We’ve become astonishingly accustomed to weekly (often daily) debates over some hot-button issue like gun control, abortion, (illegal) immigration, economic policy, environmentalism . . . with social media providing the arena. Yet, we tend to go round and round with the same people on the same set of topics, week after week, month after month, year after year, neither moving nor being moved one way or the other, until bridges are ultimately burned and ties severed through the infamous ‘Unfollow’ feature.

If you’re like me, you become disheartened from time to time by those who refuse to consider any other perspective than their own; yet who aggressively insist you line up with their perspective, and to do otherwise is idiotic and evil. In the end, even if their presumed convictions are ‘right,’ their method undermines their message.

At that point, there is nothing you can say that is going to help the conversation move forward. Applying any further pressure will likely result in blown tempers and a blowout in the relationship. Yet, even in conversations where there is a willingness to thoughtfully engage, so often the end result is reduced to a rationale of “let’s just agree to disagree”.

Where is the disconnect in such conservations? Why is it so difficult to persuade or even be persuaded otherwise? For instance, let’s say the conversation is on the topic of abortion. Two people approach the conversation assuming the existence of personal rights associated with a belief in our inherent human dignity and value. Yet, both arrive at very different conclusions as to how such rights ought to be applied to the question of abortion, and there is a strong chance that no matter how much you appeal to data and anecdotal accounts, neither person will be moved from their position. Why?

There are most certainly several layers of psychological, social, political, and cultural considerations to wade through in answering that question; though, I would like to suggest one that sits at the foundation of our thinking. That is, we no longer inhabit a society grounded in an organizing metanarrative; nevertheless, our society ekes by on the fumes of the one that has broadly shaped the ethical world we know.

A meta (overarching) narrative (story) is the grand story that ultimately informs the values of a given culture. A society’s metanarrative answers primary questions about the nature of ultimate reality (What is truth, and how do we know it?), the origin of the cosmos (Where did we come from?), and humanity’s place in it (Why are we here?). How a society answers such questions will ground its ethical, socio-economic, and political systems. It will give shape and provide depth to their cultural practices and traditions.

This is where things have become quite muddled for us in the modern/post-modern West. We assume intrinsic values like human dignity, justice, compassion, equality, generosity, and the like. Yet, such is not the way in many places outside the West, and especially throughout the history of the world. Even where similar values are/were esteemed and instilled, it’s rarely extended beyond familial or tribal loyalties.

Yet, most of us assume these values to be “universal,” that is, for all people in all places. Why is this? Well, despite the best efforts of secular education to obscure this detail, such values, especially the belief in universal human dignity/rights, are derived from New Testament biblical ethics, which began taking root in Western thought in the middle ages (c. 500 A.D.), steadily developing up through the mid-20th century, though overlapping with post-Enlightenment thought beginning in the late-17th century (emphasizing pure reason, naturalism/scientific materialism, and individualism).

Hear the words of Paul in his letter to the churches of Galatia (c. 55 A.D.),

“So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:26-28; cf. Ephesians 2:11-22)

This statement stands as a summary of Paul’s view of humanity, or ‘new humanity’ through the redemptive work of Christ on the Cross. It is the belief that by virtue of the righteousness of God and the cross of Christ, all of humanity stands on a level playing field, irrespective of any inherent or superficial distinctions that might separate us by social or economic status (Romans 1:18-32; 3:10, 23; 5:1-11). This belief is foundational to the Christian worldview, a belief that consistently undergirded the abolition of slavery and the advancement of gender equality from the mid-first century up to the present (note: despite religious abuses to the contrary, there is no arguing with what the ethic of New Testament actually states).

Even a cursory survey on the development of Western thought will reveal how we got here, especially providing insight into the ideas that gave shape to our Founding Documents, and why they carry both a ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ tone. Suffice it to say, the ground for our belief in universal human dignity is not found in the idealism of secular humanism (i.e., with the belief that humanity is basically good), somehow rationally derived from observation of the natural world (I wonder how Darwinianian ethics might challenge the notion of a ‘universal’ much less, ‘inherent,’ view of human dignity!). Nor can it be found in any other of the major religions of the world (which had no influence on Western culture much less, ethics, until the late 20th century).

Yet, we live in a society now that boldly assumes an ethic of universal human dignity, justice, compassion, equality, generosity, and so on. That our society has become unmoored from the belief system that we inherited such values from, we’ve also become detached from any ethical framing or boundaries for their application. Now untethered, they can be wielded and filled out in any way we sentimentally, subjectively, or societally see fit.

That is, it’s not that we can’t continue holding fast to such values as a society, but whatever substantive meaning they once had has now been hollowed out. We’re not a society with a distinctive ‘Culture’ but a society of cultures, each vying for their understanding of how such rights should be applied through the lens of their distinctive metanarrative. Meanwhile, confused as to why their opponents can’t seem to “get it,” and come over to their side.

We may use the same language in discourse but dislocated from a shared story, we’ll continue talking past one another. Unmoored, we further descend into group tribalisms, or even, the tribalism of individualism. With no ultimate basis, such values will continue to fade into relativistic obscurity, with each doing what they believe to be ‘right’ in their own eyes. So that ultimately, a house divided along such foundational lines cannot stand.If there is a way forward, it begins with us not assuming the worst about the other, nor assuming that their understanding of values central to our social existence is consistent with our understanding of those same values. 

Simply put, we must be willing to pause and say, “I don’t understand where you’re coming from or how you got there, help me to understand.”

We need to cultivate an intellectual curiosity to better understand where the other is starting from in their ethical beliefs. From there, we might be able to have more fruitful discussions, to challenge one another’s basic assumptions about reality, the cosmos, and our existence in it, before we can debate the actual issues we are confronted with. We’ll never be on the same page if we’re not even reading the same book. We may still walk away saying, “Let’s agree to disagree,” but hopefully you’ll have a much clearer understanding as to why.

For the Christian, we must be willing to play the long game. It can’t be about once and for all winning “the culture war” on whatever issue at hand, and it certainly can’t be about winning the argument and demolishing our opponent in the process. It has to be about seeing the person and building bridges to the gospel, even as you stand firm on your theological and ethical convictions.

Here are some questions to both better understand another’s perspective and challenge their assumptions:

I hear you arguing from a belief in [‘blank’ value], would you mind giving me a better idea of what [‘blank’ value] means to you? How might you define it as a principle?

What leads you to believe that [principle, value, right] is true?

Do you believe there are any exceptions or boundaries to the practice of this [principle, value, right]?

I’m curious, on what basis do you believe you/we are entitled to [‘blank’ value or right]? In other words, where do you believe it comes from? What is it ultimately grounded in? What gives it its power or authority?

What weaknesses or shortcomings do you see arising from the implementation or practice of [‘blank’ value, right, principle, policy]?

Have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong? If so, what might the implications be?

*Note: If you are going to ask such questions of others, you should ask them of yourself as well.

FURTHER READING
The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization, by Vishal Mangalwadi

Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World, by Tom Holland

The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, by Rodney Stark

An Illustrated Brief History of Western Philosophy, by Anthony Kenny *(Condensed version of his four-volume series, A New History of Western Philosophy)

The History of Christian Thought, by Jonathan Hill