With Love, All Things are Possible.
My European colleague and I have just competed field-testing of a new set of conversation tools with focus groups from Canada and Europe. The project, which sought to lay a foundation for disagreeing well, was developed by a request from the European Evangelical Alliance. Within the Christian community, polarization and extreme views seem to be on the rise, and it has become difficult to foster understanding of differing views on a range of moral, political, and social issues. But a significant recurring piece of feedback participants gave us was the importance of understanding the “why” behind working through our polarized differences, pointing to the heart of God’s love for all humanity that was giving them renewed courage to stay open to those on opposite sides of differences or conflicts. The most valuable reminder, ahead of learning depolarizing techniques, was the very reason we are called to pursue reconciliation.
In How To Have Impossible Conversations, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay lay out a very practical and necessary set of tools for civil society. This book, categorized under Political Science, Communications and Self-help draws the reader to start with what they call the seven fundamentals of good conversations, the first of which is to clarify the goal or the ‘why’ behind an impossible conversation. [1]
They continue, encouraging the reader to switch from winning to understanding the reasoning of one’s conversation partner. [2] In many ways, all the tips for de-escalating a conversation flow from the foundation of treating the other person’s perspectives with merit where possible, and staying away from attacking and counter-attacking them as people. They even encourage knowing that not all conversations are resolvable — sometimes it is best to simply walk away. [3] I think these are the advisements which help us keep our wits about us, so we don’t become a “clanging cymbal.” (1 Corinthians 13:1)
This is the gold in their work. With increasing polarization and complexity, Christians are invited to consider how to act and converse in ways that reveal God’s wisdom and grace, which is described this way in book of James. ‘But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.’ (James 3:17 NIV) We must be driven by mercy and love, not by anger. Simon Walker describes this consideration as part of the journey to becoming an undefended leader. “The emotion of anger is powerful and it is not in itself wrong. However, for an activity to be inspired and driven by anger, let alone a mission, is dangerous. Ultimately, anger overturns and tears down. Anything energized by it will in the end prove destructive.” [4]
What happens when we slow down and approach divisive conversations with love, we are able to navigate cognizant of three overlapping layers of fact, feeling, and identity? [5] Showing consideration for others with whom we disagree is possible, as we take into account that convictions are often interwoven with identity. We must be willing to suspend judgement for the sake of the person. Jason Clark made this point at the Washington Advance in 2024, by inviting us to consider that “a good leader need not be afraid of going into others’ worldviews. It doesn’t change our map, but it will inform it.” [6]
So, in one sense, I see that a warning label is needed for this book. If we enter impossible conversations, but have not love, we can easily end up winning the battle, but losing the war for humanity and our souls. Rather, through listening, being careful to honour the humanity of the other, and digging for their reasoning, they will know we aren’t dismissive of them or the reasoning behind their arguments, and may even win the chance to share questions that help to open them up more.
__________
[1] Peter G. Boghossian and James A. Lindsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide, First edition, (New York, NY: Lifelong, 2019), Chapter 2.
[2] Impossible, Chapter 2.
[3] Impossible, 30.
[4] Simon Walker, Leading Out of Who You Are: Discovering the Secret of Undefended Leadership, (Piquant Publishing, 2007), 181.
[5] Impossible, Chapter 7.
[6] Jason S. Clark, “Mind The Gap”, Lecture, (Portland Seminary Washington Advance, September 2024).
About the Author
Joel Zantingh
Joel Zantingh is a catalyst for peacemaking and intercultural teams, speaker, theologian and consultant. He is the Canadian Coordinator of the World Evangelical Alliance's Peace and Reconciliation Network, and the Director of Engagement with Lausanne Movement Canada. He has served in local and national roles within the Evangelical Missionary Church of Canada, and led their global mission arm. He has experience teaching in formal and informal settings with Bible college students and leaders from various cultures and generations. Joel and Christie are parents to adult children, as well as grandparents. They reside in Guelph, Ont., situated on the treaty lands and territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit, and home to many past, present and future First Nations peoples, including the Anishinnabe and Hodinöhsö:ni'.12 responses to “With Love, All Things are Possible.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks Joel. You mention in your post, “that convictions are often interwoven with identity.” This was a great insight. Can expand more why you believe this to be true? How does that mindsight help us have impossible conversations?
Hey Ryan. Great question. I think that the approach Boghossian and Lindsay are taking tries to move the conversation from places of defensiveness, when people feel that an attack on their ideas is an attack on them. This is where I see the connection with convictions and identity.
And the solution they propose is for us to employ curiosity around others’ epistemological reasoning and processes, rather than only hearing what they claim to know or hold. This separates the ideas and ideology from the person, and affirms that whatever work they’ve done to draw their conclusions affirms that they have the right to think for themselves, that how they’ve come to hold positions matters, and that you care enough to listen, not just dismiss them. It’s an expression of love for neighbour, and space for people to be who they are as well as grow in their own way.
Your thoughts?
Hey Joel! I appreciate how you centered on love in the equation of the impossible equation. In your context of peace and reconciliation, I know there are many bridges to build. What from this reading have you directly applied to your context?
Daren, I’ve leaned on the work of Betty Pries in how she lays out depolarization. By starting with why people hold to their perspectives, and asking and affirming what they find challenging about your position, you may win the trust to share why you hold to your position, and, if they are open, to hear what you find challenging about their position.
Boghossian and Lindsay offer very similar strategy where they suggest we make understanding the other’s reasons for holding to a position our goal
This is where we lean into responses like, “I really want to understand what led you to these perspectives… that’s a really interesting perspective – how did you come to see it that way? I really hope we are able to figure this out together.”
Good word, Joel. I appreciate the emphasis on love in your post. Loving well, not winning or convincing, is the goal of the conversations.
How can we equip our churches for these conversations?
Graham, I am finding that Christians are not in favour of ‘soft-peddling’ around controversies but they do respond to the call as followers of Christ to align their hearts and posture with Jesus, and do good, hard introspective work on whether they are engaging in conversations around differences in the posture / character that pleases God. They are willing to be led to places of internal reflection on this. This bodes well for the very foundation of peace work – the intra-personal. Although many people want to start at interpersonal or even systemic levels of reconciliation, all peace building begins with internal alignment to peace. A quote from a Quaker in England I can’t remember states, “it should be laughable that we should try and have peace in our world with no peace within.”
All equipping for depolarization must leverage the willingness of Christ’s followers, in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit, to allow God’s peace to guide them in their posture of engagement.
The Colossian Forum, The Archbishop of Caterbury’s “Difference” course, and a set of tools we are developing through the Peace and Reconciliation Network for church-based resources are all seeking to assist in these ways.
Thanks for caring, and for what you model so beautifully. Your thoughts?
Hey Joel,
I recently came across an interesting insight in a cross-cultural psychology book: Americans tend to polarize their beliefs, while the Chinese often move toward equal acceptance of two seemingly opposing propositions. This was new to me and really got me thinking. I imagine polarization is also common across much of Europe. In your work with peace and reconciliation, have you seen a culture or example outside the Western context that made you think, “I wish the West could learn from this”? I’d love to hear your perspective.
Elysse. I think immediately of two non-Western practices to remain united despite differences. “Circle” is an indigenous practice, where there is always equal space for everyone to take a turn, often holding a sacred symbol (like an eagle feather) so that varied voices can all be heard, and decisions, guided by elders, encompass them all.
The African concept of Ubuntu “I am because we are” is a philosophy that also starts with the interdependence of all people, focussed on common humanity.
Your illustration is akin to Yin and Yang, the counterbalance of opposite forces.
Although these teachings guide, my encounter with communitarian cultures reveals that they still encounter polarization, but have access to tools that assist them in working through differences, rather than simply killing off our enemies.
Have you encountered any?
Have you come a
Joel and Elysse,
The concept of Ubuntu was interesting to live with. One thing that I found was that it was important to not shame others even if they were completely wrong. I am reminded of a time a guy came to repair a window of mine. He read the tape measurement completely wrong. He wrote down inches but he was reading in centimeters, etc. When he cut the glass for the window is was totally off and had to be redone (a week wait). But, because the man was older and respected as the builder, nobody corrected him and we just all let him make the mistake. The general assumption by the group was that they must be wrong and he must be right. So, that is one of the downfalls of Ubuntu, the inability to speak into a situation that one knows to be false. I find the same true for people who struggle to leave their religion and seek after Jesus but they can’t because they don’t make the family decisions.
Hi Joel, In your last paragraph, your words of caution for approaching these conversations with love are just as crucial as suspending judgment as you try to seek to understand the overlapping layers of fact, feeling, and identity. Thank you. What do you see as the most difficult part of this work, and what first steps might you take to demonstrate acting and conversing in ways that reveal God’s wisdom and grace?
Hi Joel, thanks for your post! It can be hard to remember that love, mercy, and humility are more important than “winning”. How do you remind yourself and your teams of the “why” behind hard conversations so that love remains central?
Christy, I am learning the importance of verbalizing it regularly. With and among Christians, we can literally quote John 17 and invite people to consider that whatever we see as more important the unity needs a check and balance. Nothing is more critical than our awareness of God-given oneness.
The other practice is to state, “the Body of Christ, or the work of collaboration are always wide-tent environments. We will disagree. We need to tell truth in love, and to honour one another. Let’s keep that before us”.