Following the Right Commission
Two articles recently caught my attention as complementary pieces. First, David French asked why it is so difficult to convince conspiracy theorists of alternative perspectives. He concluded that speaking with one person is not what is happening when you speak to a friend, family member, or acquaintance. We are all deeply bound to our tribes, and challenging someone’s beliefs not only challenges facts they believe to be true, it also challenges the community around them. The pandemic of 2020-21 has drastically limited personal connections, which has created an online substitute centered around ideas with no dissent. Whether the online community is on the right, the left, or somewhere in between, online communities are rarely a place for thoughtful discourse. To counter a community (online or otherwise), you must offer more than facts, statistics, and reason.
This paragraph from French is excellent and applies far beyond politics:
True persuasion is much more challenging than winning a debate. Sweeping away a falsehood is of little use unless you can replace the lie with a meaningful and empowering truth. You cannot yank a person from their community and then leave them homeless. Do not pretend we can replace something—no matter how malignant—with nothing.
French supports his position by drawing on Matthew 12 and then pivots to President Trump’s supporters. Because I am a conservative Christian, French’s analysis is one I believe warrants careful consideration. Going back to when President Trump was Candidate Trump, he has wielded rhetorical tools that capitalize on fear and division: us versus them. This has had far-reaching effects on people of all political persuasions. And since I have watched it most closely in my own community, it is where I focus this writing.
This idea that President Trump’s furious rhetoric bound together his supporters connects to a second interesting article. Albert Hunt wrote a column for The Hill, entitled, “Unholy War: The Few Evangelicals Who Stood Up to Trump.” Hunt references Michael Gerson (former speechwriter for George W. Bush), Peter Wehner (senior fellow at a conservative think tank), Russell Moore (Southern Baptist Convention), and others who opposed President Trump from start to finish. Those referenced in the column noted their sadness that so few Evangelicals stood with them.
Hunt quoted Wehner, who described Jerry Falwell Jr. and Franklin Graham as being corrupted by power: “They would not call Mr. Trump out for his lawlessness, the savagery of his politics, his cruelty, his pathological lies and his conspiracy theories. They would not speak truth to power.” Wehner’s assessment is one I wholly share, but the same issue remains that French highlighted: what you believe connects you to your community.
All of this speaks to the trend of tribalism and what binds a group together. While French’s article discusses the tribe of QAnon, Hunt’s article discusses the tribe of Never-Trump. It is easy to find additional tribes on the left and middle, as well. For each group, it is difficult to move any person away from the ideas of their tribe. The need for community combined with a pandemic that has driven people to isolation and loneliness, means that a person’s tribe is a safe haven now more than ever. Another person’s posts and communications may be the only mooring lines that can provide a sense of community, and so often, those posts and comments carry a near uniformity of thought.
The two articles focus on subjects I find interesting, namely politics and religion, and both pieces offer strong critiques of President Trump. One of the reasons that the former president’s actions and rhetoric so bothered me has to do with the eclectic nature of my own community. I have close friends who span the political spectrum. Those who are not conservative Christians saw the reprehensible words and actions of President Trump and ascribed them to Christianity—even when the words and actions ran wholly counter to biblical values. Whether fair or not, the unwavering support for President Trump despite “the savagery of his politics [and] his cruelty” is a weight that many Christians will have to bear for generations to come.
This weight falls heavy because President Trump pulled so many people into the wrong tribe: one that mixed politics and religion like Diet Coke and Mentos (or gasoline and fire if you prefer a more dramatic combination). When Christians demonstrate by words and actions that politics is what is most important, it has the effect of reducing the upper-case Christianity to a lower-case christianity, just like any other interest group.
To stick with the philosophical theme, most people at some point ask, “What is the point of it all?” For Christians, the purpose is clear: Go and make disciples of everyone in the name of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. This commission is not an edict to convince someone of a political position or a political party. And when the focus of a Christian or a church is to gain an edge in politics, the risk of being a stumbling block to either a non-Christian or a fellow believer grows at a startling rate.
I often ask my children when faced with a decision, “what’s the risk and what’s the reward?” In this instance, online discussions about politics are high risk with a low reward. The term “echo chambers” is overused in our culture, but it works in this instance. Just because it appears the speakers and commenters are in uniform agreement does not mean people with widely differing views aren’t watching. The prospect of others watching is what heightens the risk of online debates. And whether you are a Christian or not, it is important both for you and your community to share time and exchange ideas with people whose views are different from your own. It is the foundation of knowledge and learning.
As a Christian, this pursuit is all the more important. The objective of the Great Commission is clear, and it requires sharing life with people who do not believe what you believe. And even if Covid continues to limit those face-to-face interactions, remember that others are watching and listening. Political commentary will not be the winsome example that Jesus called His followers to be. This calling does not in any way decrease my interest or enthusiasm about politics, but it does shape my views and how I discuss the subject. Anything that distracts others from Christ is a failure on my part.
The prevailing point I took from the two articles is that tribalism and uniformity of thought is a pervasive issue that spans the full gamut of political ideology. But as it relates to the tribe of which I most closely identify—that of a Christian—there is a responsibility to be a people that radiates appeal and welcomes others. This approach does not mean winning political points or proceeding with any posture other than humility. A Trumpian approach to rhetoric distracts from the primary objective. As David French noted, “Politics are important, but it’s relationships that will repair or destroy our land.” As the idea applies to Christians, it is relationships that will repair or destroy the soul.
