“Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either - but right through every human heart - and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains an unuprooted small corner of evil.” - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
This is the third in a series of responses to questions I took during July 3rd’s message. In the first, we examined theology of the Kingdom, and in the second we discussed civil engagement in the public sphere. In this final post, I take questions about how we maneuver relationships in polarizing times.
I struggle with keeping up with the political realm. I often find myself losing my peace whenever I dig into it. How do you find balance between the "rage porn”, keeping yourself informed, & keeping your peace?
Let’s talk about “peace” first. A lot of times we think of peace as a feeling; what we really mean is comfortability. This is a false sense of peace, because it enables us to avoid hard things. What ends up happening when we avoid hard things is that we don’t develop a sense of emotional resiliency necessary to grow through friction, which keeps us trapped by our emotions until we live in a perpetual numbness. Furthermore, false peace is motivated by our desire to maintain our confirmation bias; we only want to engage with ideas that reinforce what we’ve already decided we want to believe.
True peace is more than a feeling, it’s a state of being at one with God, others and self. This can only happen by engagement - as Paul tells us God’s grace enables us to persevere, which produces character and then genuine hope (Rom 5:1-5) and how the antidote to anxiety is not avoidance but petition and thanksgiving to God which leads to “the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:9).
It is very true that a lot of media is geared towards inducing anxiety or rage. This is how they keep our attention, and how they make money. The pursuit of actual information can be rather difficult, but not impossible. I think that’s why it requires us to take careful stock of the news outlets and social media accounts we follow - what are they trying to do? Inform us, or sell us?
A big difference between “rage porn” and being informed is the emotional context of the content producers, and the agenda of their content. Learn the difference between news (here’s what’s happening), analysis (here’s the underlying themes and the bigger picture), and opinion (here’s what this might mean). The third category, while important, is usually the most speculative and most prone to illicit emotional response.
It’s imperative we learn how to analyze the things we read. The social psychologist Johnathan Haidt demonstrates how our confirmation bias tends to operate in two ways. When information goes against our bias we ask ourselves, “must I believe this?”, while news that confirms our bias leads us to simply say, “can I believe this?”. By keeping awareness of our biases, our emotional responses to what we read/watch, and pacing ourselves, we can develop that emotional resiliency or antifragility over time to be able to step into hard discussions with grace and peace.
Here is a talk on emotional resilience and antifragility:
Don’t chase happiness. Become antifragile | Tal Ben-Shahar | Big Think
How do we begin to address differences within our families, often the older generation, when some feel like being American and Christian are on the same level and when that’s not the case, they assume your relationship with Christ is less than or non-existent?
Perhaps the most dire national emergency today is partisanship and tribalism. We have become so polarized in our worldviews that it often feels like we’re living in two countries simultaneously. It’s a particular tragedy when that sentiment plays out in our families.
Do I want to be right, or do I want to be in loving relationship? This is something I often challenge people to ask themselves if they sense that ideologies are becoming wedges in family or friendships. It’s a hard question, one that we rarely slow down to ask of ourselves and our relationships, because we get so caught up in the heat of the moment when emotions run high. But asking yourself that question, and humbly offering it to those who you in are relationship with, can soften the subconscious threat level to reestablish priorities. This may mean you don’t see eye-to-eye, that people are too set in their ways. Does that mean they’re exempt from love?
Is there any sense of common ground at all? All the best psychological research, and the greatest leaders in reconciliation work, agree that trying to find the overlap in values and vision is imperative. This enables us to talk about hard things from a starting point of solidarity rather than opposition. For example, the vast majority of people agree that abortion is a tragedy, and we would all like to see fewer of them in the long term. Recognizing that desire moves us away from “winners” and “losers” to carefully parsing through the real problems, and finding real solutions.
Try to live as witness without the need to convince someone or prove yourself. Jesus walked the earth with a profound sense of self, even as others called him a blasphemer and a heretic. As Peter tells us, “When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:23). This is revolutionary posture to those who might judge our faithfulness to God.
Finally, hope for reconciliation always, but hold that hope loosely. Trying to control the outcomes of your relationships is a fast track to unforgiveness and bitterness. Needing approval of our convictions from others means we outsource confidence in our faith to people that may not be capable or haven’t asked to hold it. Jesus is clear-eyed when he tells us the reality of following him may cause familial strife (Matthew 10:34-39). To live in a defenseless conviction means to hold fast to what you know to be true, without needing to use your convictions as a bludgeon of others or a diving line in the sand, while keeping the door open always for others to step through for vibrant relationship.
How does one hold space for the anger that accompanies years of accommodating people who boldfacely refuse to accommodate you? This is from the perspective of a minority who grew up in a very red community politically. I have tried to answer this question for years and have found no other way except to remove them from my life.
You’re already on the right track by naming the emotion you’re feeling. Too often we feel the need to tamp down “negative” emotions like anger, disappointment, resentment, and the like; but this only increases their hold on us.
Paul tells us “‘In your anger do not sin’: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold” (Ephesians 4:26,27). This single phrase contains so much wisdom. First, to feel anger is not a sin in and of itself; rather, it is information to be read. What core values or desires is that anger pointing to that were not blessed? Often anger is the forward-facing emotion that protects a still deeper wound of sadness or betrayal. By processing our anger through grief, we learn to let it go so it doesn’t stagnate and become bitterness. That is what it means to give the devil a foothold, because untended-to emotions ensnare us and keep us small.
Secondly, forgiveness is a path to freedom from past wounds. Often we think forgiveness is for the benefit of the perpetrator, which is why we are so reticent to “let them off the hook”. But in reality, to forgive is to release yourself and them from a stake that has been hammered into the past, chaining you to something that cannot be changed. It’s important to note that forgiveness does not guarantee or demand reconciliation - we are commanded to forgive those who wound us, and hope for reconciliation if at all possible. So you may not enter back into relationship with your old community, and that’s okay. Don’t feel guilt for that. The only thing you have authority over is what your past experiences are doing to your own heart.
Finally, you must discern what it means to love “those people”, even from a distance. Over time, I have learned (albeit poorly) to have compassion on people who hurt me, usually because they are ignorant or stuck in their ways, which actually makes them more like me than I am comfortable admitting. Jesus tells us to love our enemies and pray for those who hurt us; this is what is means to be perfect like God is perfect (Matthew 5:43-48). As he prays on the cross, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:24). I’m reminded of this beautiful poem by Mother Teresa:
People are often unreasonable, illogical and self centered;
Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives;
Be kind anyway.
If you are successful, you will win some false friends and some true enemies;
Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you;
Be honest and frank anyway.
What you spend years building, someone could destroy overnight;
Build anyway.
If you find serenity and happiness, they may be jealous;
Be happy anyway.
The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow;
Do good anyway.
Give the world the best you have, and it may never be enough;
Give the world the best you've got anyway.
You see, in the final analysis, it is between you and your God;
It was never between you and them anyway.
I’ve seen “speaking the truth in love” abused. People will say “it might not seem loving, but if I really loved them, I’d tell them xyz (usually about their sin)” Or maybe they call it tough love.
What does it MEAN and supposed to LOOK like to “speak the truth” in love?
Let’s examine what that phrase means in context:
“Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.” (Eph. 4:14-16)
It is apparent here what Paul’s goal is for truth and love: we grow in maturity, we maintain a sense of unity, and we aren’t deceived by schemes. When we zoom out a bit to the whole passage, we see also that we are called to “be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (vv 2,3). This is all in the context of pre-existing relationships and commitment to a body of believers, not the random person on the street.
There are two things that are important guidelines for love. First, the spirit of Jesus is a spirit of advocacy, not of accusation. So love is advocacy, wanting to see a person become whole and in perfect union with God. Secondly, love must at least to some degree come across as love, which has to do with our approach as much as our content. This requires humility and sensitivity, curiosity about the people we purport to love. It requires patience, a wooing to Jesus. Too often “tough love” is a shortcut to conviction. But the alternative, a permissive hands-off love, is just as suspect.
I’m reminded of an anecdote about Billy Graham when he visited the White House after the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal. After he emerged, the media peppered him with questions, “how can you sit with a man who cheated on his wife, and lied to the nation?”. He responded, “it’s God’s job to judge, it’s the Holy Spirit’s job to convict, and it’s my job to love”. Now, this may be a simplistic overstatement. But I think there is something worth examining here. Too often we circumscribe the work of the Holy Spirit to try and convince(convict?) people by our limited standards, when in fact we are called to love boldly and advocate for people, such that they have an encounter with the spirit of Jesus that leads to repentance.
How do you approach your own passions/convictions with humility and without moving into judgment or becoming confrontational?
It has been life-giving to realize that faith is less about developing hard lines on dogma and practice that cannot be shaken and more about settling into a journey of increasing faithfulness - I am constantly “becoming Christian” moreso than I simply “am” a Christian. This revelation leads me to understand that few of my convictions are conclusions I hold that should never change, but treasures I should hold loosely that they might be re-examined and re-formed as I grow.
Paul says as much after his tells his story to the church in Philippi:
“Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. All of us, then, who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.” (Philippians 3:12-15)
When we become tight-fisted with our passions and convictions we allow them to define us, and we spend a lot of energy defending them from challenge and new information or nuance. We also judge people more harshly who don’t share our convictions. But when we open our hands, recognize we’re all on a journey, we are far more likely to humbly explore what we believe and be more gracious towards others. After all, none of us have arrived anywhere. We’re all an inch along a mile.
In this way, learning and exploring actually become a joy rather than a chore. Curiosity is an asset. We offer more respect to the major issues of the day by allowing them to be complex.
What does it look like to engage in political conversation with those who idolize politics (on both sides)?
Ask lots of questions. Try to be genuinely interested in what someone believes and why, without trying to pin them down or prove them wrong. If someone feels threatened, they will back away. Perhaps the only purpose for a conversation might be to listen, to learn, and not to debate. As I mentioned earlier, finding any semblance of commonality goes a long way to us opening up our fists.
Avoid short-hand language that acts as a stand-in to actually having conversation. For example, “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are two arguments based upon different starting points that usually mean we talk past one another. Identity politics function in a way that we grab onto a word or phrase by which we can fill in the gaps presumptively about everything else someone might believe. This kind of language discourages nuance and care, and prevents listening.
Know what you believe, and why. How closely do you align your opinions and your self-worth? The best you can be for others is an example of someone who has convictions without them being idolatrous. Remember that opinions and beliefs make us feel safe, and they help life make sense. Idolized politics are a coping mechanism to deal with a scary world.
Try and avoid standard logical fallacies, like ad hominem (when you attack the person instead of the idea), false equivalency, or generalizations. Invite nuance into the conversation with words like “some” or “most” rather than making sweeping statements.
Many people feel/are oppressed by interwoven politics/Christianity.
For people that have been hurt by the American church and see the hurt and falsehoods it can sometimes spread, what hope can they have for the Kingdom?
What are good pointed ways to pray for them and evangelize when they are so sure the Church is bad?
I think it’s important to reflect on what we mean by “the American Church”. I know I have been guilty of this in the past, speaking of a rather diverse institution like the Church or America as if it’s uniform. Are we including Catholics? Orthodox? Mainline protestants? Evangelicals? Black churches? House churches?
I once did the math on what is often painted as “the American Church”, which I believe is usually seen as Protestant, white, and evangelical. Even if everyone in that category was of one accord, it’s still only 1.6% of the worldwide Christian population!
I say this, not to defend “the American Church”, but to show how important it is for us to hold nuance that doesn’t unfairly lump everyone into a Big Scary other. In fact, the only way to truly diagnose and heal from wounds is to have the clearest language possible, or else we risk doing ourselves unnecessary damage by painting stories of real pain in inaccurate ways. We must hold the tension of honesty and honor if we are going to see real change. And we don’t want to discount the millions of Christians, and the many many churches out there, who are not playing to the stereotype. Do our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters not count? What about our Black neighbors? Language matters.
We cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think this means that we listen carefully for those in the Christian household who are painting a more beautiful portrait of the Church. Esau McCaulley, a prominent theologian and professor at Wheaton College, recently lamented that many white evangelicals leave the Church because of racism, but don’t bother to listen to Black voices who have chosen to stay. Christianity has always been a wide stream where diverse theologies, styles of worship, language and symbolism have coexisted and intermingled; sometimes in contention and sometimes in a way that “iron sharpens iron”.
Furthermore, to be a Christian is to be part of the Church. You cannot escape this. We are saved into the family of God, and that means we rub shoulders with people we don’t like, who offend us. Part of the task, then, is to strive to be a better church. I always take more seriously critiques of the Church that come from the inside - people who love her as Christ loves her, and want to see her healthier. It’s often a betrayal of privilege to distance ourselves from those who are hurtful, in the same way we can’t discount significant portions of American from being American just because they’re hurtful or how the vote or what have you. The only hope for change is collective ownership of the problem, and a vision for renewal. As Saint Augustine said in the 5th century, “the Church is a whore, but she’s also my mother”.
So being part of “the Church” makes you and I the solution. We own the pain our family has caused; we lament and we repent. We seek to correct those who have gone astray and hurt people in the process. And we enact a better church. We do better as a church. That will speak volumes to those who have been so hurt they can’t see a way forward.
I have hope for a post-denominational view of the Church in this country. The more we realize no one tradition has the monopoly on being “the American Church” the more we will be able to listen to one another, call one another higher and out of love, and correct where necessary. Built into our belief system is this whole beautiful narrative of confession and repentance. Because of this we take the longview - the Church has stood for 2000 years, always reforming, always being guided by the spirit of Jesus.