Faith Feeds Guide: Journeying in Faith Amid Polarization - Loving Solidarity

Having a faith conversation with old and new friends is as easy as setting the table.

JOURNEYING IN FAITH AMID POLARIZATION LOVING SOLIDARITY

CONTENTS

Introduction to FAITH FEEDS 3

Conversation Starters 6

• Meeting Polarization with Loving Solidarity by Brian D. Robinette 7

Conversation Starters 8

• Witness to Unity by Kenneth Himes, O.F.M. 9

Conversation Starters 11

• Why are We at Each Other’s Throats?: Healing our Church by Maureen Day 12

Conversation Starters 14

• Gathering Prayer 15

The C21 Center Presents

The FAITH FEEDS program is designed for individuals who are hungry for opportunities to talk about their faith with others who share it. Participants gather over coffee or a potluck lunch or dinner, and a host facilitates conversation using the C21 Center’s biannual magazine, C21 Resources.

The FAITH FEEDS GUIDE offers easy, step-by-step instructions for planning, as well as materials to guide the conversation. It’s as simple as deciding to host the gathering wherever your community is found and spreading the word.

All selected articles have been taken from material produced by the C21 Center.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Who should host a FAITH FEEDS?

Anyone who has a heart for facilitating conversations about faith is perfect to host a FAITH FEEDS.

Where do I host a FAITH FEEDS?

You can host a FAITH FEEDS in-person or virtually through video conference software. FAITH FEEDS conversations are meant for small groups of 10-12 people.

What is the host’s commitment?

The host is responsible for coordinating meeting times, sending out materials and video conference links, and facilitating conversation during the FAITH FEEDS

What is the guest’s commitment?

Guests are asked to read the articles that will be discussed and be open to faith-filled conversation.

Still have more questions?

No problem! Email karen.kiefer@bc.edu and we’ll help you get set up.

READY TO GET STARTED?

STEP ONE

Decide to host a FAITH FEEDS. Coordinate a date, time, location, and guest list. An hour is enough time to allocate for the virtual or in-person gathering.

STEP TWO

Interested participants are asked to RSVP directly to you, the host. Once you have your list of attendees, confirm with everyone via email. That would be the appropriate time to ask in-person guests to commit to bringing a potluck dish or drink to the gathering. For virtual FAITH FEEDS, send out your video conference link.

STEP THREE

Review the selected articles from your FAITH FEEDS Guide and the questions that will serve as a starter for your FAITH FEEDS discussion. Hosts should send their guests a link to the guide, which can be found on bc.edu/FAITHFEEDS.

STEP FOUR

Send out a confirmation email a week before the FAITH FEEDS gathering. Hosts should arrive early for in-person or virtual set up. Begin with the Gathering Prayer found on the last page of this guide. Hosts can open the discussion by using the suggested questions. The conversation should grow organically from there. Enjoy this gathering of new friends, knowing the Lord is with YOU!

STEP FIVE

Make plans for another FAITH FEEDS. We would love to hear about your FAITH FEEDS experience. You can find contact information on the last page of this guide.

CONVERSATION STARTERS

Here are three articles to guide your FAITH FEEDS conversation. We suggest that you select two that will work best for your group, and if time permits, add in a third. In addition to the original article, you will find a relevant quotation, summary, and suggested questions for discussion. We offer these as tools for your use, but feel free to go where the Holy Spirit leads. Conversations should respect and ensure confidentiality between participants.

This guide’s theme is: Journeying in Faith Amid Polarization - Loving Solidarity

MEETING POLARIZATION WITH LOVING SOLIDARITY

By Brian D. Robinette

It is commonplace to describe our current situation as polarized. Our politics are feverishly partisan and our news outlets fragmented and at odds. Schoolboard meetings and curricula spark widespread controversy, while our public institutions are subject to growing distrust. Sporting events, corporate sponsorships, social media platforms, and public demonstrations are the latest fronts in our so-called “culture wars.” Even our churches and families are increasingly the sites of contested ideologies and identity-formation, turning what should be places of refuge and belonging into hotspots of painful dispute.

Polarization is not just any problem. It is a problem that encompasses and exacerbates many others. More of an underlying dynamic than a specific issue, polarization distorts the field of communication that allows informed discussion, healthy debate, and shared planning to take place. It is challenging enough to gain consensus on large-scale problems such as climate change, healthcare, immigration, racism, poverty, and international relations. But when a partisan mentality sets in, even a good faith effort to understand “the other side” can seem like a betrayal of values. We feel a strong affinity for those who think like us and an equally strong animus toward those who do not. We fall prey to in-group bias and insulate ourselves from acknowledging our contradictions. Meanwhile, we readily believe the worst about our rivals and suspect their motives—and at times their basic goodness. We take security in righteous indignation, certain that our side is just, while the very existence of our opponents seems a threat to our tenuous identities.

LOVING SOLIDARITY: THE HEART OF THE GOSPELS

If polarization seems to rage at a higher pitch these days, we should admit that the dynamics just described are not exactly new. The tendency to latch on to an identity in contrast with some “other”—a stranger, a rival, an enemy—seems endemic to the human condition. Little wonder that the Bible is chock full of stories about conflict: rivalries among siblings, tribes, and nations; conquests, enslavement, and the trauma

of exile; a Kingdom of God ministry resulting in crucifixion; an early Christian movement trying to resist factionalism. Whatever the ultimate meaning of scriptural revelation, it is evident that the human tendency toward rivalry and conflict, along with God’s work to bring about reconciliation, is at its core.

It is striking that at the heart of the Gospels is a crucifixion. This is not because the New Testament is preoccupied with violence but because it proclaims God’s love and forgiveness precisely amid human conflict. Jesus’ entire ministry was devoted to enacting a way of life that welcomed the stranger and invited rivals to the table. It called for loving one’s enemies, praying for them, and winning their friendship.

This hardly means that Jesus avoided conflict. He was quite willing to provoke decision through his prophetic words and actions, and to this extent he may be described as a “polarizing” figure. But herein lies the difference: whereas destructive polarization presupposes some definitional contrast with the other (“us” vs. “them”), Jesus’ challenge was consistently one of inviting the other into loving solidarity. This was so much the case that Jesus was willing to give his life for the sake of the other, even praying from the cross, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).

The early Christian movement ultimately springs from an encounter with the risen Christ, who embodies God’s reconciling love. The resurrection is not just a miraculously happy ending to a frightful affair. It is God’s concrete offer of communion where previously there was division, and it is a bracing summons to follow Jesus through the repatterning of our desires. The essential vocation of the Christian is one of mercy and reconciliation, and thus Christian identity can never be one of “us” vs. “them.” It must be an all-inclusive “we” in the Spirit. Only when rooted in this source experience of God’s embracing love can the Church begin to offer resources for healing the polarization of our times.

Brian D. Robinette is an associate professor of theology at Boston College.

MEETING POLARIZATION WITH LOVING SOLIDARITY

While we might feel small, separate, and all alone, Our people have never been more closely tethered. The question isn’t if we will weather this unknown, But how we will weather this unknown together.

—Amanda Gorman, “The Miracle of Morning”

Summary

Brian Robinette explores polarization and the obstacles it creates for meaningful communication and connection. Robinette identifies that polarization is present throughout history in humanity’s tendencies toward rivalry and conflict, as seen in such stories that permeate the Bible. Against so much historical and contemporary conflict, Robinette argues that the Christian vocation must be rooted in Jesus’ loving solidarity, through which the church can offer healing pathways “rooted in this source experience of God’s embracing love.”

Questions for Conversation

1. Robinette writes that “polarization is not just any problem . . .when a partisan mentality sets in, even a good faith effort to understand ‘the other side’ can seem like a betrayal of values.” How has polarization affected your community?

2. How have you seen Jesus’ call to loving solidarity put into action? What gets in the way of this kind of solidarity?

3. What are the challenges and opportunities of committing to “an all-inclusive ‘we’ in the Spirit?”

WITNESS TO UNITY

By Kenneth Himes, O.F.M.

In recent years, a new term has entered the vocabulary of commentators on American politics—“political sectarianism.” The word “sect” traditionally has been used within religious discourse to designate a minority group with differing beliefs from the majority. Often there is a connotation of heresy when designating a religious group as sectarian. The team of social scientists who first used the phrase in their political research stated that they chose the word “sectarianism” because the “foundational metaphor for political sectarianism is religion,” revealing a “strong faith in the moral correctness and superiority of one’s sect.”

For these observers of American politics, political sectarianism entails three interrelated characteristics:

1) “othering,” a tendency to view opposing partisans as alien or essentially different;

2) “aversion,” a tendency to dislike and distrust opposing partisans; and

3) “moralization,” a tendency to view opposing partisans as morally flawed. The reasons why political sectarianism has developed and spread are several, but a major factor is that political identity has transformed into a “mega-identity” that subsumes the other iden-

tities people have.

There has always been political partisanship in the United States; many of the founders worried about political factions undermining a sense of the nation’s common good. Yet one factor that prevented political partisanship from becoming dominant was that citizens had multiple identities which, as one prominent social scientist observed, were “cross-cutting.” That is, many Americans had rich associational lives— churches, bowling leagues, labor unions, professional associations, fraternal and sororal clubs, neighborhood organizations, recreational groups—and all these sorts of associations brought people from different backgrounds into contact with one another. As a result, social trust was deepened, and social tolerance was learned. A person might have loyalties to a political party or specific candidate, but they also had ties to groups or colleagues that pulled them in a different direction or tempered their zeal. Increasingly, that “cross-cutting” influence is on the wane as the major political parties have sorted themselves along geographic, educational, religious, racial, and ethnic

lines. At one time, liberals and conservatives were found in both parties, but now they are clearly located within the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. And so, today one’s political identity now becomes the placeholder for all other identities.

A ROLE FOR THE CHURCH?

Amidst the deep divisions and harsh rancor of con temporary U.S. politics, is there anything that the Catholic community can offer to our society? Is not the U.S. Church itself as divided and polarized as the rest of the country? There is evidence that may be so; and yet, there may be a lesson available to the Church from our past.

In another time and place, admittedly a very different time and place, there were factions within a group that led to a crisis of identity among its membership. The time was around 55 A.D., and the place was Corinth, a seaport town in Greece. The Christian community there had been established by St. Paul a few years earlier, but he had been getting reports of divisions within the community for some time after his departure. He writes to his brothers and sisters in Corinth and “begs” them “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” to stop quarreling among themselves. “Let there be no factions, rather, be united in mind and judgment” (1 Cor 1:10-11). The problem was that the community was split over whose apostolic preaching they preferred. “One of you will say, ‘I belong to Paul,’ another, ‘I belong to Apollos,’ still another, ‘Cephas has my allegiance,’ and the fourth, ‘I belong to Christ.’ Has Christ, then, been divided into parts?” (1 Cor 1:1213a).

For Paul, this factionalism was a disaster since it was apparent by such argument that the Corinthians had lost their identity, had forgotten who was crucified for them, in whose name they were baptized, through whom God had given them new life. Paul acknowledges that he and other apostles played a role in the foundation of the community, but then asks, “After all, who is Apollos? And who is Paul? Simply ministers through whom you became believers, each of them doing only what the Lord assigned him. I planted the seed and Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. This means that neither he who plants nor he who waters is of any special account, only God, who gives the growth” (1 Cor 3:5-7).

Later in the same letter, Paul acknowledges that there is legitimate diversity in the Corinthian community. There are a variety of talents and gifts, but these must be put forward as ways to build up, not tear down, the unity of the Corinthians. “There are different gifts but the same Spirit; there are different ministries but the same Lord; there are different works but the same God who accomplishes all of them in everyone. To each person the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good” (1 Cor 12:4-7). Paul then proceeds to elaborate on the analogy of the human body: “the body is one and has many members, but all the members, many though they are, are one body” (1 Cor 12:12). He concludes his discussion of the diversity within the unity of the body with the simple truth that was meant to bring the Corinthians to their senses: “You, then, are the body of Christ. Every one of you is a member of it” (1 Cor 12:27).

For Paul, it was the claim that before the Corinthians were anything they were part of the body of Christ that was meant to heal the factionalism. Whatever other identity there might be—one’s family, one’s profession, one’s class or status in society, one’s ethnicity—none of those ways of thinking of oneself was comparable to the foundational identity of being a member of the body of Christ.

So much of the polarization in our Church seems rooted in a loss of primary identity. We as Catholics should accept legitimate diversity within the Church, as long as we acknowledge our primary identity as members of the body of Christ. Our political allegiances and preferences matter, but they ought not be what defines us. Our fundamental identity is not first liberal or conservative, socialist or free-marketeer, woke or not—it is that we are members of the one body of Christ.

To be a community in our parishes, our schools, our wider Church that witnesses to unity amidst diversity, to proclaim the dignity of all and show respect to all despite differences—this might be the gift that our nation needs most from a Church that knows itself to be first and foremost the body of Christ in the world.

of theology at Boston College.

Kenneth Himes, O.F.M., is a university professor emeritus

WITNESS TO UNITY

“I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

—John 13:34–35

Summary

Kenneth Himes reflects on what the church might offer to a nation caught up in “sectarianism”—an emerging reality where “mega-identities” absorb the identities and connections people make with others across differences. In a much different era, St. Paul’s letters offer a model of unityin-difference in Christian history. From Paul’s writings, Himes suggests that the church today can model unity by affirming our “foundational identity of being a member of the body of Christ” that makes room for diversity and difference within a community committed always to one another.

Questions for Conversation

1. Himes describes that the loss of “primary identity” is both a contemporary and historical problem, as seen in St. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians. How does this historical insight affect the way you view polarization today? What thoughts and feelings come up for you as you consider division as a historical and contemporary challenge for the church?

2. What does it mean to have a “foundational identity [as] a member of the body of Christ?” How can/do you live out of that identity in the midst of a polarized society?

3. How can you help our Church witness “to unity amidst diversity” in your own context? What do you hope others will see from the church’s approach to unity?

WHY ARE WE AT EACH OTHER’S THROATS?: HEALING OUR CHURCH

By Maureen Day

VISIONS FOR A POST-POLARIZED CHURCH

Clearly there are formidable challenges to moving toward a more unified Church. The way to heal this is to end polarization qua polarization, shifting it into political diversity. In this way, we can transform what we are experiencing as a weakness into a strength, a move toward appreciating what Michele Dillon calls the “interpretive diversity” of our faith in her Postsecular Catholicism: Revelance and Renewal. Rather than having poles and opposition organizing American Catholic political discourse, we can listen to the ways Catholics of varying political stripes use both their experiences and Church teaching to navigate the vagaries of our complex social world. In this way, we can move from a sense of derision to interdependence; we’ll see the value in perspectives that differ from our own and use these to move toward a common ground rooted in our faith. Here are six things I’d suggest for getting there.

Building relationships

We aren’t doing too well on the relationship front. Robert Putnam, a sociologist of social capital, writes in Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community that when Americans were asked how many close friends they had in 1985, the average number was three, with the most common answer being two. By 2004, the average number of close friends fell to two, and the most common response was zero. Zero. We’ve lost our social embeddedness. Strengthening our interpersonal connections and trust may help our sense of social trust as well.

Being uncomfortable

However, just strengthening our interpersonal relationships alone could exacerbate polarization. As I said above, we tend to socialize with others like ourselves, be it according to politics, race, age, income, and more. Try also to be around those who are dif-

ferent from you, crossing social boundaries when the opportunities arise. The more you are around those with different experiences, the more you will hear different perspectives. Hearing those new perspectives from friends and acquaintances will make you more empathic and understanding of strangers whose opinions might diverge from your own.

Starting with what is held in common

After we strengthen our relationships and add more diverse connections to these, we are ready to begin productive conversations. Whether these conversations are informal between two people or carefully coordinated at a parish or diocesan level, they need to begin with what the parties have in common. These commonalities might be more general—a sacramental vision of the world—or more specific—a commitment to lower abortion rates. Imagine if a small group of ideologically diverse people at a parish led a committee that would constantly guide the parish back to the shared mission whenever events began to rock the community. Making explicit what everyone has in common allows for everyone to regroup and go back to what is foundational when disagreements arise.

Recognizing the differences between disagreeing with principles and disagreeing with the prudential application of those principles

Our conversations will have disagreement. Disagreements can be incredibly productive both for better understanding another perspective as well as for coming up with effective solutions. It is critical in these discussions to know exactly what we are disagreeing about. For example, in a discussion about how a parish might help reduce the local abortion rates, some might propose political efforts to criminalize abortion, while others may find that inappropriate. Further conversation will, I believe, reveal that it is a disagreement over means, and not a disagreement over the dignity of the human person. Encountering disagreements with goodwill will help illuminate the true nature of the conflict and keep conversation centered on the common project.

Dialoguing rather than debating

Too often we debate. There is nothing wrong with a good-natured sparring of ideas. But debates have sides; one side wins and the other loses. For a Church in need of healing, debate is not an appropriate method. We need to opt for dialogue. People dialoguing hold their desired outcomes loosely, believing there is more wisdom in the room than their own. Dialogue helps us to understand a different perspective, even while we don’t agree with it. We will come away with a better sense of the concerns and discernment of others. Dialogue emphasizes process and allows for loose ends.

Care. Really.

If we do everything else well, but ultimately don’t care, there is slim chance our efforts will bear fruit. Belittling others or otherwise getting snarky undermines any preceding work. Holding tight to a personal, rather than a shared, agenda will derail the project. Being invested in one another as people and as co-creators as well as working together in great hope, faith, and imagination are critical to healing. “Losing” with humility—acknowledging the possibility that the Holy Spirit can work in ways beyond our comprehension—helps us to maintain communion when we are disappointed with an outcome.

In short, to heal our polarization we need charity. We need to grow charity in ourselves, in our parishes, and in our world. Charity will help to rebuild the personal and social trust that has slowly eroded. It will take hard work, a lot of patience, an anticipation of setbacks, and a long-term vision. Ultimately, charity will move us from one another’s throats to one another’s hearts. Let’s roll up our sleeves and begin to breathe easy and love deeply.

Maureen K. Day is an associate professor at the Franciscan School of Theology.

This article excerpt was originally published in the National Catholic Reporter (November 30, 2018) and is reprinted by permission of NCR Publishing Company.

WHY ARE WE AT EACH OTHER’S THROATS?: HEALING OUR CHURCH

“We can throw our pebble in the pond and be confident that its ever-widening circle will reach around the world. We repeat, there is nothing we can do but love, and, dear God, please enlarge our hearts to love each other, to love our neighbor, to love our enemy as well as our friend.”

—Dorothy Day, “Love is the Measure”

Summary

Our church today experiences polarization, a defining of oneself against another, rather than through our common goals, hopes, etc. In this context, Maureen Day suggests six guidelines to grow in charity rather than polarization: focus on building relationships, be willing to be uncomfortable, start with what we have in common, learn to recognize how shared purposes can have different applications, and engage in dialogue instead of debate.

Questions for Conversation

1. Maureen Day invites us to shift from disdain for those with whom we disagree to recognize our interdependence. What might this movement look like for you and your communities? What possibilities would this shift open for you and those you know?

2. Day offers six practical steps to begin moving toward interdependence. Which of these might be the easiest for you to put into practice? Which seems most difficult? Why?

3. The author closes the article with the idea that “charity will move us from one another’s throats to one another’s hearts.” How do you hope to grow in charity after reading this article?

GATHERING PRAYER

Prayer for Charity

Adapted from the Collect for Charity

Set our hearts aflame, O Lord, with the Spirit of your charity, that we may always think thoughts worthy and pleasing to your majesty, so as to love you and all whom we encounter.

Amen.

For more information about Faith Feeds, visit bc.edu/c21faithfeeds

This program is sponsored by Boston College’s Church in the 21st Century Center, a catalyst and a resource for the renewal of the Catholic Church. (617)552-0470 • church21@bc.edu • bc.edu/c21