In this conversation, John Inazu and I have a great conversation about learning how to disagree civilly. We talk the importance of seeing others as image-bearers of God, developing empathy even for those we disagree with, distinguishing facts from judgments, and finding common ground. John gave great examples of disagreeing respectfully from his legal and interfaith work. The postures of curiosity, patience, and commitment to relationships over time are crucial. Join us as we learn how to disagree, hear one another, and walk forward gracefully.
John Inazu is the author of Learning to Disagree: The Surprising Path to Navigating Differences with Empathy and Respect (Zondervan). He is the Sally D. Danforth Distinguished Professor of Law and Religion at Washington University in St. Louis. He teaches criminal law, law and religion, and various First Amendment courses. He writes and speaks frequently about pluralism, assembly, free speech, religious freedom, and other issues. John has written three books and published opinion pieces in the Washington Post, Atlantic, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, USA Today, Newsweek, and CNN. He is also the founder of the Carver Project and the Legal Vocation Fellowship and is a senior fellow with Interfaith America.
John's Book:
Learning to Disagree
John's Recommendation:
The Spirit of Our Politics by Michael Wear
Connect with Joshua: jjohnson@allnations.us
Go to www.shiftingculturepodcast.com to interact and donate. Every donation helps to produce more podcasts for you to enjoy.
Follow on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or Threads at
www.facebook.com/shiftingculturepodcast
https://www.instagram.com/shiftingculturepodcast/
https://twitter.com/shiftingcultur2
https://www.threads.net/@shiftingculturepodcast
https://www.youtube.com/@shiftingculturepodcast
Consider Giving to the podcast and to the ministry that my wife and I do around the world. Just click on the support the show link below.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
John Inazu (00:00):
The very first starting point of any
(00:02):
conversation or anyrelationship, or any
disagreement should be sittingacross from me as an image
bearer. And that raised the barquite a bit. I mean, it's not
it's not it's not sort ofoptional, or some people are
image bearers and some aren't.
It's this person across me is animage bearer. And that's a very
profound statement about notjust human beings, but the
created order as we look atanother person and when what
(00:23):
what that asks us to do. So thatshould I think, always be our
first posture. And then we thenwe have to say, Well, what do we
do from there?
Joshua Johnson (00:46):
Hello, and welcome to the shifting culture
podcast in which we haveconversations about the culture
we create, and the impact we canmake. We longed to see the body
of Christ look like Jesus. I'myour host, Joshua Johnson. Go to
shifting culture podcast.com tointeract and donate. And don't
forget to hit the Follow buttonon your favorite podcast app to
be notified when new episodescome out each week, and go leave
(01:08):
a rating and review. It's easy.
It only takes a second and ithelps us find new listeners to
the show. Just go to the Showpage on the app that you're
using right now and hit fivestars. It really is that easy.
Thank you so much. You know whatelse would help us out? share
this podcast with your friends,your family, your network, tell
them how much you enjoy it andlet them know that they should
(01:28):
be listening as well. If you'renew here, welcome. If you want
to dig deeper find us on socialmedia at shifting culture
podcast, where I post videoclips and quotes and interact
with all of you. My previousguests on the show have included
John art Scot McKnight and Seanappel green. You can go back
listen to those episodes andmore. But today's guest is John
and Ozzie Jonathan Aza is theauthor of learning to disagree
(01:50):
the surprising path tonavigating differences with
empathy and respect. He is theSally de Danforth distinguished
professor of law and religion atWashington University in St.
Louis. He teaches criminal law,law and religion and various
First Amendment courses. Hewrites and speaks frequently
about pluralism, assembly, freespeech, religious freedom, and
(02:11):
other issues. He is the founderof the Carver project and the
legal vocation fellowship. Andas a Senior Fellow with
interfaith America, John and Ihave a great discussion about
learning how to disagreecivilly, we talk about the
importance of seeing others asimage bearers of God, developing
empathy, even for those wedisagree with disagree,
(02:33):
distinguishing facts fromjudgments and finding common
ground. John gave great examplesof disagreeing respectfully from
his legal and interfaith work.
The postures of curiosity,patience, and commitment to
relationships over time arecrucial to this conversation.
Join us as we learn how todisagree, hear one another and
(02:55):
walk forward gracefully. Here'smy conversation with John and
OSU. John, welcome to shiftingculture. Really excited to have
you on. Thank you so much forjoining me,
John Inazu (03:07):
Joshua. Thanks so much. It's great to be with you.
Joshua Johnson (03:09):
Yeah, I'd love to have an introduction to you.
Where are you coming from? Onething that I know is that you
have done some of yourschoolwork both at Duke and
North Carolina. So if we'retalking about learning how to
disagree, as seems like there'sa disagreement probably within
your, your, your soul and yourbody, when Duke in North
(03:30):
Carolina start to engage in inbasketball or anything else. How
do you how do you disagree withyourself? Like, what? What's
going on? Yeah.
John Inazu (03:41):
The various astute observations off here that I
have tremendous respect for bothacademic institutions. They've
got Oh, there you go. Now, whenit comes to sports, I'm
definitely a Blue Devil art. Andall right, I spent actually some
time during graduate school,tormenting UNC undergraduates
with pictures of Duke basketballplayers. So sometimes I disagree
(04:02):
by using power coercive tactics.
Joshua Johnson (04:07):
That's great.
Well, my wife went to WakeForest. And so there's another
disagreement right there. Yeah,but there's some great
institutions there. Now, youhave made a career in in law.
And now as a law professor atWashington University, what I
mean law has a lot to teach usto do with with arguments and
persuasive speech. Does it haveanything to teach us to do with
(04:34):
coming together and being ableto disagree and moving forward
on the same page? Is thatpossible? Yeah. Well, I
John Inazu (04:44):
hope so. I mean, that's sort of one of the points
behind the book is to make thatcase to the average person who's
not in law school at law,actually is really helpful. And
I actually think that we canthink of the son to at least two
levels, one is on a very heavy,serious level. Law is the
opposite of an uncheckedviolence. And so we live in a
(05:06):
lot of society for a reason. Andthat's a really good thing,
because the the opposite of lawis chaos or anarchy and
violence. So even, you know,whatever we might think about
the imperfections of our legalsystem, and there are many, we
should probably recognize thathaving a structure of law in
place is at root, a very goodthing. And so that's, that's one
way we can think about how lawhelps with disagreement. But I'm
(05:28):
actually interested in a muchmore sort of down to Earth on
the ground way that law helps usdisagree. And this is the way in
which some, some tactics,strategies and habits that we
learn and teach in law schoolcan be useful in applied to
everyday situations so that yourco workers or your neighbors, or
(05:49):
maybe even family members whostruggle with this disagreement
can learn some postures that weexperienced in law school, I can
help all kinds of everydayrelationships. And that's where
a lot of this book is focused.
Joshua Johnson (06:02):
Well, I think it's a timely topic, it's a
needed topic, especially inAmerica, we have gone through a
couple of really contentiouselection cycles, probably have
another one this year. That, youknow, even within the church,
people decided to say, Idisagree politically, so we
(06:22):
can't worship together, whereI'm gonna go worship somewhere
else. We have a Protestant faithwhere there's 47,000 different
denominations. And all of themwere based mostly on an
disagreement of saying, Idisagree with you in this, we're
going to set up a newdenomination that has all the
(06:43):
right things, and so we canstart to work together. So
there's polarization, there'sdivision, because of our
disagreements, why do you thinkit's important that we start to
learn how to have disagreements?
Well, so we don't just stop theconversation, and go into our
(07:04):
silos so that we feel morecomfortable? Yeah, I
John Inazu (07:11):
really, I really like how you said that question,
because what it points to is notjust our present polarization,
but the fact that we've had lotsof splits in the past, are they
the descriptive reality ofAmerican Protestantism testifies
to a lot of disagreements overtime denominations split over
slavery in the Civil War, overwomen's ordination, all kinds of
(07:33):
things in this country, thatleads us to the plurality of
denominations we have. And ofcourse, politically, we've had
lots of really hard seasons inour country's past, we've had
massive labor violence andunrest in the 1960s, and all
kinds of other examples. So insome ways, polarization isn't
new, both in and out of thechurch. And we've had, you know,
(07:56):
every generation has gonethrough really hard challenges
where people line up ondifferent sides of an issue and
think I can't believe thesepeople I trusted. This group, I
was part of this churchcommunity, I thought was a
family is somehow fractured, inmany cases, irreverent,
irrevocably, over really hardissues. What what makes it
(08:17):
different today? Well, I think acouple of factors. One, I think
there's a growing sense of theconnectedness between for
Christians, especially these,these differences in church that
are aligning with political andparty differences, and how that
is coming more and more intoplay for a lot of people. And
the other thing that seems verynew is the presence of social
(08:40):
media, the past polarization, itjust couldn't spread as quickly
and holistically as I can today,you know, any, anytime you are I
jump online to read something,and things can go viral in a
matter of minutes. And we'reincreasingly sorting into
different preferred news sourcesand social media channels. And
(09:02):
all of this means I think,again, the polarization itself
may not be that different, butthe way that we consume it and
experience it feels like it'sjust everywhere all the time. I
sometimes think like, you know,probably when you and I were
growing up, we got the news, atmost, twice a day, the morning
paper, you know, as I washeading off to school, and then
maybe if I'm home in time, Icatch the evening news. And you
(09:24):
know, there were still seriousissues of disagreement and
really hard issues going on. Butmost of the rest of the day, I
wasn't really thinking aboutthem. I was living the rest of
my life. And now for a lot ofpeople sitting at the workplace
or checking their phones. It'sjust this constant barrage of
here's the latest breaking news.
And here's reinforcing yourpriors about those people or our
team. And that just happens overand over again, day in and day
(09:48):
out. And I think it's, it's notsurprising that that really in
trenches are felt differences.
We
Joshua Johnson (09:54):
go into different camps of news camps,
where it's really They had it'sreally more opinion than the
news. There's like, hey, thishappened. Here's our opinion on
it. And here's somebody else'sopinion on it. How can we start
to even engage the news whenopinions are coming at us all
(10:16):
the time right away? And we justdon't even know what the context
is.
John Inazu (10:23):
Yeah, this is where another I think that just the
basic architecture of wall canbe helpful. So law often,
whether it's in a case that'sreported, or a judicial decision
or teaching in a classroom,lawyers and law students divide
up the world into facts andjudgments. And it's a very
useful and helpful first orderdistinction to say there are
some facts of the world that arenot opinions is today, Monday,
(10:47):
right? Is it 75 degrees outsidewherever it's not 75 Here, but
where, wherever it is, or ifthey're observable facts of the
world. And sometimes those getcontested? You know, we could
say, you know, did you make didyou make the filing on time, and
maybe on time as a contestant,but those are much different
than judgments judgments occurwhen, for example, there's a
(11:09):
homicide. And there's a questionof whether that homicide is self
defense, and that legal judgmentof self defense, which one side
might say is obviously correct,another might say, is obviously
wrong. Those are inevitably aform of opinion, tied up in
decision making an authority andall kinds of things. And then
you and I make all kinds ofopinions, and the rest of our
(11:29):
lives, right? Do we think thatsermon was good or appropriate
or boring, or it is that personkind or evil, and, and those are
inevitably, somewhat subjectdevised opinions. But I think in
today's culture, it's especiallyimportant and useful to
distinguish those buckets and tosay, at the end of the day,
there are facts of the world andwe should be able to talk about
(11:50):
facts and hold each other toaccount of actual facts. As
Joshua Johnson (11:55):
you get into your book, the very first thing
that you get into is how do welearn empathy? Is your your
question. And I think empathy isthe perfect place to start. When
we have disagreements, we haveto see somebody as human. What
are ways that we can start toengage with disagreements and
(12:16):
have empathy for the person? Orthe people that we're
disagreeing with?
John Inazu (12:21):
Yeah. So I mean, I think, especially for
Christians, the very firststarting point of any
conversation, or anyrelationship, or any
disagreement should be sittingacross from me as an image
bearer. And that raises the barquite a bit. I mean, it's not
it's not it's not sort ofoptional, or some people are
image bearers, and some aren't.
It's this person across me is animage bearer. And that's a very
profound statement about notjust human beings, but the
(12:45):
created order as we look atanother person, and when what
what that asks us to do. So thatshould I think, always be our
first posture. And then we thenwe have to say, Well, what do we
do from there? When it's reallyhard? And I might be able to
say, cognitively, yes, this isan image barrier, but I really
don't like person in there, Ithink we can rely on a couple of
tools. I mean, they're just sortof everyday practices, like, can
(13:08):
we listen? Well? Can we bepatient with another person? And
then we also have the fruits ofthe Spirit to guide us by kit?
Can we, you know, in, in relyingon the fruits of the Spirit, can
we demonstrate? Can wedemonstrate these these ways of
engaging with the person acrossfrom us. And then finally,
(13:28):
maybe, that the most practicalor ordinary level, but also
really important is just findingeveryday common ground
connection points. This is why Ithink food is so great, you
know, sharing a meal on one canreally go a long way to, to ease
or break some barriers, talkhaving having normal
(13:49):
conversation. So if you'regonna, if you're gonna jump into
a really hard area ofdisagreement, one way to gain
empathy first is to start withcommon connections that don't
don't revolve around thatdisagreement. Find out something
you have in common, or do anactivity together in common
before bed. And so I these are,some of these ideas seem kind of
(14:11):
basic, but they're very hard toput into practice. And we have
to be aware of them as wepractice.
Joshua Johnson (14:19):
But it seems to me that if we have empathy, but
the person that we're talking todoesn't have empathy, across,
it's going to be still a reallydifficult conversation. How do
we start to engage in placeswhere it is empathy on one side,
but not the other?
John Inazu (14:37):
Yeah. And so I mean, they again, here's where I think
Christians have just such abounty of resources to draw up
on so in some ways, the ways inwhich we're asked to engage with
other people aren't reallyconditional and how those people
treat us love your patient tothose around you. Right. And
that's so that's part of theanswer is, even if if our empty
(15:00):
He has not reciprocated that. Socalled to love and be kind. But
I think there might be anotherway to get at this, which is,
which is to say, if we're verysecure in who we are, what we
believe why we're in this world,we should actually be able to
take a few hits. And when whenpeople treat us without empathy
or caricature us or say unfairthings, doesn't mean that we
(15:24):
should let every outrageousclaim or every mistaken comment
go unchallenged. I mean, I thinkthere's a real importance of
speaking truth and justice inthe world. But on an individual
level, if we can conditionourselves, just to take less
offense less quickly, and to beable to hang in there and think
you know what? I didn't like theway you said that to me, or I
(15:46):
think you're wrong in yourcharacterization, but instead of
immediately getting defensive orreactive, maybe I'll just say,
Well, can we complicate that abit? Or can we unpack that
claim? And I think to encouragecontinued dialogue, even when
we're not receiving empathy fromthe other side is one way, not
only how we effectively engagewith other people, but it's also
(16:07):
I think, an important form ofwitness? Yes,
Joshua Johnson (16:11):
I think it is important to be that witness,
and to start to figure out howdo we love our enemies? How do
we embody Jesus in ourconversations? What does it look
like to be like Jesus, you know,when Jesus called us to love our
enemies, he said, at the end ofthat sermon, if you hear these
words of mine, and you put theminto practice, you're going to
(16:31):
be like the wise builder whobuilds his house on the rock.
And that's going to take us along way, if we put those things
into practice. A lot of times wewe move into the disagreement in
the the dialogue world, right,so we're trying to dialogue with
people. But some people say,Okay, we've had enough
(16:53):
conversation about this. How canwe go from dialogue into action,
and to practically see that wecould still be together and walk
forward, even while we disagree,not as the practical application
(17:13):
of these conversations. So
John Inazu (17:15):
a couple of things there. One is 111 Useful
consequence of recognizing thatwe live in an imperfect and
fallen world means that in apolitical, legal and policy
realms, we should expect, lessthan everyone being happy, we
should just know that's going tobe a fact of the world and most
(17:35):
political solutions, most legalsolutions in our country where
there's lots of difference, aregoing to have winners and
losers. And we might someday beamong the winners. And we might
someday be along among thelosers, restore the call to be
citizens and neighbors. And soone way to practically is to
recognize I mean, it's always isit's a tragic dimension of
(17:56):
living together with other humanbeings in a fallen world, which
is that we will not always besatisfied. And yet, we're still
called to engage productively ascitizens. And maybe sometimes
that means we engage by tryingto undo a policy or to push for
change in a way that that stillloves the people around us. But
I also think there's anotherdimension to this, and this is
(18:18):
maybe what you were suggestingin your question, which is to
say that, in the real world,we're going to have to partner
with a lot of people who don'tagree with us on everything.
It's the essence of findingcommon ground and way that
actual policy happened. And ifwe, if we really mean it, when
we say we love our neighbors,that also means we're going to
(18:39):
have to love our neighbor aswell with people who aren't
Christians, with people whodon't believe in any form of God
with people who are sometimesvery opposed to us on certain
legal and policy positions. Butwe when we find those areas of
common ground, you know, if atthe end of the day, the question
is, how do we get how do westack sandbags in a flood zone?
Or how do we get food to kidswho don't have it, then we
(19:02):
should be doing that work withwith anyone who's one gardener
rather than sort of doing adoctrinal test with them or
worried about how it might lookto be seen with them. And I
think they're actually, when wereally get down to the, the
local and how we care for thesocial fabric around us. There
are just an almost unendingnumber of opportunities and
(19:23):
examples where we can partnerwith people who are different
than us, put our words intoaction, and not compromise who
we are what we believe, but justfind common ground. I
Joshua Johnson (19:33):
lived in the Middle East and I sat in a lot
of Muslim living rooms, had lotsof discussions over a meal and
found a lot of common ground.
And, of course, my I had anobjective I wanted to point them
to Jesus and say, the way ofJesus is the way that brings
life and flourishing. But I wasstill able to sit and when they
(19:54):
got I don't believe any of that.
And see Either we have a lot ofcommon ground, we could have
conversation and civilconversation, and we don't have
to be angry at one another, wehave a difference of beliefs,
that how important is it, I knowthat you have done a lot of
(20:16):
interfaith work as well, thatyou have been, you know, friends
and walking side by side, withMuslims with Muslims and
Christians together? How do wehow do you go into that space?
Know that you havedisagreements, even in belief
systems, but still working for acommon cause? Together?
John Inazu (20:37):
Yeah, you know, and I think, knowing what you
believe, because I think when,when you're clear about what you
believe, it makes it easier toknow where the boundaries are.
So with my Muslim friends, thereare a whole lot of things that I
will do with them. And there aresome things I want to I don't, I
won't pray with them together.
But we can, we can do a lot ofgood in the world together. And
(20:58):
I don't feel I don't feel athreat at all. But I also, and I
think you kind of alluded tothis in your question with your
own examples. These are, theseare not sort of instrumental
friendships, they are realfriendships. And at the end of
the day, what matters deeply tome is that Eboo Patel is my
friend, and he's going to callme when he's hurting, or when
(21:22):
I'm hurting, and we still havevery significant disagreements
about really matter, but he's afriend and, and we can partner
effectively and well, but it'sthe friendship that is that, or
it's a trust, and you can'treally fake that. And I think,
you know, sometimes in some, Ithink especially in the 1990s,
(21:43):
there were some sort of missioncontext or training that
suggested this kind offriendship evangelism that was
really kind of an instrumentaluse of friendship. And I think
that's a very effective way tobe embedded in people's lives.
So
Joshua Johnson (21:59):
this is there's a few things, you know, when I
was a missionary in the MiddleEast, it was really easy for me
to, to work side by side withother missionaries from
different organizations, onesthat have different approaches
than we do. Even though wedisagreed on a lot of different
things were like, there's somepractical needs on the ground
that we need to work together.
But when I now step back, and asa executive of an organization,
(22:23):
working together with otherorganizations, I have some other
things that I have to worryabout after worry about our our
own donors, and we have allsorts of different competing
things, it's harder to worktogether at a higher level, that
it is on the ground, I think allthe grounds, it's really is
(22:44):
almost easier. And it's a goodexample that we could say on the
ground, you could do it, but howdo we move it up the ladder a
little bit and haveorganizations or work together
and disagree, but still movetowards a common purpose?
John Inazu (23:03):
Yeah, so this is, this is such a great case study.
I'm really glad you brought itup. I think that the
institutional question is soimportant right now. And it's
actually the cause of a lot ofthe pressure and fracturing
we're feeling within Christiancommunities institutions. And I
think part of the answer is,when you are clear on what your
(23:24):
purpose is, then your variousconstituents should be on board
to support the port purpose, or,you know, there are lots of
other organizations to join outthere. But your purpose is your
boundaries. And when you have aninstitutional purpose, that
should tell you the parameterswithin which you can play and
partner and cooperate. And we'llset some lines to write so
(23:44):
you're not going to be able todo everything with everyone, but
but the key I think, is to beable to articulate what the
purpose is. And then make surethat everyone from your board on
down is committed to thatpurpose. And sometimes that
means that someone who mightdisagree with what the
organization is doing, but ifyou're committed to it, and what
our role as a board a donor andexecutive, sort of on the ground
(24:07):
employee, you are committed toputting the good of the
organization above yourdisagreements. And if you're not
able to do that, and it there'snot necessarily a right or wrong
answer here. The only wronganswer, I think, is if you hold
on to the institution, withoutan actual commitment to what
it's doing. Right. So probablyat the end of the day, the best
(24:28):
answer for some donors is tosay, you're not really on board
with this mission, right? YouYou were too much in conflict
and you should be givingelsewhere we should not be
taking your money. And this is,you know, when the when the
rubber hits the road or when thedollar has actually come out.
That's a very hard line to walkbut I think it's the right line.
And I think over time, that kindof clarity, which is an
(24:49):
expressive clarity, but also arelational clarity that will
help organizations be healthier,and help them cooperate in a
more healthy and authenticmanner than Always trying to do
this dance of who's thinkingwide? And how can we hold on to
this group while we are overhere, it doesn't make it easy,
but I think it sets theparameters of how we ought to be
(25:09):
engaging.
Joshua Johnson (25:10):
You talk a little bit in your book here, we
talked about compromise. I thinksometimes compromise can be
healthy. Sometimes you'recompromising some values. What
happens when you can't go? Asfar as the person that you're
talking to you or the the peoplethat you're talking to want you
to go, that you actually have avalue you have a c&c or belief
(25:34):
or something we say, I can'tactually compromise on that.
What does that look like inthose, that tension?
John Inazu (25:42):
Yeah. And so this takes me back to an earlier
point in our conversation, whereI just think a fact of the world
a world of difference. Anddiversity means that we are
going to have really hard issueswhere we can compromise there
are, you know, when you thinkabout lots of national policy
questions, it's not like you cantake one extreme and another
(26:02):
extreme and just kind of find ahappy middle ground and call it
a very often it's going to be,this is legal, or this is
illegal, or we're going topursue this as a country or not
pursue it and, and when you'rein those situations, as an
individual or an organizationthat you there'll be times when
you use it, you have to say, Ican't be on board with that
partnership, or that kind ofcompromise. And so you've got to
(26:25):
step out of whatever arrangementor partnership you were in. And
that might be very costly. Now,in stepping out, and I'm now
thinking about, you know, whenwe think about the landscape of
American Protestantism, lots offracture, and fissure, whether
it's the United MethodistChurch, or the Episcopal Church,
and the angle of cancer, we canname any number of splits, come
or are coming. And those are allexamples where different groups
(26:49):
of people have said, we can'tcompromise on this issue. This
is too Central, this is toocore. And there are, you know,
as you mentioned, 10s of 1000sof tragic splits within our
Protestant heritage, that kindof bear witness to this, this
phenomenon. And I think, youknow, sometimes these splits are
inevitable because this stuffdoes matter. And sometimes you
(27:11):
can't compromise. Where I dowish and hope for more grace,
though, is that once the oncethe break happens once the lack
of compromise has beenestablished, and people go ways,
and sometimes split institutionsare lose jobs, and we can
recognize, that's really hard,that's really painful, the
stakes are high. And yet, weshould still be able to treat
(27:33):
the people on the other side ofthat split with some kind of
grace and kindness. I mean, theyare still not only image
bearers, but they're still alsooften claiming the name of
Christ, they're there, doesn'tmean we're going to be able to
worship with them in the sameway. But we have to be, we have
to demonstrate a kind of empathyand kindness to them for their
(27:54):
sake, but also for the sake ofeveryone else who's watching us
squabble internally, about thesethings.
Joshua Johnson (28:01):
Let's get out.
I'd love for you to give, givean example of a policy or
something that is, we have a lotof disagreement on and division.
And then walk us through how wecan have a conversation and have
empathy on both sides. figureout, hey, where where can we we
go one way, where can we goanother way and start to walk
(28:23):
forward together, maybe to finda solution to some of these big
problems that we have, that wehave really a polarized opinions
on either side? Yeah.
John Inazu (28:38):
So I'll give you an example that I talked about in
the book. And it's actually Ithink it illustrates a basically
a no compromise example, but wecan talk about the posture of
engagement. So one of the casesI have discussed is that
Colorado case about the the gaywedding and the cake baker and
the Bible, Christian cake bakerby conscience says, I can't bake
(29:00):
this for your wedding, I'll bakethe cake for another
celebration, your birthday orwhatever, but I can't do it for
your wedding. And the couplesays, We want you to bake the
cake for this the wedding, weknow we're just buying a cake
from your store. We have a rightto commerce. And so this goes to
the courts and and eventually,you know, for complicated
reasons goes up to the USSupreme Court and the Supreme
(29:22):
Court says no, the, in thiscase, at least the baker doesn't
have to bake the cake. They'rethe couple can go get the cake
from another restaurant. So interms of how to think through
that disagreement, I and I thinkthis takes us back first to
empathy. This is the hard case.
These are These are real people.
And this is a complex case. Andwhen I watched the news coverage
(29:43):
of this case, as it unfolded,neither side made it sound like
a hard case. Right? It was itwas if you were for the baker,
and the couple was just makingit up and you know they were
they were just activists out tostir up trouble. And if you were
for the couple then the Bakerwas just a big Couldn't Perth
possibly have a sincerereligious belief? And it's
(30:04):
pretty clear to me that on theground, these are all of these
human beings actually deeplycared about what they were
doing. And they fit with theyfelt experiences and had these
interpersonal connections andlosses. And it's a hard
question. And maybe it's evenharder because of local
differences. So maybe in Denver,where this case actually
(30:24):
happened, and there, therehappened to be 10 Other bakeries
down the street that would havebaked the cake. That's one
thing. But if you were in partsof if you were in a small town
in the rural south, where theremight be one bakery, and the
couple wouldn't have anywhereelse to go, that could be a very
different circumstance. And thenwe can disagree about that, you
know, we could we could say,from either direction, no, there
(30:45):
should be an absolute rule onone side or the other in our
country, you know, with withsome help from the Supreme
Court, and state and federallegislatures will sort this out
over time. It might not get toan arrangement that that anyone
in particular likes at any giventime. But I think it we start
from the humanity of the people,and the complexity of the
(31:07):
situation that we get at leastrecognize why this is hard, and
why the, the solution is notgoing to satisfy everyone. And
then we can also say, Well,maybe other context matters,
right? Maybe a cake is onething. But a pastor or wedding
singer is something else, andmaybe a Marriott hotel or
something else. And I think ifwe take the time to think
(31:30):
through the difficulty of this,then we can at least realize
that it's not, it's not alwaysas cut and dry. Sometimes the
pundants make it out to be.
Joshua Johnson (31:40):
I mean, that's a that's a great example, because
that's a difficult decision. Butyou're in America, you know,
let's we go back into law,you're you're looking at
personal cases with with humansthat have all sorts of emotion
on on either side that want somebeliefs. And then if it goes to
(32:04):
the Supreme Court, or even inlower courts, there's, there's a
precedent that set, right. Andso a lot of times people look
back on the precedent, and thatwas set with a decision, and,
and something that that peopleare disagreeing on. And then we
go back and say, Okay, that'swhat it's going to be like, from
(32:26):
now on. And it'll be easy for usto make this decision. So
sometimes that actually helpssolve some systemic problems,
but sometimes, it muddles it.
How, what is the role ofprecedent in law in solving some
of these disagreements that wehave?
John Inazu (32:48):
Yeah, as you were talking, I was thinking, Oh, we
probably need a semester longseminar in jurisprudence to
answer that. I'll do my best atthis.
Joshua Johnson (32:58):
For someone who's never gone to law school,
I need I need something.
John Inazu (33:01):
Yeah. Question. And I think, you know, I think the
answer is, precedent iscomplicated. And it's neither.
It's neither absolutelypredictable, nor all made up.
Right. And we actually havepeople in society and people in
law who want to push for eitherextreme, some people say you're
(33:22):
just making it up, there is nolaw, the Supreme Court does what
its want wants, I don't believethat's true. It's also not true,
that precedent lays out exactlywhat the answer is going to be.
Or the judges can just read theprecedent and know by the very
nature of what we're doing inthe law, is setting up facts and
law together in a way that triesto solve problems, and then a
(33:42):
new problem, or a new variationof the problem comes along. And
then judges and lawyers have tofigure out well, is this close
enough to what just happened?
That we agree with it or not? Orand then this makes it even work
out blacks? Or is this decision,this precedent that we made? Was
it was it just raw, right was?
Was it wrong to say that racialsegregation was okay, at one
(34:03):
time in our country's history?
Yes. Well, why we have to lookback and say that some
precedents work and some don'twork. And then and then some
apply to certain situations andnot others. That's why lawyers
get paid a lot of money is tofigure this stuff out. But I
think, you know, underlyingthis, this point is, it's really
important to believe insomething called the practice of
(34:24):
law, meaning that legaldecisions stand in as an
alternative to pure politics, oras I mentioned earlier, just
totally anarchy. And there arelots of people who want to give
up on that and say, No, this isjust a big political game. I
don't think that's true at all.
I think law matters, I thinkgood lawyering and good judging
matters. It doesn't mean thatthese imperfect human beings are
(34:48):
always going to get it right.
And it also doesn't preclude theraw political actors. So yes,
there are judges and legislatorsand others who are just being
political but but overallThere's something called law
that works through precedentthat people go to law school and
are licensed to practice law andare subject to malpractice
requirements in order to keepdoing the thing that we're
(35:11):
doing. And and I think, youknow, it's easy. I know, for
people who aren't lawyers to getvery frustrated when they read
about, you know, a couple ofcases that don't go the way they
would have liked or they don'tunderstand. But when you look at
the entire apparatus of the law,now hundreds and 1000s of cases
that are unfolding each yearthat hold the country together,
and very ordinary and verycomplex ways. I think it's I'm
(35:35):
really grateful to be part ofthat. That happened.
Joshua Johnson (35:39):
Yeah. Yeah, I think it was important. I think
as as believers as Christiansthat want to follow the way of
Jesus that want to be faithfulto Jesus, one of the things that
he does really well, is heushers in justice, and the US
ushers in justice for the poor,the marginalized, neglected
people, people that have been onthe outside of society, and he
(36:04):
wants to bring them in. And he'sreally easy for all people. And
so how does, how does law andthis conversation that we're
having about civildisagreements, how does the role
of Jesus and justice enter in asa person of faith?
John Inazu (36:25):
Yeah, I think I think for, for Christians to be
able to point to Jesus and thecross and the resurrection, as
ultimate justice that transcendsour worldly interactions.
That's, I mean, when we thinkabout what that actually means,
that's incredibly powerful. Andit's actually it's a not just a
(36:48):
difference in degree it's adifference in kind of any sort
of worldly justice. So worldlyjustice, at best is proximate
justice. Right, though the thekind of justice that can be
meted out by people or judges orpolice officers, or prison
officials is always going to beimperfect, you know, when when
you are I experience a deepwrong in this world at the hands
(37:11):
of another human being. There'sno way that wrong is ever fully
remedied. There's there's abreach in the cosmos of the
universe and you know, forever.
The this is this is really easyto think about when you think
about kind of a bodily harm or amurder or something. But it's
true with any kind of injusticewhen that when that injustice
occurs, there is no justice.
(37:33):
There's there's proximatejustice, there's a kind of fine
or punitive measure that can bebe given out, but it's not going
to bring full justice. And sowhat does that where does that
leave us? Well, as Christians,it leaves us with the
possibility of forgiveness. Andforgiveness can be that one
(37:54):
human act, we can actually takeunilaterally that ends the cycle
of vengeance, and that frees usfrom the injustice that has been
done. That doesn't make it easy.
But it's it's a, it's apossibility that that should
just give us tremendous hope.
And then alongside forgiveness,and for Christians, I think
inseparable from forgiveness isrecognizing that oh, there is
(38:16):
this, this final justice and weare headed for a big J. Justice,
we're the created order isreconciled. And we hold out that
hope even knowing now that we'rejust going to experience
imperfect examples of that inour own world and alliances.
Joshua Johnson (38:34):
So how do you not lose hope, knowing that we
only have proximate justice onEarth, that we're going to
continue with a whole sorts of,of evil and disagreements and a
back and forth, and there'sgoing to be some little J
justice, but not all of it,until the consummation, how do
(38:57):
we continue with hope that wecan live in a society where we
do see some foretaste of thecoming Kingdom of God? And it's,
there's some beauty at it. Yeah,well, I
John Inazu (39:11):
think you just answered the question in which
we see, we see an experience offoretaste. And we do that in all
kinds of ways with other andworship. Why by recognizing the
presence of God in our lives bylooking at the created order by
looking at even my friend JamieSmith recently said this to me,
and it's stuck the idea that wewe look for beauty and
(39:32):
unexpected places, right? And wecan see God's presence, even in
the midst of just awfulcircumstances, when we see that
we are testifying to that hopethat is beyond us even a point
of despair. And then I think wewe recognize and remind each
other that we are part of a verylong story that is going to
(39:52):
unfold over many generations andcertainly past our own lifetimes
and I think that helps us mainlytain hope in the midst of
imperfect and proximate justicebecause we look at examples from
Scripture, we look at the Jewsin Babylon and exile and the
promise is not, you know, inyour lifetime, everything's
(40:15):
going to work out and you willfind justice and peace it is
settle into this place that'sreally hard, raise children, how
them raise children, befaithful, love your neighbors,
and sometime along the way, Iwill rescue you. That's a that's
a very hopeful message. But it'snot a hope that is limited to
(40:36):
you or me as individual people,it says a promise of hope to, to
a people embedded in a story.
And I think that's how we wecling to that hope.
Joshua Johnson (40:46):
That's beautiful. That's wonderful. I
love that. And so good. So if wewant to start to engage in
disagreement with others out, Ijust want to note for us as, as
people how to what posture do wetake? What are helpful postures
for us, practically? Yeah, I
John Inazu (41:06):
mean, so one is just curious, right? Kind of
engagement that the wants tolearn. Even I mean, I've found
in my own life, that almosteverybody has somebody that
teach me even the person is theleast informed or the most
annoying that if I listened welland ask good questions, I can, I
(41:26):
can learn something. So postureof curiosity, a posture of
patience that is willing to askfollow up questions. And here, I
think a very practical point is,if you find yourself wanting to
pursue an issue, or a set ofissues across disagreement with
the real desire of learning andtrying to gain empathy, and the
(41:49):
one of the best ways to do thisis to split it up in in
different conversations overtime, so have it so conversation
with a commitment to come backin a week or in two weeks,
rather, because what that doesis it gives both you and the
other person an opportunity toreflect on what's been said, you
don't feel like you have to winthe argument in one sitting or
(42:10):
squeeze it all in. And you couldeven go back and you know, say,
Well, you know, I actually neverthought of that point or that
idea. And I'm going to do somereading about it just to be
better informed. And so thatthat posture of patience, and
the willingness to commit to arelationship. And then I think,
you know, going back to a pointwe made earlier is thick skin is
(42:32):
probably not the right term, butsomething like that, where we
take some we can we can be readyto receive some imperfect or
offensive comments withoutimmediately going on the
defensive or immediately jumpingon that person. And, you know, I
found sometimes when I, I don'talways do this perfectly, but
when I am in situations where Ido that, and I can kind of hang
(42:53):
in there with the conversation,right? Sometimes I find out oh,
actually, this is a little morenuanced than I thought, or this
person didn't quite mean thator, I mean, we'll get someone to
recognize that the unqualifiedoverclaim statement was not
actually what they meant, andthey actually meant something
different.
Joshua Johnson (43:11):
Can you give us a tip or two to engage in social
media in a way that that doessome of this? Because I know
nuance is really hard and socialmedia, he didn't say get off of
John Inazu (43:23):
it. Alright. Yeah.
It is really hard. So I think,you know, really like, frankly,
I think the best social mediatip I can give is to draft
responses that you don'tactually send me actually write
them out, you know, your ownkind of witty, snarky retort,
whatever it is, or you're,you're like expressing your
deeply held view aboutsomething, write it out, don't
(43:44):
send it, just leave it in a filefor at least a day. Wait at
least a day. Now, sometimessocial media makes you think,
well, if I don't respond in fiveminutes, I missed the
conversation. Not right youdon't waiting, wait a day or
half a day is not going tomarginalize your voice. So write
it out way. And then And thenask yourself, Is this really as
important as I thought it was?
(44:08):
So for me one of the best movesI've done recently, in the last
few years, as I started a coupleof years ago, a weekly substack
newsletter. And what that didpractically for me, it meant I
was less engaged and on Twitterand other social media. But what
it meant is when I when I cameacross something on social media
that really bugged me or Ithought was super important, I
(44:30):
would just put it in a file. Andthen wait until I was ready to
write my weekly newsletter. Andif it was really that important,
I would then spend a bunch oftime thinking through it and
making the point and, and ninetimes out of 10 or 19 out of 20
Turned out that a couple dayslater. It wasn't really that
important.
Joshua Johnson (44:49):
That's so good.
Well, let's, what's one hope youhave for your readers? What do
you want them to get from thisbook? Yeah, I mean, you know, I
John Inazu (44:58):
hope that I wrote it in a way that is engaging so
that people will feel likethey're learning something. But
also it's entertaining that thelaugh a couple times that
they'll be frustrated, they'llpause. So I hope it's the kind
of book that can both challengesubstantively but also engage
and captivate the reader. Yeah,
Joshua Johnson (45:17):
I think you did a good job there. I, I was
laughing. I was learning. It wasa fantastic read. So I think you
did phenomenally. I'm reallyexcited for people to start to
engage it. And hopefully, we canlearn how to disagree and have
these, these postures of, ofhumility and learning and
curiosity, and that we can havediscussions and even disagree
(45:40):
and continue to move forwardtogether and see that there is
an image bearer in front of me.
It's really, really good. I havea couple of questions for you,
John one, if you go back to your21 year old self, what advice
would you give? And
John Inazu (45:54):
I love that question. I think, you know, I
mean, especially speaking as aChristian, I think it would just
be to not overthink, where lifewill take, because you actually
can't game it out. And you can'thave a plan for the next 20
years of your life to sort of befaithful in the little steps.
(46:17):
But to hold it loosely. And Iwhen I talk to students who are
21 That's sort of the advice Iget, but you know, you know,
some things you're called totoday. But But, but you don't
actually know where you're goingto be in 20 or 30 years. So
don't hold that a little moreloosely, I
Joshua Johnson (46:34):
think. Yeah, that's really good, good advice,
anything you've been reading orwatching lately, you could
recommend. And
John Inazu (46:43):
I'm actually getting ready to go to Kenya in a couple
of days. And so I've beenreading up on the Kenyan
constitution, but I don't thinkthey would recommend. It's
probably not the exact pointhere. But I will say I've
recently read a book on faithand politics by my friend
(47:04):
Michael ware. And thought thatwas a you know, he built on
Dallas Willard. And I think the,the, for those people who are
interested in politics andpolitical engagement, that
spiritual practices andChristian community seemed
really, really important. comesto mind. Excellent.
Joshua Johnson (47:23):
So the spirit of our politics by Michael, where
Michael will be on the shiftingculture on the podcast, just a
couple of weeks from thisconversation as it drops. So
that'll be be great. Maybe youlisten back to back, it will be
good for you. How can peopleconnect with you, John, go out,
get your book learning todisagree? And where would you
(47:46):
like to point people to? Yeah,
John Inazu (47:48):
thanks so much. So I mean, we'd love for people to
engage with the book if they'reinterested. I also do have that
that free weekly, substack, Johnand aza@substack.com. And I've
got a website, John andozzy.com, that has quite a bit
of information about what I doand where I go and what I teach.
Joshua Johnson (48:04):
Awesome. Well, John, thank you for this
conversation. It was, I think itwas unnecessary. It's needed in
our day and age that we need tofigure out how to disagree with
one another how to engage inconversation, I think it's a,
we've lost some of this. And sowe need to regain the ability to
do that. And so I really enjoyedyour book. And I hope they go
(48:27):
out. They get it, they learn,and they practice with one
another. So practice with somepeople that are that are safe at
the beginning. And so because Ithink if we do practice, we get
better at it over time. And Ithink for for people like you as
we, we need some examples, thatpeople can be an example that we
(48:50):
can have disagreements, and wecould still be together and move
forward together. And so, yes, Ihope this is one of them. And
one good example for people totake so thank you for your work.
Thank you for this conversation.
It was fantastic. It was crazywith you. Thanks
John Inazu (49:07):
so much, Joshua.
Thanks.
The very first starting point of any
(00:02):
conversation or anyrelationship, or any
disagreement should be sittingacross from me as an image
bearer. And that raised the barquite a bit. I mean, it's not
it's not it's not sort ofoptional, or some people are
image bearers and some aren't.
It's this person across me is animage bearer. And that's a very
profound statement about notjust human beings, but the
created order as we look atanother person and when what
(00:23):
what that asks us to do. So thatshould I think, always be our
first posture. And then we thenwe have to say, Well, what do we
do from there?
Joshua Johnson (00:46):
Hello, and welcome to the shifting culture
podcast in which we haveconversations about the culture
we create, and the impact we canmake. We longed to see the body
of Christ look like Jesus. I'myour host, Joshua Johnson. Go to
shifting culture podcast.com tointeract and donate. And don't
forget to hit the Follow buttonon your favorite podcast app to
be notified when new episodescome out each week, and go leave
(01:08):
a rating and review. It's easy.
It only takes a second and ithelps us find new listeners to
the show. Just go to the Showpage on the app that you're
using right now and hit fivestars. It really is that easy.
Thank you so much. You know whatelse would help us out? share
this podcast with your friends,your family, your network, tell
them how much you enjoy it andlet them know that they should
(01:28):
be listening as well. If you'renew here, welcome. If you want
to dig deeper find us on socialmedia at shifting culture
podcast, where I post videoclips and quotes and interact
with all of you. My previousguests on the show have included
John art Scot McKnight and Seanappel green. You can go back
listen to those episodes andmore. But today's guest is John
and Ozzie Jonathan Aza is theauthor of learning to disagree
(01:50):
the surprising path tonavigating differences with
empathy and respect. He is theSally de Danforth distinguished
professor of law and religion atWashington University in St.
Louis. He teaches criminal law,law and religion and various
First Amendment courses. Hewrites and speaks frequently
about pluralism, assembly, freespeech, religious freedom, and
(02:11):
other issues. He is the founderof the Carver project and the
legal vocation fellowship. Andas a Senior Fellow with
interfaith America, John and Ihave a great discussion about
learning how to disagreecivilly, we talk about the
importance of seeing others asimage bearers of God, developing
empathy, even for those wedisagree with disagree,
(02:33):
distinguishing facts fromjudgments and finding common
ground. John gave great examplesof disagreeing respectfully from
his legal and interfaith work.
The postures of curiosity,patience, and commitment to
relationships over time arecrucial to this conversation.
Join us as we learn how todisagree, hear one another and
(02:55):
walk forward gracefully. Here'smy conversation with John and
OSU. John, welcome to shiftingculture. Really excited to have
you on. Thank you so much forjoining me,
John Inazu (03:07):
Joshua. Thanks so much. It's great to be with you.
Joshua Johnson (03:09):
Yeah, I'd love to have an introduction to you.
Where are you coming from? Onething that I know is that you
have done some of yourschoolwork both at Duke and
North Carolina. So if we'retalking about learning how to
disagree, as seems like there'sa disagreement probably within
your, your, your soul and yourbody, when Duke in North
(03:30):
Carolina start to engage in inbasketball or anything else. How
do you how do you disagree withyourself? Like, what? What's
going on? Yeah.
John Inazu (03:41):
The various astute observations off here that I
have tremendous respect for bothacademic institutions. They've
got Oh, there you go. Now, whenit comes to sports, I'm
definitely a Blue Devil art. Andall right, I spent actually some
time during graduate school,tormenting UNC undergraduates
with pictures of Duke basketballplayers. So sometimes I disagree
(04:02):
by using power coercive tactics.
Joshua Johnson (04:07):
That's great.
Well, my wife went to WakeForest. And so there's another
disagreement right there. Yeah,but there's some great
institutions there. Now, youhave made a career in in law.
And now as a law professor atWashington University, what I
mean law has a lot to teach usto do with with arguments and
persuasive speech. Does it haveanything to teach us to do with
(04:34):
coming together and being ableto disagree and moving forward
on the same page? Is thatpossible? Yeah. Well, I
John Inazu (04:44):
hope so. I mean, that's sort of one of the points
behind the book is to make thatcase to the average person who's
not in law school at law,actually is really helpful. And
I actually think that we canthink of the son to at least two
levels, one is on a very heavy,serious level. Law is the
opposite of an uncheckedviolence. And so we live in a
(05:06):
lot of society for a reason. Andthat's a really good thing,
because the the opposite of lawis chaos or anarchy and
violence. So even, you know,whatever we might think about
the imperfections of our legalsystem, and there are many, we
should probably recognize thathaving a structure of law in
place is at root, a very goodthing. And so that's, that's one
way we can think about how lawhelps with disagreement. But I'm
(05:28):
actually interested in a muchmore sort of down to Earth on
the ground way that law helps usdisagree. And this is the way in
which some, some tactics,strategies and habits that we
learn and teach in law schoolcan be useful in applied to
everyday situations so that yourco workers or your neighbors, or
(05:49):
maybe even family members whostruggle with this disagreement
can learn some postures that weexperienced in law school, I can
help all kinds of everydayrelationships. And that's where
a lot of this book is focused.
Joshua Johnson (06:02):
Well, I think it's a timely topic, it's a
needed topic, especially inAmerica, we have gone through a
couple of really contentiouselection cycles, probably have
another one this year. That, youknow, even within the church,
people decided to say, Idisagree politically, so we
(06:22):
can't worship together, whereI'm gonna go worship somewhere
else. We have a Protestant faithwhere there's 47,000 different
denominations. And all of themwere based mostly on an
disagreement of saying, Idisagree with you in this, we're
going to set up a newdenomination that has all the
(06:43):
right things, and so we canstart to work together. So
there's polarization, there'sdivision, because of our
disagreements, why do you thinkit's important that we start to
learn how to have disagreements?
Well, so we don't just stop theconversation, and go into our
(07:04):
silos so that we feel morecomfortable? Yeah, I
John Inazu (07:11):
really, I really like how you said that question,
because what it points to is notjust our present polarization,
but the fact that we've had lotsof splits in the past, are they
the descriptive reality ofAmerican Protestantism testifies
to a lot of disagreements overtime denominations split over
slavery in the Civil War, overwomen's ordination, all kinds of
(07:33):
things in this country, thatleads us to the plurality of
denominations we have. And ofcourse, politically, we've had
lots of really hard seasons inour country's past, we've had
massive labor violence andunrest in the 1960s, and all
kinds of other examples. So insome ways, polarization isn't
new, both in and out of thechurch. And we've had, you know,
(07:56):
every generation has gonethrough really hard challenges
where people line up ondifferent sides of an issue and
think I can't believe thesepeople I trusted. This group, I
was part of this churchcommunity, I thought was a
family is somehow fractured, inmany cases, irreverent,
irrevocably, over really hardissues. What what makes it
(08:17):
different today? Well, I think acouple of factors. One, I think
there's a growing sense of theconnectedness between for
Christians, especially these,these differences in church that
are aligning with political andparty differences, and how that
is coming more and more intoplay for a lot of people. And
the other thing that seems verynew is the presence of social
(08:40):
media, the past polarization, itjust couldn't spread as quickly
and holistically as I can today,you know, any, anytime you are I
jump online to read something,and things can go viral in a
matter of minutes. And we'reincreasingly sorting into
different preferred news sourcesand social media channels. And
(09:02):
all of this means I think,again, the polarization itself
may not be that different, butthe way that we consume it and
experience it feels like it'sjust everywhere all the time. I
sometimes think like, you know,probably when you and I were
growing up, we got the news, atmost, twice a day, the morning
paper, you know, as I washeading off to school, and then
maybe if I'm home in time, Icatch the evening news. And you
(09:24):
know, there were still seriousissues of disagreement and
really hard issues going on. Butmost of the rest of the day, I
wasn't really thinking aboutthem. I was living the rest of
my life. And now for a lot ofpeople sitting at the workplace
or checking their phones. It'sjust this constant barrage of
here's the latest breaking news.
And here's reinforcing yourpriors about those people or our
team. And that just happens overand over again, day in and day
(09:48):
out. And I think it's, it's notsurprising that that really in
trenches are felt differences.
We
Joshua Johnson (09:54):
go into different camps of news camps,
where it's really They had it'sreally more opinion than the
news. There's like, hey, thishappened. Here's our opinion on
it. And here's somebody else'sopinion on it. How can we start
to even engage the news whenopinions are coming at us all
(10:16):
the time right away? And we justdon't even know what the context
is.
John Inazu (10:23):
Yeah, this is where another I think that just the
basic architecture of wall canbe helpful. So law often,
whether it's in a case that'sreported, or a judicial decision
or teaching in a classroom,lawyers and law students divide
up the world into facts andjudgments. And it's a very
useful and helpful first orderdistinction to say there are
some facts of the world that arenot opinions is today, Monday,
(10:47):
right? Is it 75 degrees outsidewherever it's not 75 Here, but
where, wherever it is, or ifthey're observable facts of the
world. And sometimes those getcontested? You know, we could
say, you know, did you make didyou make the filing on time, and
maybe on time as a contestant,but those are much different
than judgments judgments occurwhen, for example, there's a
(11:09):
homicide. And there's a questionof whether that homicide is self
defense, and that legal judgmentof self defense, which one side
might say is obviously correct,another might say, is obviously
wrong. Those are inevitably aform of opinion, tied up in
decision making an authority andall kinds of things. And then
you and I make all kinds ofopinions, and the rest of our
(11:29):
lives, right? Do we think thatsermon was good or appropriate
or boring, or it is that personkind or evil, and, and those are
inevitably, somewhat subjectdevised opinions. But I think in
today's culture, it's especiallyimportant and useful to
distinguish those buckets and tosay, at the end of the day,
there are facts of the world andwe should be able to talk about
(11:50):
facts and hold each other toaccount of actual facts. As
Joshua Johnson (11:55):
you get into your book, the very first thing
that you get into is how do welearn empathy? Is your your
question. And I think empathy isthe perfect place to start. When
we have disagreements, we haveto see somebody as human. What
are ways that we can start toengage with disagreements and
(12:16):
have empathy for the person? Orthe people that we're
disagreeing with?
John Inazu (12:21):
Yeah. So I mean, I think, especially for
Christians, the very firststarting point of any
conversation, or anyrelationship, or any
disagreement should be sittingacross from me as an image
bearer. And that raises the barquite a bit. I mean, it's not
it's not it's not sort ofoptional, or some people are
image bearers, and some aren't.
It's this person across me is animage bearer. And that's a very
profound statement about notjust human beings, but the
(12:45):
created order as we look atanother person, and when what
what that asks us to do. So thatshould I think, always be our
first posture. And then we thenwe have to say, Well, what do we
do from there? When it's reallyhard? And I might be able to
say, cognitively, yes, this isan image barrier, but I really
don't like person in there, Ithink we can rely on a couple of
tools. I mean, they're just sortof everyday practices, like, can
(13:08):
we listen? Well? Can we bepatient with another person? And
then we also have the fruits ofthe Spirit to guide us by kit?
Can we, you know, in, in relyingon the fruits of the Spirit, can
we demonstrate? Can wedemonstrate these these ways of
engaging with the person acrossfrom us. And then finally,
(13:28):
maybe, that the most practicalor ordinary level, but also
really important is just findingeveryday common ground
connection points. This is why Ithink food is so great, you
know, sharing a meal on one canreally go a long way to, to ease
or break some barriers, talkhaving having normal
(13:49):
conversation. So if you'regonna, if you're gonna jump into
a really hard area ofdisagreement, one way to gain
empathy first is to start withcommon connections that don't
don't revolve around thatdisagreement. Find out something
you have in common, or do anactivity together in common
before bed. And so I these are,some of these ideas seem kind of
(14:11):
basic, but they're very hard toput into practice. And we have
to be aware of them as wepractice.
Joshua Johnson (14:19):
But it seems to me that if we have empathy, but
the person that we're talking todoesn't have empathy, across,
it's going to be still a reallydifficult conversation. How do
we start to engage in placeswhere it is empathy on one side,
but not the other?
John Inazu (14:37):
Yeah. And so I mean, they again, here's where I think
Christians have just such abounty of resources to draw up
on so in some ways, the ways inwhich we're asked to engage with
other people aren't reallyconditional and how those people
treat us love your patient tothose around you. Right. And
that's so that's part of theanswer is, even if if our empty
(15:00):
He has not reciprocated that. Socalled to love and be kind. But
I think there might be anotherway to get at this, which is,
which is to say, if we're verysecure in who we are, what we
believe why we're in this world,we should actually be able to
take a few hits. And when whenpeople treat us without empathy
or caricature us or say unfairthings, doesn't mean that we
(15:24):
should let every outrageousclaim or every mistaken comment
go unchallenged. I mean, I thinkthere's a real importance of
speaking truth and justice inthe world. But on an individual
level, if we can conditionourselves, just to take less
offense less quickly, and to beable to hang in there and think
you know what? I didn't like theway you said that to me, or I
(15:46):
think you're wrong in yourcharacterization, but instead of
immediately getting defensive orreactive, maybe I'll just say,
Well, can we complicate that abit? Or can we unpack that
claim? And I think to encouragecontinued dialogue, even when
we're not receiving empathy fromthe other side is one way, not
only how we effectively engagewith other people, but it's also
(16:07):
I think, an important form ofwitness? Yes,
Joshua Johnson (16:11):
I think it is important to be that witness,
and to start to figure out howdo we love our enemies? How do
we embody Jesus in ourconversations? What does it look
like to be like Jesus, you know,when Jesus called us to love our
enemies, he said, at the end ofthat sermon, if you hear these
words of mine, and you put theminto practice, you're going to
(16:31):
be like the wise builder whobuilds his house on the rock.
And that's going to take us along way, if we put those things
into practice. A lot of times wewe move into the disagreement in
the the dialogue world, right,so we're trying to dialogue with
people. But some people say,Okay, we've had enough
(16:53):
conversation about this. How canwe go from dialogue into action,
and to practically see that wecould still be together and walk
forward, even while we disagree,not as the practical application
(17:13):
of these conversations. So
John Inazu (17:15):
a couple of things there. One is 111 Useful
consequence of recognizing thatwe live in an imperfect and
fallen world means that in apolitical, legal and policy
realms, we should expect, lessthan everyone being happy, we
should just know that's going tobe a fact of the world and most
(17:35):
political solutions, most legalsolutions in our country where
there's lots of difference, aregoing to have winners and
losers. And we might someday beamong the winners. And we might
someday be along among thelosers, restore the call to be
citizens and neighbors. And soone way to practically is to
recognize I mean, it's always isit's a tragic dimension of
(17:56):
living together with other humanbeings in a fallen world, which
is that we will not always besatisfied. And yet, we're still
called to engage productively ascitizens. And maybe sometimes
that means we engage by tryingto undo a policy or to push for
change in a way that that stillloves the people around us. But
I also think there's anotherdimension to this, and this is
(18:18):
maybe what you were suggestingin your question, which is to
say that, in the real world,we're going to have to partner
with a lot of people who don'tagree with us on everything.
It's the essence of findingcommon ground and way that
actual policy happened. And ifwe, if we really mean it, when
we say we love our neighbors,that also means we're going to
(18:39):
have to love our neighbor aswell with people who aren't
Christians, with people whodon't believe in any form of God
with people who are sometimesvery opposed to us on certain
legal and policy positions. Butwe when we find those areas of
common ground, you know, if atthe end of the day, the question
is, how do we get how do westack sandbags in a flood zone?
Or how do we get food to kidswho don't have it, then we
(19:02):
should be doing that work withwith anyone who's one gardener
rather than sort of doing adoctrinal test with them or
worried about how it might lookto be seen with them. And I
think they're actually, when wereally get down to the, the
local and how we care for thesocial fabric around us. There
are just an almost unendingnumber of opportunities and
(19:23):
examples where we can partnerwith people who are different
than us, put our words intoaction, and not compromise who
we are what we believe, but justfind common ground. I
Joshua Johnson (19:33):
lived in the Middle East and I sat in a lot
of Muslim living rooms, had lotsof discussions over a meal and
found a lot of common ground.
And, of course, my I had anobjective I wanted to point them
to Jesus and say, the way ofJesus is the way that brings
life and flourishing. But I wasstill able to sit and when they
(19:54):
got I don't believe any of that.
And see Either we have a lot ofcommon ground, we could have
conversation and civilconversation, and we don't have
to be angry at one another, wehave a difference of beliefs,
that how important is it, I knowthat you have done a lot of
(20:16):
interfaith work as well, thatyou have been, you know, friends
and walking side by side, withMuslims with Muslims and
Christians together? How do wehow do you go into that space?
Know that you havedisagreements, even in belief
systems, but still working for acommon cause? Together?
John Inazu (20:37):
Yeah, you know, and I think, knowing what you
believe, because I think when,when you're clear about what you
believe, it makes it easier toknow where the boundaries are.
So with my Muslim friends, thereare a whole lot of things that I
will do with them. And there aresome things I want to I don't, I
won't pray with them together.
But we can, we can do a lot ofgood in the world together. And
(20:58):
I don't feel I don't feel athreat at all. But I also, and I
think you kind of alluded tothis in your question with your
own examples. These are, theseare not sort of instrumental
friendships, they are realfriendships. And at the end of
the day, what matters deeply tome is that Eboo Patel is my
friend, and he's going to callme when he's hurting, or when
(21:22):
I'm hurting, and we still havevery significant disagreements
about really matter, but he's afriend and, and we can partner
effectively and well, but it'sthe friendship that is that, or
it's a trust, and you can'treally fake that. And I think,
you know, sometimes in some, Ithink especially in the 1990s,
(21:43):
there were some sort of missioncontext or training that
suggested this kind offriendship evangelism that was
really kind of an instrumentaluse of friendship. And I think
that's a very effective way tobe embedded in people's lives.
So
Joshua Johnson (21:59):
this is there's a few things, you know, when I
was a missionary in the MiddleEast, it was really easy for me
to, to work side by side withother missionaries from
different organizations, onesthat have different approaches
than we do. Even though wedisagreed on a lot of different
things were like, there's somepractical needs on the ground
that we need to work together.
But when I now step back, and asa executive of an organization,
(22:23):
working together with otherorganizations, I have some other
things that I have to worryabout after worry about our our
own donors, and we have allsorts of different competing
things, it's harder to worktogether at a higher level, that
it is on the ground, I think allthe grounds, it's really is
(22:44):
almost easier. And it's a goodexample that we could say on the
ground, you could do it, but howdo we move it up the ladder a
little bit and haveorganizations or work together
and disagree, but still movetowards a common purpose?
John Inazu (23:03):
Yeah, so this is, this is such a great case study.
I'm really glad you brought itup. I think that the
institutional question is soimportant right now. And it's
actually the cause of a lot ofthe pressure and fracturing
we're feeling within Christiancommunities institutions. And I
think part of the answer is,when you are clear on what your
(23:24):
purpose is, then your variousconstituents should be on board
to support the port purpose, or,you know, there are lots of
other organizations to join outthere. But your purpose is your
boundaries. And when you have aninstitutional purpose, that
should tell you the parameterswithin which you can play and
partner and cooperate. And we'llset some lines to write so
(23:44):
you're not going to be able todo everything with everyone, but
but the key I think, is to beable to articulate what the
purpose is. And then make surethat everyone from your board on
down is committed to thatpurpose. And sometimes that
means that someone who mightdisagree with what the
organization is doing, but ifyou're committed to it, and what
our role as a board a donor andexecutive, sort of on the ground
(24:07):
employee, you are committed toputting the good of the
organization above yourdisagreements. And if you're not
able to do that, and it there'snot necessarily a right or wrong
answer here. The only wronganswer, I think, is if you hold
on to the institution, withoutan actual commitment to what
it's doing. Right. So probablyat the end of the day, the best
(24:28):
answer for some donors is tosay, you're not really on board
with this mission, right? YouYou were too much in conflict
and you should be givingelsewhere we should not be
taking your money. And this is,you know, when the when the
rubber hits the road or when thedollar has actually come out.
That's a very hard line to walkbut I think it's the right line.
And I think over time, that kindof clarity, which is an
(24:49):
expressive clarity, but also arelational clarity that will
help organizations be healthier,and help them cooperate in a
more healthy and authenticmanner than Always trying to do
this dance of who's thinkingwide? And how can we hold on to
this group while we are overhere, it doesn't make it easy,
but I think it sets theparameters of how we ought to be
(25:09):
engaging.
Joshua Johnson (25:10):
You talk a little bit in your book here, we
talked about compromise. I thinksometimes compromise can be
healthy. Sometimes you'recompromising some values. What
happens when you can't go? Asfar as the person that you're
talking to you or the the peoplethat you're talking to want you
to go, that you actually have avalue you have a c&c or belief
(25:34):
or something we say, I can'tactually compromise on that.
What does that look like inthose, that tension?
John Inazu (25:42):
Yeah. And so this takes me back to an earlier
point in our conversation, whereI just think a fact of the world
a world of difference. Anddiversity means that we are
going to have really hard issueswhere we can compromise there
are, you know, when you thinkabout lots of national policy
questions, it's not like you cantake one extreme and another
(26:02):
extreme and just kind of find ahappy middle ground and call it
a very often it's going to be,this is legal, or this is
illegal, or we're going topursue this as a country or not
pursue it and, and when you'rein those situations, as an
individual or an organizationthat you there'll be times when
you use it, you have to say, Ican't be on board with that
partnership, or that kind ofcompromise. And so you've got to
(26:25):
step out of whatever arrangementor partnership you were in. And
that might be very costly. Now,in stepping out, and I'm now
thinking about, you know, whenwe think about the landscape of
American Protestantism, lots offracture, and fissure, whether
it's the United MethodistChurch, or the Episcopal Church,
and the angle of cancer, we canname any number of splits, come
or are coming. And those are allexamples where different groups
(26:49):
of people have said, we can'tcompromise on this issue. This
is too Central, this is toocore. And there are, you know,
as you mentioned, 10s of 1000sof tragic splits within our
Protestant heritage, that kindof bear witness to this, this
phenomenon. And I think, youknow, sometimes these splits are
inevitable because this stuffdoes matter. And sometimes you
(27:11):
can't compromise. Where I dowish and hope for more grace,
though, is that once the oncethe break happens once the lack
of compromise has beenestablished, and people go ways,
and sometimes split institutionsare lose jobs, and we can
recognize, that's really hard,that's really painful, the
stakes are high. And yet, weshould still be able to treat
(27:33):
the people on the other side ofthat split with some kind of
grace and kindness. I mean, theyare still not only image
bearers, but they're still alsooften claiming the name of
Christ, they're there, doesn'tmean we're going to be able to
worship with them in the sameway. But we have to be, we have
to demonstrate a kind of empathyand kindness to them for their
(27:54):
sake, but also for the sake ofeveryone else who's watching us
squabble internally, about thesethings.
Joshua Johnson (28:01):
Let's get out.
I'd love for you to give, givean example of a policy or
something that is, we have a lotof disagreement on and division.
And then walk us through how wecan have a conversation and have
empathy on both sides. figureout, hey, where where can we we
go one way, where can we goanother way and start to walk
(28:23):
forward together, maybe to finda solution to some of these big
problems that we have, that wehave really a polarized opinions
on either side? Yeah.
John Inazu (28:38):
So I'll give you an example that I talked about in
the book. And it's actually Ithink it illustrates a basically
a no compromise example, but wecan talk about the posture of
engagement. So one of the casesI have discussed is that
Colorado case about the the gaywedding and the cake baker and
the Bible, Christian cake bakerby conscience says, I can't bake
(29:00):
this for your wedding, I'll bakethe cake for another
celebration, your birthday orwhatever, but I can't do it for
your wedding. And the couplesays, We want you to bake the
cake for this the wedding, weknow we're just buying a cake
from your store. We have a rightto commerce. And so this goes to
the courts and and eventually,you know, for complicated
reasons goes up to the USSupreme Court and the Supreme
(29:22):
Court says no, the, in thiscase, at least the baker doesn't
have to bake the cake. They'rethe couple can go get the cake
from another restaurant. So interms of how to think through
that disagreement, I and I thinkthis takes us back first to
empathy. This is the hard case.
These are These are real people.
And this is a complex case. Andwhen I watched the news coverage
(29:43):
of this case, as it unfolded,neither side made it sound like
a hard case. Right? It was itwas if you were for the baker,
and the couple was just makingit up and you know they were
they were just activists out tostir up trouble. And if you were
for the couple then the Bakerwas just a big Couldn't Perth
possibly have a sincerereligious belief? And it's
(30:04):
pretty clear to me that on theground, these are all of these
human beings actually deeplycared about what they were
doing. And they fit with theyfelt experiences and had these
interpersonal connections andlosses. And it's a hard
question. And maybe it's evenharder because of local
differences. So maybe in Denver,where this case actually
(30:24):
happened, and there, therehappened to be 10 Other bakeries
down the street that would havebaked the cake. That's one
thing. But if you were in partsof if you were in a small town
in the rural south, where theremight be one bakery, and the
couple wouldn't have anywhereelse to go, that could be a very
different circumstance. And thenwe can disagree about that, you
know, we could we could say,from either direction, no, there
(30:45):
should be an absolute rule onone side or the other in our
country, you know, with withsome help from the Supreme
Court, and state and federallegislatures will sort this out
over time. It might not get toan arrangement that that anyone
in particular likes at any giventime. But I think it we start
from the humanity of the people,and the complexity of the
(31:07):
situation that we get at leastrecognize why this is hard, and
why the, the solution is notgoing to satisfy everyone. And
then we can also say, Well,maybe other context matters,
right? Maybe a cake is onething. But a pastor or wedding
singer is something else, andmaybe a Marriott hotel or
something else. And I think ifwe take the time to think
(31:30):
through the difficulty of this,then we can at least realize
that it's not, it's not alwaysas cut and dry. Sometimes the
pundants make it out to be.
Joshua Johnson (31:40):
I mean, that's a that's a great example, because
that's a difficult decision. Butyou're in America, you know,
let's we go back into law,you're you're looking at
personal cases with with humansthat have all sorts of emotion
on on either side that want somebeliefs. And then if it goes to
(32:04):
the Supreme Court, or even inlower courts, there's, there's a
precedent that set, right. Andso a lot of times people look
back on the precedent, and thatwas set with a decision, and,
and something that that peopleare disagreeing on. And then we
go back and say, Okay, that'swhat it's going to be like, from
(32:26):
now on. And it'll be easy for usto make this decision. So
sometimes that actually helpssolve some systemic problems,
but sometimes, it muddles it.
How, what is the role ofprecedent in law in solving some
of these disagreements that wehave?
John Inazu (32:48):
Yeah, as you were talking, I was thinking, Oh, we
probably need a semester longseminar in jurisprudence to
answer that. I'll do my best atthis.
Joshua Johnson (32:58):
For someone who's never gone to law school,
I need I need something.
John Inazu (33:01):
Yeah. Question. And I think, you know, I think the
answer is, precedent iscomplicated. And it's neither.
It's neither absolutelypredictable, nor all made up.
Right. And we actually havepeople in society and people in
law who want to push for eitherextreme, some people say you're
(33:22):
just making it up, there is nolaw, the Supreme Court does what
its want wants, I don't believethat's true. It's also not true,
that precedent lays out exactlywhat the answer is going to be.
Or the judges can just read theprecedent and know by the very
nature of what we're doing inthe law, is setting up facts and
law together in a way that triesto solve problems, and then a
(33:42):
new problem, or a new variationof the problem comes along. And
then judges and lawyers have tofigure out well, is this close
enough to what just happened?
That we agree with it or not? Orand then this makes it even work
out blacks? Or is this decision,this precedent that we made? Was
it was it just raw, right was?
Was it wrong to say that racialsegregation was okay, at one
(34:03):
time in our country's history?
Yes. Well, why we have to lookback and say that some
precedents work and some don'twork. And then and then some
apply to certain situations andnot others. That's why lawyers
get paid a lot of money is tofigure this stuff out. But I
think, you know, underlyingthis, this point is, it's really
important to believe insomething called the practice of
(34:24):
law, meaning that legaldecisions stand in as an
alternative to pure politics, oras I mentioned earlier, just
totally anarchy. And there arelots of people who want to give
up on that and say, No, this isjust a big political game. I
don't think that's true at all.
I think law matters, I thinkgood lawyering and good judging
matters. It doesn't mean thatthese imperfect human beings are
(34:48):
always going to get it right.
And it also doesn't preclude theraw political actors. So yes,
there are judges and legislatorsand others who are just being
political but but overallThere's something called law
that works through precedentthat people go to law school and
are licensed to practice law andare subject to malpractice
requirements in order to keepdoing the thing that we're
(35:11):
doing. And and I think, youknow, it's easy. I know, for
people who aren't lawyers to getvery frustrated when they read
about, you know, a couple ofcases that don't go the way they
would have liked or they don'tunderstand. But when you look at
the entire apparatus of the law,now hundreds and 1000s of cases
that are unfolding each yearthat hold the country together,
and very ordinary and verycomplex ways. I think it's I'm
(35:35):
really grateful to be part ofthat. That happened.
Joshua Johnson (35:39):
Yeah. Yeah, I think it was important. I think
as as believers as Christiansthat want to follow the way of
Jesus that want to be faithfulto Jesus, one of the things that
he does really well, is heushers in justice, and the US
ushers in justice for the poor,the marginalized, neglected
people, people that have been onthe outside of society, and he
(36:04):
wants to bring them in. And he'sreally easy for all people. And
so how does, how does law andthis conversation that we're
having about civildisagreements, how does the role
of Jesus and justice enter in asa person of faith?
John Inazu (36:25):
Yeah, I think I think for, for Christians to be
able to point to Jesus and thecross and the resurrection, as
ultimate justice that transcendsour worldly interactions.
That's, I mean, when we thinkabout what that actually means,
that's incredibly powerful. Andit's actually it's a not just a
(36:48):
difference in degree it's adifference in kind of any sort
of worldly justice. So worldlyjustice, at best is proximate
justice. Right, though the thekind of justice that can be
meted out by people or judges orpolice officers, or prison
officials is always going to beimperfect, you know, when when
you are I experience a deepwrong in this world at the hands
(37:11):
of another human being. There'sno way that wrong is ever fully
remedied. There's there's abreach in the cosmos of the
universe and you know, forever.
The this is this is really easyto think about when you think
about kind of a bodily harm or amurder or something. But it's
true with any kind of injusticewhen that when that injustice
occurs, there is no justice.
(37:33):
There's there's proximatejustice, there's a kind of fine
or punitive measure that can bebe given out, but it's not going
to bring full justice. And sowhat does that where does that
leave us? Well, as Christians,it leaves us with the
possibility of forgiveness. Andforgiveness can be that one
(37:54):
human act, we can actually takeunilaterally that ends the cycle
of vengeance, and that frees usfrom the injustice that has been
done. That doesn't make it easy.
But it's it's a, it's apossibility that that should
just give us tremendous hope.
And then alongside forgiveness,and for Christians, I think
inseparable from forgiveness isrecognizing that oh, there is
(38:16):
this, this final justice and weare headed for a big J. Justice,
we're the created order isreconciled. And we hold out that
hope even knowing now that we'rejust going to experience
imperfect examples of that inour own world and alliances.
Joshua Johnson (38:34):
So how do you not lose hope, knowing that we
only have proximate justice onEarth, that we're going to
continue with a whole sorts of,of evil and disagreements and a
back and forth, and there'sgoing to be some little J
justice, but not all of it,until the consummation, how do
(38:57):
we continue with hope that wecan live in a society where we
do see some foretaste of thecoming Kingdom of God? And it's,
there's some beauty at it. Yeah,well, I
John Inazu (39:11):
think you just answered the question in which
we see, we see an experience offoretaste. And we do that in all
kinds of ways with other andworship. Why by recognizing the
presence of God in our lives bylooking at the created order by
looking at even my friend JamieSmith recently said this to me,
and it's stuck the idea that wewe look for beauty and
(39:32):
unexpected places, right? And wecan see God's presence, even in
the midst of just awfulcircumstances, when we see that
we are testifying to that hopethat is beyond us even a point
of despair. And then I think wewe recognize and remind each
other that we are part of a verylong story that is going to
(39:52):
unfold over many generations andcertainly past our own lifetimes
and I think that helps us mainlytain hope in the midst of
imperfect and proximate justicebecause we look at examples from
Scripture, we look at the Jewsin Babylon and exile and the
promise is not, you know, inyour lifetime, everything's
(40:15):
going to work out and you willfind justice and peace it is
settle into this place that'sreally hard, raise children, how
them raise children, befaithful, love your neighbors,
and sometime along the way, Iwill rescue you. That's a that's
a very hopeful message. But it'snot a hope that is limited to
(40:36):
you or me as individual people,it says a promise of hope to, to
a people embedded in a story.
And I think that's how we wecling to that hope.
Joshua Johnson (40:46):
That's beautiful. That's wonderful. I
love that. And so good. So if wewant to start to engage in
disagreement with others out, Ijust want to note for us as, as
people how to what posture do wetake? What are helpful postures
for us, practically? Yeah, I
John Inazu (41:06):
mean, so one is just curious, right? Kind of
engagement that the wants tolearn. Even I mean, I've found
in my own life, that almosteverybody has somebody that
teach me even the person is theleast informed or the most
annoying that if I listened welland ask good questions, I can, I
(41:26):
can learn something. So postureof curiosity, a posture of
patience that is willing to askfollow up questions. And here, I
think a very practical point is,if you find yourself wanting to
pursue an issue, or a set ofissues across disagreement with
the real desire of learning andtrying to gain empathy, and the
(41:49):
one of the best ways to do thisis to split it up in in
different conversations overtime, so have it so conversation
with a commitment to come backin a week or in two weeks,
rather, because what that doesis it gives both you and the
other person an opportunity toreflect on what's been said, you
don't feel like you have to winthe argument in one sitting or
(42:10):
squeeze it all in. And you couldeven go back and you know, say,
Well, you know, I actually neverthought of that point or that
idea. And I'm going to do somereading about it just to be
better informed. And so thatthat posture of patience, and
the willingness to commit to arelationship. And then I think,
you know, going back to a pointwe made earlier is thick skin is
(42:32):
probably not the right term, butsomething like that, where we
take some we can we can be readyto receive some imperfect or
offensive comments withoutimmediately going on the
defensive or immediately jumpingon that person. And, you know, I
found sometimes when I, I don'talways do this perfectly, but
when I am in situations where Ido that, and I can kind of hang
(42:53):
in there with the conversation,right? Sometimes I find out oh,
actually, this is a little morenuanced than I thought, or this
person didn't quite mean thator, I mean, we'll get someone to
recognize that the unqualifiedoverclaim statement was not
actually what they meant, andthey actually meant something
different.
Joshua Johnson (43:11):
Can you give us a tip or two to engage in social
media in a way that that doessome of this? Because I know
nuance is really hard and socialmedia, he didn't say get off of
John Inazu (43:23):
it. Alright. Yeah.
It is really hard. So I think,you know, really like, frankly,
I think the best social mediatip I can give is to draft
responses that you don'tactually send me actually write
them out, you know, your ownkind of witty, snarky retort,
whatever it is, or you're,you're like expressing your
deeply held view aboutsomething, write it out, don't
(43:44):
send it, just leave it in a filefor at least a day. Wait at
least a day. Now, sometimessocial media makes you think,
well, if I don't respond in fiveminutes, I missed the
conversation. Not right youdon't waiting, wait a day or
half a day is not going tomarginalize your voice. So write
it out way. And then And thenask yourself, Is this really as
important as I thought it was?
(44:08):
So for me one of the best movesI've done recently, in the last
few years, as I started a coupleof years ago, a weekly substack
newsletter. And what that didpractically for me, it meant I
was less engaged and on Twitterand other social media. But what
it meant is when I when I cameacross something on social media
that really bugged me or Ithought was super important, I
(44:30):
would just put it in a file. Andthen wait until I was ready to
write my weekly newsletter. Andif it was really that important,
I would then spend a bunch oftime thinking through it and
making the point and, and ninetimes out of 10 or 19 out of 20
Turned out that a couple dayslater. It wasn't really that
important.
Joshua Johnson (44:49):
That's so good.
Well, let's, what's one hope youhave for your readers? What do
you want them to get from thisbook? Yeah, I mean, you know, I
John Inazu (44:58):
hope that I wrote it in a way that is engaging so
that people will feel likethey're learning something. But
also it's entertaining that thelaugh a couple times that
they'll be frustrated, they'llpause. So I hope it's the kind
of book that can both challengesubstantively but also engage
and captivate the reader. Yeah,
Joshua Johnson (45:17):
I think you did a good job there. I, I was
laughing. I was learning. It wasa fantastic read. So I think you
did phenomenally. I'm reallyexcited for people to start to
engage it. And hopefully, we canlearn how to disagree and have
these, these postures of, ofhumility and learning and
curiosity, and that we can havediscussions and even disagree
(45:40):
and continue to move forwardtogether and see that there is
an image bearer in front of me.
It's really, really good. I havea couple of questions for you,
John one, if you go back to your21 year old self, what advice
would you give? And
John Inazu (45:54):
I love that question. I think, you know, I
mean, especially speaking as aChristian, I think it would just
be to not overthink, where lifewill take, because you actually
can't game it out. And you can'thave a plan for the next 20
years of your life to sort of befaithful in the little steps.
(46:17):
But to hold it loosely. And Iwhen I talk to students who are
21 That's sort of the advice Iget, but you know, you know,
some things you're called totoday. But But, but you don't
actually know where you're goingto be in 20 or 30 years. So
don't hold that a little moreloosely, I
Joshua Johnson (46:34):
think. Yeah, that's really good, good advice,
anything you've been reading orwatching lately, you could
recommend. And
John Inazu (46:43):
I'm actually getting ready to go to Kenya in a couple
of days. And so I've beenreading up on the Kenyan
constitution, but I don't thinkthey would recommend. It's
probably not the exact pointhere. But I will say I've
recently read a book on faithand politics by my friend
(47:04):
Michael ware. And thought thatwas a you know, he built on
Dallas Willard. And I think the,the, for those people who are
interested in politics andpolitical engagement, that
spiritual practices andChristian community seemed
really, really important. comesto mind. Excellent.
Joshua Johnson (47:23):
So the spirit of our politics by Michael, where
Michael will be on the shiftingculture on the podcast, just a
couple of weeks from thisconversation as it drops. So
that'll be be great. Maybe youlisten back to back, it will be
good for you. How can peopleconnect with you, John, go out,
get your book learning todisagree? And where would you
(47:46):
like to point people to? Yeah,
John Inazu (47:48):
thanks so much. So I mean, we'd love for people to
engage with the book if they'reinterested. I also do have that
that free weekly, substack, Johnand aza@substack.com. And I've
got a website, John andozzy.com, that has quite a bit
of information about what I doand where I go and what I teach.
Joshua Johnson (48:04):
Awesome. Well, John, thank you for this
conversation. It was, I think itwas unnecessary. It's needed in
our day and age that we need tofigure out how to disagree with
one another how to engage inconversation, I think it's a,
we've lost some of this. And sowe need to regain the ability to
do that. And so I really enjoyedyour book. And I hope they go
(48:27):
out. They get it, they learn,and they practice with one
another. So practice with somepeople that are that are safe at
the beginning. And so because Ithink if we do practice, we get
better at it over time. And Ithink for for people like you as
we, we need some examples, thatpeople can be an example that we
(48:50):
can have disagreements, and wecould still be together and move
forward together. And so, yes, Ihope this is one of them. And
one good example for people totake so thank you for your work.
Thank you for this conversation.
It was fantastic. It was crazywith you. Thanks
John Inazu (49:07):
so much, Joshua.
Thanks.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.