Disagreements as a Pathway toward Common Ground in Politics

Considering the goal of politics to be the search for common ground that promotes the common good, there are enormous disagreements as to the substance of that common ground. That is to be expected. But what is alarming is the inability of most politicians to respectfully engage each other about those disagreements. More often than not, politicians resort to shouting at rather than talking with those who whom they disagree.

Such shouting has been rampant in some recent debates among presidential candidates, where political disagreements are wielded as weapons employed to garner voter support. In such verbal warfare, politicians holding to “fixed positions” on issues often dismiss or even demonize political opponents who disagree by shouting out a name: “Liar” was the name of choice in the February 13 Republican debate in South Carolina. Other favorite labels are: crazy political conservative; wild-eyed political liberal; free-market nut; socialist; homophope; baby-killer.

But it is not just politicians who are at fault for the lack of actual conversations about disagreements. We citizens are typically ill-prepared for such conversations because of an unwillingness to even listen to those who disagree with us. Too many citizens get their political news by exclusively tuning into TV and Talk Radio stations where they only hear support for a position they have already taken on an issue. As Susan Jacoby has suggested, “Americans today have become a people in search of validation for opinions that they already hold,” demonstrating a strong reluctance “to give a fair hearing – or any hearing at all – to opposing points of view,” wanting to hear only an “echo” of themselves.

The tragedy of politicians shouting names at each other to garner voter support or of citizens only listening to an echo of themselves is that it precludes any serious attempt to sort through disagreements by respectfully talking with one another. There has to be a “better way” to deal with disagreements in politics, or any other arena of public discourse.

The basis of this “better way” for Christians is the call of Jesus for those who claim to be his followers to “love others.” Simply put, a deep expression of what it means for me to love another person is for me to create a “safe and welcoming space” for that person to express a disagreement; with our careful listening to each other’s perspectives followed by respectful conversation about our agreements and disagreements in the quest for common ground.

A concrete strategy for expressing such love to a person who disagrees with you has been proposed by Stephen Monsma (in his essay “Called to be Salt and Light – An Overview” in Harold Heie & Michael A. King, eds., Mutual Treasure: Seeking Better Ways for Christians and Culture to Converse. Cascadia Publishing House, 2009).  Monsma proposes the following three challenging steps.

Start by Getting to Know the Person Who Disagrees with you: The politicians or political pundits who bash each other on TV or Talk Radio probably do not know each other very well on a personal level. And it is all too easy to demonize a person you hardly know, or to simply dismiss him as stupid, biased, a liar or evil. We may not be so quick to demonize others once we get to know them personally.

Try to Understand Why a Person Who Disagrees with You Takes a Position that You Believe is Wrong: The better you get to know someone, the better chance there is for you to come to understand why she believes as she does, as you uncover the experiences and the other various aspects of her social location that inform her beliefs on the issue at hand. She has reasons for her position that you need to understand, and, likewise, she needs to understand your reasons for your position. Such mutual understanding can help to build bonds of mutual trust that may enable you to talk through difficult issues about which you may vehemently disagree.

Seek for Mutual Treasures by Means of Respectful Conversation: Dr. Michael King, a Mennonite pastor and scholar, has proposed a provocative definition of “genuine conversation”:  “genuine conversation involves a mutual quest for treasures in our own and the other’s viewpoint. The first move is to make as clear as I can why I hold this position…and why you might find in it treasure to value in your own quest for truth. The second move is to see the value in the other’s view…and to grow in my own understandings by incorporating as much of the other’s perspective as I can without losing the integrity of my own convictions.”

Note carefully what King is and is not saying. After genuine conversation, you may conclude that there is very little, if any, treasure in the other person’s position. But, then again, you may find some unexpected treasures in the other person’s position. You cannot tell until you talk. As I never tire of saying, you cannot predict beforehand the results of a genuine conversation.

For Christians to commit to this arduous and time-consuming process of talking respectfully with those with whom they have significant disagreements in politics, they will need to exercise a healthy dose of “humility.” I must be willing to say “here is my present position, but I may be wrong.” In politics this means my being willing to reach across the political aisle to seek to identify some “good ideas” on the other side that can complement my ideas.

To give a concrete example, Christians on both sides of the aisle generally agree that Christians ought to seek to help the poor. Their disagreements are mostly about the best “means” to accomplish that worthy goal. Those on one side of the aisle may emphasize the role of free markets. The emphasis on the other side of the aisle may be on governmental programs. Is it conceivable that rather than embracing an either/or approach (my way of the highway) that characterizes too much of contemporary politics, a respectful conversation could lead to a both/and approach that incorporates elements of the free market with elements of governmental programming while avoiding the potential abuses of relying exclusively on just one of these approaches? Of course, such attempts by politicians to “build bridges” across the political aisle will require immense courage since in a political system that often focuses more on “getting elected” than on “governing well,” such  “reaching across the aisle” typically gets punished on Election Day.

My educated guess is that by now many readers will have decided that I am completely out of touch with reality when I propose this “better way” to deal with disagreements in politics: “that is just not going to happen in our current political climate.” But why can’t Christians model this better way? With that hope and prayer in mind, I simply decided a few years ago that I was not going to spend too much time trying to convince other Christians in the abstract (as in this musing) that my proposal for respectful conversations about politics and other contentious areas of discourse is possible. Rather, I committed to demonstrating that it is possible by “just doing it” (to borrow a phrase from Nike).

Therefore, I set up this web site, in which I have hosted a number of extended conversations (eCircles)among Christians who disagree about some contentious issues, which includes an “Alternative Political Conversation” informed by the content of this musing (the results of which I distilled in a book titled Evangelicals on Public Policy Issues: Sustaining a Respectful Political Conversation. Abilene Christian University Press, 2014). This web site is currently hosting an extended conversation about LGBT issues.

I believe it is fair to say that these electronic conversations have demonstrated that Christians who disagree vehemently about some contentious issues can express their disagreements with grace and respect, identifying common ground and illuminating remaining disagreements in ways that can inform ongoing conversations. A marvelous by-product of these conversations is that they demonstrate that Christians having strong disagreements about divisive issues can actually come to know each other as deeply committed brothers and sisters in Christ. This is a modest step toward realization of the ever elusive quest for “Christian unity” that Jesus prayed for in John 17; teaching that such modeling may be our greatest “witness” to those who do not share our Christian faith.

 

Root Causes of Political Rancor

It was like watching a food fight among 6th graders at my former public school in Brooklyn, P. S. 105. But I was actually watching the Republican debate among presidential candidates in South Carolina on February 13.

The name-calling, demonization of opponents and charges of “liar, liar, pants on fire” took my breath away. I found it hard to believe what I was hearing. How could political discourse stoop that low?

One cause of such deplorable behavior is the sheer lack of respect that many people have toward those who disagree with them, which increasingly characterizes discourse in many venues for human engagement, be they political rallies, churches, local community meetings or backyards. The goal of this very web site is to model a better way to engage those who disagree with you, the way of “respectful conversation.”

But the causes for such inhuman behavior run even deeper. Our society rewards such temper tantrums in two ways. First, there is ample evidence that such “negative political campaigning” works. Nastiness too often gathers votes. Shame on us as citizens when we reward such brutish behavior.

ohn Kasich, who, to his credit, refused to participate in the food fight on February 13, predicted that eventually the American electorate will not reward such boorish behavior when he said words to the effect that “if we keep behaving like this, we will lose the election in November.”

What scares me is the possibility that Kasich may be wrong about the American electorate not rewarding such disrespectful behavior, on either side of the political aisle, since such disrespect seems to have become the “new normal.”

But there is a second root cause of such disrespectful political discourse beyond the fact the being disrespectful often gets you elected, a deeper root cause that may help to explain why being disrespectful typically gets you elected: the systemic brokenness of our political system.

As pointed out by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein in their book  It’s Even Worse Than it Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism (New York: Basic Books, 2012, 143-160), aspects of the systemic brokenness of our political system include closed primaries that minimize the number of moderate voters and candidates participating in the nominating process; gerrymandered voting districts that protect or harm the political interests of incumbents and parties; winner-take-all elections that militate against the diversity of voices within our pluralistic society, and the inordinate political influence of those with wealth since Citizens United. The two aspects that I see as root causes of the current political rancor are closed primaries and the inordinate political influence of those with wealth since Citizens United.

Consider first the system of closed primaries that attract numerous voters at the extremes of the political spectrum and not enough “moderate” voters. Voters at the political extremes seem to relish food fights, possibly because they are so deeply convinced about the truth of their positions that they are incapable of saying “here is my position, but I may be wrong” (which is the best entre into a respectful conversation about disagreements). Moderates are typically more open to listening to the differing views of others and then engaging in respectful conversation about disagreements in the quest for common ground, rather than resorting to food fights.

Secondly, consider the nature of the inordinate political influence of persons with wealth since Citizens United. The Super-PACS that spend obscene amounts of money in support of particular political candidates milk the empirical fact that “negative campaigning typically works” to the maximum, thus feeding the political rancor of those they support by means of their advertising (think about the significant amount of time spent in the “food fight debates” refuting the ads put out by super-PACS). In addition, the wealthy donors to such super-PACS seem to represent the “political extremes” rather than the more “moderate middle.”

n summary, the causes of the current political rancor are two-fold: A failure to embrace a respectful mode of engagement with those who disagree with you and a broken political system that feeds that failure. Addressing the first cause will take a change in “heart” bordering on “conversion”; a “turning away” from demonizing those who disagree with you to a “better way” that respects the dignity of every human being. Hopefully, politicians who demonstrate such respect for their political opponents will also have the courage and fortitude to address the apparently insurmountable problems associated with our current broken political system.

My vote in November will go to that candidate for President who demonstrates commitment to engaging in respectful conversation with those with whom he/she disagrees and who is committed to addressing the root causes of present political rancor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MUSLIMS IN DONALD TRUMP’S OLD NEIGHBORHOOD SAY, COME GET TO KNOW US

“Donald, come home.” As Liz Robbins reported in a recent online post in the New York Times, that was the message on the night of December 7 in Queens, New York “as two dozen men finished their prayers in a basement mosque beneath a discount store on Hillside Avenue in the Jamaica neighborhood, just a block from where Donald J. Trump grew up.”

As Ali Najmi said after prayers at the Arafa Islamic Center in response to the question “Where are the moderate Muslims”: “We’re right here; we’re right in Donald Trump’s neighborhood. He needs to come back home.” Mr. Najmi has extended a Twitter invitation to Donald Trump to come back for “some halal kebabs and a cup of chai tea in the old neighborhood.”

I never tire of saying that it is all too easy to marginalize and demonize persons who disagree with you when you don’t know them on a personal level, including a whole category of persons, like the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are deeply committed to peace and justice. The only antidote to that prevalent contemporary tendency is to take time to get know those who differ from you, listening to and understanding their expressions of joy and sorrow, and their aspirations for the future, which may be very similar to your hopes and dreams.

I know from personal experience that a profound change in perspective can occur when you get to personally know someone who differs from you. So, Donald Trump should accept Mr. Najmi’s gracious invitation, and all of us should take the necessary steps to get to know those who differ from us, especially those who strongly disagree with us. At this time for making resolutions for the New Year, that would be a good place to start.

 

 

POLITICS IN THE TRENCHES: LOCAL ADVOCACY FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM IN IOWA

Promoting public justice in a dysfunctional political system is not for the faint of heart. Systemic obstacles are enormous, such as closed primaries that minimize the number of moderate voters and candidates participating in the nominating process; gerrymandered voting districts that protect or harm the political interests of incumbents and parties; winner-take-all elections that militate against the diversity of voices within our pluralistic society, and the inordinate political influence of those with wealth since Citizens United (See Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein. It’s Even Worse Than it Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. New York: Basic Books, 2012, 143-160).

These seemingly intractable obstacles are enough to tempt a Christian to give up hope, or succumb to a truncated view of God’s redemptive purposes that focuses exclusively on modeling Christian values within our Christian communities. To be sure, such modeling is important. But if we wash our hands of the messy business of political engagement, we ignore our calling as Christians to plant seeds of redemption in all areas of life, including the political realm (Colossians 1: 19-20; Matthew 13: 31-32).

So what then are we called to do in the political realm? While some of us may address these systemic problems head on, others will sense a calling to embark on local citizen initiatives that are seemingly more modest… at least until you try them.

What follows is an account of my local endeavors as an advocate for immigration reform in Sioux County, Iowa, arguably one of the most politically conservative counties in the United States. My report here does not reflect any formal education in political science (which, for me, is nil). Rather, it is a story “from the trenches,” focusing on my attempts to promote legislation in the Iowa Legislature that would grant Temporary Visitor Driver’s Licenses (TVDLs) for undocumented immigrants. This is an initiative of the Center for Assistance, Service and Advocacy (CASA) of Sioux County, where I serve as Chair of their Advocacy Group. The vision of CASA is to bring about transformed Northwest Iowa communities that welcome, empower and celebrate people from all cultures.

In the 2015 session of the Iowa legislature, TVDL legislation received some discussion, but never came to a vote for lack of broad support. This legislation would have granted TVDLs to undocumented immigrants who met stipulated eligibility requirements and then passed a driving test and obtained auto insurance. Possible eligibility requirements could have included the submission of a valid foreign passport or consular identification and proof of legal residency. Twelve states and the District of Columbia have approved TVDLs with specific, yet somewhat differing requirements. A TVDL cannot be used to register to vote, to vote, to apply for public benefits, to apply for a Firearm Owner ID card, to board an airplane, or to enter a federal building.

 Benefits of TVDLs

Citizens like me who support and promote the granting of TVDLs see it as a win-win-win situation, reaping obvious benefits for public safety, for employers, and for immigrant families.

It appears that the main argument that has convinced legislators in twelve states and the District of Columbia to approve TVDL legislation focuses on its benefits for public safety. It insures that all immigrant drivers get tested on driving skills and know the rules of the road, it requires them to carry auto insurance, and it enables first responders to medical emergencies to use the license to identify the individual they are assisting.

TVDLs will also help local employers by insuring that their immigrant workers will have a dependable means to travel to work.

Finally, TVDLs will be of great benefit to immigrant families by enabling workers to drive to work and by legalizing family travel to schools, churches, medical facilities and shopping outlets.

Obstacles to TVDL Legislation and Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Given these benefits, what is not to like? I have heard a number of concerns and responses, one of which is the legitimate concern that TVDL legislation needs to be carefully crafted to avoid abuses, such as forging the required documentation to meet eligibility requirements.

But two other major obstacles to TVDL legislation reflect the widespread dysfunction and brokenness that I have found in the current political system. One sign of this pervasive brokenness is that the primary goal of too many politicians is to get elected, and then re-elected, rather than to govern well in a manner that promotes the well-being of their constituents.

I experienced this when talking face-to-face with elected law enforcement officers about the possibility of getting their support for TVDL legislation. While a handful of elected law enforcement officers in Iowa support such legislation, the majority of elected law enforcement officers, whose very job is to promote public safety, oppose it. Why? My paraphrase of an underlying reason I have discerned from my conversations is that even if an elected law enforcement officer acknowledges the many benefits for public safety, employers and our Latino neighbors, going public in support of such legislation could lead to being voted out of office since the majority of constituents are against any type of immigration reform.

A second, often unspoken, but extremely prevalent obstacle to TVDL legislation is captured in the words, “That would be rewarding those who have broken the law.” I have found that those who express this concern have usually succumbed to a second symptom of the current brokenness of politics– a hyper-partisanship that takes an either/or approach to solving societal problems rather than seeking the both/and solutions that could emerge if those on both sides of the political aisle genuinely engaged one another. 

The current debate about comprehensive immigration reform, which includes and goes beyond potential TVDL legislation, is a case in point. Those on one side of the political aisle focus on strengthening border enforcement and punishing those who have broken the law by entering our country illegally. Those on the other side of the aisle focus on providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Very few politicians say we need to do both, possibly because such both/and thinking typically gets punished on Election Day. In 2013, the U S Senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill that included both a pathway to citizenship and punishment for those who have broken the law by means of appropriate fines. But House leaders who embrace either/or thinking refused to even bring the bill up for a vote.

Such either/or thinking is also prevalent among Christians who are committed to promoting justice consistent with their understanding of the biblical record. Some Christians focus exclusively on those biblical teachings that call for a proper respect for the “rule of law” (e.g., Romans 13: 1-7 and 1 Peter 2: 13-14). They conclude, and rightfully so, that the restorative/retributive dimension of justice requires punishing those who have broken the law. Other Christians focus exclusively on the call for Christians to “welcome the stranger” (Deuteronomy 10:18 and Matthew 25: 31-40). They conclude, and rightfully so, that the distributive dimension of justice calls for seeking the well-being of all people groups in society, with a special focus on those who are marginalized and disadvantaged.

When I listen to Christians talking about the possibility of immigration reform, I often perceive this disturbing either/or thinking that does not adequately address the tension between these two dimensions of justice in the biblical record. Christians committed to promoting justice should embrace both of these dimensions, which were duly included in the Senate attempt in 2013 to forge legislation for comprehensive immigration reform and which can be addressed in TVDL legislation.

Christian Responses to the Obstacles

To address the obstacles to TVDL legislation or any type of immigration reform, Christians should begin with “getting their own house in order” and think carefully about the biblical teachings about justice. The Center for Public Justice has numerous resources to inform that task, among them its Guidelines for Government and Citizenship.

The Guideline on Citizenship highlights the urgency of political advocacy for immigration reform by asserting that “Responsible citizenship includes … helping to shape the political community to conform to the demands of justice.” The Guideline on Government embraces the need to find a proper balance between restorative/retributive and distributive justice by asserting that “Upholding public justice for a political community must include responsiveness to a variety of interrelated principles, such as distributive justice, which holds for the way government allocates benefits, and retributive and restorative justice, which holds for the way government punishes offenses and seeks restitution and reconciliation.”

Finally, the Guideline on Family points to the need to address the devastating effect that our current broken immigration system has on the unity and stability of immigrant families. The Guideline asserts that “Government should aim to uphold the integrity and social viability of families.” 

However, as important as these educational efforts are, a more adequate understanding of  the biblical call for justice will have minimal impact on the ground if Christians do not directly address the two main political obstacles noted above: the current focus for politicians on just getting elected, and the hyper-partisanship that precludes both/and approaches to solving societal problems.

Therefore, for those seeking to address these two obstacles, I’d like to offer a proposal, one that echoes a truth stated by Mark Prosser, the Director of Public Safety and Police Chief in Storm  Lake, Iowa, who has worked tirelessly for many years advocating for immigration reform: “Working for immigration reform is a marathon, not a sprint.” My proposal calls for a marathon run and not a sprint because it seeks to change hearts and minds by means of developing personal relationships, which won’t happen overnight. 

My experience in the trenches tells me that too many Anglos who are unsympathetic to the plight of their immigrant neighbors haven’t taken the time to get to know them. Too many legislators argue for bills that can have profound negative effects on immigrants that they don’t know. So, our immigrant neighbors too easily become faceless statistics, not real human beings who have the same aspirations and dreams as all other human beings.

I believe that a profound change in perspective happens when we get to know our immigrant neighbors on a personal level A few years ago, I led a series of seminars at my church in which we didn’t talk at or about our immigrant neighbors. Rather, we talked with our immigrant neighbors, listening to their painful stories about how the current broken immigration system was decimating the unity and stability of their families. We found out that many of those who were undocumented fled to our country to provide their families with food and other basic necessities that they couldn’t get in their homelands, and that we wouldn’t think of doing without. We admired their close-knit families and the ways in which they have made important contributions to local economies by working faithfully at low-paying jobs that Anglos would no longer take.

Since then, CASA has arranged for our Sioux County Sheriff to meet with small groups of our Latino neighbors to listen face-to-face to their expressions of concern about law enforcement issues. For the past four years, we have sponsored an annual Latino Festival that celebrates Latino culture and enables Anglos and Latinos to get to know one another better around good Latino food, entertainment, and children’s activities.

So, my proposed strategy for winning the marathon of immigration reform is this: Get to know your immigrant neighbors and take whatever steps are necessary to encourage and enable your political representatives to get to know their immigrant constituents on a personal level. That will have a profound effect on who you vote into office and the political initiatives your legislators decide to promote. Implementing this strategy will take a long time and will not be easy. But running a marathon has never been easy.

Questions for Reflection:

1- What is your experience with politicians who are preoccupied with just getting elected and practicing hyper-partisan either/or thinking? What have you tried to do to overcome such obstacles?

2- What would be the most appropriate balance in immigration reform legislation between the biblical calls to “welcome the stranger” and respect the “rule of law?”

3- What concrete steps can you take in your neighborhood to get to know your immigrant neighbors and to encourage your political representatives to get to know their immigrant constituents on a personal level?

-This essay was first published in the November 16, 2015 issue of the Capital Commentary of the Center for Public Justice (CPJ). Harold Heie has served as a Trustee of CPJ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEADERS, DISSENTERS AND TRUE COMMUNITY

It is not uncommon for leaders to allow little or no space for dissenters within their  organizations; the result often being an erosion of any sense of community. 

A radically different approach to effective leadership has been proposed by Parker Palmer in his book The Active Life: A Spirituality of Work Creativity, and Caring (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990), in which he suggests that Jesus exemplifies such leadership.

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).

The type of effective leadership that Palmer points us towards has two major characteristics.

Benefiting from the Gifts of Others, Including Dissenters

An effective leader starts with a vision for her organization. But if she attempts to implement that vision on her own she will likely fail because she has not enabled others in her organization to embrace her vision, or, better yet, to collectively embrace an improved version of her vision because of their respective gifts.

In other words, if she proceeds as a “Lone Ranger,” the contours of her vision and the quality of its implementation will only be as good as she is. If she dares to provide a safe space for others in her organization to help her to refine her vision and then help her to  implement that vision (with enthusiasm because it is a shared vision), then the results will be as good as the collective giftedness as all members of the organization.

Such a collaborative (collegial) process absolutely needs dissenters, those whose vantage point leads them to suggest that the original vision and/or the original plans for implementation are flawed. A safe space must be created that allows all voices to be given a fair hearing in the process of refining an original vision and implementation plan.

Fostering True Community

A pernicious myth is that if dissenters are given a safe space to express their disagreements, this will have an adverse effect on a sense of community within the organization. My experience suggests just the opposite. It is when dissenters are stifled that a sense of community erodes.

As messy as it is, it is when all members of an organization feel that they have been consulted and have had an opportunity to express their perspectives in conversations involving all who are potentially affected by the decisions that are made that a true sense of community is enhanced.

On Being a Strong Leader

Some leaders who want to be perceived as strong leaders are actually very weak leaders. They perceive strength as “being in charge,” deciding, in the confines of their office, without talking to anyone, what needs to be done, and the just doing it. That is not a sign of strength. Rather, it is a sign of weakness and insecurity, and reveals a lack of trust in the giftedness of others.  

A truly strong leader creates a safe space for others to express their points of view and to exercise their gifts, trusting that to do so will lead to results that are better than she can accomplish by herself. It is a sign of strength, not weakness to “give up total control,” daring to believe that working together as a true community will ultimately yield the best results.

Political Advocacy for Immigration Reform is a Marathon not a Sprint

The message in my title is not original with me. I have heard it stated a number of times by Mark Prosser, the Director of Public Safety and Chief of Police in Storm Lake (IA), based on the results of his tireless efforts to promote immigration reform and his experiences “in the trenches” of the enormous obstacles to accomplishing these goals (which the Advocacy Group at CASA has also experienced).

One such obstacle is the current brokenness of the political system, where the primary goal of too many politicians is to get elected, and then re-elected, rather than to govern well in a manner that promotes the well-being of their constituents.

A case in point is my own experience in talking face-to-face with an elected law enforcement officer or two about the possibility of their supporting legislation to provide temporary driver’s licenses for all immigrants, documented or undocumented. In addition to the benefits such licenses would provide for immigrants who need a way to get to work and for enabling their families to get to stores, churches and medical appointments, the public safety benefits would be enormous since such a program would insure that all immigrant drivers get tested on driving skills and know the rules of the road, and would require that they have auto insurance.

Yet many law elected law enforcement officers whose very job is to promote public safety oppose such legislation. Why? To give one reason, I paraphrase what one elected law enforcement officer told me: “I can see the many benefits for public safety and our Latino neighbors. But if I went public in support of such legislation in my conservative county, I might lose the next election.”

A second reason for not supporting such driver’s license legislation for undocumented immigrants, which is often unspoken, but extremely prevalent, is captured in the words, “That would be rewarding those who have broken the law.” To introduce my response to that concern, I point to a second symptom of the current brokenness of politics, hyper-partisanship.

As currently practiced, politics focuses on one-dimensional either/or thinking (“It’s my way or the highway”) rather than the needed both/and thinking. So, when it comes to any potential immigration legislation, those on one side of the political aisle focus on border enforcement and punishing those who have broken the law by entering our country illegally. Those on the other side of the aisle focus on providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Very few politicians say we need to do both, possibly because such both/and thinking gets punished on Election Day.

An attempt was made by the U. S. Senate in 2013 to pass such both/and legislation by means of a proposal for comprehensive immigration reform that included both a pathway to citizenship and punishment for those who have broken the law by means of appropriate fines. But those who embrace either-or thinking killed that bill.

As an aside to those readers who profess commitment to the Christian faith, such a both/and approach to immigration reform can navigate the tension between two biblical teachings: respect for the law (Romans 13: 1-7) and the call for Christians to “welcome the stranger” (Deuteronomy 10:18 and Matthew 25: 31-40). But such both/and thinking seems to be missing as much in our churches as in the halls of congress.

In light of these two major political obstacles, those of us who are committed to political advocacy on behalf of the well-being of our immigrant neighbors should not expect quick victories (as in a 100 meter dash). But that doesn’t mean giving up. We work for incremental change within the constraints of the political obstacles at the same time that we work to ameliorate those obstacles. We do that because it is the “right thing to do”, not because we envision “quick success around the corner”.

To press my track analogy, to complete a marathon, you need to “keep running.” And that is what we at CASA have been doing these past few years, by taking initiatives such as the following: circulating an electronic petition “To Fix Our Broken Immigration System” that garnered about 800 signatures in and around Sioux County, which caught the attention of Charles Grassley and Stephen King sufficient to lead to two conference calls with Grassley and a face-to-face meeting with King; and placing a half-page add in the Des Moines Register, signed by numerous individuals and agencies in Iowa, expressing support for comprehensive immigration reform.

But the primary reason why advocacy for immigration reform is a marathon is that it will require a change in minds and hearts of many Anglos in our region and our political representatives, which is a slow process. My proposed strategy for increasing the likelihood that we will eventually win the marathon race by changing minds and hearts can be called the “personal touch.”

What I mean is that too many Anglos who are unsympathetic to the plight of their immigrant neighbors haven’t taken then time to “get to know them.” And too many legislators argue for bills that can have profound negative effects on immigrants that “they don’t know.” So, our immigrant neighbors too easily become “faceless statistics,” not real human beings who have the same aspirations and dreams as all other human beings.

But, everything changes when you get to know your immigrant neighbors on a personal level.” I know that for a fact. A few years ago, I led a series of seminars at my church in which we didn’t talk at or about our immigrant neighbors. Rather, we talked with our immigrant neighbors, first listening to their painful stories about how the current broken immigration system was decimating the unity and stability of their families. We found out that many of those who were undocumented fled to our country because of a need to provide their families with food and other basic necessities that they couldn’t get in their homelands. We rejoiced with them about their close-nit families and the ways in which they have made important contributions to local economies by working faithfully at low-paying jobs that Anglos would no longer take.

So, my proposed strategy for winning the marathon is this: Get to know your immigrant neighbors and take whatever steps are necessary to encourage and enable your political representatives to get to know their immigrant constituents on a personal level. That will have a profound effect on who you vote into office and the political initiatives your legislators decide to promote. Implementing this strategy will take a long time and will not be easy. But running a marathon has never been easy.

——–

Harold Heie chairs the Advocacy Group of the Center for Assistance, Service, and Advocacy (CASA) of Sioux County. This article was originally written for the “In All Things” blog at Dordt College (IA), where it was pubslished on August 25, 2015.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Scandal of Christian Disunity: A Broken Witness

Why are there strife and angry outbursts and dissension and schisms and conflict among you? Do we not have one God and one Christ and one spirit of grace which was poured out upon us? And is there not one calling in Christ? Why do we tear and rip apart the members of Christ, and rebel against our own body, and reach such a level of insanity that we forget that we are members of one another?

These meddlesome questions could well be posed in our times as Christians verbally crucify one another over disagreements regarding such controversial issues as abortion, same-sex marriage, the origins of the cosmos and political affiliations.

But these questions actually flow from the pen of Clement of Rome, around AD 95, in his Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians, in which he laments that the schisms in the Corinthian Church, which the Apostle Paul had sternly addressed in his letter to that church, was still rampant.[1]

It appears that significant disunity has plagued the Christian Church since its beginning. This is scandalous since it contradicts two of the clearest teachings of Jesus.

Jesus taught that “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another” (John 13: 35).

I have neither the space nor the competence to comment on the numerous dimensions of “love.” But there are two dimensions on which I have staked my life and my present work. First, loving another person precludes name-calling, demonization and other forms of vitriolic engagement with another Christian, or anyone else, with whom you disagree.

As to a positive dimension, It is my firm conviction that to a provide safe, welcoming space for someone who disagrees with you to express his/her perspective and then to engage that person in “respectful conversation” about your agreements and disagreements is a deep expression of love for that person, to which Jesus calls those who profess to be his followers.

Jesus also taught, by means of his prayer for his disciples in all times and places, that Christians are to strive for unity.

I ask not only on behalf of these [his initial band of disciples], but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me (John 17: 20-21, italics mine)

It is sad that while enough books have been written about “Christian apologetics” to fill many libraries, Christians often ignore the clear teaching of Jesus that it is the witness of unity among Christians that will best attract unbelievers to the Christian faith. Given the appalling state of discourse among many Christians who disagree with one another, is it any wonder that many unbelievers want nothing to do with us or our professions of faith?

In short, past and present signs of disunity among Christians fly in the face of the clear teachings of Jesus that love for one another and unity in the midst of disagreements are the tell-tale signs of genuine Christian community.

How have so many of us who claim to be followers of Jesus strayed so far from some of his clearest teachings? I will point to what I take to be two reasons. First, this sad state of affairs reflects a colossal failure to exercise the Christian virtue of humility. If I am convinced that I have “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” regarding the issue at hand, it is all too easy to dismiss, often in the nastiest terms, those who disagree with me; too often characterizing them as “inferior Christians” (if they are Christians at all) who do not subscribe to the authority of scriptures (when the truth of the matter may be that they also have a “high’ view of scriptures, but are interpreting some biblical passages differently).

By contrast, if each of us recognizes that as finite, fallible human beings, we all “see through glass darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12), we will acknowledge that none of us has a “God’s eye” view of the Truth about the matter and we can therefore collectively seek to a better approximation to the Truth as we engage in respectful conversations about our agreements and disagreements.

Another reason for the insidious state of discourse among many Christians is that we have simply copied the “ways of the world” rather than seeking to model a “better way,’ a “Christian way” to engage those with whom we disagree. All around us, in the media and public discourse, the norm has become name-calling, polarization and vitriol. And we have too easily succumbed to that sub-Christian mode of engagement.

This lack of willingness to model a better way, a Christian mode of engagement regarding contentious issues, came home to me as I sought to shape the electronic conversation (eCircle) on “Christian Faithfulness and Human Sexuality” that I am hosting on this web site (as of July 1, 2015). In my own words, I heard the following types of concerns expressed about me or other Christians choosing to embark on this challenging venture: What are the immediate gains or losses for me, or for the Christian institution/organization that I represent, if I engage in such controversial conversations? What will those who support our Christian institution/organization think if they find out that we are even talking about this issue? (Will they withdraw their support?) What if local media outlets get wind of the fact that Christians disagree about this issue? (Is it not better to discuss such contentious issues in private rather than in a public forum). Will not “airing our disagreements in public” cause us to lose stature in the eyes of those who we depend upon for societal legitimization?

What I find disturbing about these responses is that they focus on “what others will think of us” if we dare to talk about contentious issues. None of these expressions of concern adequately acknowledge the long-term gain of choosing to be faithful, come what may, to three foundational Christian values:

  • Truth – are not Christians called to seek a better understanding of the “Truth” about this issue, as only God fully understands that Truth?
  • Love – Are not Christians who disagree about this issue called to love one another in the midst of their disagreements?
  • Unity – Are not Christians called to navigate their disagreements about this issue in ways that maintain unity of fellowship around their shared commitment to be followers of Jesus?

That is the “better way” to deal with our disagreements to which Jesus calls those who profess to be his followers. It is my hope and prayer that my new eCircle will model this better way. Through the eyes of faith, I can even envision our faithfulness to these three values as presenting a compelling Christian witness in our broken world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1] James R. Payton, Jr. Editor, A Patristic Treasury : Early Church Wisdom for Today. Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2013, 33-34.

Truth May be the Casualty

As my good friends have known for a long time and as readers of this web site are getting to know, I have a passionate commitment to facilitating respectful conversations among Christians who disagree about contentious issues. That commitment is based on my strong belief that to create a safe space for persons who disagree to talk respectfully about their disagreements is a deep expression of what it means to “love others,” to which Jesus calls all who aspire to be his followers

In light of that unyielding commitment, I am saddened by the fact that my motive for calling for conversations about some divisive issue is sometimes called into question. For example, I have recently called for respectful conversations among gay Christians (those who experience same-sex attraction), and with other Christians, about what it means for gay Christians to live “faithfully,” with views ranging from the belief that gay Christians are called to a life of celibacy (what may, for shorthand, be called the “traditional” or “settled” view of the majority of Christians) to the belief that God will bless lifelong, monogamous same-sex relationships (what I will here call a “revisionist” view). The suspicion is that the very fact that I call for this conversation means that I have decided, prior to the conversation I am calling for, that the revisionist view is the “Truth” (as God fully understands it).

I believe I understand both the empirical evidence and the logic behind this suspicion. Although I have no access to hard empirical data, it is probably the case that those who call for conversations about “settled” beliefs within the church are often calling into question those settled beliefs and hoping for revision. And the logic of that view seems straightforward. Why would someone who holds to the “settled” belief want to discuss the adequacy, or not, of that belief? He or she appears to have nothing to gain from such a conversation and a lot to lose. Compare that with the likelihood that the person who holds to a “revisionist” view has a lot to gain (others starting to see things from his or her perspective) and nothing to lose (the worst that can happen is that the present “settled” view is reaffirmed).

But there is something strangely absent from that logic, the question of “Truth.” When a “settled’ belief is called into question within the Christian community, it is not my first impulse to ask what I, or the institution/organization who I work for or represent, can gain or lose from my talking respectfully with those who disagree with my particular view of that settled belief. Rather, my first impulse is to acknowledge that, as a finite, fallible human being who has only a partial glimpse of the “Truth” that God fully understands, I may be able to gain a better approximation of that “Truth” by talking respectfully with those whose partial glimpses differ from mine. I believe that when the impulse we act upon is to perform a calculus of immediate “gains and losses” for myself or my organization/institution, the casualty may be the “Truth.” I also believe that, at least in the long run, getting closer to that “Truth” is a huge gain.

In light of the above, it is completely erroneous to assume that I wouldn’t be calling for respectful conversations about a divisive issue if I didn’t think that a “settled” belief needs to change.” To be sure, I do believe that some “settled” beliefs among Christians need to change. But that is not why I call for respectful conversations. I call for respectful conversations because I have an unswerving commitment to seek the “Truth” about the matter at hand, and it is my hope and prayer that by talking respectfully with those who disagree with me, we can collectively get closer to that “Truth,” which may be that the settled belief does not need revision. As I have stated clearly on my web site, and will say over and over again until more people listen, “One cannot predict beforehand the results of a respectful conversation.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectful Conversations about Divisive Issues: A Place to Start

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

A Myth that Precludes Conversation

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

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

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

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

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

Steps toward Respectful Conversation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Biblical Rationale

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

Obstacles to Respectful Conversation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Have Seen it Happen with my Own Eyes  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Personal Aspirations

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

 

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

Respectful Conversation as a Deep Expression of Love

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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