Everyone has their suggestions for how to move forward through the sludge of cultural animus. I won’t purport to say my suggestion is the best way or the only way, only a component of what I think we need as a civilization—a serious commitment to an open, honest airing of viewpoints that do not fit neatly into our culture-destroying social media and cable news boxes. Allow me to specify.

 

There is a relationship between division, reason, and reconciliation. In one of the most well-known verses of Scripture, the prophet Isaiah declares in 1:18–20:

​

  [18] “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD:

            though your sins are like scarlet,

                        they shall be as white as snow;

            though they are red like crimson,

                        they shall become like wool.

            [19] If you are willing and obedient,

                        you shall eat the good of the land;

            [20] but if you refuse and rebel,

                        you shall be eaten by the sword;

                        for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”

 

Understandably, going to these verses to explain what is at the heart of America’s continued polarization may seem odd. But hang with me.

​

Notice what Isaiah says, “let us reason together, says the LORD.” God calls us to reason together, which is another way of saying, “Let us talk this through. Let us understand what the nature of things truly are.” God goes on to say something miraculous—“though you, sinful humanity, are far from me, I’m going to bring you back to me.” God wants to clearly establish the dire terms of the separation. In other words, if we’re going to get back together, let’s really understand how far the divide is. He’s getting brutally honest with Israel. There’s a parallel lesson for us: To reason about disagreements means to set forth an explanation for our beliefs in a self-controlled manner. In other words, we do not let our emotions gain the upper hand over our intellects. Do you notice how rare this is? It’s because the conditions of our culture make it impossible. One is supposed to either “own the libs” or “own the cons” not “understand the libs” or “understand the cons.” We’re a post-reason society where emotion functions as today’s “might makes right.”

 

As a culture, let me suggest this: We need to learn to reason. But to reason deeply must mean there is an honest airing of differences and an honest willingness to hear the other's side making their argument before you simply make your own. We must listen and empathize, even if we do not agree. We need to subject ourselves to interrogation. Socrates once said, “the unexamined life is not worth living.” That’s another way of saying the unreasoned, impulse-driven nature of our society prohibits deep thought from testing our assumptions and convictions.

 

What does this mean practically? For example, if you are pro-choice and you want to have a discussion with me, a pro-life ethics professor, about abortion, it means we’re going to have to sit down over coffee for an extended period (not via Twitter) and hear each other’s views. You make your arguments. I’ll make mine. Both should appeal to valid reasons for the persuasiveness of their beliefs on their own terms, not as part of a tribe or group to which they belong. There should be evidence and rational argument, not simply emotion and instinct.