A native of the greater Washington, D.C. area and a current resident of the Bible Belt, Sarah B. Anderson has spent her entire life learning to live in the tension both politics and religion create, and striving to learn how to best navigate the complicated issues and emotional conversations around these weightier topics. Sarah’s recently released book titled The Space Between Us: How Jesus Teaches Us to Live Together When Politics and Religion Pull Us Apart is a challenging yet practical guide to navigating the tension.
Sarah’s father Gary Bauer served as the president of the Family Research Council from 1988 to 1999. He resigned from this position to run for the Republican Party nomination for President of the United States. He left the race after the primaries in February 2000.
Sarah both writes and speaks on culture and faith and has worked for Orange, a non-profit that partners families and churches together for the spiritual development of the next generation, since 2008. Sarah currently lives in Roswell, Georgia with her husband and two boys.
In an interview with Krista Tippet and her podcast On Being, Vatican astronomers Guy Consolmagno and George Coyne talk about this idea of “educated ignorance”. It’s the notion of knowing we don’t know but continuing to educate ourselves. They were speaking in light of their role as scientists and their position and place in the Catholic Church, discussing how their roles in both science and religion are not at odds, though they might appear to be. That in fact, educated ignorance is a posture both science and faith could benefit from holding more often. In the same way, our politics could stand to reflect the same stance.
To live self-aware of our finitude and limited understanding, we not only need to become healthier versions of ourselves by going after this idea of educated ignorance, we need to become safe people for others to unload their own questionings in their own pursuit of educated ignorance. So, how do we become these kinds of people? People who, no matter what their religious or political persuasion, are safe, compassionate, and maybe most of all, generous listeners? Well, I think we can start by changing the way we talk ourselves.
You can start by saying “I believe” more often than “I know.”
You can regularly qualify what you say by acknowledging your limited experience and your particular circumstances that may have allowed you to reach the conclusions you have.
You start valuing people and influence in your relationships with people by listening far more than you talk.
INFLUNSR. defines courage as choosing love over fear.
In what areas of your life has certainty edged out mystery? How has that impacted relationships with people who think differently than you? How has that impacted the way you view people who think differently than you? How is it possible to maintain your personal convictions while leaving room for mystery with those you don’t see eye to eye with? Let’s talk about it in the Circle…
INFLUNSR. defines courage as choosing love over fear.
Fear is strongest when it is nebulous, undefined, and abstract. So, in an effort to get to the root, ask yourself: What are you afraid of? What exactly is the fear about? Consider the possibility that your fear is of a “who” and not just a what—fear of a particular group of people, fear of a certain race, religion, or ethnicity. As difficult as it might be, ask where that might come from. What about them is frightening to you? Ask what that fear is doing for you. How does it serve you? How is it hurting you and those around you? If your fear is a “what,” get specific. Is it a particular party coming into or staying in power? Is it a change in legislation? Is it a loss of control of the way things have always been? Is it concern for the future if your fears are realized?
With each answer you come up with, follow it with this question: “Okay, what if that happens? Then what?” Play it out. Talk it out. Walk through a worst-case scenario. Putting words around the largest fears we face lessens their power. That doesn’t make the thing we are afraid of less scary or less devastating, but it allows us to see a future beyond the thing we thought would be the end of us.
If a fear is realized, identify the emotions that follow. Are you sad? Angry? Frustrated? Exhausted? Feeling hopeless? Give yourself permission to name the feelings and accept them for what they are, being present in them no matter how uncomfortable they feel. Don’t skip ahead to give a happy ending. Be present in the fear now, so you can learn to be present in the faith later.
When it’s time to start recovering from the fear realized, remember that movement matters— physically, metaphorically, symbolically. What is one thing you can do to start making forward motion? How can you keep from dwelling in fear and staying stuck there? Maybe it’s something as simple as turning off the news and going for a walk, or vacuuming the floors, or reading a book. Anything. Decide what is one thing you’ll do next, and then do it. Don’t imagine next week, or next month, or next year. Imagine the next minute and then go there.
Finally, mobilize yourself. Take the emotion the fear has created and use it for good. Make conscious efforts to engage the people fear has kept you from. Become involved in a cause you are passionate about and want to see change in. Get a group of people together who share your interest or fear and channel it toward something helpful.
The apostle John writes in 1 John 4:18, “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.” What does John’s perspective about fear and love and Sarah’s words about fear say to you? Let’s talk about this in the Circle…
In E25’S Interactive, we asked you to ask for your parents or guardian’s permission, connect to Apple TV+ and watch the documentary Boys State. Each year, thousands of high-school boys congregate in their home states for some intense governance cosplay sponsored by the American Legion. In a single whirlwind week, participants are embedded in opposing parties — like Federalists and Nationalists — decide platforms and run for office, including governor. The movie focuses on the 2018 edition of Texas Boys State when some 1,000 teens embraced ideals and engaged in a lot of hoo-ha togetherness.
Rated PG-13 for some strong language, and thematic elements.
Midway through Boys State, Robert MacDougall confesses that, despite having just given a speech insisting that babies are being killed before they have a chance in the world, he isn’t actually anti-abortion. Robert, a strapping 18-year-old with the un-dented self-assurance of someone who’s gotten everything he’s wanted so far in life, is running for office in the mock government program he’s participating in. And he’s out to win — which, for him, means trading in his personal beliefs for ones that will play better with what he perceives his audience to be. “This is a very, very conservative group we have here,” he informs the camera in the aside of a private interview. “My stance on abortion would not line up well with the guys out there, so I chose to pick a new stance.” “That’s politics!” he declares, and then, with an uncharacteristic flicker of doubt, he amends that with “… I think.”
INFLUNSR defines courage as choosing love over fear. Is MacDougal exhibiting love… or fear? Let’s Circle up and discuss this documentary and MacDougal’s comments…
We asked you to listen to an episode of the Revisionist History podcast titled The Powerball Revolution. In Bolivia, a political activist radically reforms the voting process for student council elections. Who else does he convince? Revisionist History. And maybe a fancy private school in New Jersey.
In Gladwell’s research, he interviews Adam Cronkite. Cronkite talks about his three laws of democracy:
(1) The types of people who are good at campaigning aren’t inherently the same types of people who are good at leading and working well with others. In fact, sometimes those are diametrically opposite skills. Have you encountered peers who are amazing in front of people — great communicators — but they don’t know how to collaborate, cooperate, and delegate? Could it be that some of the people who are great in the spotlight are that way because of their ego — they thrive when they get attention — and those aren’t characteristics that typically make a great leader?
(2) If the outcome of an election has an element of randomness, you’re likely to end up with a greater variety of elected officials. Do you agree that diversity and variety is a good thing in government, especially when the best ideas are supported by a lot of other people (checks and balances)?
(3) Despite what we may think, people aren’t actually great at guessing who the best leaders will be. Gladwell looks at the NIH and how they select grant recipients. As it turns out, there’s no correlation between how good the NIH thinks a study will be and how good it actually ends up being. Could the same is arguably true for leaders? Returning to the first point, why is it so easy to be swayed by charisma, but charisma is only a small part of being a great leader and representative?
What are your thoughts about the “powerball” theory of elections and democracy?
We asked you to watch the TedTalk with Dave Meslin titled The Antidote to Apathy.
Local politics — schools, zoning, council elections — hit us where we live. So why don’t more of us actually get involved? Is it apathy? Dave Meslin says no. He identifies 7 barriers that keep us from taking part in our communities, even when we truly care.
Dave Meslin says, “if we can redefine apathy, not as some kind of internal syndrome, but as a complex web of cultural barriers that reinforces disengagement, and if we can clearly define, clearly identify what those obstacles are, and then if we can work together collectively to dismantle those obstacles, then anything is possible.” How does choosing love over fear mesh with the reality that apathy is an enemy of love? Time to dive into this in the Circle…
We asked you to read the The Atlantic article titled American Anger.
The untold story of how anger became the dominant emotion in our politics and personal lives—and what we can do about it.
Charles Duhigg writes “America has always been an angry nation. We are a country born of revolution. Combat — on battlefields, in newspapers, at the ballot box — has been with us from the start. American history is punctuated by episodes in which aggrieved parties have settled their differences not through conversation, but with guns. And yet our political system was cleverly designed to maximize the beneficial effects of anger. The Bill of Rights guarantees that we can argue with one another in the public square, through a free press, and in open court. The separation of powers forces our representatives in government to arrive at policy through disagreement, negotiation, and accommodation. Even the country’s mythology is rooted in anger: The American dream is, in a sense, an optimistic reframing of the discontent felt by people unwilling to accept the circumstances life has handed them.”
Do you agree with this synopsis of America? How do you feel about what Dr. King said about W.EB. Dubois when he said, ““The supreme task is to organize and unite people so that their anger becomes a transforming force.”
Let’s discuss this in the Circle…
We asked you to read the NY Times article titled How Faith Shapes My Politics.
Over the past few decades, whenever a Republican President puts up an important judicial nominee — especially a Catholic one — we go through the same routine. Some Democrat accuses the nominee of imposing her religious views on the law.
“The dogma lives loudly within you,” Senator Dianne Feinstein notoriously told Amy Coney Barrett in a 2017 confirmation hearing. Then Republicans accuse Democrats of being religious bigots. Then the nominee testifies that her personal opinions or religious faith will have absolutely no bearing on her legal judgments.
David Brooks writes, “In a society that is growing radically more secular every day, I’d say we have more to fear from political dogmatism than religious dogmatism. We have more to fear from those who let their politics determine their faith practices and who turn their religious communities into political armies. We have more to fear from people who look to politics as a substitute for faith.”
We asked you to spend some time today journaling in your own words how or why your faith and politics should remain separate.
Let’s talk about what you think in the Circle…
Disclaimer:
INFLUNSR’s mission is to fuel the next generation of leaders worth following and to help students learn how to think, not what to think. Any articles posted and questions asked are intended for that sole purpose.