Building Bridges

Our seemingly perpetual political season isn't a bad time to reflect on the nature of community. A bunch of people living in the same place isn't necessarily a community, and a group of individuals who share some characteristic or profession is even less so. Yet we call both communities. The basis of community is evident in its correlation with communication. More than sharing something in common—a place, characteristic, or occupation, community requires a positive connection.

Sadly, we live in a disturbing environment of rather constant noise; not only does it interfere with people actually hearing each other, but it prompts people to attack others generally without listening. I find this extremely disheartening. I, like everyone else, have ideas and opinions and like to express them. More often than not, the responses are either simple agreement or immediate hostility. Often I will post an article or illustration with what I consider to be a teaser, that is, a comment meant to get people to read what I've made available. Those who disagree typically react to my teaser without ever bothering to examine the far more significant item to which I've referred.

I've also had people make categorical statements, opinions often stated as virtual fact. I try to respond with a different viewpoint and support my opinion with evidence of one sort or another. Not only will those be ignored, but many of those to whom I refer are attacked disrespectfully, in what logicians call an “ad hominem attack,” an attack on the person rather than his statement or idea. Perhaps, worst of all, when I have attempted to ask a basic question that seeks to get at the root or source of an opposing point of view, more than one friend has simply not responded.

Over 30 years ago, I began my formal entry into the realm of peace-making. For me, peace-making is not first about international conflict or global peace. My interest, training, and experience relate to interpersonal peace-making. Frankly, I don't give much hope to efforts on the international or global scale if people haven't learned out to make peace with their neighbors or even spouses! And guess what the primary problem we encounter in trying to reconcile broken relationships? Yep, it is broken communication; it is an all too common situation of tearing things down rather than building them up. People use words to destroy and rarely make any effort to build bridges between themselves and those with whom they disagree.

Politics is basically domestic warfare, just without bullets and bombs. As a Christian, I believe I should heed Jesus' words to “turn the other cheek,” though I suspect they are often misapplied; nevertheless, I don't regard them as easy, by any means. Though I am a peace-maker, I haven't quite become a pacifist, not being convinced that offering a cheek also requires taking a bullet or letting my loved ones do so. Yet, I do believe we are called to love our neighbors and even our enemies. For a fuller sense of what that means, take a concordance sometime and look up “one another” in the New Testament; among the many injunctions to treat one another lovingly is “encourage one another” and “build up one another.”

I don't see those suggestions as idealistic nonsense. I believe there comes a point when too much “tearing down” and discouragement will lead to the disintegration of a community, a culture, a nation, or even a family. I fear we are reaching that point here in the United States. We have entirely too much negative communication. We accept far too often personal attacks on those we regard as adversaries or even enemies—the other party, the person of another culture, people of a different income status, those who look different, or those who hold a different ideology or religion.

Personally, I mostly disagree with socialists, atheists, extreme environmentalists, animal rights types, secular progressives, promoters of class warfare, those who would spend our country into unsustainable debt, and the crony capitalists and crony socialists who would enrich themselves at the price of my freedom. I disagree with them, I argue against their ideas, I will oppose their plans, and I will vote against them; but I do not hate them. I must confess that, when I'm with like-minded friends, it's all too easy to trash talk those I oppose. As a rule, though, I would far rather have an intelligent discussion. I would rather build bridges.

In mediation, the facilitated method of bringing adversaries together to communicate constructively, we have to lay down rules, usually starting with, “Don't attack the other person.” Close after that is “Don't put words in their mouths, and don't presume to read their minds.” At this point, if we were aiming at our culture, we would have just about destroyed the typical political advertisement. The advantage in the broader scene is that public figures have public statements and records of actions that can be discussed, while in the interpersonal realm, many conflicts occur with benefit of a recording device or eye witnesses.

More to the point, however, is an attitude. In interpersonal peace-making, say in marriage cases, we take some time to recover a sense of the value of the relationship. What often happens is that an unhappy incident leads to anger, emotional separation, and a refusal to communicate lovingly. The superstructure of the relationship is, at first, suspended and begins, often quickly, to be dismantled. Ironically, the deep foundations still remain though ignored. I recall a couple who thought they were on the verge of divorce, but whenever I asked them a question, despite their disagreements, they always looked at each other before one or the other ventured to answer. The still had a strong foundation. Of course, if people continue to attack the relationship and lob bombs at the other side of the bridge, soon the bridge superstructure and foundations will be collapse.

What is true inter-personally is correspondingly true in the broader kinds of relationships from neighborhoods and churches to tribes and nations. I am sadly amused to hear suggestions that we must “engage diplomatically” with the worst tyrants on the planet, while attacking vigorously an adversary here in our own country. I once respected the idea of statesmanship, represented by the phrase, “my esteemed opponent;” now if even used, such words are spoken insincerely, as actions and subsequent words reveal. I don't expect that political campaigns will ever be a church picnic; but, if the ugliness of the present ideological warfare continues, we may find ourselves with wars using things more terrible than words.

Another word I have found admirable is civility, one this blogger describes as necessary for those living in the city, close to each other. Civil discourse is respectful communication, one that treats another person kindly, one that listens and responds to what that person says. Another marriage I knew reached the point where husband and wife talked about the same subject but almost never actually talked with each other; it was almost creepy to watch, and, yes, they ended up divorced. People wonder if we are headed for some sort of civil upheaval, and the nature of our “conversation” suggests we could be. I know at least one person who actually speaks openly of revolution, in my opinion, totally oblivious to how dreadfully destructive such a thing would be, including to that person's hopes.

Despite all that, I am still hopeful. For over 10 years, I have worked with young people from abroad—refugees, international and exchange students. As once I was sure I'd been “called” into peace-making, I felt “called” to tutor these kids. As I first wondered at the apparent change of direction, speaking as one who believes God arranges such calls, I came to realize that I was still making peace, building bridges. For those who would remain in this country, I was contributing to community, making positive connections with those who might otherwise become angry, disenfranchised residents in places where they remained outsiders, separated not only by culture but by language. For those who would return to the native lands, I was building international bridges, represented today by friendships, so far, in Jordan, Columbia, Spain, Germany, and, to some extent, Korea and Brazil.  I'm doing more than enriching my own life, which surely I am; I am committed to improving the life of my students and to building bridges between our communities as we build a relationship between ourselves.

I just read that Charles Taylor, former leader of Liberia, educated in the United States, was given 50 years for crimes against humanity. I wonder about his experiences here. How many like him who return to their homes after time in the U. S., having learned the wrong things? Did he come to envy the wealth that wasn't his? Did he feel unwelcomed and resentful? Had he been hurt and vowed to become so powerful that no one could hurt him? That may or may not have been Taylor's experience, but it is the sad reality for many whether they come for a short time or remain to live and work here. If my heart is tuned especially to immigrants and internationals, it is equally true about many who already live here, both for those who are different, in some way, and even for those who are not. Anger, hatred, and disrespect have become much too common. We need bridge-builders, lots of them. I'm trying to build more bridges. What about you?