Introduction
The Church, in its Witness, Can Shape Public Conversation

 

My son is a college baseball player. Recently, his coach posted their 2025 Spring game schedule. All the games for the regular season are on the schedule. The schedule also includes the dates for their conference play off and championship games. More than that, it includes the dates of the College Baseball World Series. I have great respect for that type of leadership. The coach not only tells the players what they will be doing in their regular season, he also puts in front of them what is possible for them—reaching the College Baseball World Series.

 

A common question asked by many American citizens is, “It is possible to have civil conversations on difficult topics?” Even church leaders are asking that question. 

 

I believe that a conversation that honors the integrity of those engaged in the conversation and honors the integrity of those about whom they are speaking is possible.

 

My belief is rooted in hope more than optimism.

 

Optimism is based on the notion that what a person has accomplished in the past can be accomplished in the future as well. It’s the basis for my son’s coach listing the College World Series. The team made it to the series last year, and there is a belief that it can do it again.

 

Hope is the belief that something new and unexpected can happen. Christian hope is rooted in a God who sent Jesus, the divine Son, into the world to die on the cross to save us. Who would have imagined that, prior to the moment? The power of that resurrection continues to break into our world in new and unexpected ways. Resurrection power can make conversation that honors the integrity of those in the conversation and honors the integrity of those about whom they are speaking possible.

 

I believe that conversation that honors the integrity of those engaged in the conversation and honors the integrity of those about whom they are speaking is possible. From that hope, I believe that church can, in its witness, shape public conversation.

 

I am beginning a yearlong series on Leading in the Age of Outrage. This blog will explore some of the sociological perspectives on relationships and communication and how Christians speak to those sociological perspectives theologically.

 

Our Survival Needs Are Self-Serving
The human survival need leads them to be self-serving.

 

Pastor and scientist George Murphy speaks theologically of the first humans and their ancestor hominids. “The ancestors of those first humans would have been members of their species who were most successful in competition with others for food, breeding opportunities, protection from predators, and other survival needs.” (Murphy, 2013) The survival instincts of hominids enabled them to face the threats in their lives. These instincts also kept them alive while others who were weaker did not survive.  Murphy goes on to write that “The first humans, in a theological sense, were hominids in whom reason, self-awareness, and communication had developed to an extent that is was somehow possible for them to be aware of God’s address to them.” (2013) I agree with the notion that humans, in developing from their ancestors, gained reason, self-awareness, and communication, however, I wonder if we can make the leap to claiming they understood the notion that God was addressing them. I think the ability of reason and self-awareness gave way to something more basic. These abilities allowed the first humans to make cause and effect connections between an action of theirs and an event within the sphere of their awareness. For example, a human would strike another. If, within moments of the blow, a wild animal would attack the person, the action of striking another would be connected with the appearance of the wild animal. A conclusion would be drawn that one caused the other. If an action brings harm, the action is seen as wrong for it threatens survival. If the action brings benefit, the action is good for it enhances survival. Human life is ordered by the actions of holding onto that which brings benefit and avoiding that which brings harm. These actions, are, by nature, self-serving. Any community to which these humans belonged was shaped by kinship and shared survival needs. Shaped by survival needs, the community was shaped by fear.

 

Fear Diminishes Our Human Capacity
As levels of fear increase, humans will withdraw from their opponents and function at a pre-human level.

 

In quoting the author of Sociobiology, Rabbi Edwin Friedman writes that the three essential characteristics for an enduring society are “cooperation, cohesiveness, and altruism”.  (Friedman, 2007) As levels of fear grow, society will function at a base level which leads to withdrawal and divisiveness.  The human being has the capacity for reason, self-awareness, and communication, but by nature is oriented toward the instinct for self-survival when threatened. This capacity of humanity for higher level functioning, and its diminished capacity due to fear, live in tension with each other.

 

Systems theory, developed in large part by Murray Bowen, is a helpful model for understanding this tension of capacity. In systems theory, the development of the human brain is traced. The oldest section of the brain is called the reptilian brain. From this part of the brain a human has the fight or flight instinct. Following the development of the reptilian brain, there is the mammalian brain. This section of the brain connects us with others and leads to groupings of people. The third part of the brain is the newest and most developed portion of the brain. It is unique to humanity. From this most advanced part of the brain, one gains the characteristics of cooperation, cohesiveness, and altruism. “In civilized human societies, these characteristics have been made possible by the development of our ability to regulate our instincts rather than let them dive us automatically.” (Friedman, 2007)

 

Community and innovative conversation are diminished at times of fear due to a lack of self-regulation. Ronald Cohen, in a recent blog post for Family Focused Solutions, writes, “When we get anxious and flooded and overwhelmed, we stop thinking and react inappropriately. We project and we stigmatize, and we discriminate and we scapegoat.” (Cohen, 2015) To reduce the anxiety, we form triangles. These triangles are “interlocking relationships that can reduce anxiety and stabilize a system.” (Cohen, 2015) Cohen concludes that these relationships “almost always guarantee that the core issues never get resolved.”  Agreeing with Bowen Family System, Cohen notes signs of increasing anxiety. In “increasing tension and emotional issues, “People withdrew or became silent, formed cliques and alliances, or would talk and gossip about others.” (2015) These actions diminish human functioning and have a direct and detrimental impact on community and innovative public conversation. The church has a unique language for speaking to this diminished capacity.

 

The Theological Language of the Church
The theological language of sin provides the most comprehensive language to describe the impact of withdrawal and diminished functioning.

 

I used the systems approach above to describe human behavior and its capacity. Other disciplines can also offer us insight into how human beings relate to themselves, to others, and how groups interact with other groups.  While each model can offer insight into the human condition, their scope is limited in that they are primarily descriptive. In addition, the disciplines compete with each other as to the validity of their claims as being authoritative. I believe that theology can provide the fullest expression of the human condition.

 

The theological language the church uses to describe the failure of humanity to function at its highest level is called sin. Using the theological term sin gives us the framework to understand God’s relationship with humanity, the human condition, and the human condition in relation to the world, its people, and its bounty. I want to go back to the early humans mentioned previously in this essay. They made cause and effect conclusions. These conclusions led them to see a certain order to the world. For them, they were obliged to perform certain actions to maintain that order for their survival. They found themselves bound to these actions to keep order in place. They placed their trust in those actions to accomplish their purpose.  A religion is the practices to which one is bound. The religion of the early humans shaped their lives. I want to define sin as a trust in that which is not ultimate. Only that which is ultimate can transcend death. Human trust in those practices which cannot transcend death is sin. As humans place their trust in that which is not ultimate, humanity is sinful.

 

Sin and Authority
The words Author and Authority share the same root word which refers to that which writes and shapes one’s story.

 

Sin writes the human story. It is the author extraordinaire. The human sinful condition determines what we claim as having authority in our lives. In The Great Emergence, Phyllis Tickle defines authority by writing, “To speak of authority is to identify a clear and general understanding of whom or what is to be used as the arbitrator of correct belief, action, and controls.” (Tickle, 2008)

 

That which has assumed the authoritative role in America has changed over the generations of our nation. A helpful way to look at the changes in authority comes from Karl Menninger, who asked, “Whatever became of sin?” In his book of the same title, he draws a trajectory from the time when the church was the authority over spiritual and secular life. In time, the United States began to be governed by laws instead of the authority of the church. Punishment was handed out for actions that broke the law. As the field of psychology grew and with it the redefinition of the word empathy, people started to see cases where people broke the law under extenuating circumstances. Thus, we see the development of the verdict, “Not guilty by means of mental defect.” Tickle, using her definition of authority, gives us the most recent stage of authority in American life. “Commonly accepted values and natural law” write our story (2008). I do not believe that she is referring to the common good when she writes of commonly accepted values. Instead, commonly accepted values are those values which are held by smaller groups of similar people who are like-minded people.

 

Each of these smaller groups of people have determined that their commonly accepted values—backed many times by scientific claims—is vying for the position of power to assert their values as authoritative over all people. These groups are most likely, in our anxious times, drawn together out of fear. The need for self-preservation draws them together and leads them to assert that the values to which they cling are the solution to a broken world. The characteristics of cohesiveness, cooperation, and altruism are set aside for the purpose of survival. Each group has its ultimate trust. Each group has its god. In many ways, our nation is seeing a battle between gods. These gods are not ultimate, so this battle between gods is a godless battle.

 

The above battle is made possible because humans make the assertion that their viewpoints on life are objective and reached logically. In writing about the thinking processes in the human brain, Daniel Kahneman claims that many human decisions begin as snap judgments. Logic is laid over the judgment–after the fact–to justify the judgment (Kahneman, 2011). A few years back, my wife suffered a seizure while driving her car. This led to a head on collision. Both she and the other driver were uninjured, but my 9 year old son was quite shaken when he had heard what happened. About a week after the accident, my son came home from school. He informed us that his teacher would be calling us. When asked why, he responded, “I have been talking a lot, not listening to the teacher, and disrupting the class.” Before giving us a chance to respond, he went on, “Now, here is what you are going to tell the teacher. You need to tell her that I am so worked up about Momma’s accident, that I am having a hard time behaving in class.” Ah yes, a snap judgment in behavior with a very understandable rationale laid over it. He was convinced he was justified in his actions. It didn’t fly very far in our household. Members of small groups with commonly acceptable values who are asserting those values as authoritative over all people will be hard pressed to change their minds, for they presume they have reached those values through objectivity and logic. This is our sin.  It is this sin that makes public conversation impossible. We must use the language of sin. Without the language of sin, humans cannot hope for salvation.

 

Overcoming Sin and Making Conversation Possible
Humans hope that public conversation can occur, yet their very lives must be saved from sin for that to be possible.

 

This hope is captured in America the Philosophical. “…America the Philosophical…is to see the United States as the exemplar of a paradigm of philosophy long overdue for recognition—one with roots in the pragmatically accented view of the ancient Greek thinker Isocrates—that suits the twenty first-century and jibes with accelerating trends of globalization in economics, politics, culture, ethics and communication.” (Romano, 2012) There is a desire to transcend base human functioning. There is a belief that this is possible, and a hope that it can happen in this nation. In order for that to be accomplished, the power of sin over human life must be relinquished. Salvation must occur.

 

Regularly, in worship, we speak these words, “Most merciful God, we confess that we are captive to sin and cannot free ourselves. We have sinned against you in thought word, and deed, by what we have done and by what we have left undone.” (Evangelical Lutheran Worship, 2006) Also, in the hymnal, we find Luther’s explanation of the third article of the Apostles’ Creed. It reads, “I believe that by my own understanding or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to him, but instead the Holy Spirit has called me through the gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, made me holy and kept me in the true faith, just as he calls, gathers, enlightens, and makes holy the whole Christian church on earth and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one common, true faith.” (2006) Much is said in that short explanation. God makes the transformation happen. The transformation happens as God reveals God’s self to us. God imputes a Christian character upon us. We are placed in community, not with those of similar values, appearances, or economic status, but through the work of the Holy Spirit. As Gerhard Forde writes, it happens when “God does God to us.” (1972)

 

Gerhard Forde describes a transformation, through the Word of God, when the old person is transformed into the new person (1972).  This transformation is captured by Paul in Romans, “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption.” (Romans 8: 14-15a)

 

The old way of living is a life of fear. The old way of living is a life of godlessness. I believe this old way of living is characterized by being less than human. This diminished functioning is akin to the repertoire of a reptile. We fight and rage. Or we run away. Life in this way is a life of perpetual threat. Life lived at this level is a win/lose proposition. If you win, then I lose. If I lose, then I must go after you to regain the upper hand. It is a cyclical and a never-ending battle. Fighting this battle, other people are seen as products that exist for our personal satisfaction. If they satisfy our needs, we like the person and consider him or her good. If they do not satisfy those needs, we find them disposable. In its most extreme form, people will control others or perpetrate acts of violence against them. This old way of living is characterized by faithlessness—lived out in a lack of hope, desperation, and a deficit mentality. (Forde, 1972)

 

The new way of living is a life of hope. I believe this new way of being is characterized by living into the fullness of our humanity and living up to our fullest capacity as human beings. This way of living uses all those parts of who we are that are unique to humanity—logic, intelligence, wisdom, compassion, creativity, morality, self-control, and self-awareness. It also allows room for the existence of other human beings in the world and allows room for their unique qualities no matter how different the person may be. This new way of living allows for a common good. Jesus is the common good. As a new person, I do not see you as a threat. I do not need to control you. I do not see you in constant competition with me. As a new person, I can own my feelings about myself and what is happening in the world and not make my lack of happiness your problem. The new way of being is a life of abundance and hope. (Forde, 1972)

 

We go back to the Apostle Paul who tells us that it is Jesus Christ that takes us from the old person to the new person. We cannot save ourselves. The wages of our sin—our inability to believe in God and all the way we live out that disobedience in trusting that which is not ultimate—is death. We die as Christ died, and we are raised with Christ from death to new life—new being. We live in a new age with a new way of living. This is God doing God to us.

 

Authority now, is not found in commonly accepted values, but is revealed. Authority is the revelation of God through the Word of God. The Word of God transforms humanity and moves us from old to new—into a genuine community.

 

It is my belief that part of that new creation is the capacity for humans to have conversation that honors the integrity of each person in the conversation and honors the integrity of those about whom they are speaking in the conversation.

 

The Church and Genuine Community
Genuine community in which its members are fully engaged with one another allows its members to test perceptions.

 

In doing so, its members are open to having their minds and lives changed. This level of engagement is more than tolerance. Suzanna Danuta Walters, in The Tolerance Trap, writes, “Tolerance does sometimes tolerate difference, but it can never celebrate it; nor can it allow the difference of others to jolt is own certitudes.” (2014) Tolerance, according to Walters, is a default activity that restricts the capacity for a society to face the complex challenges it encounters. She quotes political theorist Wendy Brown, “Tolerance, in her view, signals a ‘retreat from more substantive visions of justice.’” In her words, Walters writes, “Tolerance undercuts the potential for citizens to reckon with conflict productively and ‘be transformed by their participation.’” (2014) Communication among those with character and integrity is communication between those that anticipate their lives will be transformed by the conversation.

 

The type of communication about which I am writing allows for opposing viewpoints. Bringing together opposing viewpoints allows for the wonderfully dynamic human thought process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. A new creation can come out of opposites being held in tension with each other. In the loss of human imagination as they live in fear, humanity can barely conceive of a starting point when opposites come together. Joel Hunter offers this first step. Humanity may not immediately come to full agreement on significant moral issues. Remember this, it is only necessary that we as Christians agree on the gospel, not on the laws.

 

Next Month

 

In my February Blog, I will use the writings of Professor Karthik Ramanna from his book, The Age of Outrage: How to Lead in a Polarized World. He provides a helpful analysis of what drives the Age of Outrage. Having outlined a theological response to social analysis and reflected on the drivers of the “Age of Outrage”, we can then look at ways that leaders can guide their organizations.

---

REFERENCES

Brueggemann, Walter (2009). An Unsettling God: The Heart of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press.

Cohen, Ronald B. (2015). Societal Emotional Processes. www.familyfocusedsolutions.com.

Cain, Susan 2012. Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking. New York: Crown Publishers.

Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006). Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Fortress Publishers.

Forde, Gerhard O. (1972). Where God Meets Man: Luther’s Down-to-Earth Approach to the Gospel. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House.

Friedman, Edwin H. (2007). A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix. New York: Seabury Books (Church Publishing, Inc.)

Hunter, Joel C. (2008). A New Kind of Conservative. Ventura, California: Regal.

Kahneman, Daniel (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Murphy, George L. (2013). Models of Atonement: Speaking Salvation in a Scientific World. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Lutheran University Press. 

Romano, Carlin (2012). America the Philosophical. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Tickle, Phyllis. (2008). The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Walters, Suzanna Danuta (2014). The Tolerance Trap: How God, Genes, and Good Intentions Are Sabotaging Gay Equality. New York: New York University Press.

Wells, Samuel (2004). Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press.

Wright, N. T. (2010). After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters. New York, New York: Harper One.