatible. I must seek to foster all three of these values, not just one or two, and figuring out how to live well when these values are in tension is a constant challenge for me. I am in dire need of a special measure of wisdom and grace.

A Christian Response to Tribalism

/in /by

The following is an edited version of a talk I gave at the Townsquare Coffee Shop in Orange City, Iowa on October 19, 2018

In his posting titled “The Spirit of the Parties” for my eCircle on “Reforming Political Discourse,” Kevin den Dulk, a political science professor at Calvin College, proposed that the major pathology in public discourse these days, especially on any issue that is political in nature, is “tribalism.” In my own words, here is the scourge of tribalism.

It is human nature to gravitate toward those who are like us. Where that tendency becomes very destructive is when we will not give careful consideration to the views of those who are not like us in that they disagree with us. We create an us-versus-them mentality that effectively silences “them” (they are wrong, we are right, so why should we even listen to them).

As den Dulk points out, such tribalism, which he labels “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 for you to talk to any of “them” to see if they have some good insights that you could incorporate into your thinking.

As den Dulk has also noted, 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 dangerously threatening.” If being “wrong” about something makes us “evil,” than we are all in big trouble.

In her recent book Fascism: A Warning, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright paints the dangers of tribalism even more starkly as engendering “contempt” for members of the out-group who disagree with us.  noting how such “contempt” for the “those people” makes us “unwilling to listen to what others say – unwilling, in some cases, even to allow them to speak.”

Albright adds that such contempt “stops the learning process cold and creates a ready-made audience for demagogues who know how to bring diverse groups of the aggrieved together in righteous opposition to everyone else” (A compelling warning in our present political climate).

Such “tribalistic contempt” for “those other people” is not limited to non-Christians. Too many of us who profess commitment to the Christian faith all too often mimic the ways of the larger secular culture by resorting to name-calling and demonization of brothers and sisters in Christ and others who disagree with us about controversial issues.

So, in summary up to this point, a telltale sign of tribalism is an unwillingness to even talk with those who disagree with you because me and my people have the truth and you and your people don’t.

The Colossian Forum, a small Christian non-profit organization in Grand Rapids (MI) with which I am affiliated as a Senior Fellow, totally rejects such tribalism. In my own words, the mission of TCF is to “create hospitable space where Christians who disagree with one another can respectfully talk about their disagreements, striving for ‘unity in Christ,’ not uniformity in all their beliefs.” 

The venues for the work of TCF are small church groups that can take courses designed by TCF that address some current “hot-button” issues (to date they have designed what they call “The Colossian Way curriculum” on the creation/evolution debate and human sexuality – for details regarding these excellent resources for churches, go to www.colossianforum.org).

As a Senior Fellow at TCF, I enthusiastically embrace the mission of TCF, but I have chosen the most inhospitable venue for such work, the Internet. I owe you an explanation for such apparent insanity.

In late 2010, I did some research on blogs on the internet and was appalled by what I found. A blogger would post a piece that typically elicited numerous responses from readers, sometimes 50 to 100 in number. But the responses were very cryptic, either applauding the blogger or, more often, vilifying the blogger, resorting to name-calling and demonization. Very few, if any of the responses advanced a genuine conversation. 

As far as being a venue for respectful conversation about disagreements, I found the internet to a cesspool. There had to be a better way to carry out an electronic conversation, possibly even a “Christian way.”

And so, to make a long story relatively short, with the help of a tech-savvy friend, I launched my own web site, www.respectfulconversation.net, about seven years ago, on which I have hosted four 8-11 month extended electronic conversations (eCircles) on some contentious topics about which Christians have strong disagreements.

After each eCircle, I have written a book that attempts to capture the highlights of the electronic postings. The third such book that emerged from my eCircle on “human sexuality,” is titled Respectful LGBT Conversations: Seeking Truth, Giving Love and Modeling Christian Unity (A copy of which I just happen to have with me if you want to take a peek). 

The format for my eCircle on human sexuality was that I chose ten subtopics, including Voices From the Gay Community, Biblical Understandings, Findings From the Sciences, Anti-Discrimination Laws, Voices From Younger Christians, and Case Studies that reported on how two churches and one Christian University navigated the difficult process of developing institutional positions on LGBT issues. 

For each of these subtopics, with the exception of the Case Studies, I recruited two “conversation partners” who I knew would present opposing views for a month-long conversation precipitated by some Leading Questions that I posed. One conversation partner presented some variation of what can be called a “traditional” view of human sexuality, including the belief that marriage is reserved for a man and woman, and the other conversation partner presented a “non-traditional” view, including the belief that God will bless a monogamous, life-long marriage commitment of same-sex partners.

As a result of this eCircle structure, the book that emerged is not advocating for either a traditional or non-traditional position. Rather, its main purpose is to model respectful conversation among Christians who disagree about human sexuality issues, as a Christian alternative to the name-calling and demonization that is rampant in current discussions about human sexuality in the larger culture and, unfortunately, within many of our Christian churches and denominations.

I am delighted to be able to report that my conversation partners modeled such respectful conversation to an admirable degree. For example, my two conversation partners for the  month-long conversation on “Voices from the Gay Community” were Justin Lee, a gay Christian who used head the Gay Christian Network and Eve Tushnet, a lesbian Catholic blogger. Justin believes that God will bless a monogamous life-long marriage commitment of same-sex partners. Eve disagrees with Justin, believing that Gay Christians are called to a life of celibacy. Here is what Justin said at the end of their month-long conversation.

So as I wrap up my part in this conversation, I find myself deeply moved. I am moved by Eve’s grace in disagreement and her friendship to me as we challenge one another. I am encouraged, too, by the depth of conversation we’ve been able to have in six simple articles. But I’m also reminded why these conversations are so important in the first place. Many hurting, lonely people’s lives hang in the balance.

My own position on this topic hasn’t changed, but my appreciation for Eve and understanding of her view has certainly increased, and I’d say that’s worth it. Respectful conversation of this sort is hugely undervalued in the church. It may not always change minds, but it is powerful and effective. Given the importance of this topic, we can’t afford not to listen to each other.

We are, after all, supposed to be known by our love.

In terms of my earlier reflections on tribalism, none of my 23 conversation partners were practicing tribalism. Each participant, whether presenting a traditional or non-traditional position, listened carefully to the opposing view of his/her conversation partner and they then talked respectfully about their agreements and disagreements.

Now that you have a glimpse of the structure of my eCircle/book project on human sexuality, I will consider two themes: (1) The Basic Premise Underlying my eCircle/Book project on human sexuality; (2) A Possible Fatal Flaw in this project.

THE UNDERLYING PREMISE

No Christian I have ever met denies that Jesus has called all who claim to be his followers to love their neighbors (Mark 12:31). So far, so good. But there is considerable disagreement, as to how to give expression to such neighbor-love. 

All my respectful conversation projects focus on one oft-neglected expression of neighbor-love. The premise behind my eCircles and the resulting books is very uncomplicated and easy to state (it isn’t rocket science, at least to state; it is much harder than rocket science to do).

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 of this premise is: You don’t love someone who you have silenced.

So, my eCircle/Book projects are not peripheral to my Christian faith. They are central to my understanding of how I should live as a Christian.

A POSSIBLE FATAL FLAW

My hopes and prayers for any lasting redemptive results emerging from my eCircle/book project on human sexuality may be dashed by the increasing prevalence of tribalism. 

While the 23 conversation partners contributing to my book reject tribalism, with some good results emerging from their conversations (which I summarize in a concluding chapter that proposes a “Way Forward”), they are the rare exceptions among Christians and not the rule. 

Locally, I have found it to be extremely difficult to get traditionalists and non-traditionalists regarding human sexuality in the same room together to discuss their disagreements. There is a strong element of tribalism in both traditionalist and non-traditionalist circles, with too many Christians in both camps saying “I am my people have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about human sexuality; so we don’t have to listen to and talk with those who hold opposing views.”

The net effect is that my book, which gives an equal voice to both traditional and non-traditional views may leave those practicing tribalism in both camps very unhappy. The traditionalists who are tribal will be unhappy because I have not silenced the non-traditionalists and the non-traditionalists who are tribal will be unhappy because I have not silenced the traditionalists. I have been viewed with suspicion by both traditionalists and non-traditionalists for providing a safe and welcoming space for “those other people” to freely express their beliefs.

So, how can this potential fatal flaw be averted? By calling Christians back to the central Christian virtue of “humility,” a virtue to which Christians give considerable lip service but all too seldom practice. Let me explain.

A CALL TO HUMLITY COMBINED WITH DEEP CONVICTIONS

Being humble does not mean being wishy-washy about your beliefs, fearful to express them in public. Not at all! Being humble means recognizing that you are not God. As a finite,  fallible human being, you do not necessarily have a God’s-eye view of the truth about the issue at hand. As 1 Corinthians 13:12 teaches. We all “see through as glass darkly.”

So, you should hold to your beliefs strongly and be willing to express them in public with clarity and deep conviction. That is NOT tribalism! You are practicing tribalism when at the same time that you hold strongly to your beliefs, you fail to acknowledge that you, and those who agree with you, may be “wrong.”

It sounds paradoxical. You hold to your beliefs strongly at the same time that you hold to them tentatively, because you may be wrong. So, you need to talk respectfully to those who disagree with you to see if they have some important insights that you have missed.

The late Christian historian Ian Barbour has given eloquent expression to the nature of this rare combination in his definition 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 inquiry that constitutes religious maturity.

Openness to the beliefs of others without commitment to your own beliefs too easily leads to sheer relativism (I have my beliefs, you have yours; end of conversation). Commitment to your own beliefs without openness to listening to and respectfully discussing the beliefs of others too easily leads to fanaticism, even terrorism. (As C. S. Lewis has observed, to which past and recent world events tragically testify, “Those who are readiest to die for a cause may easily become those who are readiest to kill for it.”).

One of the most pressing needs in our world today, is for all human beings, whatever their religious or secular faith commitments, to embrace, and hold in tension, both commitment and openness.

 

Friendship Trumps Tribalism

/in /by

Even the seating arrangement pointed to tribalism; with Republicans sitting at one end of the dais and Democrats seated at the other end as the U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee debated the results of the preceding day’s interviews of Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

The tribalistic us-versus-them mentality that is the scourge of contemporary politics became painfully obvious as Democrats and Republicans threw verbal grenades at one another.

Finally, Republican Jeff Flake could take it no longer. He walked to the other side of the dais, motioning to Democrat Chris Coons; effectively saying “we need to talk.”

Why did Senator Flake take this initiative with Senator Coons? Because they were friends; having forged a genuine friendship in their travels together round the world.

The immediate result is well known. They reached a compromise where Flake said he would send Kavanaugh’s name out of committee but would be unwilling to vote for it on the full senate floor without a brief FBI investigation. As of this writing, the final result is unknown. Will this defection from tribalism continue?

Two post-hearing comments made by Senators Flake and Coons reveal the important lesson to be learned. Senator Coons reported that Senator Flake said the following to him after they left the hearing room: “We have to do something to show that we can heareach other.” Senator Coons then said the following about Senator Flake: “He really had doubts and was listeningto the argument that I and others had been making [To take a week for further investigation].”

Listening well to the contrary views of another person in an attempt to fully understand his/her position, really “hearing” what he/she is saying, is necessary if there is to be any hope for uncovering some common ground. And genuine friendship prepares the way for such genuine “hearing” and “listening” to take place.

Such reaching across the aisle has some marvelous precedents: Hubert Humphrey and Everett Dirksen on civil rights; Ted Kennedy sand Orrin Hatch on child care; Bob Dole and George McGovern on food stamps; and John McCain and Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform.

But another post-hearing interview casts doubt on whether such reaching across the aisle will be more than a very rare exception in our current political climate. When Senator Flake was asked whether he would have taken this bold initiative if he was running for re-election, he quickly and emphatically answered “no,” explaining that “There is no value, currency or incentive to do so” (a slight paraphrase) if he had to seek re-election.

To fully address the question of how to incentivize such reaching across the aisle would take me too far afield in this brief musing. Suffice it to say here that one of my primary proposals for a “Way Forward” beyond the debacle of current American Politics that emerged from my recent eCircle on “Reforming American Politics” (which will be elaborated on in my forthcoming book Reforming American Politics: A Christian Perspective) is that politicians and their supporters need to “develop personal relationships of mutual understanding and trust by listening to and talking respectfully with those who disagree with them.” To develop such a personal relationship is to become a friend.

My ray of hope is that politicians on both sides of the aisle will take the time to become friends and that friendship will trump tribalism.

 

 

 

 

Establishing Diverse Relationships through Story

/in /by

The following musing was published on August 7, 2018 on the “In All Things” blog, a publication of the Andreas Center of Dordt College in Iowa.

 Listening to a story radically changed my perspective about my immigrant neighbors. A Latino mom told about how her daughter would cry before going to school each morning because she was afraid that when she came home, her mommy would not be there; she would have been taken away for deportation.

That story broke my heart. Until I heard it, my immigrant neighbors were faceless statistics to me. Suddenly they became flesh-and-blood human beings who, like me, wanted their families to flourish.

This story, and others like it, were told about eight years ago in a series of meetings on immigration issues sponsored by my church, American Reformed Church in Orange City. We met each Wednesday night for eight weeks to talk “with” our immigrant neighbors, not “at” or “about” them. After these meetings a few of us met and decided that too many of our immigrant neighbors had been rendered “voiceless” by community members who didn’t want them around. We needed to help them tell their stories. We needed to get to know each other so that we could envision and work toward making northwest Iowa a region where all of us could flourish together, whatever our race or ethnicity.

Two concrete initiatives evolved, undertaken by CASA of Sioux County (Center for Assistance, Service and Advocacy), for whom I currently serve as co-director with Judy Hauswald. The first was an online petition to reform our immigration system, which gained the attention of a few of our political representatives. But, sad to say, nothing lasting came of that initiative because for many politicians, our immigrant neighbors are still faceless statistics who are viewed as threats to “our way of life.” They certainly don’t need to be listened to. How can anyone reach such conclusions about people they don’t even know?

Our second CASA initiative has thrived because it was based on the importance of getting to know our immigrant neighbors in a personal way. The seventh annual Latino Festival was hosted at Windmill Park in Orange City on June 26. Each year, many Anglo and Latino neighbors gather together to celebrate the riches of local Latino culture; to enjoy Latino cuisine; to listen to some splendid Latin American music and, especially for the kids, to enjoy games together, where the color of one’s skin makes no difference. To be sure, too many of us still sit at tables with “our own kind,” But we are slowly bridging differences; getting to know one another better toward the goal of flourishing together in our community. This experience of human bonding gives a richer meaning to the word “diversity” than the anemic meaning that pervades American culture.

Too many Americans settle for a thin view of diversity that is, at best, co-existence. We live side-by-side, more-or-less peacefully, with those who differ from us. But we do not really engage each other. As a result, we don’t learn to appreciate and benefit from the strengths and contributions of those from other cultures. As a case in point, I have benefitted greatly from the emphasis on developing close personal relationships that I observe within many Latino families and other Latino groups, which is a much needed corrective to the hyper-individualism that permeates American culture.

The thick view of diversity that we need in America is one where we don’t just co-exist with those who differ from us. Rather, we genuinely engage one another by listening to and talking with them, thereby enabling us to build relationships of mutual understanding and mutual trust that make it possible for all of us to benefit from each other’s gifts and unique stories.

The failure of the first CASA initiative of a “political” nature, when compared with the success of our second festival initiative of a “personal” nature may point toward a potential way to overcome the current deadlock in political attempts at legislating immigration reform. Even more broadly, it may suggest a new way to “do politics” relative to any public policy issue that would be a welcome change from the current dysfunction in the political realm.

Starting with a consideration of American politics in general, the primary cause of the current dysfunction is “tribalism,” what political scientists refer to as “affective polarization”; summarized as follows by Kevin den Dulk:

We often bemoan how ideology or policy preferences on hot-button issues push partisans apart, and indeed these are important concerns. But today’s most consequential divisions are more basic; they operate at the level of identity. Political scientists call this pattern affectivepolarization, a deep emotional resonance with a party – the “in-group” – and visceral reaction against the opposition – the out-group. Our partisan divide isn’t merely about liberals versus conservatives, pro-life versus pro-choice. Our lives as partisans have become downright tribal.

This tragic “us versus them” approach to doing politics too easily morphs from believing that “they are wrong” to asserting that “they are evil.” And it negates the possibility of having respectful conversations about public policy disagreements: after all, “my people are right” while “your people are wrong” (at best, or possibly downright evil, at worst); so, what is there to talk about?

The only way to transcend dysfunctional identity politics is for those on both sides of a public policy issue to be willing to stop demonizing those who disagree with them; seeking, rather, to get to know them. By first listening with an empathetic ear to understand the reasons they have for what they believe, hoping that they will do likewise, a foundation will have been laid for respectfully talking about the nature of our disagreements toward the goal of uncovering some common ground relative to public policy.

As I re-read my last sentence, it is almost laughable in our day of broken political discourse. But it is my dream nevertheless because the need for such respectful conversation about disagreements is central to my understanding of my Christian faith. In brief, it is my deep conviction that 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 for the other person, to which Jesus calls all of us who claim to be his followers. A corollary is that “you don’t love someone who you have silenced.”

So, how should all of this apply to the current vitriolic debate about immigration? First, at a personal level, take the time and effort needed to get to know your immigrant neighbors; listening to their stories of joy and sorrow will help you to gain insight as to concrete ways in which you can help them to flourish, together with you. That much you have control of.

What you don’t have control of are the machinations of politicians relative to much needed immigration reform. Based on the premise that it is wrong to make decisions that affect the lives of others without first listening and taking to them, you can dare to be a vocal advocate for a radical sea-change in how politicians decide on immigration legislation; a change that expects politicians to have respectful conversations with their immigrant constituents before they cast their votes on immigration issues.

Here is my punchline. While you can’t predict beforehand the results of a genuine respectful conversation (one of my favorite maxims), carefully listening and talking to those who differ from you or who disagree with you about immigration, or any other issue, will build much needed bridges in our polarized and fragmented world. That is not just wishful thinking, I have seen it happen.

Harold Heie is a senior fellow at The Colossian Forum. His website, www.respectfulconversatuin.net, is devoted to modeling respectful conversations concerning contentious issues about which Christians have strong disagreements. The highlights of a conversation on human sexuality are reported in his recently released book Respectful LGBT Conversations: Seeking Truth, Giving Love, and Modeling Christian Unity. He is currently hosting a conversation on “Reforming Political Discourse.”

A Both/And Approach to Immigration Reform

/in /by

The following reflections were prepared in preparation for my participation in a June 6, 2018 panel presentation in Storm Lake, Iowa on the topic “Leading the Way: A Living Room Conversation on a New Approach to American Immigration” that was sponsored by the “Bibles, Badges and Business” network that is a project of the National Immigration Forum

The two prompts for my initial comments tonight are lifted from two announcements that I received for this important event. One announcement suggests that “we” need to “explore a new, reasonable approach to immigration.” A second announcement asks “how we can move forward together.”

Who is the “we” being talked about? Is it only those, like me, who believe that undocumented immigrants need to be provided with a reasonable pathway to citizenship? If I only talk with those who agree with me about that, then I will only be listening to an echo of myself. And nothing can happen politically if you listen only to an echo of your self.

Is the “we” referring only to those, unlike me, who believe that undocumented immigrants should face immediate deportation? If so, they will only be listening to people who already agree with them And nothing will happen politically if they listen only to echoes of themselves.

My radical thesis this evening is that in our current dysfunctional political climate, there is no way forward in the current contentious immigration debate unless the “we” being referred to in these announcements includes BOTH those who propose a pathway to citizenship AND those who propose immediate deportation. The only hope for a way out of the current quagmire is for those who disagree about the fate of undocumented immigrants to have “respectful conversations” about their disagreements with the goal of identifying some common ground.

I base this radical thesis on some painful experience I have had as a Co-Director of CASA of Sioux County (Center for Service, Assistance and Advocacy). CASA is a non-profit all-volunteer organization whose mission statement includes the phrase “we envision transformed northwest Iowa communities that welcome, empower and people from all cultures” (with a special focus on our Latino neighbors). Our method of operation typically starts with building personal relationships with those we try to influence toward seeking the flourishing of our Latino neighbors. And we try to do this by arranging for face-to-face conversations.

So, we have had extensive conversations with our Sioux County Sheriff, Dan Altena, about honoring ICE detainers, or not, and about the idea of providing temporary driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants. And we have had face to face conversation with two of our political representatives at the national level, Steve King and Charles Grassley, and a number of our past and present state political representatives: Randy Feenstra, John Kooiker and Skyler Wheeler.

But the painful experience I have to report is that none of these conversations have gotten too far, primarily because of “conversation stoppers.” And the most common conversation stopper when it comes to discussing the possibility of providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants has been the following: They have broken the law, so they should be punished. I wish I had a dollar for every time I have heard that said.

I believe there is a cogent response to this conversation-stopper. In my meetings with the political representatives noted above, there never was enough time for me give my response. So, I will now outline that response for you.

Those using this conversation-stopper view themselves as upholders of the rule of law. I agree with them about the need to respect the rule of law. But I submit that it reflects a total lack of moral imagination to not be able to envision a middle ground between no punishment for breaking the law by entering the United States without proper documentation (which is the definition of “amnesty”; no punishment) and the devastating punishment of deportation that is tearing apart so many Latino families.

What is such a viable middle ground? As a preface to suggesting what such a middle ground may be, I note a month long conversation on the topic of “Immigration” that I hosted this past April on my web site, www.respectfulconversation.net. My two conversation partners, chosen because I know they disagreed with one another about the fate of undocumented immigrants were Robert McFarland, a law professor at Faulkner University in Montgomery Alabama and Matthew Soerens the U. S. Director of Church Mobilization for World Relief (who some of you may know of because of his involvement with the Evangelical Immigration Table and his co-authoring, with Jenny Hwang, of the fine book Welcoming the Stranger). 

McFarland entered this conversation focusing on a belief that “justice” requires “obedience to laws” and Soerens entered this conversation focusing on justice calling for “helping the marginalized and vulnerable.” Although the month ran out before Robert and Matthew could sort through all the ins-and-outs of what “justice” calls for, I believe it is fair to say that they both ended up the month being sympathetic to the view that these two views of justice are not mutually exclusive. Soerens’ final articulation of the way in which to BOTH respect the rule of law AND help our marginalized and vulnerable undocumented Latino neighbors to flourish was as follows:

I … think it is appropriate to insist that violation of U. S. law is inappropriate … But the penalty for that infraction need not necessarily be deportation. A better solution, in most cases, would be to allow those who are unlawfully present to come forward, pay a fine (which is what would distinguish this from amnesty, …), and then receive a probationary legal status that would allow the individual to stay and work lawfully in the country. Over the course of time, these individuals could earn permanent legal status if they meet particular requirements, including paying all appropriate taxes and not being involved in serious criminal infractions, and then, like any Lawful Permanent Resident, eventually earn citizenship.

Note that the middle ground between no punishment and deportation that Soerens proposes is the levying of appropriate fines on a pathway to citizenship. 

If the “middle ground” that Soerens proposes has a familiar ring, it is because it is the essence of the comprehensive immigration reform bill that the U. S. Senate passed in 2013. Alas, that bill died in the U. S. House of Representatives.

My point in mentioning this example from my web site is not to promote my web site (although some of you may be interested in perusing this full month-long conversation). 

Rather my point is to present what I think is a compelling example of possible common ground that can emerge if persons who disagree about contentious immigration issues are willing to listen to and talk respectfully to one another about their disagreements. I present that example in support of my radical thesis that there is no way forward in the current contentious immigration debate unless those who disagree commit to talking respectfully to one another toward the goal of identifying some common ground.

By now I am guessing that a number of you are thinking that I have lost my sanity. My radical thesis is unrealistic in light of the current toxic, polarized political culture. There is no way that you will be able to get those who disagree vehemently about the fate of undocumented immigrants to have “respectful conversations” about their disagreements toward the goal of identifying some common ground.

So, let me frankly acknowledge two reasons why many may consider my radical thesis to be totally unrealistic: lack of humility and political tribalism.

First, lack of humility.

Ask yourself when the last time was that you heard a politician or staunch supporter of a particular public policy position say “I may be wrong.” 

It takes genuine humility for me to express my beliefs with clarity and conviction while acknowledging that “I may be wrong.” The ideal of “humility” that I aspire to can be summarized as my acknowledgement that however strongly I hold to my beliefs and express them with deep conviction (and, yes, even with deep emotion and passion), I may be wrong.

Note that such humility does not mean being “wishy-washy” about your beliefs. Rather, it involves you holding in tension that very rare combination of holding to and expressing your beliefs with clarity and great conviction at the same time that you publicly acknowledge that you may be wrong.

Both Ian Barbour and Richard Mouw have given eloquent expression to the nature of this rare combination. In his book Myths, Models and Paradigms, Barbour proposes the following definition 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 inquiry that constitutes religious maturity.

In his splendid book Uncommon Decency, Richard Mouw draws on the theologian Martin Marty in highlighting the importance of “civility” in living out this rare combination of commitment and inquiry, calling for a “convicted civility.” 

One of the real problems in modern life is that the people who are good at being civil often lack strong convictions and people who have strong convictions often lack civility.… We need to find a way of combining a civil outlook with a “passionate intensity” about our convictions. The real challenge is to come up with a convicted civility.

Openness to the beliefs of others without commitment to your own beliefs too easily leads to sheer relativism (I have my beliefs, you have yours; end of conversation). Commitment to your own beliefs without openness to listening to and respectfully discussing the beliefs of others too easily leads to fanaticism, even terrorism. (As C. S. Lewis has observed, to which past and recent world events tragically testify, “Those who are readiest to die for a cause may easily become those who are readiest to kill for it.”) One of the most pressing needs in our world today, is for all human beings, whatever their religious or secular faith commitments, to embrace, and hold in tension, both commitment and openness; giving living expression to “convicted civility.”

The second major obstacle to realization of my radical thesis is the “tribalism” that is so rampant in our political culture today. By this I mean the us/them mentally that causes those on both sides of the political aisle to totally discount any ideas coming from the other side of the aisle because that is what “they” believe and we all know that “they” are the bad guys; not only are they “wrong” but they are downright “evil.” And because they are the “bad guys,” there is really no point in sitting down with them to listen and talk about our disagreements.

Given these huge obstacles to the realization of my radical thesis, why do I persist in my attempts to orchestrate respectful conversations among those who have strong disagreements? One reason is that I am a “persistent cuss” by nature. But more importantly, I persist because it is the “right thing” to do, whether or not it proves to be successful. This conviction flows from my understanding of my commitment to the Christian faith.

As far as I can tell, there is universal agreement among Christians that a follower of Jesus is called to love his/her neighbor. But there is significant disagreement as to how that neighbor love should be expressed. 

My commitment to calling for ororchestrating “respectful conversations” among those who have strong disagreements (about immigration issues or anything else) is based on the following deep conviction: 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.

In Support of Sheriff Dan

/in /by

 The following opinion piece was published on April 13, 2017 as a Letter to the Editor of the Sioux County (Iowa) Capital Democrat, signed by 18 members and friends of CASA of Sioux County. The Center for Service, Assistance and Advocacy is a non-profit organization, for which I serve as co-director, that envisions transformed Northwest Iowa communities that welcome, empower and celebrate people from all cultures. 

The Sheriff of Sioux County, Dan Altena, has recently come under criticism for abiding by the County policy of not honoring Detainer requests from ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) unless a judge has approved such detention with a probable cause warrant.

We believe that this criticism is unwarranted because it reflects a failure to make a distinction between the responsibilities of local and federal law enforcement officers. It also violates the U. S. Constitution and erodes public safety.

Here is the way that ICE Detainers work. If someone is arrested or charged with a crime, local law enforcement processes the case until a conclusion is reached. If a conclusion is reached that does not require further local custody, there is no legal basis to hold the person any longer. In fact, judges in a number of states, including Oregon and Illinois, have already ruled that such ongoing detention violates the constitutional rights of the person being held. All people, even those who are undocumented, are protected by these rights.

Furthermore, the enforcement of immigration law is a responsibility of federal law enforcement, not local law enforcement. The expectation that local law enforcement carry out federal responsibilities has a negative effect on public safety since it erodes the trust that is needed between local residents and local law enforcement officials.

The decision to not honor ICE detainer “requests” (honoring such requests is not a “requirement”) is not peculiar to Sioux County. Twenty-five other counties in Iowa and hundreds of counties throughout America have adopted the same policy for the purpose of protecting rights guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution and promoting public safety.

This debate points to a larger issue; the need for comprehensive immigration reform that includes BOTH strong border enforcement and appropriate punishment for those who are living here without legal status (for example, fines rather than the deportation that is tearing apart many immigrant families) AND a pathway to either citizenship or permanent residence for our many immigrant neighbors, the overwhelming majority of whom are making a very positive contribution to local culture and to our local economy. Such a both/and solution will be possible only if politicians on both sides of the aisle get beyond hyper-partisan either/or thinking by talking respectfully to one another.