A frustrating element of evangelical discourse these days is how quickly people talk past each other. We see it all the time. Brothers and sisters who hold foundational beliefs in common react to disagreement on secondary issues with shock, then consternation. Tribes form around different emphases and perspectives until trajectories develop, unity breaks down, and we’re all the worse for it. It’s the kind of drift that happens in families when husbands and wives, sisters and brothers, and parents and their grown children—often with the best of intentions—talk past each other, misinterpret the signals of connection, and build walls around the heart.
Often when I read articles online or see people I know and respect interact on social media, I get discouraged by the seeming inability of people to recognize good points being made on different sides of an issue. No one seems to hear—really hear—people with a different perspective. And, due to lack of trust and newfound tribal impulses, online speech loses its orientation toward persuasion and devolves into a performance designed to rally one’s base. Condescension replaces communication. We’re satisfied with quarreling and have given up on good argumentation.
Mutual Accountability Model
I picked up George Yancey’s Beyond Racial Division: A Unifying Alternative to Colorblindness and Antiracism a few weeks ago. I’ve long appreciated Yancey’s contributions to discussions about race, as well as his scholarship in other areas, such as the political and theological impulses of progressive and conservative Christians. In his new book, Yancey says the choice between “colorblindness” and “antiracism” is false. He proposes, instead, a “mutual accountability approach” to racial alienation, a method that depends on active listening and the desire to find solutions that serve the interests of everyone, not just one group.
There’s much to commend about this proposal when it comes to racial division, but I was struck by how so much of what he writes could apply to other areas of disunity. Many churches are facing conflict of one type or another. Nearly every denomination I can think of has been roiled by disunity at some level. We’re mired in debates over political priorities, the application of biblical principles, the meaning of confessional statements, and the best way to be faithful on mission in these times.
Yancey’s vision is relational. When people arrive at a crossroads—hurt, angry, and divided—the best approach is to come together without predetermined outcomes, to make space for true and meaningful conversations.
Active Listening and Ownership
The key to success through this kind of meeting is the ability and willingness of all participants to engage in active listening. Yancey explains:
“Active listening is listening for understanding, not argument. Too often when we discuss a controversial issue, we listen only so we can make a counterargument against the speaker. . . . Active listening is an important way to build win-win solutions since we are trying not to win an argument but to understand the other person’s perspective. The key to active listening is to put the attitudes and perceptions of the person into our own words in such a way that they agree with what we are saying.” (40–41)
Another important factor for mutual accountability is that everyone takes part in the solution. No voice is ignored. Everyone is at the table and can take some level of ownership in the outcome.
“If I want to find solutions that serve the interests of everyone, I must listen to everyone. I consider their interests and perspectives and allow them to articulate those interests and perspectives in their own words. Instead of coming to my own conclusions and rationalizing why my solutions are best for everyone, I am obligated to gain the input of others so that their concerns are heard and incorporated into any path we take in our efforts.” (34–35)
Relational Persuasion
The point of these conversations is “moral suasion,” Yancey says. It’s not about power—forcing one ideology, perspective, or solution on a group—but about cultivating relationships that lead to better listening and engagement.
“Real moral suasion requires that we build rapport with those we want to persuade. It means we accurately understand their point of view. We also learn to admit when they are correct and become willing to find areas of agreement. In other words, real moral suasion is about relationship building, not brow beating. Moral suasion, done properly, unites us. By making us want to identify with and care for each other. It makes us want to work with others to find out what is good for them. Real moral suasion builds community.” (39)
This is one reason I’m happy to write a column at The Gospel Coalition. I don’t agree with all the writers or articles here, but there’s substantive agreement on the gospel and the essentials of Christianity, which provides the common ground for fruitful conversations on points of difference.
Leadership of John Stott
This mutual accountability proposal reminds me of John Stott’s work in bringing together disparate groups and factions from across the wide and wild world of evangelicalism. “I’m a great believer in small, private, international, representative consultations in which we’re prepared to listen to one another,” he once said.
Stott often found creative solutions and, in a number of areas, steered a path for evangelicals because he listened carefully when certain positions or postures provoked strong reactions from critics. When people were suddenly up in arms about a particular point of doctrine or practice, Stott would ask, “Why did they feel this so strongly?”
Instead of instantly dismissing their concerns as invalid or overstated, he sought to discern what these critics believed was in danger of being lost. “What is it that they want to safeguard?” he would ask. “The extraordinary thing was that in many cases you find that you want to safeguard it too. And then you reach the point of creative development or creative solutions.”
The Problem
I don’t know if there’s any chance of mutual accountability working on a large scale, in part because I’m not sure we’ve developed the kind of character on which such methods and meetings would depend. The bigger question for me is not, “Why don’t we do this?” but “Would we even be able to do this?”
Have our hearts and minds closed to such an approach? That’s the bigger question for me. Do we have the Stott-like character traits necessary—humility, wisdom, kindness, discernment, patience—to make this happen? If not, the bigger challenge we face is not one of division, but of discipleship.
If you would like my future articles sent to your email, as well as a curated list of books, podcasts, and helpful links I find online, enter your address.