This week, I received a direct message over Instagram telling me to kill myself. Yep, you read that right. I did not take the person up on his suggestion.
In the course of my time as a pastor, I’ve been yelled at, slandered, gossiped about, mocked, cursed at, lied to, disrespected, and called all kinds of names. Most of the time, this has been from folks outside of the churches I’ve served.
But not always.
However, this week was the first time someone told me to kill myself.
Taking such abuse is sadly typical for anyone in pastoral ministry (though I’ve been overall blessed with the two wonderful churches I’ve served).
Such verbal antagonism and abuse are common for those public about their ministry – as I have been. From the very beginning of my pastoral ministry, I’ve been visible online — blogging, posting on social media, doing videos on YouTube, speaking in the community, and even participating in public forums. And thus I — like my pastoral colleagues who go public — am a target.
A target for what Arthur Brooks would call “contempt.”
Contempt is the focus in Arthur Brooks’ much-needed book Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America from the Culture of Contempt. Brooks explains that social scientists have defined contempt as “anger mixed with disgust,” something he calls a “toxic combination.” Brooks makes the case that contempt and hatred are tearing our country apart, leaving ruined friendships and broken families in their wake. And if we don’t turn back, we may indeed lose our country.
When it comes to most disagreements today, especially concerning religion and politics, Brooks explains the thinking of most people: “Nothing is about honest disagreement; it is all about your interlocutor’s lack of basic human decency. Thus, no one with whom you disagree is worth engaging at all. The result is contempt.”
Over the course of the last few years, I’ve become increasingly disturbed by the polarization and division plaguing our nation, but it seemed that only a handful of Christians were talking about this – and usually in the church or on faith-oriented blogs. (Sadly, most Christians, particularly when it comes to politics, have been more apt to contribute to rifts in our country rather than trying to heal or bridge them).
Most Americans today (including, again sadly, most Christians in America) would rather focus on the issues and the disagreements rather than meaningfully and constructively address the division in our society.
In reality, HOW we disagree has become just as important as WHY or over WHAT we disagree. Few people understand this or accept it. Even fewer are willing to do something about it.
Therefore, when I saw the head of the American Enteprise Institute address this crisis, I was elated. Finally, a mainstream scholar and pundit is tackling this challenge. I first heard Brooks address this in a TED Talk, and immediately picked up his book. I was not disappointed.
Well, I shouldn’t say that. I am disappointed that more Americans won’t read this book
To be sure, in the grand scheme of human history, openly contemptuous hatred among people over politics and religion isn’t new. The human race has known wars, uprisings, and revolutions. Hatred, contempt, and violence have never been completely absent from even American history. Mob violence, duels, lynchings, assasinations, murders, and more – these have all been a part of our nation’s history.
Nevertheless, if one looks at national political debates and presidential campaigns in the 1960s, 70s, or 80s compared to this decade, it’s hard to dispute the argument that things have gotten worse. It sure feels like things have gotten worse.
I grew up in a politically mixed family. My father was a staunch conservative Republican. Both sets of grandparents, on the other hand, were die-hard liberal Democrats. If you were to poll the relatives (aunts, uncles, cousins, in-laws, etc) throughout my extended family, you’d find both Republicans and Democrats. And guess what?
All during the Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton years… everyone loved each other. Sure, there were some occasional debates and disagreements. But everyone still loved and respected one another.
For most of my friends, it was the same in their families.
The same was true for friends. I’ve had friends all over the map, politically speaking. And I love, respect, and care about them – regardless of how they vote.
This is not the norm anymore.
In Love Your Enemies, Brooks cites a January 2017 Reuters/Ipsos poll, which found that “one in six Americans had stopped talking to a family member or close friend because of the 2016 election.” Indeed, I remember several of my friends on social media loudly proclaiming their contempt for anyone who voted opposite the way they did. One former student of mine (I’m Facebook friends with several of my former students — I used to be a high school government, history, and Bible teacher) demanded that anyone who voted for X (the candidate she didn’t support) unfriend her immediately!
It seems that, for many people, political disagreements are a deal-breaker when it comes to personal relationships. And Brooks says this is no accident.
Brooks says there is a “outrage industrial complex” (a loose conglomeration of media professionals, politicians, commentators, pundits, activists, etc) who thrive on stirring up, feeding, and ultimately profiting from polarization and division. Accordingly, writes Brooks, “Americans have been manipulated and bullied into thinking that we have to choose between strong beliefs and close relationships.”
There are many theories for this. For my part, I would say it’s a combination of postmodernism (leading to confusion over truth, narratives, and meaning), social media, academic theories that encourage division, and our national culture increasingly moving away from any semblance of faith in God. One could also toss in a growing prevalence of mental and emotional health challenges in our population.
On the point regarding academic theories, our nation is in the midst of an important season of soul-searching with respect to the need for racial equality and the increasingly apparent need for criminal justice reform. An increasingly popular approach to defining, explaining, and offering solutions to the challenges facing black, Indigenous and people of color (BIPOC) is Critical Theory.
Critical Theory is actually a broad umbrella that encompasses multiple “critical theories,” but the goal is to identify various people groups which have been subjected to, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it, “domination of human beings in modern societies.”
The result of this approach is the segmenting of populations into various demographic groups — something many detractors dismiss as “identity politics.”
Proponents of the CT approach, however, respond that such a focus is necessary to identify and correct injustices, inequities, and barriers. In White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard For White People to Talk About Racism, Robin DiAngelo explains: “The term identity politics refers to the focus on the barriers specific groups face in their struggle for equality” and “[n]ot naming the groups that face barriers only serves those who already have access.”
Brooks concedes that demographic awareness has its place, certainly when it comes to identifying barriers that need to be removed or injustices that must be corrected. But he warns that “membership in a demographic group is not what we need to bring the country together, let alone the world.”
When we identify primarily or exclusively with a particular group or tribe – be that based on race, sex, ideology, or any other such factor – we begin to see those outside that camp as “the other.” In time, especially if the stakes are high and if disagreements become deep, we can more easily dehumanize those in the camp of “the other.” And before long, hatred and contempt set in.
At the beginning of this review, I talked about the suicide suggestion I received this week from an individual on Instagram. What was it that triggered this hateful direct message?
I don’t know.
I have two main accounts (or pages or channels – whatever the right term is) on Instagram: @brianetubbs and @pastorbriantubbs
The former is my personal account where I post family pics, talk about my life in general, and (recently) my efforts toward becoming a published author. The latter is my pastoral ministry account, where I post things related to my ministry with Olney Baptist Church. And also Bible verses and notes of encouragement.
Something I posted (probably on my pastoral account/channel) triggered this person, but I don’t know what.
In his rant, he wasn’t attacking me personally but rather as a personification or symbol of the image he has in his mind of Bible-believing Christians. Some of the things he said about me (as part of that group) made that clear.
And that’s my point. Or more specifically, it’s Brooks’ point.
The more we divide ourselves up into camps and tribes – and dehumanize those in other camps or tribes – the less we are willing to invest the time, energy, or trouble to politely, patiently, or constructively engage others in an exchange of ideas or perspectives.
Also, the more we make assumptions about everyone within those groups.
Individuality is lost.
Giving people the benefit of the doubt is lost.
Constructive engagement is lost.
We just hate and attack each other.
If we want to change all this, then….
We must see each other as individual human beings made in the image of God. And we must be making intentional and regular efforts to connect with people outside our normal “tribes” or “groups.”
What do we do when we get into a disagreement?
Brooks emphasizes telling our story and focusing on connection. “Don’t attack or insult,” he writes. “Don’t even try to win.” You’re building a bridge, a connection. Just exchange ideas and perspectives.
And he exhorts: “Never assume the motives of another person.”
The latter point is crucial. One of the reasons we are so bitterly divided today is we assume we know the thoughts and intentions of those with whom we disagree. We caricature and vilify those with whom we disagree, and give ourselves the benefit of any and all doubt. We have good motives and intentions. Those who differ with us… well, they may as well be cavorting with Hitler!
There’s so much to say about this fantastic book, but this review has already gone too long. The bottom line is that, as we approach the 2020 presidential election, Love Your Enemies is a book every American needs to read.
Get the book and read it. And share it with your friends and family.
I don’t know the specifics of Mr. Brooks’ faith, other than he identifies as a Catholic. This much, I can say: What Brooks is challenging Americans to do in Love Your Enemies is precisely what Jesus challenged His followers to do 2000 years ago: “Love your neighbor” and “love your enemies.”
Are you willing to do that?
If enough people say yes, we may yet save our country and overcome evil with good.
One Reply to “Overcome Hate With Love: My Review of Arthur Brooks’ Love Your Enemies”
Comments are closed.