Strive for understanding in the public square
Nearly 25 years ago, the late community leader and philanthropist Robert Nusbaum proposed the Center for the Study of Religious Freedom at Virginia Wesleyan University. He did so because he was moved by how figures such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson recognized that if we were to be united as states, we would need to see differences and disagreements as a normal part of healthy civic life. Diversity leads to strength, but how we respond to the reality of our diversity matters.
Now known as the Robert Nusbaum Center, the center strives to embody Bob’s vision: If we are to reach America’s highest ideals, issues such as politics, religion, race, gender and sexuality need to be discussed by people who genuinely see the world differently from each other.
That said, the last couple of weeks at Virginia Wesleyan have been surreal.
When I was young, people would say that you should never talk about politics or religion in polite company. That advice is like saying that married couples should not talk about finances or parenting. Talking about important issues can lead to trouble unless we are careful in how we discuss them and — maybe more importantly — how we disagree.
Those meaningful discussions don’t happen online. “Smartphones are dangerous,” author John Piper says, “like marriage and music and fine cuisine — or anything else that can become an idol. They are also very useful, like guns and razor blades and medicinal cannabis — or lots of other things that can ruin your life.”
Online comments are sharp. Facebook firestorms are a norm. Social media create instincts in us that fight against our best impulses and discourage opportunities for nuanced thought.
When we’re tired, sad, angry, worn down, in pain, or frustrated, we need to keep our fingers away from keyboards. My former colleague Paul Ewell would agree with that, I’m sure.
I have not talked with Paul in the last two weeks. I was not surprised that he would have been upset by the outcome of the election. I was surprised by his incendiary words. I was not surprised that he then expressed remorse — not just regret — for those words.
I was not surprised that he took full responsibility. I was not surprised that he resigned from a university that he deeply loved.
Because of his character and integrity, I would also not be surprised if those students, faculty, colleagues, alumni and community members who actually knew him — and those who strongly disagreed with him politically — wished that he had turned away from the keyboard that evening.
We do need to talk about the things that matter most in life. In our own homes, that might include finances and parenting. In the public square, we might focus on political, religious and racial issues. Those discussions will involve tension because we are different and — as the First Amendment recognized — differences are to be expected.
I often tell students that each of us tends to judge others by their words and actions but ourselves by our intentions. So we end up looking pretty good — unfairly so. As we continue the hard process of working with others who are different than we are, hopefully, as Abraham Lincoln said, we all will rely on our better angels, acting “with malice toward none; with charity for all.”
Dr. Craig Wansink is the Joan P. and Macon F. Brock Jr. Director of the Robert Nusbaum Center at Virginia Wesleyan University, chair of Religious Studies at VWU and senior pastor of Second Presbyterian Church in Norfolk.
When I was young, people would say that you should never talk about politics or religion in polite company. That advice is like saying that married couples should not talk about finances or parenting. Talking about important issues can lead to trouble unless we are careful in how we discuss them and — maybe more importantly — how we disagree.