How We Should Talk With Those With Whom We Disagree

Just recently, the Daily Princetonian posted an interview with a well-known progressive and a well-known conservative (click here for the interview). And what they did in that interview was to provide an example for all of us Americans to follow when discussing issues with each other.

The well-known progressive was Cornel West (click here for his bio). The well-known conservative was Robert P. George (click here for his bio). And despite the racial and ideological differences, they referred to and regard each other as brothers. This is something that we should notice when watching the interview. It is something we should learn from so that we can better relate to those with whom we disagree. For the more we can learn from the examples they have set, the better we can learn from each other and function as a more healthy nation.

There are some points from the interview that should be emphasized--btw, please watch the interview because it is important to see how these two men get along. One of the most important points made was made by Robert P. George. He said that zeal, even for a good cause, can have negative results if it goes unchecked. He correctly said that it can lead to tribalism. And with tribalism, though George didn't mention this, one of the negative results is that those who are tribal embrace moral relativity. That is because with tribalism, loyalty go a group trumps commitment to principle and thus what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. And from there, we lose public civility and the ability for opposing groups to resolve differences by discussion rather than by force.

Both West and George spoke about how not only are leaders and famous people mixed bags, all of us are as well. Our own faults should, when properly recognized, limit our criticisms and treatment of others. Thus without a proper self-recognition, we cannot contribute to the open and fair discussion of ideas. And that eventually results in a power struggle between groups as more and more people from the different groups can only see the sins of others.

Something else that both West and George pointed out was about groups. The groups we see today are not monolithic. Thus we need to be careful about how we speak about groups. We cannot afford to speak about them as if each person in a given group act in complete conformity with the others in the group.

Of course, talking about groups as monoliths is done for the same purpose as making character or other significant accusations about individuals or other groups: they are, as George pointed out, conversation stoppers. By that he meant that the intent of so misrepresenting groups is that one does not have to deal with the specific issues and points made in a discussion because the conversation stopper has already stopped the discussion. Such descriptions can become slander with the intent to injure, in terms of credibility, the other person.

Much of the negatives that George and West discussed can really be attributed to authoritarianism. Authoritarianism refers to the hostile way one responds to dissenting opinions. Authoritarianism is a fear-based approach, fear because the right view or group is not being rightly honored and followed. With authoritarianism comes black-white thinking where a person has a binary view of the world. Those who are with one's own group are good and can be trusted while those who are in other groups have nothing of value to say and can even be regarded as a dangerous enemy. We should also note that with authoritarianism's hostility to dissenting opinion, comes a desire to punish those with opposing views or from opposing grups--not something brought up in the video. And thus, we see what discourse in much of America has become.

Finally, if I was to criticize anything from the interview, it is what was said about presentism. Presentism exists when we judge people from the past by today's standards. The problem with presentism is that it fails to give due recognition to the fact that we are all products of our time.

That being said, presentism has its good points. For example, the more that the present has given us a better better grasp on absolute values, the more presentism serves us. But there is another problem with presentism. It is that a feeling superiority over those from the past can accompany presentism. Such blinds us from what we have in common with those from the past, even those with whom we disagree. And thus civil discussion about the past becomes more difficult.

When employing presentism, we should always keep in mind is that just as those from the past are subject to our judgment with what we know, so too will we from the present be subject to the presentism practiced by those in the future.

There are other things that could be brought out from the interview of these two men, but it is much better for people to spend the time watching the interview.

 

To Prophesy Or To Slander, That Is The Church's Problem

Joe Carter (see TGC and Acton bios) teaches journalism and writes for The Gospel Coalition Blog as well as the blog for The Acton Institute.  The blog post his that we will be reviewing here is called, Stop Slandering Christ's Bride. We will also be using at least one of his comments that helps clarify what he tried to say in the post. 

Carter has a problem with those who make certain kinds of criticisms made about the Church. He identifies three steps such people take when they do far more than provide constructive criticisms, they slander the Church. The first step is rather ordinary, it involves pointing to a subject or problem that Christians think about. The second step is to claim that nobody else is addressing the issue. The third step is to assume to have authority and say why must voice an opinion on the issue. It is obvious that these steps should raise red flags only when all three are followed. And what we apparently have as a result is more than just a person with delusions of grandeur, we have who one is slandering the Church because claims made from taking those three steps can't possibly be true.

To get further clarification on what concerns Carter here, one must read his response to Arthur Sido's comment. Sido understood Carter's objection to assuming a position of authority, like claiming to be a prophet, as equating the mere act of speaking out with assuming to be a prophet. Carter tried to clarify what he meant by assuming to have authority, such as that of a prophet,  by saying that he was speaking against those who act as if God appointed them as the sole person to address an issue. Sido went on to complain that calling the Church, "Christ's Bride," was a way to silence its critics. 

Then Sido made a statement that Carter agreed with in saying that one can note faults in "our religious institution, traditions, and cultures" without denouncing the Bride of Christ. 

Finally, Sido complained that Carter's post seemed to be a continuation of some in calling for the punishment of those who are trying to make the Church accountable. Carter tried to clarify to whom he was objecting by saying that call for punishment is already being used on those who make "universal denunciations," that is saying there are no churches address a said issue, especially since such assertions are false.

It appears that some could easily read Carter as describing religious, self-made demagogues whose niche is his or her complaint about the whole Church. But since Carter admitted to having practiced all three steps himself at times, it is not quite clear about whom Carter is referring except he was admitting to just making false statements about the Church.

So where do we go from here? We go to a chapter called "The Crisis In Contemporary American Religion" from the book, The Cornel West Reader. For here West claims there is a failure in all of American religiosity to maintain a prophetic voice. Here, West lists Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Islam as the culprits. By not maintaining a prophetic voice, West is citing these religions with failing to call the political and cultural status quo to repentance. Rather than challenging the current system to change, American religions have accommodated the status quo by surrendering to an idolatry of the "privatism" and "careerism" that is so much a part of the American culture. Therefore, the message that American religions preach and practice is one of "existential emptiness and political irrelevance."

Now the question becomes, is Cornel West one of those "prophets" whom Carter is warning us about? Is Cornel West a religious demagogue or a slanderer of the Church whom we listen to at our own peril? Please note here that Carter has not said anything specific about West. We are simply using the criteria Carter listed in the blogpost we are reviewing.

Now, whereas Carter's first step is pointing to a problem that Christians react to, West goes farther than and different from that. Instead of singling out a specific sin or issue, West is drawing our attention to something broader. West is saying that we have to preach against the current system by which our society operates. So it isn't enough for us Christians to point to a specific sin regardless of the sin, we must speak against the culture or society as a whole.

The next step, or perhaps warning sign, regards whether West said that no Churches are addressing this. We don't hear West say that. Rather, he says that American religions are losing their ability to speak prophetically. He says that Americas religions are trading in their integrity by abstaining from speaking truth to power in defense of the vulnerable for the porridge of all that serves the self by sanctifying "consumerism," "narcissism," and even "hedonism."

Finally, is West taking on the mantle of being an OT prophet in complaining about America's religions? By saying that all religions in America have failed to continue to do what has been done in the past by people like Dorothy Day, Abraham Heschel, and Martin Luther King Jr., he certainly seems to playing the part for he regards such people as having communicated a prophetic vision.

So is Cornel West someone we should be wary of according to Carter's criteria? It is a possibility by Carter's criteria. But what if we examined Carters' concerns to see if the warning signs he alerts us to are valid. We should first note that many religions have demagogues and the first priority of these demagogues and even slanderers is to serve themselves at the expense of others. And when it comes to being served, especially with recognition and loyalty, such people hate competition and that competition. 

The first step that demagogues and slanderers take is the first step that those who speak the truth take as well, that is to take an issue about which Christians are concerned. So after the first step, we can't judge West less we willing to throw out all good with the bad. 

Carter's next step of concern is when a person claims that no Churches are addressing the concern.  Now this is an odd step because if taken literally, it makes it rather easy to identify demagogues and slanderers because hardly anyone makes such a claim. But what about the person who speaks generally, noting that there are exceptions to the rule? Or what about the person who is speaking from their personal experiences with the Church? Or is this criteria a valid concern anyway especially if the person is right? Thus, this criteria must be used in conjunction with the third one for it to serve as a red flag.

Finally, what if the person is proclaiming oneself to have the position of Old Testament prophet, should that trigger an alarm?  Realizing that, in the Old Testament, those who opposed the prophets were those who opposed God and there was no room for discussion back then. Oppose the prophets and experience the wrath was the order of the day in the Old Testament. So is West doing that by speaking against all of America's religions? 

Note, if you can, who West was identifying as the prophets in the chapter we are commenting on. It included Dorothy Day, Abraham Heschel, and Martin Luther King Jr. Were these people warning about the wrath that was to if what they said was ignored? Yes. But here are a couple of differences between them and the Old Testament prophets. While the Old Testament prophets warned how they were God's special messengers whose job was to tell the people about the anger of a jealous God who was dealing with an adulterous people, today's prophets are warning about the natural catastrophes that will follow the continuation of systemic sins. Another difference is that instead of claiming to be infallible because what they were doing was merely repeating what was supernaturally revealed by God, many of today's prophets are speaking, with varying degrees of accuracy, to warn of horrible natural consequences that can be rationally and morally determined by principles, facts and logic. 

In other words, the prophetic tradition to which West is appealing automatically asks us to react like the Berean Jews in Acts 17. When they heard the preaching of the Gospel, they thoroughly examined what was said. Those acting in such a tradition are not assuming to be demagogues for they are not seeking to control the vertical and horizontal of our minds. And as for being slanderers, they ask us to first examine the facts and logic to see if what their warnings makes sense.

So here is the issue. Whenever religion bows down to a sinful status quo, the people wander in darkness. And the religious leaders who enable this effort just might be worse than the demagogues about whom Carter is trying to warn us. There are few if any voices pointing to the light when this occurs. Those prophets who do point to the light may even follow all three steps that Carter warns us about in the blog post we have been reviewing. And if after checking off each step we write these prophetic voices off, we will be like Old Testament Israel and Judah when they ignored the prophets who spoke the revealed word of God in that we will meet our demise because we ignored warnings. Of course, the difference between the Old Testament prophets and the prophets of today is that while the Old Testament prophets appealed to supernatural acts and God's revelation, today's prophets are pointing to morals, facts, and logic. Their very message implies that we examine what is said to see what is true and what should be discarded. And if we fail to seriously listen to today's prophets, we will be judged guilty of both supporting a sinful status quo and not caring enough to think because we wanted to follow the crowd. 

Comparing John Piper and Cornel West Regarding Trayvon Martin

The George Zimmerman's acquittal of murdering Trayvon Martin has caused more than a disturbance across the country. Why? It is because this acquittal is seen as being a part of an ugly pattern, a pattern where Blacks continue to get the short end of the stick of justice and many in the Black community righteously want that to end that now.

How should the Christian respond to all of this? The answer is not that simple since there are multiple ways Christians could and are currently responding. So this post will be about reflecting on two different Christian responses to see what we can learn about each one. 

Here, we will compare John Piper's response with that of Cornel West's. Please note the degree of inaccuracy this post is inviting by using only two sources for John Piper (click here for an audio interview and there for a blog post) and an interview with Cornel West by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now (click here for both the interview and its transcript). I should add that John Piper has a book on racism called Bloodlines. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the book for writing this post.

Both Piper and West are distraught over both the killing of Trayvon Martin and the acquittal of George Zimmerman. In his article, Piper questions the total innocence of Zimmerman as he notes Zimmerman's stalking behavior despite the instructions given him by the 911 operator. He also notes Zimmerman's size and age advantage over Martin and that he was carrying a gun. In addition Piper reflected on Martin's response of "they always get away"to the 911 operator. We should consider that despite Zimmerman's history of having positive race relations with Blacks, his comment lends weight to fact that Zimmerman's stalking of Martin could have been the result of what West calls the criminalization of poor people and the Black poor.

Neither Piper nor West have isolated the killing of Martin and Zimmerman's acquittal from the racism that Blacks have suffer here.  Piper goes on to assure those who are distressed by Zimmerman's actions as well as other racist actions by reminding us that justice will be accomplished during the final judgment. Piper goes on to say that either Zimmerman himself will receive God's full justice for whatever he did wrong against Martin or that justice will be transferred to Jesus on the cross if Zimmerman repents and believes. At the same time, both advocate working for social justice. Piper makes a point of saying that our hope in the full justice of God being satisfied is not an excuse to refrain from working for social justice here.

What are the key differences between Piper and West with regard to the Zimmerman killing of Martin and his subsequent acquittal? One key difference is in their urgency to establish justice here on earth. Most of Piper's hope for the restoration of justice lies in the future and thus he, despite his exhortation to Christians to work for social justice, lacks energy and focus when talking about what to do on earth. It is just the opposite with West. Saying nothing about the final judgment, West's total focus is on rectifying our problems with racism and poverty here and now. And not only is West zoomed in on changing the present, he includes continuing the rich traditions of past activists in battling today's evil.

What can we gain from this? We can gain if we do a version of the Miller-lite combination of "tastes great" and "less filling." What we should want to do is to combine strengths of both--we should note that synthesizing two different views is an approach that Martin Luther King sometimes took. Piper's strength is his hope in God's judgment as restoring justice. Of course, that idea should strike fear in everyone because we have all practiced injustice against others. At the same time, not only should our hope in God's final justice not excuse us from being involved in reversing the injustices of the world, we need to work for this justice with all of the grit and energy that Cornel West so naturally demonstrates. In other words, our hope for the future should give us more energy, at least more than those who have no hope, to work to bring justice now rather than act as a distraction. 

Another difference that exists between what we have of Piper's material and that of West is the scope of their vision. Listening to and reading Piper, we see his deep concern for Blacks and what they have had to endure in America. But West immediately links Zimmerman's attack on Martin with Obama's drone attacks on the children of color in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Obama is, according to West, a "global George Zimmerman" he justifies the drone killing of children claiming self-defense. West brings the drone attacks on these children up because he wants to be concerned with all of God's children, all are made in God's image. Their blood is no less important than ours or the blood of our children. Here, West follows the example King set when he spoke out against the violence suffered by the Vietnamese people during the war.

What we see here is that West's vision is wider than that of Piper's. This larger vision allows West to challenge Obama's words of sympathy for Trayvon and identification with young Black men by stating how Obama has not only worked to change their plight in this country. West continues by criticizing Obama's praise and choice of Ray Kelly for director of Homeland Security because, as  police chief of New York City, he defended and supported New York City's Stop And Frisk procedures. On the other hand, Piper can only celebrate Obama's exhortation that we should appreciate our current system of justice. He cannot look beyond Obama's words to see if he is walking the talk. 

There are other things on which we can compare  Piper and West, but let's stop and speculate why there are the above listed differences. Some of my fine fellow flaming fundamentalists friends and family might point to Piper's preaching of the traditional gospel, of redeeming those who repent and the judgment that awaits those who do not believe as the key to understanding the difference between the two. The problem with this line of thought is that the Gospel of individual salvation which Piper preaches, which seems to be absent in West's rhetoric, does not contradict West's concern for social justice. West's caring for all people regardless of race and nationality is very consistent with Galations 3:28, James 2:1-7, and the Scriptures that tell us we are all made in God's image.

Another factor that could explain the difference between Piper and West is their primary congregation and on which end of the whip each congregation lives. This is speculative and I could very well be wrong but it seems that Piper's congregation consists of a White majority. That does not mean that he does not preach to minorities, quite the opposite is true. And this does not imply any kind of racism on his part. We should note that Piper is just as opposed to racism as West. But, if this country is still mired in White supremacy, we should note that Whites will generally feel less urgency to change the status quo than Blacks because they don't live on the receiving end of the whip. Thus, generally speaking, Whites not only live in more comfort than Blacks, they have less reason to worry about their children and the future. 

On the other hand, West's listening seems to consist of a Black majority. This does not imply that no Whites are included in his congregation--I listen to him. We are simply talking about which group makes up the majority of his audience. 

As both Piper and West tailor their respective messages for their audiences, it would be quite natural for West to speak about changing the status quo and for Piper to pay more attention to keeping one's faith and the coming Kingdom of God. Generally speaking, Whites who live in a White supremacist society, do not feel the dire need for things to change that Blacks feel. And we should note that we are talking about generalities here. 

Finally, West sees himself as a revolutionary. From all appearances, Piper does not. This means that West wants a new system while Piper wants the current one to be repaired. Again, both are strongly opposed to racism. But both experience the world differently, something Piper readily acknowledges though not referring to West specifically, in part because of their race, and they have different immediate needs to address because of their primary targeted audience. 

As was written before, what we can do is to take the best of what both men have to offer and see what kind of mixture we can create that helps us to better apply God's Word to faith and to the world's problems with racism.