A guest post this week from my good friend Richard Smith:
Most everyone thinks they're open-minded, and willing to consider different viewpoints. Sadly, it just isn't the case. Instead, we find ourselves dividing into two opposing tribes.
One tribe will hurl insults at the other only to have those insults be reframed and hurled right back! Not many of either tribe appear open to real dialog.
Very few Americans disagree about the importance of protecting the country, having a robust and healthy economy, healthy citizens who are free to choose their way in life, and a democratic government that allows all citizens to participate in guiding the country.
Yet even though we believe these things, we find ourselves dividing into opposing tribes on a range of issues: climate change, abortion, gun control, the proper role of government, foreign policy, and the relationship between religion and science. To name just a few. Gridlock everywhere you look.
How did we get to this place? How do we overcome the gridlock?
Let me offer an example. For the past 100 years many people have adopted the belief that the Bible and modern science are in conflict. The disputants have lined up, facing off against each other. In one camp are those who believe only in science, and further think that if one accepts modern science, then the Bible cannot have either truth or value. In the other camp are those who believe that based upon their reading of the Bible, modern science clearly is in error.
.
Each side would line up its facts and beliefs, then attack the arguments of the other side. Sometimes it would get even more heated, with the attacks extending to the character of the people on the other side.
Endless sound and fury, but absolute zero change in anyone's viewpoint.
We all cling to the idea that if we present a logical, well thought out argument, then present it to the other side, our intellectual opponents will change their minds. After all, we believe our arguments, and our persuasiveness, are compelling!
Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. Research has shown that when someone vigorously opposes you, you tend to cling to your position even more strongly. Your goal is to convince the other person to agree with your position. But the more forcefully you make your case, the less likely it is they will agree. This is particularly true when insults are included. After all, how many times have you changed your mind after someone tells you that you must be stupid because you hold the beliefs you do?
After 100+ years of trying to persuade the other side, each "tribe" is more entrenched than ever.
The answer isn't to search for ever better, more persuasive arguments. Instead, it is to adopt a heart of peace.
I've been reading a book, titled The Anatomy of Peace, whose prescription isn't more compelling arguments, it's to adopt a heart of peace. To have a heart of peace means to see others as people and not objects. It also means one needs to be willing to admit he or she might be wrong in thought or belief; and be willing to consider a change of mind, a change of heart. Sounds blindingly obvious, except we all seem to have lots of trouble doing it.
The Anatomy of Peace helped me to understand that I needed to open myself up to different viewpoints. In other words, have a heart of peace.
Opening oneself to consider alternative viewpoints is a first step. Where does one turn next? In my case, I've found another textbook, this one titled Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins, written by a group of professors at Wheaton College. This is a pretty weighty science textbook that surveys the broad range of the latest scientific theories concerning the origins of the Universe, as well as Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.
Reading the Wheaton College textbook led me to realize I'd been making a fundamental mistake. The mistake was something called Concordism.
Briefly stated, Concordism "is an interpretive framework that presupposes biblical text and scientific statements are correlated. Concordism believes that biblical text has scientific import or that we should expect to find close parallels between biblical text and scientific statements."
I told myself I was merely seeking the truth, seemingly a reasonable position to take. But then the book took an interesting turn: Non-concordIsm. "This is an interpretive framework where no correlations or parallels between biblical text and scientific statements are required."
I don't want to spend more time listing the differences - that'll be the subject of a future post. The thing that I do want to say is I had to have my mind open in order to realize that a different belief was possible. This is where The Anatomy of Peace gets really interesting: "the more sure that I am right, the more likely that I will actually be mistaken."
The more I want peace, the more likely I'll have war. Paul in Romans 7:15 says, "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do."
Why is this so? Justification. We want to justify ourselves; make ourselves straight when we know we're crooked. When a wall is crooked, to make it appear straight is merely the work of some well-placed wood. Unfortunately justifying isn't easy with a human being. If we betray our own moral principles, we begin to justify ourselves by making the other person an object. To quote the book we "horribilize" them. Rachel Maddow or Rush Limbaugh become the problem. Depending on your worldview, one or the other is the most horrible person ever.
But are they?
If I see myself as better than you then it follows that I deserve better treatment than I get from you. If I see myself as worse than you then it follows that I need to be seen in a better light in order to feel justified. In neither case am I seeing you as a person but as an object.
The answer - as simple as it is - is difficult to do. Each of us first has to understand that everyone is a person and not an object. We are the same. And so, the well known Biblical admonition: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
When you ignore the sense that you should apologize to someone or help someone or do some some other positive action, you begin to see them as an object. And that's when the examination begins to prove that there is something wrong with the other person.
Except that if we are honest with ourselves, we'll realize there is nothing wrong with the other person.
Which leads to the second thing we each need to do: acknowledge that there may be good reasons why the other tribe holds its beliefs. Before going any further, we need to understand what those good reasons are, and then incorporate the other tribe's viewpoint into our own.
We all like simple, neat solutions to problems. Overcoming our tribalism and gridlock is no different. Unfortunately, there is no quick answer. The closest thing that approaches such is that our belief we can get others to change their minds due to our compelling arguments is flat wrong. If we're going to do it, it will have to happen another way.
The starting point for that "other way" is to adopt a heart of peace.
My father once said that there's two things you need to do when deciding how to behave: 1) decide what the right thing is; then 2) do the right thing. That's too simplistic you say. That is of the real world you say. But one thing of which you should be certain. There is one person preventing this from happening. You.
Think about it.
