ContactContact
Moderator

Harold Heie, Senior Fellow, The Colossian Forum (TCF)

PURPOSE and HOPE

The political climate surrounding both the Obama and Trump presidencies has been marked by a hyper-partisan attitude of “we’ll do this without you” from the majority party and an attitude of “if you’re for it, we’re against it” from the minority party. Every available political tool is wielded to defeat what the other side wants to accomplish. News sources are so polarized that the preferred party is presented as doing no wrong and the opposite party nothing right. The news from the right and left often seems to be covering different planets, with people listening only to an echo of themselves.  Policy discussion is marked by talking points that inflame one side and caricature the other. As this melee teaches us how not to communicate with each other, families and communities are so divided that political discussion and life together becomes increasingly uncomfortable and sometimes impossible.

Do Christians have resources for working together across political differences that offer an alternative to the current appalling state of political discourse? The purpose of this electronic conversation is to point to such resources by:

  • Proposing a Christian Perspective on Political Discourse
  • Discussing the Strengths and Weaknesses of the proposed Christian perspective on Political Discourse
  • Modeling the proposed Christian perspective on Political Discourse by discussing The Nature of Politics and selected contentious public policy issues.
  • Discussing a possible Way Forward for Christians

The ten subtopics for conversation will be:

  1. Talking Past Each Other or Worse (September 2017)
  2. A Proposed Christian Approach to Political Discourse (October 2017)
  3. Are There Limits to Free Speech and Civil Discourse? (November 2017)
  4. The Notion of Politics (December 2017)
  5. Party Politics and Beyond (January 2018)
  6. The Role of Money and Special Interests in Politics (February 2018)
  7. America With or Without Walls (March 2018)
  8. Wealth and Poverty in America (April 2018)
  9. Healthcare in America (May 2018)
  10. Case Study Conversations Regarding Political Discourse and Political Action Within Churches and Christian Para-Church Organizations (June 2018)

Leading questions have been formulated for each of these subtopics. For each subtopic, two or three conversation partners, chosen because they are likely to have significant disagreements in their responses to these questions, will post three pieces during the month, using the Methodology described below.

Although one cannot predict beforehand the results of a respectful conversation, the hope for this project is that the conversation partners will demonstrate respect for one another in the midst of their disagreements and will uncover sufficient common ground to foster ongoing conversations.

Methodology

The protocol for postings by the conversation partners for topics 1-9 is as follows:

On the first day of the designated month, each conversation partner will post a blog of approximately 3,000 words that addresses the following questions:

  • In summary form, what is the position you currently take relative to the Leading Question posed for your sub-topic?
  • Drawing on your biblical/theological understanding and other formative influences in your life that you identify, what are your reasons for taking the position you have taken? If appropriate, include a personal story.
  • What do you believe is “at stake” for Christians relative to your sub-topic and what concerns do you have about what could happen if your position is not taken?

By the tenth day of the given month, each conversation partner will post a blog of approximately 3,000 words that answers the following questions relative to the initial posting of their conversation partner(s):

  • Agreements: What can you affirm about the other person’s position and his/her reasons for taking that position?
  • Disagreements: What concerns do you have about the other person’s position?
  • What key question do you think the other person has avoided or has not addressed adequately?
  • What insights can you glean from the other person’s initial post as to ways in which he/she is seeking to be faithful to his/her particular understanding of commitment to the Christian faith?

By the twentieth day of the given month, each conversation partner will post a blog of approximately 3,000 words that responds to the tenth day posting(s) of his/her conversation partner(s) and answers the following question:

  • In light of the conversation that has taken place, what are the issues that you believe all the conversation partners need to give more thought to as a basis for ongoing conversation?

The protocol for postings for topic 10 will be formulated and posted by June 1, 2018.

Throughout any month of conversation, any reader of the website can submit a comment on any prior posting in a “moderated forum” in which the moderator will read all submitted comments and post those submissions judged to satisfy the “Guidelines for Posting Comments” that are listed in the Conversation Guidelines.

OVERVIEW (10-month agenda):

Reforming Political Discourse

The political climate surrounding both the Obama and Trump presidencies has been marked by a hyper-partisan attitude of “we’ll do this without you” from the majority party and an attitude of “if you’re for it, we’re against it” from the minority party. Every available political tool is wielded to defeat what the other side wants to accomplish. News sources are so polarized that the preferred party is presented as doing no wrong and the opposite party nothing right. The news from the right and left often seems to be covering different planets, with people listening only to an echo of themselves.  Policy discussion is marked by talking points that inflame one side and caricature the other. As this melee teaches us how not to communicate with each other, families and communities are so divided that political discussion and life together becomes increasingly uncomfortable and sometimes impossible.

Do Christians have resources for working together across political differences that offer an alternative to the current appalling state of political discourse? This electronic conversation will point to such resources by:

  • Proposing a Christian Perspective on Political Discourse
  • Discussing the Strengths and Weaknesses of the proposed Christian perspective on Political Discourse
  • Modeling the proposed Christian perspective on Political Discourse by discussing The Nature of Politics and selected contentious public policy issues.
  • Discussing a possible Way Forward for Christians
Subtopic 1: Talking Past Each Other or Worse (September 2017)

In preparation for a conversation about the possibility of a “Christian Approach to Political Discourse” (subtopic 2), we will first analyze the current dismal state of political discourse, as illustrated by the reactions of two conversation partners to two reports (click here) on or related to a recent political news story: One report from a left-leaning commentator and one report from a right-leaning commentator.

Leading Questions:  What are the goals of these reports? What audiences are they appealing to? What rhetorical tools are being employed? What do you find to be helpful in these reports? What do you criticize in these reports?

Conversation Partners:

 

Subtopic 2: A Proposed Christian Approach to Political Discourse (October 2017)

Leading Questions:  What are the reasons for the current appalling state of political discourse that often leads to demonization of the other, name-calling, questioning of motives and broken relationships? What are the characteristics of a constructive political discourse from a Christian perspective? What does it mean for Christians to love their enemies in politics?

Conversation Partners:

 

Subtopic 3: Are There Limits to Free Speech and Civil Discourse? (November 2017)

Leading Questions: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed Christian perspective on political discourse (subtopic 2)? Are there ideas so repugnant and dangerous that they shouldn’t be allowed to be uttered in public? What is wrong, if anything, with passionate speech? Are there limits to civility? Is the call for civility a means of control by those in power? Is the call for civility a means to marginalize those “who have no voice?”

Conversation Partners:

  • Micah Watson, Associate Professor of Political Science, Calvin College
  • Julia Stronks, Professor of Political Science, Whitworth University

Due to a death in the family of one of our conversation partners, the November conversation was not able to be continued beyond the November 1 postings. This subtopic will be addressed again, in its entirety, in July 2018 (with new conversation partners, due to the unavailability of Julia and Micah).

 

Subtopic 4: The Notion of Politics (December 2017)

Leading Questions: What does “politics” mean and what are its aims? What are the characteristics of a well-functioning political system? Is our current political system functioning well? If not, why not and what can be done to address the current dysfunction? What distinguishes a Christian political engagement and how can such engagement contribute to a well-functioning political system?

Conversation Partners:

  • Harry Boyte, Senior Scholar, Sabo Center for Democracy and Citizenship, Augsburg College
  • Jim Skillen, former President, Center for Public Justice

 

Subtopic 5: Party Politics and Beyond (January 2018)

Leading Questions: What are the political priorities and values of the Republican and Democratic parties in the early 21st century? How well do these values and priorities comport, or not, with Christian values? If not, what changes in priorities and values need to be made? Should Republicans and Democrats transcend their particular ideologies?  If so, how?

Conversation Partners:

  • Doug Koopman, Professor of Political Science, Calvin College
  • Kevin den Dulk, Executive Director, Henry Institute for the Study of Religion and Politics, Calvin College
  • Angela Cowser, Professor of the Sociology of Religion, Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary
  • Jim Talen, Kent County (MI) Commissioner

 

Subtopic 6: The Role of Money and Special Interests in Politics (February 2018)

Leading Questions: How have money and special interests influenced politics, for good or for ill? What is your position on the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court? Should the role of lobbyists for special interests be restricted? Should there be stricter conflict of interest rules? What are the implications of your position for President Trump’s “negotiating a deal” approach to politics?

Conversation Partners: 

  • Kimberly Conger, Assistant Professor of Political Science & Public Administration, University of Cincinnati
  • Frank Hill, Director, The Institute for the Public Trust, Raleigh, NC

 

Subtopic 7: Immigration (March 2018)

Leading Questions: Are current immigration laws and deportation practices just? Is so, why? If not, why not and what changes should be made? Is there a way for Christians and Christian churches to respond to undocumented immigrants that will avoid harm to both undocumented immigrants and citizens?

Conversation Partners: 

  • Matthew Soerens, U.S. Director of Church Mobilization, World Relief
  • Robert McFarland, Associate Professor of Law, Jones School of Law, Faulkner University

 

Subtopic 8: Wealth and Poverty in America (April 2018)

Leading Questions: America is increasingly divided between rich and poor. What are the root causes of poverty and wealth disparity in America? Is there a connection between wealth disparity in America and disparities in the rest of the world?  Is there a biblical and Christian ideal for the distribution of wealth, both nationally and globally? How should Christians respond personally and politically to national and global poverty and wealth disparity?

Conversation Partners:

  • Kelly Johnson, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, University of Dayton
  • Steve McMullen, Assistant Professor of Economics, Hope College
Subtopic 9: Healthcare in America (May 2018)

Leading Questions: Is healthcare a public good that everyone has a “right” to (and therefore government has a role to play in securing that “right” for everyone) or is healthcare a private good; a “privilege” that is primarily the responsibility of each individual with minimal governmental assistance? What are the problems with the healthcare system in America? How can the present healthcare system be improved? Is there a Christian perspective that can inform such improvement?

Conversation Partners: 

  • Clarke Cochran, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Texas Tech University & Former Vice President for Mission Integration at Covenant Health in Lubbock, Texas
  • Jeff Hammond, Associate Professor of Law, Jones School of Law, Faulkner University
Subtopic 10: Case Study Conversations Regarding Political Discourse and Political Action Within Churches and Christian Para-Church Organizations (June 2018)

Case Study #1: Kalamazoo (MI) Mennonite Fellowship – A church that encourages its members to become involved in social service ministries that serve persons in need (e.g., the homeless, the hungry); that has church-wide social service ministries; but does NOT take church-wide political positions or initiatives (whether or not it encourages its individual members to be politically active).

Leading Questions: What kind of social service ministries does your church provide? How do you encourage your members to become involved in social service ministries? Do you encourage your members to be politically active, and why? What are your reasons for NOT taking church-wide political positions or initiatives?

  • Conversation Partner: Will Fitzgerald, Senior Pastor, Kalamazoo (MI) Mennonite Fellowship

Case Study #2: First Congregational Church – Kalamazoo (MI) – A church that encourages its members to be politically active and involved in social service ministries that serve persons in need (e.g., the homeless, the hungry); that has church-wide social service ministries; and SELECTIVELY takes church-wide political positions or initiatives.

Leading Questions: What kind of social service ministries does your church provide? How do you encourage your members to become involved in social service ministries? What are your reasons for selectively taking church-wide political positions or initiatives? What types of issues have you selected and on what basis did you make that selection?

  • Conversation Partner: Nathan Dannison, Senior Pastor, First Congregational Church – Kalamazoo

Case Study #3: Christian Reformed Church Office of Social Justice – A Christian para-church organization that believes that reforming/redeeming the political realm is an important activity for Christians; that Christians should carry out social justice ministries that persons in need; and that provides resources and others assistance to help its church constituent members and their congregational members to carry out these responsibilities.

Leading Questions: How do you encourage individual Christians and your church constituent members to become involved in political activities that reform/redeem the political realm and in social service ministries that serve persons in need? What kind of resources do you provide for such individuals and churches? What has worked well? What hasn’t worked well?

  • Conversation Partner: Kris Van Engen, Congregational Justice Mobilizer for World Renew and the Christian Reformed Church Office of Social Justice

 

Subtopic 11: Are There Limits to Civil Discourse and Free Speech? (July 2018)

This July conversation is a “Redo” of the November 2017 conversation on this subtopic that was truncated after one posting due to a death in the family of one of the original conversation partners.

Leading Questions: Are there limits to civility? Is the call for civility a means of control by those in power? Is the call for civility a means to marginalize those “who have no voice?” Are there ideas so repugnant and dangerous that they shouldn’t be allowed to be uttered in public? If colleges and universities are committed to the quest for “truth,” what are the limits, if any, on free speech?

Conversation Partners:

  • Mark Douglas, Professor of Christian Ethics, Columbia Theological Seminary
  • Tony Carnes, Editor and publisher, A Journey Through NYC Religions

 

Reforming Political Discourse Posts

Conversation: Reforming Political Discourse

THANKS!

I wish to express my deep appreciation to the 23 conversation partners who made such marvelous contributions to my recently completed eCircle on “Reforming Political Discourse.” You all dealt very effectively with some contentious issues regarding politics in America today and you expressed your disagreements with your respective partners with great respect and love. This project would not have been possible without your splendid work.

As for three of my previous eCircles, I am now working on a book manuscript that hopes to capture the highlights of this eCircle. I am aiming to complete this manuscript by November 1, 2018, with a publication date shortly thereafter. My tentative title for this book is Reforming American Politics: A Christian Perspective.

Below you will find a copy of a talk I gave on June 9, 2018 at the bi-annual conference of Christians in Political Science held at Covenant College in Lookout Mountain in Georgia. This talk presents the foundational premise behind this eCircle; my reflections on the “pre-conditions for a respectful conversation in politics and beyond”; a Table of Contents for my forthcoming book; and some “preliminary findings” that will eventually be elaborated upon in the book.

Harold Heie

RESPECTFUL CONVERSATIONS IN POLITICS AND BEYOND

I am the token mathematician in this splendid gathering of Christian political scientists.

I was delighted when Kim Conger, a member of the CPS Cabinet, invited me to give a talk on the topic “Stability of the Numerical Solution of Hyperbolic Partial Differential Equations in Three Independent Variables.”

Just kidding! That was actually the title of my doctoral dissertation.

Read More (RPD Conclusion)…

Topic #1: Talking Past Each Other or Worse (September 2017)

In preparation for a conversation about the possibility of a “Christian Approach to Political Discourse” (subtopic A2), we will first analyze the current dismal state of political discourse, as illustrated by the reactions of two conversation partners to two reports (presented below) on a recent political news story: One report from a left-leaning commentator and one report from a right-leaning commentator.

Leading Question: What are the goals of these reports? What audiences are they appealing to? What rhetorical tools are being employed? What do you find to be helpful in these reports? What do you criticize in these reports?

Topic #2: A Proposed Christian Approach to Political Discourse (October 2017)

Leading Questions:  What are the reasons for the current appalling state of political discourse that often leads to demonization of the other, name-calling, questioning of motives and broken relationships? What are the characteristics of a constructive political discourse from a Christian perspective? What does it mean for Christians to love their enemies in politics?

Conversation Partners:

Topic #3: Are There Limits to Free Speech and Civil Discourse? (November 2017)

Leading Questions: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed Christian perspective on political discourse (subtopic 2)? Are there ideas so repugnant and dangerous that they shouldn’t be allowed to be uttered in public? What is wrong, if anything, with passionate speech? Are there limits to civility? Is the call for civility a means of control by those in power? Is the call for civility a means to marginalize those “who have no voice?”

Conversation Partners:

Due to a death in the family of one of our conversation partners, the November conversation was not able to be continued beyond the November 1 postings. This subtopic will be addressed again, in its entirety, in July 2018 (with new conversation partners, due to the unavailability of Julia and Micah).

Topic #4: The Notion of Politics (December 2017)

Leading Questions: What does “politics” mean and what are its aims? What are the characteristics of a well-functioning political system? Is our current political system functioning well? If not, why not and what can be done to address the current dysfunction? What distinguishes a Christian political engagement and how can such engagement contribute to a well-functioning political system?

Conversation Partners:

CLOSING READER COMMENTS

In addition to the comments submitted by readers for the individual postings of the conversation partners on the 1st, 10th and 20th of this month, some readers may wish to submit comments on the entire month’s conversation.
To do so, follow this link.

Topic #5: Party Politics and Beyond (January 2018)

Leading Questions: What are the political priorities and values of the Republican and Democratic parties in the early 21st century? How well do these values and priorities comport, or not, with Christian values? If not, what changes in priorities and values need to be made? Should Republicans and Democrats transcend their particular ideologies?  If so, how?

CLOSING READER COMMENTS

In addition to the comments submitted by readers for the individual postings of the conversation partners on the 1st, 10th and 20th of this month, some readers may wish to submit comments on the entire month’s conversation. To do so, follow this link.

Topic #6: The Role of Money and Special Interests in Politics (February 2018)

Leading Questions: How have money and special interests influenced politics, for good or for ill? What is your position on the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court? Should the role of lobbyists for special interests be restricted? Should there be stricter conflict of interest rules? What are the implications of your position for President Trump’s “negotiating a deal” approach to politics?

CLOSING READER COMMENTS

In addition to the comments submitted by readers for the individual postings of the conversation partners on the 1st, 10th and 20th of this month, some readers may wish to submit comments on the entire month’s conversation. To do so, follow this link.

Topic #7: Immigration (March 2018)

Leading Questions: Are current immigration laws and deportation practices just? Is so, why? If not, why not and what changes should be made? Is there a way for Christians and Christian churches to respond to undocumented immigrants that will avoid harm to both undocumented immigrants and citizens?

CLOSING READER COMMENTS

In addition to the comments submitted by readers for the individual postings of the conversation partners on the 1st, 10th and 20th of this month, some readers may wish to submit comments on the entire month’s conversation. To do so, follow this link.

Topic #8: Wealth and Poverty in America (April 2018)

Leading Questions: America is increasingly divided between rich and poor. What are the root causes of poverty and wealth disparity in America? Is there a connection between wealth disparity in America and disparities in the rest of the world?  Is there a biblical and Christian ideal for the distribution of wealth, both nationally and globally? How should Christians respond personally and politically to national and global poverty and wealth disparity?

Conversation Partners:

CLOSING READER COMMENTS

In addition to the comments submitted by readers for the individual postings of the conversation partners on the 1st, 10th and 20th of this month, some readers may wish to submit comments on the entire month’s conversation. To do so, follow this link.

Topic #9: Healthcare in America (May 2018)

Leading Questions: Is healthcare a public good that everyone has a “right” to (and therefore government has a role to play in securing that “right” for everyone) or is healthcare a private good; a “privilege” that is primarily the responsibility of each individual with minimal governmental assistance? What are the problems with the healthcare system in America? How can the present healthcare system be improved? Is there a Christian perspective that can inform such improvement?

Conversation Partners:

CLOSING READER COMMENTS

In addition to the comments submitted by readers for the individual postings of the conversation partners on the 1st, 10th and 20th of this month, some readers may wish to submit comments on the entire month’s conversation. To do so, follow this link.

Topic #10: Case Study Conversations Regarding Political Discourse and Political Action Within Churches and Christian Para-Church Organizations (June 2018)

Case Study #1: Kalamazoo (MI) Mennonite Fellowship A church that encourages its members to become involved in social service ministries that serve persons in need (e.g., the homeless, the hungry); that has church-wide social service ministries; but does NOT take church-wide political positions or initiatives (whether or not it encourages its individual members to be politically active).

Contributor:

Leading Questions: What kind of social service ministries does your church provide? How do you encourage your members to become involved in social service ministries? Do you encourage your members to be politically active, and why? What are your reasons for NOT taking church-wide political positions or initiatives?

Case Study #2: First Congregational Church – Kalamazoo (MI) – A church that encourages its members to be politically active and involved in social service ministries that serve persons in need (e.g., the homeless, the hungry); that has church-wide social service ministries; and SELECTIVELY takes church-wide political positions or initiatives.

Contributor:

  • Nathan Dannison, Senior Pastor, First Congregational Church – Kalamazoo

Leading Questions: What kind of social service ministries does your church provide? How do you encourage your members to become involved in social service ministries? What are your reasons for selectively taking church-wide political positions or initiatives? What types of issues have you selected and on what basis did you make that selection?

Case Study #3: Christian Reformed Church Office of Social Justice – A Christian para-church organization that believes that reforming/redeeming the political realm is an important activity for Christians; that Christians should carry out social justice ministries that persons in need; and that provides resources and others assistance to help its church constituent members and their congregational members to carry out these responsibilities.

Contributor:

  • Kris Van Engen, Congregational Justice Mobilizer for World Renew and the Christian Reformed Church Office of Social Justice

Leading Questions: How do you encourage individual Christians and your church constituent members to become involved in political activities that reform/redeem the political realm and in social service ministries that serve persons in need? What kind of resources do you provide for such individuals and churches? What has worked well? What hasn’t worked well?

CLOSING READER COMMENTS

In addition to the comments submitted by readers for the individual postings of the conversation partners on the 1st, 10th and 20th of this month, some readers may wish to submit comments on the entire month’s conversation. To do so, follow this link.

Topic #11: Are There Limits to Civil Discourse and Free Speech? (July 2018)

This July conversation is a “Redo” of the November 2017 conversation on this subtopic that was truncated after one posting due to a death in the family of one of the original conversation partners.

Leading Questions: Are there limits to civility? Is the call for civility a means of control by those in power? Is the call for civility a means to marginalize those “who have no voice?” Are there ideas so repugnant and dangerous that they shouldn’t be allowed to be uttered in public? If colleges and universities are committed to the quest for “truth,” what are the limits, if any, on free speech?