Sanctuary
The Coddling of the American Mind is one of those unique books that isn’t afraid to take a look a trends in culture and call them out their inconsistencies. Haidt and Lukianoff expound upon three untruths that have infiltrated the American mind:
- The Untruth of Fragility: “What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker.”
- The Untruth of Emotional Reasoning: “Always trust your feelings.”
- The Untruth of Us vs. Them: “Life is a battle between good people and evil people.”[1]
Together, these three untruths have plunged the world of academia into chaos where professors and students are afraid to speak their minds for fear of repercussions. The authors talk about “safetyism”, which “refers to a culture or belief system in which safety has become a sacred value, which means that people become unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns.”[2] The central argument is that the need to keep oneself safe has become the primary idol of our culture, which in turn has created a generation of young adults who have difficulty coping with the realities of the world.
The Untruth of Fragility is one that is not relegated to the United States. This untruth is one that permeates Hong Kong society to the point where I cannot help but gawk at times. For example, last year I was asked to come up with a Halloween activity for students for a lunch time activity. I found some Halloween tongue twisters, made a worksheet, and had them laminated for the activity. However, the teacher in charge approached me and asked me to make sure the corners were rounded because they were afraid the students would hurt themselves on the “sharp” corners. I was flabbergasted, but complied (some battles aren’t worth fighting). Several weeks later I cut myself on a sharp laminated corner; something I didn’t inform my colleague about.
While this is a silly example, the problem goes much deeper. The notion that ideas can be considered so dangerous that we need to insulate ourselves from them is truly unsettling. I would go so far to say that it’s intellectual genocide. A safe space should be one where people can come to openly dialogue with one another; not isolate oneself from ideas.
There is a popular YouTube series on the channel called “Jubilee” called “Middle Ground.” The whole idea of Middle Ground is to debunk the Untruth of Us vs. Them.[3] Episode titles such as “Can Trump Supporters and Immigrants See Eye to Eye?’ or “Can Israelis and Palestinians See Eye to Eye?” bring people from both sides into a room where they are asked a question or a statement. If the person agrees with it, they will come to the middle of the room where both sides will dialogue with one another. After they have had their say, those who disagree will come and share their thoughts. The point of the experiment is to show that both sides have more in common with one another than one would believe otherwise.
Of the three untruths, the Untruth of Us vs. Them is the one I find most relevant to my own context and what I see popping up on social media. We have a problem where when people do not agree with us, we tend to demonize them or to view them as the “Other.” For the last half year, I have seen this unfolding before my eyes with the situation in Hong Kong. Police and Protestors have demonized the other to the point where people will ask you if you are “Blue” or “Yellow”.[4] Restaurants are branded as Yellow or Blue; those that are Yellow have seen a spike in business with the hope that doing so it will provoke more people to join the side of the protestors.[5]
It is in the midst of this that I ask the question, “Where is the church’s role in reconciliation?” After talking with my friends who are pastors in Hong Kong, they have mentioned how tricky it is because there are people in the congregation who fall on both sides of the spectrum. To come out and support one side while condemning another would be to ostracize the others. But at the same time, refusing to acknowledge or help people process the turmoil isn’t helpful either. It is in this context that I think designating the church as a safe place to engage in dialogue is critical.
During our London Advance, I was struck by Jeremy Crossley’s story of St. Margaret’s and how the church became a space for the bankers to be engaged, even though they were looked down upon. Since then, I have wondered what it would look like for the churches of Hong Kong to actively open their doors to the police and the protestors saying, “This is a place where you can be loved. This is a place you can call sanctuary, a place where you can find rest.”
The word “sanctuary” is defined as “a place of refuge and protection.”[6] Historically, the church sanctuary acted as a place of refuge to those who were fleeing criminal charges.[7] One can see this represented in the opening scene of Disney’s 1996 animated film The Hunchback of Notre Dame. When Judge Frollo is chasing Quasimodo’s mother through the streets, his mother arrives at the church doors, banging on it and calling out, “Sanctuary!”[8]
Today, in the midst of political turmoil the church should be actively pursuing a role in the reconciliation of differing parties. It should be a place where it is not “us vs. them” but a rather a place that says, “In Christ, we are one.”
[1] Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind, New York: Penguin Books (2018), 3.
[2] Ibid., 29.
[3] Link to Jubilee’s Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/jubileeProject
[4] In Hong Kong, to be “Blue” means that you do not support the recent protests while being “Yellow” means that you do support them.
[5] https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3035914/not-michelin-guide-hong-kong-restaurants-branded-yellow-if
[6] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sanctuary
[7] For a very broad overview,< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary > is helpful.
[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-XONxvdq4Y
About the Author
Dylan Branson
Small town Kentuckian living and learning in the big city of Hong Kong.13 responses to “Sanctuary”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Bro, one of your best posts yet. I love the mental image of you cutting yourself on the laminated page! Nice reference half a year ago to Crossley. That was truly an amazing place. The term “safe” might be difficult to reclaim at this point, but I like your play on the word. Do you have Volf’s Exclusion and Embrace on your resource list? He came to mind as you were talking about the “other.”
Cheers, mate. I would agree with that; when I first started thinking about my NPO, “safe” was the word I kept using in my mind. But with all of the negative connotations attached to safety (which is ironic to say the least), that’s caused me to rethink it. Still not entirely sure on the direction of it yet, but it’s in the old noggin.
Yeah! He’s on my list. I haven’t started it yet, but will soon I think. Have to make good use of this pandemic 😛
Dylan,
When reading this I was reminded of how during the Rwandan genocide in 1994, Tutsis flocked to the churches to find sanctuary. Sadly, those leading the churches worked with the Hutus to massacre the Tutsis in those spaces. Thousands upon thousands died within the walls of churches. It was horrific. What was suppose to be a safe place, wasn’t.
I think often our churches still remain unsafe places. For them to become sanctuary for open dialogue and diverse ideas, we need leaders who are very self-aware, curious, and comfortable with paradox. Sadly, the opposite is often true, thus few feel freedom to discuss various perspectives and ask deeper questions. What steps can we take to begin moving in the direction where churches are actual sanctuaries for real and grounded dialogue? What has worked in your context? I think your generation can do it. You just have to lead the way.
Of all the Untruths talked about, I think the Untruth of “Us vs. Them” is the one that needs to be dismantled most strongly within the church. Although it’s not as prevalent as it was six months ago, the tensions in Hong Kong are still here; in one way, the coronavirus has given the city a chance to take a step back and breathe (even if it’s through masks). Coupled with this though is how emotionally charged we get. So in a big way, we need to tame the elephant before it continues its rampage through the ranks of the “other.”
Dillion,
Powerful questions. There is a sense of neutrality in the American church that I am struggling with. Should a church choose sides when people on both sides of the issues need a safe place? Would choosing a side ostracize the very people that may need the church the most?
The church I attend was trying to buy land in a city near me for a new campus and to reach the community since it is one of the most unchurched cities in our area. The city breaking national law prohibits churches within the city limits. Short of a lawsuit to get them to adhere to the national law there was no way to buy within the city. Obviously the to sue a city you are trying to reach isn’t a way to win friends. Interestly we ended up finding a perfect piece of property that is not controlled by the city though it is surrounded on 3 sides by the city. The city is slowly embracing us but it could have been very different if we would have made a stand for our legal rights. Activism and politics within the church has always left me a bit uneasy. It is something I am working through.
Mm. That’s really cool to hear about, Greg. How has your church been acting as a faithful presence in its new location? What has the process of the city embracing your church looked like?
I’d love to think that the church could be a safe place for disagreement, uncomfortable truths, and curiosity. This is what I strive for in my own congregational leadership. Unfortunately, people often come to worship looking to hear confirmation of what they’ve already decided about an issue (or a person,) and not usually ready to deal with something that seems confrontational. And this is true across the age spectrum, not just among my kids’ generation. The more I read the Scriptures- especially the gospels- the more I see us. There’s little doubt in my mind what Jesus might say or do in today’s churches- it’s already written down.
You’re dead on. I think part of the consumer mindset we’ve developed is that we want an echo chamber to confirm our beliefs. When someone challenges our beliefs, we may pick up and move on (granted, we also have to have to caveat of someone picking up because the “challenge” is something that doesn’t line up with Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience).
What have been some of the responses you’ve faced when you’ve preached more “controversial” or challenging topics or passages from Scripture?
You do well to attempt a redefining of “safe space.” I applaud it. I wonder how, in your very international context, you are creating these spaces or expereincing them. What you could share about the elements of creating and facilitating safe spaces?
Jer, I think the best way I’ve seen these groups facilitated/have facilitated them myself is through creating a space of narrative. Gathering around a table for a meal and sharing stories without any pretense has allowed for people of diverse thoughts and backgrounds to come together on a neutral ground. The more we gather, the more experiences are shared.
Other than gathering for a meal, Dungeons and Dragons has been an extremely positive and liberating activity I host that draws people together. Because it’s story based and because people bring with them characters that they are passionate about (that are filled with their own real life hopes and dreams), I’ve seen how liberating the role-playing aspect of it can be in working through struggles. What’s more is that it gives a language we can speak together, laugh together over, and even mourn together. In D&D, rolling a 1 (“Nat 1”) is the worst possible thing you can do while a 20 is the best (“Nat 20”). I’ve had conversations with my players day to day where I ask them how their day was and they say, “Today I rolled a Nat 1” or “I failed my insight checks today” or “I rolled a 20 doing _______.” Going on an adventure through the imagination creates a communal bond where we KNOW we are safe with one another (even if the dice don’t roll in our favor haha).
Speaking out appropriately, which doesn’t always indicate it is acceptable, is a skill. A skill it seems because it is better if it is respectable. And, we do need to have some sort of filter on what we respond to. This part of communications is a journey I am still on.
Discernment is key; knowing when NOT to speak is just as important as knowing WHEN to speak. We need to seek understanding when responding to any given situation.
Insulating from ideas. Is this like a staying warm and cozy, keeping their unsettling coldness apart from us?
Hmm…I was just on my way home and received a text that someone was about to break into the place where I work because they were hungry and they knew that there was food inside. As I drove in a direction away from the Church I was thinking to myself that I could just forget about that idea all together, go home and go to sleep (other unnerving thoughts I’m sure would come and take over the space anyways).
Couldn’t do it. Thankful to have turned around. As I approached the Church I was thankful to cross paths with a police officer to not only inform them of the potential issue but also, of the conversation today outside of our closed Market (aka Food Bank) that for lack of food and resources people are considering shoplifting and stealing.
I hope that over the weeks and months to come that people do not insulate themselves with the idea that all is well if they are well.
I appreciate how you bring the unsettling idea of reconciliation into the mix. How does the church represent this movement well? Credibility, respect and trust. How can such reconciliation happen in the UK regarding Brexit and, the Church reconciling evangelicalism? In “sanctuary”…wow! Sanctuary, imagine the place some even refer to as ‘home’, being such a safe place of protection and acceptance!
Thank you Dylan! Appreciate your heart and thoughts so much.