Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: polarization

  • The Need for Dialogue

    The Need for Dialogue

    “These people are so far gone, there’s no point even trying to talk to them.”

    While not an exact quote, this sentiment reflects dozens of social media posts I’ve seen over the past few months. It’s a clear sign of growing political and religious polarization. While not a new phenomenon, it has certainly intensified recently.

    Before you start blaming your favorite “them,” let me note that in my experience, these statements are coming from all sides. I haven’t taken a survey, but I’ve seen this in numerous cases.

    Despite this, I remain a firm advocate for dialogue—whenever and wherever it can be achieved. Even if others seem too entrenched to make conversation feel worthwhile, reach out if they’re willing. You may ultimately find it impossible and decide to withdraw, but the effort is always worth making.

    I don’t advocate this as a duty you owe to your opponents. Rather, this is a value you should claim for yourself.

    “But they just won’t dialogue with me!” you say. Yes, there are many who won’t. They are already so well settled on their side of a question that they’re not interested in the exchange. When you find this out, you can move on.

    However—and this is a major “however”—I’ve seen many people write someone off as incapable of dialogue when that person was simply asking valid questions. Engaging across deep divides is hard. It often feels as though the other person is questioning your intelligence, sanity, integrity, or humanity. You should push back when that happens, and expect them to do the same.

    Here is the key: always aim to discover the underlying stumbling block to dialogue, and try to learn how to chip away at it—even if you can’t remove it entirely.

    In some cases, you may start serious conversations with people you completely oppose. In others, you may be rejected, even reviled. If your goal is to have everybody like you and treat you well, you’re going to be disappointed. You don’t need to convert everyone to your position. You need to understand them.

    You aren’t trying to understand them in order to make them feel better. You’re trying to do that in order to improve your thinking.

    Is this worth your time?

    It continually amazes me how much energy people devote to vitriolic posts that offer no new insights and only reinforce shared beliefs. Let’s be honest: if you have time for that, you have time for meaningful dialogue. You’re simply choosing to vent and insult rather than learn and persuade.

    On social media, your audience extends beyond the person you are directly interacting with; hundreds or even thousands of silent readers may be observing. If you believe your perspective matters, you ought to keep that broader audience in mind.

    Even if the numbers are small and you only reach a few individuals, aim for that impact to be positive. Make it easier for the next person to move the conversation forward.

    Finally, always remember this: You just may be wrong.

    Yes, I said it, wrong.

    If you try out some humility, you might even be able to correct your own wrongness. How great would that be?

    In my Sunday School class, we chose to study a book I published titled Seeking Truth by Elgin L. Hushbeck, Jr. As the publisher, I felt I should have been pitching it, but because it isn’t strictly a Christian book, I wondered if it was suitable for Sunday School. As it turned out, the class was eager to dive in—they were looking for guidance on how to navigate the overwhelming noise online.

    Cover of PERFECTLY SQUARE, a fantasy fable for all ages

    While Seeking Truth uses theological examples, I added a few more to tailor it for our discussion. The class thoroughly enjoyed it. In fact, they loved one chapter so much they suggested turning it into a standalone booklet. I took their advice, and that booklet is now published as You’re Probably Wrong (and So Am I). Elgin’s central message here is that humility is essential: you cannot truly seek truth without first accepting the possibility that you might be wrong.

    Elgin, by the way, is a conservative.

    Youre probably wrong and so am I book cover

    Yes, I’m recommending a couple of books I publish. It’s my blog!

    I want to add two more. As I said it’s my blog, I can advertise if I want to!

    First, there’s a charming, full-color book titled PERFECTLY SQUARE™. It uses a fable to explore how people with differing personalities and perspectives can learn to collaborate effectively.

    Finally, if your issues are theological, let me recommend I’m Right and You’re Wrong: Why We Disagree about the Bible and What to Do About It.

    Let me emphasize here the thing Elgin has said is most important in dialogue: Humility. That may not be fun, but humility is very productive in seeking knowledge.

    Not only that, humility may well help you convince someone else to listen, and maybe even change their mind.

    (The featured image was generated by Adobe Firefly using Firefly Image 4 Ultra based on a prompt generated by Gemini. The post text is my own, but I used AI in proofreading and minor editing.)

  • Why Certain People Tend to Polarize

    Scot McKnight asks why Mark Driscoll, John Piper, and Albert Mohler start a firestorm when they say certain things, while others, such as Tim Keller can believe and say those same things, but don’t get the same heated response. There’s an interesting discussion in the comments, which is worth reading.

    This whole topic led me to think about something else, however. Is there a proper role for polarizing figures? I have started a few arguments in my time, but I don’t aim to be polarizing. I aim to bring people together. So I tend to look more favorably on the non-polarizing proponents of any position, those who invite conversation while suggesting new (or resuggesting old) ideas.

    At the same time, I don’t think those who build consensus are sufficient to bring out the truth. There have to be voices that challenge the way things are done. There have to be people who generate the annoyance and anger that it takes to get people moving. As an egalitarian, I have to think that Mark Driscoll and John Piper may be good things for the entire discussion and even for my cause.

    By this I do not mean that they are promoting my point of view by being radically on the other side. I could equally suggest that someone equally polarizing on my side of this particular issue might also have a beneficial role to play, however much they might annoy me. I’m reminded that the prophets were not always sympathetic, moderate people. They normally preached a radical message and did so often in radical ways.

    You may object that the prophets preached truth in radical ways. Of course, those who do speak in polarizing ways all believe they are speaking the truth. But that’s not my point. I believe that people tend not to move due to moderate suggestions.  The preacher who suggests to his congregation that they really ought to be just a little more generous may find that they give only a fraction of that “little more.”

    I think both extremists (in moderate numbers!) and polarizing people (again, in moderate numbers) do us a great service. Many of us would never move at all if we were not drawn or pushed away from their positions by their positions and manner of presentation.

    I discuss identifying the extremes as an important part of thinking in my earlier post Moderate Thinking.