My friend Chris Seiple is a brilliant guy and a very able
communicator. He has a preacher’s gift for explaining abstract concepts simply,
and he is a keen analyst and observer of the world we live in. He often describes his work at
the Institute for Global Engagement as attempting to create a “radical middle where
citizens can be respectfully honest and agree to disagree (when necessary)
while maintaining relationships.”
As someone who is weary of the American culture wars, the
deep polarization in our society, and the high levels of incivility in our
discourse, I confess I’m drawn to another way, almost any other way, of
bringing my deeply held views into the public square. How do we live with deep differences and at the same time
advance a common good? How
do we disagree on principle without demonizing those who hold opposite
views?
To me, this notion of the radical middle is central to navigating
some of our thorniest challenges in America today. And of course among them is one of the thorniest of
all: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides have their partisans and both
quickly apply a Hogwarts-like Sorting Hat to all who would dare enter into their
club. Either you are pro-Israel or
you are pro-Palestinian, but you cannot possibly be both. And yet what if this approach has
actually helped perpetuate the conflict rather than resolve it? What if we brought our pro-Israel
and pro-Palestinian sympathies into the arena and discovered that they’re not
mutually exclusive? What if we
created a ‘radical middle’ that would refuse to be drawn into the conflict but
would instead look for constructive ways to end it? What if to be pro-Israel is to be pro-Palestine? And what if
the opposite is equally true?
That’s a radical middle ground that could transform a lot of brokenness both here
and there.
No comments:
Post a Comment