Several years ago (just over eight, to be exact), I made the sudden decision to significantly change the mode, manner, and frequency with which I preached about politics. Before that time, my goal when preaching politics was to challenge those on “both sides of the aisle” to investigate their blind sides and to somehow behave like adults in order to govern a country in need of leaders who can collaborate through and despite their differences.
I suspect I do not need to tell you how the political environment in our country changed eight years ago. At that time, I was rector of an Episcopal Church in Fayetteville, North Carolina. I (like so many other pastors and priests) felt that the rhetorical temperature in the United States had reached such an extreme that the mere suggestion that both political parties were comparable was problematic. So, I changed my methodology and sought to challenge my community through preaching, teaching, and leading. Some individuals loved it. Others despised it. Some individuals came to church less often, some came more often. A few people left my church, and a few others pledged more money.
During that time, I heard from people who loved what I said and from other people who thought I that I could not be more wrong in my opinions. Through all of that preaching, and attempts at teaching and leading, I did not (as far as I know) change or influence a single person’s mind about anything, on either side—not a single person. In each discussion, it seemed that an individual either agreed or disagreed with me, based upon whatever opinion they had arrived there with.
It could be that I am not a good preacher. Perhaps I am not persuasive. Or, maybe we are all (especially preachers) talking too much and listening too little. My experience is that most people have their minds made up on most issues, most of the time. And I know that I do not change my political opinions very often. When I do, it is because of an internal change, most often a relationship, that has opened my eyes—not a rhetorical device or argument from an acquittance, much less someone I feel defensive around.
This week, United States Representatives Mike Carey, a Republican, and Joyce Beatty, a Democrat (both of Ohio) made national news because they committed to doing something controversial. Both congresspeople have promised to regularly talk to each other on the House floor publicly, on television, where everyone can see them.[1] It says something about our country when the sight of political leaders speaking to one another is contentious.
And yet, here we are. In fact, we have been here for some time. In the coming months, our democracy will be tested through many elections and several court trials. Elections and trials are ways we hold people accountable.
As our country keeps cascading into division, arguing and zero sum thinking does not seem to be getting us anywhere. So, what would it look like for you to truly listen to someone who disagrees with you? Not because their argument will change your mind (we all know that is highly unlikely) but because listening doesn’t cost anything, and once in a while we may learn something, even if it’s just that we all hold our views for a reason.
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-break-fever-of-incivility-toxic-incidents/