Over the summer I sat down for a conversation with Kendra Vasquez, who runs the “Conservations About…” podcast for John Brown University’s Center for Health Relationships. Our conversation went in many directions, but at its heart was focused on maintaining and strengthening relationships amid deep political differences.
Here’s a snippet:
Our [political] system is meant to be somewhat dysfunctional or lead to conflict. But Christians in particular can recognize that conflict without it negatively affecting our views of others. So we can disagree. We can disagree strongly. We don’t have to legitimize what we consider to be the wrong beliefs of others, but that shouldn’t necessarily negatively affect the way we treat other people.
At the risk of self-exaggeration, the topics Kendra and I discussed took on renewed importance in the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Major political and cultural events have the potential to deepen polarization and division. Following such events, relationships already affected by political disagreements are in danger of even worse fracturing. Times like these require even more self-awareness.
You can listen to the whole thing here:
Recommended Reading
Jawboning and Jimmy Kimmel (The Free Press)
Kimmel’s suspension prompts free-speech Republicans to reconsider their boundaries (Semafor)
Last week ABC announced an indefinite suspension for Jimmy Kimmel, who has hosted the network’s late night program for more than 20 years. The suspension stems from Kimmel’s remarks about the shooting death of Charlie Kirk — namely, the motives of the alleged shooter and the reaction from President Trump.
In the aftermath of Kimmel’s comments, Federal Communications Commission’s Brendan Carr—an appointment of President Trump—reacted by suggesting ABC should take action against the late night host. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
The implication, of course, was that if ABC didn’t penalize Kimmel, the FCC—which has oversight authority over television networks like ABC—might penalize the network.
I was struck by two responses to this. First, The Free Press—founded by conservative writer Bari Weiss—published an editorial critiquing Carr’s comments, equating them to jawboning, when a government actor threatens (even indirectly) private entities to coerce certain behaviors.
The editorial concludes with the following:
Carr should know better. In November, he posted on X: “We must dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for everyday Americans.” Exactly right. He should have more faith in those everyday Americans along with our justice system. We don’t need government commissioners to protect us from hot takes and dumb jokes.
Some elected officials seemingly disagreed. Writing for Semafor, Burgess Everett cited Sen. Cynthia Lummis’s (R-WY) comments on the First Amendment’s. Sen. Lummis said that while free speech protections are generally sweeping, they are certainly not absolute:
“Under normal times, in normal circumstances, I tend to think that the First Amendment should always be sort of the ultimate right. And that there should be almost no checks and balances on it. I don’t feel that way anymore. I feel like something’s changed culturally. And I think that there needs to be some cognizance that things have changed.”
I agree that constitutional rights, no matter how sacrosanct, are not absolute; there are bound to be limits to these rights rooted in the public interest, national security concerns, and the like. But freedom of speech should not be subject to cultural changes or the tone or tenor of the speech in question. Indeed, the First Amendment exists to protect controversial and unpopular speech; popular messages need no protection from the government or the masses.
Alien Mercy (Christianity Today)
Ashley Hales recently interviewed Elizabeth Bruenig, one of our most interesting and thoughtful writers on capital punishment. Bruenig, a Christian whose pro-life views have made her a target among her fellow progressive thinkers, also opposes the death penalty for reasons rooted in her faith:
I understand Christians who support capital punishment, and I don’t think they’re bad Christians. Executions have been carried out for centuries by Christian people and Christian nations. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, commands people to purge the evil from among you—that’s the language that’s in there. It quite readily prescribes execution for certain crimes. But in the New Testament, in my opinion, Jesus takes a different approach to sin and to wrongdoing. I think that’s beautiful. I think it’s what makes Christianity unique. So, for me, execution comes across as extremely wrong and extremely wrong for Christian reasons. That’s a case I have to make. I’m trying to do that not just for the public but for my fellow Christians.
The Demons of Non-Denoms (Asterisk)
Political scientist Ryan Burge—who will be joining us at John Brown University next February for a talk on his newest book—argued that the rise of nondenominational churches (and the decline of traditional denominations) poses real consequences not just for American religion, but society as a whole. Specifically, Burge is concerned about the decline in institutional accountability in American Christianity:
American evangelicalism has never been as fractured as it is right now. For decades, the movement was led, unofficially, by Billy Graham. Often referred to as “the evangelical pope,” his crusades were watched by millions of American evangelicals who were already sure of their salvation. Now, there is no figure in the movement who can coalesce similar widespread support. Pastors like the aforementioned Paula White are not welcome among the Southern Baptist establishment. Joel Osteen, who may be the most famous preacher in the United States, never appears at events or panels with other prominent voices in evangelicalism. The end result are relatively small evangelical fiefdoms across the United States, where a pastor may have a flock of 15,000 or 20,000 and a few hundred thousand followers on social media but is largely unknown by the average American. The cohesiveness that drove the Religious Right in the 1980s and 1990s has all but disappeared.
He concludes:
When the Framers of the United States Constitution were debating the power-sharing structure of the new American government at the Second Constitutional Convention, they were all deeply familiar with the writing of French nobleman Baron de Montesquieu. His most important work, The Spirit of the Laws, had been published less than forty years before they met in Philadelphia. In it, Montesquieu compellingly argues for institutional accountability. “In order to have liberty,” he wrote, “it is requisite the government be so constituted as one man need not be afraid of another.” Convincing the average American that they should actively work toward the destruction of every institution around them may have had the opposite effect — now, many of us are fearful in a way that we’ve never been before because we aren’t sure that any of our leaders will ever face real consequences for their actions.