John Inazu and the art of disagreement
Plus, making sense of "the vibes"
Every couple of months I receive a manila envelope in my university mailbox, sent through campus mail from our library. In the envelope is the latest issue of Liberty, a bimonthly publication of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. And while I’m not Seventh-day myself, I do tend to agree with a lot of their perspectives and work on religious freedom.1
A recent issue of Liberty includes an interview with the legal scholar John Inazu, who happens to be one of my favorite thinkers on the intersection of law, religion, and pluralism in the United States. In this interview, Inazu explains how he thinks about disagreement — and, importantly, offers suggestions for how we can disagree better, for the sake of our friendships, our communities, and even our society.
Consider this, on fighting the urge to see complex people as simple caricatures:
There is no person who represents fully an entire demographic. We tend to go online, and we think, Ah, I am engaging with a Republican or a Democrat. And so we assume we know everything about that person. In reality people are so complex that we start to understand them only when we take the time to engage with them as an individual….
That’s a very practical way to situate ourselves in front of other people. But then it also points out a practical limitation, which is we can’t do that with everyone…. So pick a few people in your life with whom you have relationships, and work on discussions and disagreements within those contexts.
Or this, about the inevitability of disagreement in democratic societies:
The law is full of examples of when compromise isn’t possible, and there’s a tragic dimension to this reality. There are going to be winners and losers; people won’t be happy with the results all of the time. But this is the way we’ve chosen to resolve our otherwise intractable disputes, and we have this method as an alternative to street violence.
It’s important that we commit to the process, and that when we lose in the process, we go back, and we try again. We have to remind ourselves that democracy is an ongoing conversation that we pursue through politics and law rather than through violence.
Or this, on what Christianity can contribute to a better kind of disagreement:
Christians believe that every single person is created in the image of God. We have no choice but to look for the image of God, or the imprint of God, in every single person we encounter, and that’s a very high bar. And then Jesus says, don’t love just your neighbor—love your enemy. Don’t tolerate your enemy; love your enemy. So this ethic of neighbor love is very deep for Christians.
Perhaps the other “superpower” of Christianity is the practice of forgiveness, which was modeled to us first and foremost by Jesus on the cross. And it has been modeled by many Christians throughout the ages who, in horrific circumstances of suffering and injustice, chose nevertheless to forgive. It seems to me that the unique resource of forgiveness within Christianity might be particularly helpful in the current moment. It doesn’t mean that only Christians forgive—that’s not true—but it does mean that Christians have maybe a special set of resources and responsibilities when it comes to forgiveness.
The whole interview is worth your time.
Making sense of “the vibes”
One of the strangest yet ubiquitous terms in today’s conversations about culture and politics is “the vibes.” I’m not sure exactly what it means (maybe that’s the point), though my best efforts at understanding it lead me to believe it refers to the environment or atmosphere of culture, particularly in terms of being hospitable (or not) to particular ideas or lines of inquiry.
Whatever “the vibes” are referring to, I think it’s fair to say they have shifted in the past few months. In the political realm, it wasn’t that long ago that Democrats were bullish on retaining the White House, with their allies on the political left poised to continue to dominate cultural spaces and set the terms of debate.
Fast forward a few months, and the vibes (at least in national politics) are very different. Donald Trump and the Republican Party emerged from November’s elections as emboldened. The few weeks of Trump 2.0 has been organized, fast, and decisive, seeking to upset the administrative state and political environment in ways far beyond what his administration attempted in 2017. The political right is energized and optimistic about the next four years, while those on the left are reeling.
And then there are the vibes beyond politics, in religion, art, entertainment, and other important spaces. As for religion, Christianity Today’s Seth Troutt explains how “the vibes” have shifted in favor of Christianity (or least a kind of Christianity), citing renewed interest in the Christian faith among popular podcasters, authors, and speakers, including those who had previously been openly antagonistic toward Christians and their religion.
Meanwhile, Patrick Miller in The Gospel Coalition points to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement about reforms to the fact-checking process on Facebook as yet more evidence of shifting vibes. Miller writes:
Whatever the reason, these changes will influence our media landscape. Ironically, the technocrats who tried to silence God-talk may construct new roads for his annunciation. Despite historical precedent for these sorts of changes, they may still come as a surprise for most of us. After all, it was evangelicals who popularized the idea of a growing “negative world,” in which progressive corporations like Meta attacked Christianity.
But what do these changing vibes mean, especially for Christians? Troutt says pastors and others concerned about their churches should remain focused on the task at hand—caring for those in our communities—regardless of what the vibes are telling us about our larger culture. He writes:
The people in our pews still struggle with addiction, adultery, and doubt. Most relate more with Job than with Daniel, their lives marked by suffering and uncertainty. They do not care about the vibe shift unless they’re immersed in evangelistic debates or use politics as an escape from the monotony of their lives. This is not most people. The positivity of the vibe shift, while exciting when it comes to evangelistic efforts, is not sufficient to save or shepherd souls.
…
Triumphalist, over-realized eschatologies preoccupied with winning culture wars bypass the cross of Christ for a humanist “resurrection.” We seek faithfulness first, and cultural transformation may follow. Seek first the kingdom and all these things will be added; seek first “all these things” and you’ll get neither the kingdom nor the flourishing of Babylon. You may even lose your soul.
We can, he writes, be encouraged by the changing vibes of our times without succumbing to the temptation toward earthly power such vibe shifts seem to afford.
Similarly, Miller says Christians should keep our eyes on the ball and to the work of the moment, regardless of the vibes are saying about the potential for a “new world” ahead:
Whatever world you want to call this new vibe, it’s not a perfect world. It’s just a new negative world in which resistance to the gospel will take new forms. In the future, vibes will do what vibes always do: shift. What’s unchanging, solid, and sure is the truth of the gospel. We don’t need to suss out the future to see the opportunity before us. Let’s take advantage of this window for the right things: for evangelism, discipleship, work, and faith.
Three things can be true:
The vibes of culture seem (for the moment) seem to be shifting
This is encouraging and exciting for certain Christians weary from the last decade of two of perceived cultural decline
This must not distract us from the importance of our work as citizens of two kingdoms, being in the world yet not of the world
The vibes may change, but the hope we have in Christ is forever.
As a religious minority, it should come as no surprise that they take religious liberty issues extremely seriously.