“I am Not Political, But…”— A Bad Strategem and Its Relationship to Interreligious Dialogue
Okay, maybe you see this, or maybe you don’t… but my FB friends often put up things like:
—“I am not a or , but….” then goes on to list all of the character flaws one group communally has that the other group completely seems to lack. The characterizations appear so completely blind to both the failings of the “good group” and the virtues of the “bad group” that clearly the person is siding completely with one side and against the other.
Why is this done? Well, I should note that it is pretty clear that my FB compatriots are not writing these messages. In some cases it is because they did a direct share from someone else… someone I don’t know. But even ones that look like they might have been personally written by a friend typically don’t have the style of the person who put it on their own page. I am PRETTY SURE they were cut-and-pasted there. So let’s break this down.
#1. Why do my friends share these sentiments? Because they like the political person described, or the characterization given to the political factions. This part is pretty easy.
#2. Why do they choose to share ones that use the stratagem of feigning an unbiased perspective? This one I find more difficult. I can think of two possibilities that are not mutually exclusive. First, some may feel comforted in their opinions that someone “unbiased” or “level-headed” believes the same things they do. Second, some may self-identify as unbiased and reasonable, and so they feel comfortable in sharing it unaware that it undermines that self-perception.
#3. The more important question, I think, is why do the originators of these posts create them using this strategem? While I think, perhaps, that the sharers of these posts may do this with good intentions, I don’t think the originators do it in good faith. That is, I doubt they do see themselves as unbiased or unaffiliated. However, doing it in bad faith doesn’t necessarily mean that they are being bad per se. Rather, I think they are utilizing a technique that has been around for years. Consider this little story:
I was talking to a friend of mine who was Jewish about our respective faiths. During the conversation, I started to say, “Now I am not trying to convert you or anything, but…”. At that point, my friend jumped in with a laugh, and said, “It seems like all of the Christians I know at some point use that phrase right before they start trying to convert me.” I found that surprising until a thought back in my mind to where I got the phrase from and realized that I have heard it used in Christian movies and gospel presentations over and over. I had even heard it recommended in training in evangelism.
Let’s be honest here… a salesman doesn’t go up to a potential customer and say, “I am about to give you a highly biased presentation on why you should buy __________ from me. Purchasing it may or may not meet your needs and budget, but it will certainly help me out greatly.” On the other side, most salesman know better than to state that they have no opinion or preferences as to what the potential customer buys. However, in a more subtle way, many will seek through behavior to do exactly that. For big ticket items, for example, the salesman will sometimes try to slip into the role of the customer’s buddy, as if he or she had come to the dealership with them to throw in their own opinion.
Bringing it back to the original example— politics and politicians— I suspect that the strategem does not work very well. The lack of nuance undermines it. The originator wants to appear unbiased, but can’t bring himself (or herself) to express failures in the side he supports, or the virtues in the other side. So instead of being unbiased in the presentation of the options, the originator simply states that he (or she) is unbiased. I don’t think anyone on the other side buys it. In practice, I think these posts do not change people’s minds. Rather, they give comfort to those who agree with them. They want to have their minds soothed that their opinions are shared by others, and that those others are unbiased, reasonable, “good” people.
Let’s bring this to religion. Apologists often like to think that they are evangelists. Are they? Perhaps some are. I know there are people who thing that apologetics can be useful in evangelism. However, most commonly, they give comfort to those who share the same faith as the apologist. They want to be comforted that a wise person like Alistair McGrath or C.S. Lewis or Ravi Zacharias (bad example?) who can express their faith in logical and reasonable ways to others. And that is fine. I do even think that it may lead some to change faith at times.
But there is a poor version of such apologetics. It often is built off of a sort of ad hominem logic. It comes off like, “Christians are awesome, kind, loving, godly people all the time, and everyone else kind of sucks.” Obviously, it is not worded that way, but it ends up boiling down to that. The reality is, however, that there are some pretty awful people who describe themselves as Christians. I will even go further that there are some people who are truly followers of Christ who fail in some pretty awful ways. Likewise, there are non-Christians who are highly virtuous and commendable. Showing your bias in your words undermines claims of lack of bias.
I had a friend who was JW (Jehovah’s Witness). We got along pretty well. We did talk about religion at times and he did really want me to join his religion (he was a “Pioneer” in his group). One thing was pretty clear– he would never say anything remotely bad about his own group. He would, rarely, give compliments to those outside of his group, but it was always with caveats. A couple of times, in our talks we got to the point where it seems like I hit a bit close to home as far as concerns about his own religion. At that point he would stop and change the subject. While I never seriously considered changing faiths, I would say that his lack of candor did not make his religion enticing to me.
I teach Interreligious Dialogue. One of the “rules” I teach is “Accept the best in other faiths.” Identify and state what you see is good in other faiths, and be willing to admit failings in your own faith. I have gotten some pushback on this from some of my students. It just seems like a bad idea to them. If you want someone to become a Christian (the students are Evangelicals after all, so they will always see someone becoming a Christian as a good outcome), why admit failings in Christians, and virtues in others? Well, I hope the reflections above may give some insight in this.
And as far as the political stuff at the top, my recommendations are:
— Admit your bias. People know you are biased and don’t trust people who claim they are not.
— Express your biased views in unbiased ways (that is, fairly and honestly).
