Recommendations for Small Groups Who Wish to Engage in Face-to-Face Conversations about Human Sexuality Issues or any other Contentious Issues
A Bipartisian Victory that Calls for a Conversation about Separation of Powers
One of my strongest recommendations, and, many would say, my most naïve and unrealistic recommendation for a “Way Forward” in the concluding chapter of my forthcoming book Reforming American Politics is that politicians and their supporters reach across the aisle in an effort to find enough areas of agreement to forge a coherent position that captures the best insights of those on both sides of the aisle or table, even if neither side receives the “full loaf” they were hoping for.
A while back, my hope for such a bipartisan legislative “compromise” on an important pubic policy issue was buoyed when a bipartisan “gang of eight” in the U. S. Senate passed a bill in 2013 for comprehensive immigration reform that included both improved border security and an arduous pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants that included the imposition of fines for having entered the country illegally (hence not being “amnesty” since amnesty means “no punishment” and fines are a form of punishment).
But that was only a partial victory that was soon shattered when this bill died in the House of Representatives. In my book, I speculate that a contributing factor that made this victory short-lived was that, unlike the Senate, the House did not call together a bipartisan group of their members to talk through their disagreements in an effort to uncover common ground.
A Christian Perspective on the Political Divide in America
The following is an edited version of my responses to a series of questions posed to me by Matthew Kimbara, a high school senior at the Christian Academy in Japan, an international school in Tokyo
#1: What has been your work in relation to uncivil political discourse?
To say that political discourse in Americas is “uncivil” is understatement. Those having disagreements about political issues often resort to viscous name calling and demonization of the “other.” Why is that?
I propose that the root cause of the vitriolic nature of much current public discourse in America, political or otherwise, is tribalism, an us-versus-them mentality in which me and “my people” have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the issue at hand and “those other people” are all wrong. Such tribalism, which has been called “affective polarization,” reflects a deep emotional attachment to the in-group and a visceral reaction against the opposition – the out-group. In light of that emotional attachment, there is no incentive to have conversation with “them” to discuss and evaluate whatever reasons each side may have for their contrary beliefs.
“No Wall Money in Government Funding Legistation: Eliminating the Possibility of Genuine Negotiation
To invite someone to have respectful conversation with you about your disagreements while stipulating what the results of your conversation must be eliminates the possibility of a genuine conversation. As I never tire of saying, “one cannot predict beforehand the results of a respectful conversation.”
As I heard recently on national news, that charade has happened once again relative to the current bipartisan conference committee negotiations regarding immigration. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi laid down a pre-condition for negotiations: “No wall money in government funding legislation.” If the conference committee negotiations, which have barely begun, are to be genuine, Speaker Pelosi should not stipulate up-front what must come out of those negotiations.
As also reported in the media, Speaker Pelosi did appear to cut the committee some slack by expressing openness to some type of “physical barrier.” Is the disagreement then semantic; hinging on a possible distinction between a “wall” and some other type of “physical barrier?” If so, the conference committee should be given the opportunity to sort out that apparent distinction.
STARTING WITH A POLITICAL NON-STARTER: AN EXAMPLE OF GENUINE NEGOTIATION
Holding onto Power Lightly
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.
Pivoting from Respectful Electronic Conversations (eCircles) to Face-to-Face Conversations: A Big New Challenge
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 Nature of Respectful Conversations
The Future of the LGBT Controversy will Depend on Who is Given a Voice
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.
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
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.
A Christian Response to Tribalism
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.
Friendship Trumps Tribalism
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.
Establishing Diverse Relationships through Story
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.
A Both/And Approach to Immigration Reform
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.”
In Support of Sheriff Dan
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.
Recent Comments