Everyone Has An Opinion, But Where is the Love?
Created in Canva by Nancy Blackman
“What’s wrong with the world, Mama?
People livin’ like they ain’t got no mamas
I think the whole world’s addicted to the drama
Only attracted to things that’ll bring you trauma
Overseas, yeah, we tryna stop terrorism
But we still got terrorists here livin’
In the USA, the big CIA
The Bloods and the Crips and the KKK
But if you only have love for your own race
Then you only leave space to discriminate
And to discriminate only generates hate
And when you hate, then you’re bound to get irate, yeah
Madness is what you demonstrate
And that’s exactly how anger works and operates
Man, you gotta have love just to set it straight
Take control of your mind and meditate
Let your soul gravitate to the love, y’all, y’all”[1]
It was just after the 2016 election, and a friend and I were talking on the phone. She was never shy about her conservative political stance. At one point in the conversation, I said, “Well, it’s obvious we canceled each other’s vote.” She wanted to talk to someone who didn’t vote the same way to understand why. Knowing her personality, I laid some ground rules.
Before I go further, I know that Matthew Patrusek’s book Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture is about the intersections of religion, politics, and culture in the frame of Catholic Social Thought. I’m choosing to focus on Chapter 2, “Stop Fighting—and Start Arguing,”[2] because I’m tired of fighting.
I was raised by a father who created dinner table conversations for his children into scenarios of debate. Each child had to pick a side and argue their points. Why did he do this? Because he knew once we moved to the U.S., they would be navigating a political and sociological landscape they were not used to, having been raised across four continents as young children. He wanted them to know their voices and opinions were valuable, but how they shared was key—always with love. Amor. الحب. Cinta. รัก. Aloha. 사랑. Liebe.
Back to my friend who reached out to me for this conversation. Having lived for 20 years in the Washington, D.C. area, where politics was woven into casual conversation, I entered this one hoping for the same thing. I thought we would debate our sides of the aisle rationally and politely. I thought, just as my brother and I had, many years prior, debated our sides and then hugged each other with an “I love you” at the end, that this would be a similar scenario. Everyone has an opinion, yes? We’re allowed to have our opinions. We live in a country that lays claims to free speech.
I was dead wrong. My friend entered into this conversation prepared to go to war. There was no rationalizing. With each terse word and raised pitch of her voice, I did my best to diffuse. After all, we both love Jesus Christ with all our hearts. Why were we at odds?
When I read the quote by Bishop Robert Barron, “Do not pit reason against faith,”[3] I was reminded that was exactly what I had done as I entered into a lion’s den. I thought two Christians talking about politics, regardless of opposing views, would be an argument, not a fight. We didn’t cross into scientism. We were logical and concise, not allowing feelings to enter, but somewhere it went haywire. As someone who is not confrontational, I became quiet.
She shared one news report after another. But, and this might be a big but … sometimes the evidence shared with the public might not be the truth. The evidence my friend kept bringing up was the opinions of others that she now laid claim to. So, I asked, “What if you’re wrong?”
Petrusek uses a phrase I often use: “begging the question”[4] to avoid the core issue. In this case, my friend was so certain that she was right that I kept begging the question, “What if you’re wrong?”
She believed what she read was the truth. Perhaps she was falling into a state of what Barron refers to as voluntarism—the state of wanting things to be true because you want them to be true. I agree with Petrusek’s claim that “Voluntarism is completely incoherent; to assert that there is no universal truth beyond an individual’s own definition of truth is to embrace a universal truth.”[5] All parties are allowed to have an opinion if they don’t stand in because I said so.
As the conversation continued, I felt an unhealthy barrier building between us. I kept wanting to end the conversation, but she insisted we keep talking, even though she was doing all the talking. Sometimes, we get over-involved in blaming others instead of taking a stance of responsibility. “Cyncism thrives in large, complex societies in which is easily divorced from effect.” [6]
This brings me to the African philosophy of ubuntu—I am because you are. It says we are stronger together. It says we can overcome differences and problems, no matter who we are, where we live, or what culture we come from, because we choose to coexist in harmony and peace.[7] It is about orthopraxy, which is not about believing you are right but acting right.
“Harmony, friendliness, community are great goods. Social harmony is for us the summum bonum—the greatest good.”[8]
May you use your voice with grace and love.
[1] The Black Eyed Peas, “Where is the Love?” lyrics from Verse 1, https://genius.com/Black-eyed-peas-where-is-the-love-lyrics.
[2] Matthew Petrusek, Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture (Park Ridge, IL: Word on Fire Institute, 2023), 26-45.
[3] Ibid., 26.
[4] Ibid., 30.
[5] Ibid., 32.
[6] Paul Rogat Loeb, Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in Challenging Times (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2010), 99.
[7] Mungi Ngomane, Everyday Ubuntu: Living Better Together, the African Way (New York: Harper Collins, 2020), 13.
[8] Desmond Tutu, God Has a Dream: A Vision of Hope for Our Time (New York: Doubleday, 2004), Chapter 2, Location 328.
About the Author
Nancy Blackman
17 responses to “Everyone Has An Opinion, But Where is the Love?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Nancy, I hear genuine openess from you to have real conversations with people on difficult topics . Do you think that the conversations that don’t go well have an impact on the ability of the people to maintain a genuine relationship?
Hi Diane,
Short answer: yes.
It might not come as a surprise, but this person and I are no longer friends, but not for lack of trying. At some point in some relationships where one individual keeps pressing buttons and the other person keeps saying stop or let’s move on or can we talk about something else and it doesn’t happen, the relationship becomes unproductive and … toxic.
In the case of my sibling, we know we stand on the other side of the aisle from one another, but we know when to stop talking, in the name of love.
In my opinion, relationships are more important than party lines, race, cultures, and beliefs. I have friends who fit all of those different scenarios. At some point, in order to preserve the relationship, you honor the love that has grown in the name of friendship and continue to learn from one another. I have learned so many things from them, and I love them for being open with me as well as not judging me for what I believe. It is its own education, yes?
Amen! I agree we have much to learn from one another and am thankful the people you love the most are able to agree to disagree. But also, understand that sometimes it is important to be able to disengage when respect is absent. Thank you for such a thoughtful answer.
Oh, Nancy – what a kind and gentle way to handle Petrusek (a much softer approach than I had). Your life of exposure to diverse audiences and countries blessed you, although, I am sure it did not come without a cost.
What is one question that you might ask of Petrusek if you were meeting with him over coffee?
Ha ha ha Jennifer … if only you had heard the conversation in our house the day before 😜. Chris, at one point said, “You sound so angry.” I said, “I am!” And that’s how I knew I needed to step away and rethink what I would write. Good thing, too because sleeping on it helped me re-evaluate and see a different side.
Great question! I did a little research on Petrusek and learned he does a fair amount of speaking, even across the pond, so his point of view is valued in some circles.
I’m guessing his research is not ethnographic so I’d probably ask him, “After writing this book and all the research, what have you learned about God and yourself? Did you find the process fruitful, even transformational?”
Thanks Nancy. I appreciate the way you showed healthy debate (arguing that ends with an ‘I love you’ hug) vs. the argument with your friend, where she did most of the talking.
I think we need more examples of good arguments in our world today. How do we foster these in our homes and communities?
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for reading.
The short answer: you need ground rules, and one ground rule needs to be that people will speak respectfully to one another, and hold a posture of non judgement.
I have been to several Trust Talks between the police department and the public and ground rules were always set before each meeting.
I loved the way my dad set the stage, allowing us to navigate our own opinions. There were times when it got heated.
In other words, all those debates at the dinner table taught us to choose our words wisely, but always speak to each other with respect and love — even if it’s heated.
Nancy,
Thanks for your post and reflecting on the need to demonstrate love to each other. Certainly our political arena is void of love. It is also void of hearing other’s opinions and gerenally speaking working towards the common good. I hear your perspective of coming together, in light of Ubuntu, a concept that was interesting to live in. This begs the question… Jesus did not always offer simply love. He always offered love and his actions were loving. Yet, he also spoke such divisive words that caused his death and the crowds to disappear from following him. Understandably, we are not Jesus, but do you think there are times for Christians to speak pointed words that might not be well received?
Hi Adam,
But was Jesus’ intention divisive? I wonder if that’s the correct word because it means “tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people.”
Jesus was direct and to the point. He stood before the Pharisees and spoke directly, never mincing words, saying things that people didn’t want to hear or believe. I think of it more as tough love.
The people’s response was more of a posture of voluntarism where they wanted to believe what they wanted to believe. After all, who was this man telling them what was right or wrong?
Is it possible that fear took over the hearts of the people who, in the end, forced Jesus to death?
And, to your point, there are times when Christians are encouraged to keep others accountable (“to speak pointed words that might not be well received”) and I wonder if that comes down to how one person shares their message and how the other receives it.
Again, all of this can be done lovingly.
When I made mistakes growing up, my dad never yelled at me. Not once. He sat me down and we had a heart-to-heart. My mom, different story. I heard my dad. In the end, I always honored my dad, even if I didn’t want to because of the words he chose to use and the way he presented those words.
Nancy! This is a great soft hearted post that I feel pushes the envelope in engaging in meaningful conversation and dialogue. How do you see us being able to handle conflicting and opposing views in love?
Daren! I’m so glad you’re seeing this as soft-hearted because I don’t feel that way. LOL.
Great question: I don’t always handle this very well. And I don’t expect people to always get it right. We are, after all, human.
When I think about challenging conversations that have been facilitated for various reasons, there is often a mediator—someone who becomes Switzerland in the situation. I hope that makes sense.
I also think that ground rules need to be in place and everyone needs to adhere to them. I have witnessed this with groups from 2 people to 20+ and I have not seen the ground rules disrespected.
When Chris and I were engaged we decided to set some ground rules for arguments and navigating marriage. One is “we will never use the “d” word, especially when arguing.” Two is, if we come to a stalemate, it’s ok to walk away and return at another time, but we must return. Three, if we find that we’re talking over each other too much, we pull out a rock. When someone is holding the rock, the other person does not talk until they pass the rock to the other person. Four, it is ok to have heated conversations, just don’t let it get nasty — no name-calling.
And, at the end, just as my brother and I have done and still do, we hug. Or, if it’s not someone you’re comfortable hugging, at least shake hands and look them square in the eye.
I would love to hear if you would add anything to this.
Hi Nancy, you have a kind spirit.
Imagine, you are your friend, how would you engage in political discourse with those holding opposing views while maintaining respect, understanding, and a commitment to finding common ground, especially when faced with strong convictions and differing interpretations of truth?
Hi Shela,
The short answer: listen more.
Everyone involved in the conversation needs to respect the ground rules. They are there to help navigate the conversation so you can stop, listen more, and listen more and listen more …. You get the idea 😁.
I think one of the issues in the climate today is that people are not listening to each other. The focus is too much about what I think and how much I’m right and not enough listening.
Nancy,
I guess you and I also cancelled out each other’s votes in 2016. I definitely had my reasons for voting the way I did but I have learned to see the world differently since 2016. I also read that you and your friend are no longer in contact with one another. I understand how that can happen. I feel like I have relatives with which that is happening. There are other factors but we definitely do not agree politically and they tend to bring it into every family gathering. It is interesting that you kept asking but what if you are wrong. We know after reading Being Wrong that people do not like to admit being wrong. I read earlier this year, I believe it was an article in Christianity Today that Trump will win the 2024 election for that very reason. The author stated that those who voted for him in 2016 and again in 2020 will again vote for him in 2024 simply because they cannot admit they might be wrong about Trump.
Bonnie Kristian, “The Trump Debate is Dead” Christianity Today, January 12, 2024. https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2024/january-web-only/trump-debate-is-dead-evangelicals.html
Jeff,
You bring up a point that I was reflecting on after that conversation with my friend. I knew her well enough to feel comfortable to ask “what if you’re wrong,” and yet, as you said, nobody wants to admit they’re wrong. One of the things this program is teaching me is that my points might have validity only as far as I know. Or, as a friend of mine says often, “You don’t know what you don’t know.”
You and I could both be wrong, but my point is are you willing to listen to my side and am I willing to listen to your side without getting so far off in the weeds of I’m right and you’re wrong? Period. There’s no room for listening in that, right?
Nancy, thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences in this post. I also appreciated the depth of response you gave to various questions from our classmates. The ground rules you and Chris have for arguments sound fabulous, and always ending with a hug (or some form of physical contact) is something to sit with, especially from a somatic standpoint.
You wrote that “at some point, in order to preserve the relationship, you honor the love that has grown in the name of friendship and continue to learn from one another.” This is really powerful, but it’s also an intentional choice that both parties must make, and it can only come when a true relationship of depth and authenticity is created. It’s often only when faced with navigating difficult conversations that we see whether a friendship is worth preserving or if that person is more of an acquaintance…
As a writer whose NPO is centered on elevating marginalized voices, how might you encourage someone to have a healthy disagreement in an online forum? How can you see the ground rules adapting in that context?
Hi! 🙂
Yes, the friendship vs. acquaintance is key. I have hit that crossroad on some relationships and realized that it was not a friendship, and that’s ok.
Great questions! I just downloaded a book, “Learning to Disagree: The Surprising Path to Navigating Differences with Empathy and Respect” by John Inazu, who is mixed race Japanese. He was interviewed on a podcast through Interfaith America, founded by Eboo Patel. At one point, when Inazu is asked about his thoughts on religion, politics and identity, he begins by making sure the audience understands that his POV is that of a mixed-race Japanese male living in America, which I think is key to any disagreement—understanding your lens as opposed to someone else’s. I know I’m speaking to the choir with you.
Here’s a link to the transcription: https://www.deseret.com/faith/2024/03/28/donald-trump-tim-keller-and-the-state-of-evangelicals-today-a-conversation-with-john-inazu/
For online discussions, if I feel it’s necessary, I will ask if they want to have a conversation offline (on Zoom) so we can face each other. In my brief experience, that has been extremely helpful.
And, for the ground rules, you’re making me realize I need to establish them even with one-on-one conversations with people who might be disagreeable.
With my publication on Medium.com (Refresh the Soul), I remind my co-editor that the first responsibility is to the community and we want writers to understand that though they might have differing opinions, sometimes way off the wall, we are a community that is learning from one another.
I hope that answers your questions. 💜