What A.I. Has to Say About Dialogue, Part 2

Please enjoy part 2 of the conversation between myself (Jillian) and Claude AI about the value of dialogue during times of intense polarization! In this part of the conversation, we discuss what preconditions are needed for a successful dialogue, which beautifully reflect some of The Church Lab's ground rules. 

Earlier, you mentioned preconditions. What are the preconditions to joining a dialogue?

The preconditions for effective dialogue are crucial to its success. Without them, dialogue efforts can falter or even backfire. Here are key preconditions I'd suggest:

For participants:

1. Basic safety and security - People cannot meaningfully engage when they feel physically threatened or when their basic survival needs are in jeopardy.

2. Willingness to listen - Participants must be genuinely open to hearing others, not just waiting for their turn to speak.

3. Tentative ownership of one's perspective - Recognizing that our views are partial and influenced by our experiences, not absolute truths.

4. Some level of epistemic humility - An acknowledgment that we might be wrong or have incomplete understanding.

5. Minimal good faith - A base assumption that others are not deliberately trying to harm or deceive.

For the dialogue process itself:

1. Skilled facilitation - Especially when power imbalances or historical harms exist between participants.

2. Appropriate timing - Dialogue may not be possible during acute crisis or immediately after severe trauma.

3. Clear agreements about process - Shared understanding of purpose, confidentiality, and how the conversation will unfold.

4. Equal voice opportunity - Structures that prevent domination by more privileged or vocal participants.

5. Distinction from decision-making - Clarity about whether the dialogue is exploratory or tied to specific outcomes.

Notably absent from this list is agreement on facts or values - dialogue can actually help build shared understanding in these areas rather than requiring it upfront. The preconditions focus more on approach and process than on content.

These preconditions aren't absolute barriers but rather factors that, when addressed, significantly increase the likelihood of productive dialogue. What do you think - are there other preconditions you'd add?

The nonprofit dialogue organization that I'm a part of has one pre-requisite that might imply many of the ones you mentioned: To not need to win.

That's brilliantly distilled. "Not needing to win" is indeed a powerful precondition that implicitly contains many of the elements I mentioned.

When participants release the need to win, several transformative shifts naturally follow:

• They can truly listen rather than just formulating counterarguments

• They're free to be curious about others' perspectives

• They can acknowledge valid points without feeling they've "lost ground"

• They become open to being changed by the conversation

• They can value relationship and understanding above ideological victory

This single prerequisite effectively disrupts the adversarial framework that fuels polarization. It moves dialogue from debate's win-lose paradigm to a shared exploration where everyone can gain deeper understanding.

I'm struck by how elegantly your organization has captured this fundamental shift in orientation. It suggests a deep understanding of dialogue's essence - that it's not about competing monologues but about creating something new together that couldn't exist without the interaction.

Is this prerequisite explicitly stated to participants before they join your dialogues? And have you found ways to help people recognize when they're slipping back into "winning" mode during conversations?

It is explicitly stated before a new participant joins. And we have a set of ground rules that we read aloud before each dialogue which helps set the tone. Also, the facilitator has skilled ways of helping people navigate their way out of winning mode during the conversation.

That's excellent implementation. Having the "not needing to win" prerequisite explicitly stated upfront creates clear expectations and helps participants self-select appropriately. It establishes dialogue as a fundamentally different kind of conversation from the start.

Reading ground rules aloud before each dialogue is a powerful practice. This ritual likely helps participants transition from everyday conversational habits into a more intentional dialogue space. It serves as both reminder and reset, especially for returning participants who might otherwise slip into familiar patterns.

I'm particularly interested in how your facilitators help guide people out of "winning mode" during conversations. Skilled facilitation in these moments can be transformative not just for the immediate dialogue but for participants' longer-term communication practices. Facilitators who can intervene without shame or judgment while still maintaining the integrity of the dialogue space are invaluable.

Has your organization found certain facilitation techniques particularly effective for this purpose? And have you noticed participants gradually internalizing these practices over time, perhaps requiring less intervention as they become more experienced with dialogue?

Yes, long-term dialoguers are more practiced at this and require less intervention. I believe the facilitator gently reminds a participant of a related ground rule to get the conversation back on track.

That evolution in participants makes perfect sense. Dialogue skills are developed through practice, and long-term participants naturally internalize the mindset and approaches over time. It's encouraging that your organization sees this progression.

The facilitator's gentle ground rule reminders sound like an effective, non-confrontational approach. This method likely works well because:

1. It references shared agreements rather than singling out an individual's behavior

2. It reorients everyone to the dialogue's purpose without creating defensiveness

3. It serves as a learning opportunity for all participants, not just the one who may have slipped into "winning mode"

This facilitation style supports the development of self-awareness in participants. Over time, they likely begin to recognize their own shifts toward positional thinking or competitive dynamics before external intervention is needed.

The fact that your organization maintains ongoing dialogue groups where participants can develop these skills over time is valuable. Many dialogue initiatives are one-off events that don't allow for this kind of growth and community building.

Do you find that experienced dialoguers also help model the process for newcomers? And has your organization documented any of the transformation you've observed in long-term participants?

What A.I. Has To Say About Dialogue

Hi TCL friends! Below is the beginning of a conversation had between myself (Jillian, Carrie’s pastoral assistant) and the AI platform, Claude. We were curious what Claude would say about some of the pressing questions folks have about dialogue in these severely polarizing times.

For the next three weeks, we will release parts of the conversation. This first part largely addresses the questions and the resistance that some may have regarding dialogue in high stakes moments. We found these conversations fascinating for the ways they affirmed TCL's particular approach to making a difference via dialogue.

The questions and statements in bold are Jillian, and the rest is Claude. I’ve underlined some of the insights from Claude that particularly struck me. But please let us know if there were other parts that stood out to you!

Enjoy.

Could the practice of dialogue be a solution to the global polarization we're experiencing?

The practice of dialogue certainly has powerful potential as a response to global polarization. Genuine dialogue involves more than mere conversation - it requires participants to truly listen, suspend judgment, and explore perspectives together rather than simply defending positions.

Several elements make dialogue particularly valuable in addressing polarization:

1. Dialogue creates space for complexity beyond binary positions. It allows nuanced understanding to emerge where simplified "us versus them" thinking previously dominated.

2. When practiced well, dialogue builds humanizing connections across difference. People begin to see each other as complex individuals rather than representatives of opposing ideologies.

3. Dialogue invites reflection on how our own positions are formed and what assumptions underlie them, creating more epistemic humility.

The challenge lies in implementation. Effective dialogue requires certain conditions:

• Safe spaces where vulnerability is protected

• Skilled facilitation

• Participants willing to be changed by the encounter

• Some baseline of shared values or goals

We can see successful examples in community reconciliation processes, deliberative democracy initiatives, and certain interfaith exchanges. However, dialogue alone isn't sufficient without complementary structural changes addressing the economic, media, and political systems that often benefit from and amplify polarization.

What aspects of dialogue particularly interest you as potential solutions to polarization?

I'm curious what you would say to those who think dialogue is "just talk" or compromise, or giving validation to problematic stances?

That's a powerful critique that cuts to the heart of why many people are skeptical about dialogue as a response to polarization.

For those who see dialogue as "just talk" or problematic validation, I'd offer these considerations:

First, effective dialogue isn't about compromising core values or legitimizing harmful positions. Rather, it's about understanding the human experiences and concerns that underlie positions we find troubling. We can recognize someone's humanity without endorsing their conclusions.

Second, dialogue serves a different function than debate or negotiation. The goal isn't to meet in the middle, but to create a more complete understanding of complex realities. Sometimes dialogue reveals that apparent disagreements stem from different priorities rather than incompatible values.

Third, refusing dialogue often strengthens the very positions we oppose. When people feel unheard, they typically become more entrenched and extreme in their views. Strategic engagement can be more effective than isolation at reducing the appeal of harmful ideologies.

That said, there are legitimate boundaries. Not every position deserves equal consideration, particularly those that deny others' basic humanity. And dialogue should never require marginalized people to repeatedly explain their right to exist.

The question isn't whether dialogue is always appropriate, but rather: When is it constructive, who should participate, what preconditions should exist, and how should it be structured to avoid reinforcing harmful power dynamics?

What is the end goal of dialogue if neither party changes their stance?

That's an excellent question that gets at a deeper understanding of dialogue's purpose.

Even when neither party changes their fundamental stance, meaningful dialogue can achieve several valuable outcomes:

1. Complexity recognition - Participants often shift from seeing issues in black and white to recognizing legitimate tensions and trade-offs. They gain a more nuanced understanding of why reasonable people might disagree.

2. Humanization - People begin to see their "opponents" as complex individuals rather than stereotypical representatives of an ideology. This undermines dehumanization, which is a precursor to escalating conflict.

3. Relationship building - Dialogue creates connections that can sustain future disagreement in healthier ways. These relationships become resources when addressing other community challenges.

4. Narrowing disagreement - Often participants discover they agree on more than they realized. The area of genuine disagreement may become smaller and more precisely defined.

5. Better reasoning - Even when maintaining our positions, dialogue often helps us hold them for better reasons, having examined our assumptions and clarified our values.

6. Collective intelligence - The interaction of different perspectives can generate new insights or approaches neither party could have developed alone.

In this view, dialogue's success isn't measured by position changes but by transformation in how we hold our positions and relate to those with whom we disagree. The goal becomes creating conditions where difference can exist without destructive polarization.

Does that perspective on dialogue's purpose resonate with your thinking?

(To be continued…)

Is Love Blind?

Image from Netflix’s Love is Blind

*The following is an opinion piece that reflects the author’s point of view, but is not meant to be reflective of the entire company of TCL.

Netflix’s Love is Blind is a reality dating show in which contestants date and become engaged without ever seeing what the other person looks like. The dates occur in “pods” separated by a wall, so that a couple’s compatibility rests only on personality, emotional connection and—more and more—alignment of worldviews, rather than physical attraction.

Jillian Shannon is the pastoral assistant at TCL and a spiritual entrepreneur. She is the owner of Neotopia, a non-profit organization in San Antonio, TX that holds classes and events surrounding subjects of theology, philosophy and culture.

In the most recent season, contestants Sara and Ben fall in love and get engaged after some difficult pod conversations. Sara has a sister in the LGBTQ+ community and she’s a passionate proponent of Black Lives Matter. Ben confesses he hasn’t given much thought to social justice issues—admittedly because he’s been privileged to not have to face them directly. He ensures her, however, that she will know his heart based on his day-to-day actions, rather than his stances on politics.

Ben regularly attends church, and Sara gave up on the church when hers failed to accept her sister as gay. When she inquires whether his church is open and inclusive in this way, Ben states that he does not know, but that he prefers the word “faith” over “religion”—a clarification meant to show that he abides by his own rules rather than his church’s—and he personally sees nothing wrong with being gay. This answer is good enough for Sara, as they go on to deepen their bond, get engaged and try life in the real world. 

After the pod experience, the couples attempt life together in the real world. Sara and Ben appear to be the strongest of the five couples on the show, leading to an all-the-more shocking finale when—SPOILER ALERT—Sara says “no” at the altar. Despite the various real-life problems thrown at them between the pods and the wedding, the ultimate deal-breaker for Sara was his politics. While Ben was unaware of his church’s political stances, Sara sniffed out their underlying conservative views from her first visit, deciding that Ben’s indifference to politics was more like unrealized Republicanism that would surely lead to conflict with her own progressivism. 

Are political differences the relationship deal breaker of our time?

A survey conducted by the Institute for Family Studies shows that it is increasingly rare for a marriage to cross party lines. In 2020, 79% of couples shared the same party affiliation, with only 4% of the mixed couples being Democrat and Republican—a rapid drop from 9% in 2016. Further, “in 2017, 1 in 10 Americans ended a romantic relationship because of different political views, and 1 in 5 Americans know a couple whose marriage or relationship was negatively affected due to [the 2016 election].” Meanwhile, other cultural hurdles like interfaith marriage are on a steady rise. While interfaith marriages present the most outward-facing compatibility challenges (differences in tradition, beliefs and experiences), inter-political marriages may be more untenable in today’s day and age.

Sara and Ben are a relevant, publicized example of the current social climate. The ultimate issue for Sara was not the fact that Ben regularly attended church while Sara had long since left the Christian religion. The issue for Sara was the ways in which Ben’s faith influenced his politics. 

Religion was once viewed as the primary indicator and shaper of values. This seems to have been replaced by one’s political stance. The question for ultimate compatibility is less, What is your religion? And more, How do your religious beliefs shape your politics? Now, a liberal Christian may be a more compatible match with a liberal person of a different or no religion, than with a conservative Christian. 

Companies like The Church Lab work tirelessly to build bridges across differences and reconcile relationships through dialogue. The principle rules of dialogue include seeking to understand before being understood, and committing to converse rather than convert. With the failure and avoidance of so many inter-political marriages, one must wonder: What would happen if we applied the rules of dialogue to romantic relationships beginning with Love is Blind? 

At the finale of each season of Love is Blind, the couples have a wedding ceremony. They put on the tuxedo and white dress, invite their family and friends, walk down the aisle and even says their vows, leading to the culminating moment in the which the officiant restates the theme of the show: “Now is the time to find out if love is truly blind. Do you Sara take thee Ben…” If the bride and groom go through with their “I do’s” then they are implying that love is, in fact, blind.

Psychiatrist and author, David Richo (How to be an Adult in Relationships) argues: “Love is not blind; it sees and faces all. It is romance that can be blind, when it sees only what it needs to see.” The wall between the pods is more like a mirror that reflects oneself. Do I like how I am reflected in this relationship? If a contestant falls in love with how the other person makes them feel, then they will usually say yes to taking the next steps. The real world beyond the pods turns the mirror into a window, in which they’re able to see one another fully. Not only are their physical attributes exposed, but all the nuances of this person’s daily choices are exposed to reveal how they live and what they value.

The term “woke” is a controversial word at the moment because while it powerfully exposes injustice so that we may reorder our world toward a more peaceful future, it risks scapegoating wrong-doers in the process by ostracizing or canceling them altogether. For my purposes in this article, when I say “woke” I mean this risky kind—the tendency to reduce others to their failures in meeting the just standards necessary for a flourishing world. Perhaps Sara was blind in romance, and what we saw after the pods was closer to this brand of wokeness.

In the rules of dialogue, wokeness (in the reductionist sense) is not allowed. The reason for this is that, while the term implies eyes wide open, it actually leads us to reduce a person to their parts: Democrat, Republican, gun-owner, radical leftist, racist, (insert your own label). For example, when Sara did her own investigation into Ben’s church and drew the conclusion that Ben wasn’t for her, she used a systems-lens to make a conclusion about the person, rather than a person-lens which reveals the systems as full of people, and in turn, open the possibility of transforming the problematic elements of the system. 

What the experiment of Love is Blind has going against it is time. Sara probably made the right choice given the limited amount of time and the apparent compatibility issues present. The experience of dialogue, on the other hand, relies on deep relationships built over long stretches of time. 

Even so, Love is Blind is a beneficial microcosmic example of where we are as a culture in terms of relationships. If inter-political relations represent the hardest dividing lines of our times, and marriage trends reflect the times, can we expect inter-political differences to be overcome in marriage in the same ways we as a society overcame the hurdles of interracial and interfaith marriages? Perhaps the tools of dialogue are the necessary element to get us beyond blindness, past wokeness, and to fully face one another. 

They Are Us

*a Christian perspective on bridgebuilding and current events from Pastor Carrie

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” - Mark 12:30-31

There is no greater commandment...

And who is our neighbor?

Classic question. Good question.

Yet I find this question to be unhelpful when we find ourselves using it to decide who we are supposed to love and who we aren't. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is not meant to be a sentence that helps us decide who is in and who is out of the range of our efforts to love others. Besides, it's not a long journey from this passage to other gospel passages like the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-27), or the mandate that we love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-48).

Turns out people are our neighbors. I saw a post from a seminary roommate the other day that put it like this: The question is not about who our neighbor is. The question is how we can be a good neighbor to those around us. Amen, Kris.

One way Americans have long since been good neighbors to those around us is to look out for the good of one another (to seek the Shalom of the city, to see our collective well-being as good for ourselves, too). If somebody is mourning, we bring them a casserole, send a card, lend a listening ear, lift up a prayer. I recently saw that my hometown recently came together and rebuilt a massive playground for their town to enjoy. Years ago I had the honor of giving a blessing or two for a Habitat for Humanity house as the walls were about to go up; the volunteers gather around and then folks write prayers and Scriptures on the frame of the house to bless the new neighbors coming to live there soon. I think of adoption days in courts in which an entire community of people surround a household as they welcome a new child into their family. I think of the brave Monday *very early* morning people that get up with my Dad to make massive amounts of food for people who may not come by that meal easily otherwise. My Dad hasn't met all of those people, but he and those cooking with him are engaging in an act of love toward their neighbor. Nothing is in it for him except he understands that the good of the collective is good for him. In fact, he could just as easily be someone who could use a warm meal one day. I think of countless examples of people caring for others simply because lifting each other up is an act that lifts all of us up. No doubt you could think of many as well.

These are the visuals that make me proud of the ways Americans are good neighbors to one another, seeking the well-being of the collective by watching out for one another, lifting one another up. This is a recipe for thriving.

When I look out for my neighbors, I look out for myself. When I lift up my neighbor, I lift up myself. When I love my neighbor, I love myself.

Lately opportunities have been arising for Americans to consider love of neighbors in a different light than the categories to which we are accustomed. Have you ever had a moment in your life in which someone said one sentence, or asked one question, that shifted your sense of reality? This is what these new considerations are doing for me.

For instance, the first time a trusted friend asked if I would hide them, should things get bad for them, that's what happened to me. The first time I was asked to help make an escape plan for a loved one, should things get bad for them, it happened again. The first time I heard a report of someone without a criminal record being abducted by plain clothed officers in masks with no charge or due process, I felt like my world was turning upside down.

Where am I living? Is this the place where I learned what it means to be a good neighbor?

Why are my neighbors afraid?! Why are my neighbors worried for their safety?! Why are people I love feeling so much less free than me, to the extent that they feel they must anticipate the possibility of hiding or escaping, ever?!

As tempting as it is to write these questions off, in my God's mandate to love my neighbor, I believe I must listen thoroughly to these questions and become curious about what is stoking fear and a sense of unsafety around me.

I know wonderful people who vote differently than one another, who disagree on all sorts of topics, who have different lifestyles, yet still have in common a history of being good at loving one's neighbor. I have confidence these are questions that are worth all of us sitting with, getting curious about right now, lest we write them off too fast.

I don't know many people who wish ill for peaceful people who have done no harm. I don't know anyone who wants less freedoms. I don't know anyone who interprets "love your neighbor" as "love your neighbor as long as they look like me and talk like me and never disagree with me." But if we are not careful, this is what our actions can say. Our actions can say that the neighbors we believe we're called to stand up for are the ones that remind us most of ourselves. Our behaviors can say that the neighbors we are supposed to care for are the ones who are the most convenient to care for. It may sound terrible to have to love a neighbor who voted for the other person or party, but I still haven't found any footnote in the Bible that would direct us otherwise. So here we are.

If scary things are happening among the least of these, those who are the alien, the orphan or the widow whom we are most definitely called to care for (Deuteronomy 27:19 among so, so many other verses), then they can happen to us. More importantly, God tells us to act as if it is happening to us. If it can be them, it can be us. If it is them, it is us. Matthew 25:40 is explicit that when we love the least of these, we love Jesus himself. Wow. Could the least of these be people we don't like, or even don't always trust? Do the lengths of Christ's Love extend to people who have done wrong? I hope so, or I'm in trouble myself.

When we lift each other up, we are all lifted up. It is a mighty testament to the love our God calls us to exercise as a collective, as a panoply-body of Christ. Conversely, the consequences we leave ourselves to when we don't lift each other up can have unspeakable impacts on all of us, ultimately, even if it happens more like dominos than in sync.

Bear with me, as some of you will find this realistic and others entirely dramatic:

If one day I disappear, will you call a lawyer for me? Will you try to find me, free me? If one day I am just suddenly not around, or one day news reporters start telling strange stories that don't seem quite right about me, will you speak up for me? Will you help me? Will you bend over backward to make sure I am not imprisoned with no charge into perpetuity, in a place of torture? Would you hide me, if it became dangerous for someone like me to live in the U.S.? Would you help me escape if I am unjustly persecuted in this land, our land?

(Perhaps this makes you feel scared. Perhaps you're laughing at how absurd this sounds.)

If you think you might be courageous enough to help me, someone you know and love, I implore you -and myself- to extend this care to the people it's happening to right now. Today.

We are not called to judge whether or not someone merits our care. We are not called to love people based on how much love we believe they deserve from us. God did not say, "Love your neighbor if you decide they're good enough to inconvenience you." God did not say, "Love your neighbor as long as they're clean cut and/or white and/or don't have an accent when they speak English as a 2nd or 3rd or 4th language." God did not say, "Love your neighbor only if it benefits you." God did not say, "Love only the conservative" or "Love only the liberal." Rather we are called to lift up the collective well-being of our communities.

I myself am seeing lots of posts with reports of all sorts of terrible things happening to neighbors, and it physically makes me ill. I am getting confirmation of these accounts through personal conversations with vulnerable populations. But since we don't all agree on what news is true or not, I worry that folks' posts of news reports is not enough. Spreading information that others - maybe half the country - interpret as misinformation in either direction, is helpful to some, but with significant limits.

There is a root cause we are not addressing here related to our collective willingness to care for the collective. Perhaps some feel hopeless about it. Perhaps we are the mess at the bottom of a broken Tower of Babbel. Perhaps we are screaming at each other in what feels like the same language but we are hearing completely different things. THEN what about love of neighbor? In recognizing the vitality of lifting one another up, and the dire consequences for us all when we do not, how do we lift up the collective when we are so broken apart? Here is a question of great power.

In order to help anyone under unjust threat, we must be humbled to be willing to help across party lines, across news sources. We must find a way to care about everyone in all our communities, and not just those who vote like us or agree with us. We must find a place in our hearts to love our neighbors as ourselves, to seek places of trust and entryways to build rapport, whether we are psyched about those neighbors at the moment or not.

This is the most American thing I can think of right now, according to my own faith lens and the mandate my God has given me as to how to behave in my community, in my country: a devotion to the well-being of everyone, the freedoms of everyone, the due process guaranteed to all of us, the basic human rights and dignity recognized for all of us.

My prayer is that more and more -and with a sense of urgency- would put down our verbal swords and consider the absolutely necessary nature of us caring for our whole communities, rather than defending compartmentalized versions of them. Whether we have all wanted to deny it or not, the reality of our interdependence, our need for one another, remains steadily true. It takes all of us to care effectively for one another, but it doesn't take many to tear us down. May God help us lean into one another, protect one another, love one another as we love ourselves. May God help us to help us ALL.

Amen.

Principalities and Powers: Neighbors and Us

There is a lot that is out of our control right now. There are principalities and powers running amok, about which some of my friends are somehow giddy and others are in absolute turmoil and all in-between. Institutions are falling or at least being pushed down like a strange Jenga game; again, some could not be happier and others are experiencing deep suffering over this, directly and indirectly.

Speaking for myself, I was not put on this earth to pay homage to any given leader, institution or authority, whether I like them or not. My higher power is the highest power as far as I’m concerned, and the rules I am committed to play by in this life are the rules my God commands. These rules form me as a person, demand that I give dignity to all other people as neighbors and people made in the image of God. They do not keep me safe. They do not make me comfortable. They demand that I care about friends and enemies alike. They demand that I recognize the meaning of freedom through the lens of Jesus, not status or money or achievements or government. And as will be familiar to many of us, what is the bottom line rule?

Galatians 5:13-14 (nrsvue)

13 For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters, only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become enslaved to one another. 14 For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Freedom in Christ is not about fighting for ourselves but for our collective well-being. Freedom in Christ is a freedom from bowing down to smooth talking authorities, power-mongers or opportunistic oppressors who would benefit by me denying my neighbor, whenever and however they may appear in life. Instead the priority is to exercise personal integrity, care and kindness through thick and thin, through sunny days and stormy ones, through one government administration to the next. God does not call us to character formation for convenience. We are called to be the most faithful version of ourselves in all situations, and with all creatures of God, and to let the chips fall from there.

It is constructive in this hour to be standing up for what we believe is right, and for all of us all along the political opinion spectrum to be exercising our voices. These are important freedoms we should not be intimidated into giving up. Free speech -whether I like what someone is saying or not – is essential to our democracy. In that regard, I appreciate those who have concerns and glee alike fully sharing that out. May we continue.

Kindness is not the same as being a pushover, nor is it denialism or self-righteous behavior. In fact, love and service to one another can be much more nuanced and challenging than politeness or bullying, either one. Speaking truth in kindness is powerful, rather than mutually exclusive. Kindness requires that we be all of who we are as we regard all of who someone else is, eyes wide open. It requires that we look for the image of God in that person. Mother Teresa used to talk about engaging every person as if they had the face of Jesus. This is why a life of faith is a life always ready for more evolution; it is not for the faint of heart. There is an infinite amount of work to do and by which to be formed along the way. Thanks be to God.

Of all that is well beyond our individual control, even as we make our voices heard, there will be a few things that do and will remain within our control: our character and how we treat one another. Institutions can fall, but only we can decide to tear our own societal fabric irreparably apart. We do not have to be manipulated into giving up that which is actually in our control. Centering ourselves on integrity, kindness to others, and refusing to deny the dignity and complexities of our neighbors are all essential features of faithful pursuits in the Kingdom of God. If I am liberal, that means I am humanizing conservatives. If I am conservative, that means I am humanizing liberals. I recognize people I do not understand have thoughts and feelings that matter, have a framework for living that is legitimate as much as my own, and that I might even be able to learn from if we had space to develop rapport and trust. We are not just neighbors, but in many cases, we are would-be friends.

Some of us are gleeful at the suffering of our would-be neighbors who we instead see as cartoon villain counterparts; it is easy to do when those counterparts are not seen as human. There is great danger in finding ourselves tossing other humans aside as if they are not precious human beings! It might feel righteous to write off a trans person for some or an evangelical Christian for others. But if that weapon can be pointed in a direction you like, it can certainly shift directions at any moment, including toward yourself. Beware.

Others of us are aghast at how people in power could rip away lives and livelihoods so quickly. In the case of USAID, these are conservative and liberal aid workers alike who are in deep suffering. How do we so flippantly write off entire groups of people in one category, when in another instance, we would claim them as our own? Something is concerningly fishy about this wishy washiness where convenient categories are friends and neighbors in one news cycle and enemies in the next. This feels like it is doing the bidding of someone other than a loving God.

May we be wary of anyone that would encourage us to villainize fellow citizens and neighbors. If someone writes off all conservatives or all liberals, I encourage you to take a pause. (I am preaching to myself here, too.) I understand that not everyone is eager to come to the dialogue table right now, though I encourage it anyway. But even if dialogue feels far fetched, if we find ourselves making people or even entire groups into cartoon villains, whether that be immigrants or people with lifestyles other than our own or government workers or people who live in cities or small towns, may we take a beat. May we remember what it is like to be misunderstood, tossed around, oversimplified, and imagine then having those unhelpful messages then spread all over the internet. May we even remember the way our Savior was tossed around, and to what end, and why and how he was put on that cross. Kyrie Eleison.

Why would we even proverbially crucify one another when it is ultimately keeping us from being who we wish to be, both individually and collectively?

Why would we abandon human dignity of all in our behavior in a bigger systematic fight to demand human dignity for all?

Is the dignity we are fighting for really for all, or for the people we like?

The reality is that people are complex. Keeping the door open to exhibiting kindness to one another is one of the things that keeps our integrity intact, and our commitment -per Christ’s command- to love our neighbors as ourselves- genuine. It even keeps the door open for being transformed in unexpected ways, as when love of neighbors of difference is mutual, we all grow in ways we could not have imagined before. We become stronger communities. We have more enriched support systems. We rely on each other to learn about each other far more than the talking heads telling us about each other. This is a vision I can get behind.

And this is one thing in our control – integrity and a commitment to kindness- that is extraordinarily powerful. Nobody can take it away from us unless we give it away. This is one thing that stands the test of time and can be a part of who we are individually and collectively, regardless of which principalities and powers are doing what at any time, as it keeps eternity in view.

May God help us be the community-centered, open-hearted, justice-seeking, thoroughly kind people we are fighting for the freedom to always be, not just by demanding it of our systems, but by acting like it among our neighbors now and always.

Amen.

Why Would Anyone Dialogue Right Now?!

Well, looks like our division in fact COULD get more divided in short order after all.

As a dialogue facilitator and trainer of 17 years, here is why I believe in dialogue now more than ever:

By dialogue, I mean investing intentionally in friendships who have substantive differences from ourselves, engaging ongoing conversations about how we understand the world differently, and learning and growing significantly from this experience.

There are a few things we refuse to ignore when we choose to participate in dialogue:

We refuse to ignore our interdependence.

Whether we like it or not, or find it easy or not, the reality is that we are interdependent on many levels as neighbors and as a society. Dialogue is a way to acknowledge this reality alongside our need to be able to be in constructive relationships so that we can function and flourish on basic levels in any given community. Giving up on interdependence is a version of forsaking an inconvenient truth. Dialogue keeps us seated in reality, which keeps a pathway open for solutions.

We refuse to ignore the inconvenient reality that we are all human.

Dialogue does the opposite of what polarizing algorithms usher us into: it leans into always understanding better the ins and outs of what makes people who they are. We complexify. We do not oversimplify, because we know that leads to false sense of who we all are, which makes it easy to dehumanize, bully, even hate and feel self-righteous in the process.

We refuse to give our power away.

There are always people with more power or control over systems and institutions than what we have. There is much beyond our sphere of influence. But there is something that we always have power for: how we treat ourselves and others. That is to say, rather, we always have power for this unless we give it away. People with lots of power often understand that polarizing messages that pit one another against each other is a classic move to not only gain power, but to gain power that nobody was ever forced to give them. If we lose power over how we treat ourselves and others, it is because we ceded that power. In dialogue, we exercise the muscles again and again that claim the parts of our lives over which we have agency. In so doing, we are less likely to find ourselves surrendering power which belongs to us.

Right now I’m having lots of conversations with folks who feel lost about what to do or how/if/whether to engage various goings-on in our communities and systems. Dialogue is something localized and uplifting, even as it is challenging and grows the participants involved. As such, dialogue is a worthwhile investment of time and energy to return to again and again, even as news cycles shift and possible other (re)actions fluctuate.

Even more so, when it comes to those feeling lost or paralyzed, even if you don’t know what to do, it can be helpful to have a clear understanding of who you are. Dialogue helps clarify our highest values, as we both hear from others and are asked to express reflections on precisely this. When we clarify our highest values, we remember who we are. We remember which hills are worth dying on for us outside of the dialogue room. Affirming and reaffirming how we understand ourselves in terms of faith convictions and values is a sturdy hub and headquarters for discerning how to decide when, what and how to respond to community needs in destabilizing seasons.

Finally, when we dialogue, we are not reactive. We are inventive. We are clever, resourceful and resilient, together. In dialogue we are not living in the shadow of someone else’s vision of the future. We are mapping a way forward together. We are acting like the future we want. We are modeling it and showing to ourselves and others that it is possible, and in showing that it is possible, we gain hope and even practical steps for moving in the directions needed to actually make our vision of the future. This vision for our future becomes a reality not only in the dialogue room, but more and more it becomes a part of our communities.

Whether you feel up to trying a Church Lab dialogue, or another dialogue, in your neighborhood or not, I encourage you to take this posture into your conversations with people in your family and friend group where variations exist in worldview.

Dialogue is often criticized as ineffective and a waste of time, as “talk is cheap.” But it turns out the currency of collective well-being must involve civil exchanges which promote nuanced listening, understanding and decision-making. It turns out the shortcuts we want to take to transformation don’t work, and the polarization we are so tempted to give into lead to escalation and destruction. It turns out the gravitational pull to conclude that massive swaths of our own neighbors are stupid, hateful, or both, is gratifying in our own grief but does not show us a way forward. Dialogue, as it turns out, is in itself a way forward. What we gain from the crucial conversations in that room, over time, are taken into our crucial conversations in our day-to-day about how we live.

Please don’t ignore our interdependence, our complexities. Please don’t give your power away. Lean into a vision of the future that you can get behind. Map a way forward among people of various perspectives; create the future you want, and begin practicing that future now. For what it’s worth, I am here to cheer you on every step of the way!

*These thoughts were greatly helped in developing through a conversation with my friend and colleague who has solid experience in international peacebuilding work. So thankful to and for her!

Prayer and Resources for the California Wildfires Aftermath

God of Love,

Please bring Peace which surpasses understanding to those impacted by the LA County fires. Bring safety and health. Draw near to those who are mourning staggering losses, as you mourn with them. Please make your comforting presence clear within the spirits of all our struggling neighbors in California, and make your Care be clear by the supportive hands and feet of neighbors like ourselves whose lives are not directly damaged by this crisis. Bring healing, God. Be the Hope that doesn't run out for a community reeling from so many forms of widespread loss at once. Help us exhibit and hold that Hope by our prayers, our presence of listening, our outreach not only now but well into the future of this recovery. May LA emerge knowing they are deeply loved and supported by you and by countless communities across our country. Amen.

Please Consider Supporting:

TCL’s philosophy of giving and support in a crisis is relationship-centered and focused on those who may otherwise fall through the cracks. If interested in donating to someone in need, below is a collection of GoFundMe links known about through people in our community.

Kiersten and Oscar

Kenny and Morgan

Lucille

Sarah Ray and family

Bilandzija family

Roland

Mars and her family

Cole and Mari

Juan and Lori

Chloe and Brian

Mari and Tom

Linda and sons

Micah, Nick and Benny

the Diaz family

the Perez Salas family

Danielle and Adrian

a local congregation doing local relief service with church members and neighbors (not tax-deductible)

FULLER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY FACULTY AND STAFF:

the Bolger family

the Duke family

the Ahlquist and Fairbanks families

the Lee family

Steve and Andrea

the Fong family

the Plaza family

the Min family

the Schuh family

Megan and family

ORGANIZATIONS/CENTERS:
Fair Oaks House

If you or someone you know is suffering due to the LA fires, and you have a GoFundMe or similar type of link you would like to share, please send it to help@thechurchlab.org and carrie@thechurchlab.org

Mission and Vision for 2025

From “Beauty School Drop Out” in Grease! This will make sense as you read. :)

Happy New Year to our beloved 2025 community!

Carrie spent two days at the start of the month on her annual silent retreat, envisioning the specific mission for TCL’s upcoming year.

To sum it up in a title, TCL’s 2025 mission is: Beauty School and the Math of a Journey of Joy.

2025 is set to be a huge year. Amid uncertainties, The Church Lab is focused on seeing—deep seeing. By this we mean, encountering and discovering the beauty in one another against all odds. In 2025, we’re going to “beauty school.”

This is no easy “kumbaya” task. Beauty school is justice work. Seeing the beauty in others requires us to complexify and humanize one another.

How do we plan to do this challenging work? By following God’s lead into spiritually mature, innovative community building and leadership. We commit to helping people spiritually grow through practices we offer and/or support, and to build bridges such that we better love our neighbors and ourselves.

In fact, Carrie came up with a not-super-formulaic formula. Here’s the math:

Uncertainty + (Spiritual Flexibility + Spiritual Groundedness)

= INNOVATION, CURIOSITY, WONDER, CREATIVITY, EXPERIMENTATION AND PLAY

The uncertainty speaks to our current circumstances which we cannot control. Many entered this year with mixed feelings: outrage, grief, resignation, pessimism, optimism, skepticism, anxiety, depression… you name it. Uncertainty is with us.

Combining that reality with spiritual flexibility (following the Holy Spirit’s lead as a lived priority) and spiritual groundedness (spiritual practice, learning and discovering, reflecting, writing, and sharing) we lean in to what we can control and let that be.

The “let them, let me” framing by author and podcaster Mel Robbins offers a helpful lens in which we can approach spiritual flexibility.

For TCL, the let me’s are: Let us be faithful to TCL by letting go of the things not in our control. Let us grieve outcomes and dreams lost, and let us focus on, nourish and celebrate what we do get to do here and now.

For Carrie, a very practical let me is: Let me live my spiritual priorities by ingraining them in my schedule at the start of the day.

What’s your let me for this year?

Through this formula, we prioritize sustainability of what we do best: innovation, curiosity, wonder, creativity, and the often overlooked but oh-so-important, PLAY. Only through these elements will we maintain the joy behind this work, and sustain ourselves through the difficult times.

While things may seem bleak, we are still here committing to the difficult work.

We are still here.
God is still here.
Hope is still here.

See you in beauty school in 2025.

The 2024 Annual Report is HERE!

Check out our latest annual report by clicking here!

Election: How Does Faith Influence Your Thoughts and Fears?

Photo by Frank McKenna

Over the past few months, we asked a few of TCL’s participants to answer the following questions:

How does faith influence your thoughts and fears during election season?

What are your commitments as part of your faith tradition to how you will engage in the aftermath?

Please hear from these three diverse perspectives as a window into the souls of Americans.

1. How is faith influencing your thoughts and fears this election season? I pray often for our national, state, and local leaders. I pray for wisdom for conservatives and for wise counsel. 

2. What are your commitments as part of your faith tradition and how do they inform how you will engage in the aftermath of the election? My commitment to Christ and His word tells me to treat everyone with respect and humility. No matter who wins, I trust God that He (God) is still sovereign despite circumstances. 

-Eileen, Christian
July 2024

1. How is faith influencing your thoughts and fears this election season? Growing up Jewish I was always aware that I was “different”. While I only once experienced overt antisemitism, I did realize some work and social opportunities were not available to me. Similarly, while Catholic students were excused early from grade school (I believe it was on Wednesdays) to attend religious lessons, I and other non-Catholic students had to stay and continue our regular classwork. At the same time, I felt fortunate because while I was a different religion and had to (or chose to) listen to disparaging jokes or stereotypical comments at “my” expense, at least I didn’t look different. The same could not be said of the few African American or Hispanic classmates I had. This early education in how our differences were used to categorize “us” and “them” was not lost on me. Over time it seemed that while the bigotry and hatred had been greatly reduced and a better understanding of each other was taking place, over the past several years it appears I was naive. While I thought that the hate groups which were, and always will be, present were only small fringe groups it now appears they are given the opportunity to come forward with the recognition and encouragement of certain political leaders. We are and always were a nation of immigrants. Historically, we have distrusted and mistreated the most recent immigrants. I thought we had gotten past that, apparently not. It worries me that much of this campaign season has been spent blaming “them” for everything that is perceived as wrong. I fear that the hate mongering will not end after the election, even if its proponents lose soundly. I fear it has taken root and grown to a level where we may have jumped back decades in our understanding and acceptance of the differences in us and our cultural backgrounds that actually make us a better community because of those differences.

2. What are your commitments as part of your faith tradition and how do they inform how you will engage in the aftermath of the election? My faith tradition is an interesting one. The Israelites and then the Jews were the Chosen Ones, and were given laws, practices and customs to differentiate themselves from the “others”. Yet, because of their difference they were blamed for all that was going wrong or perceived as evil by the others. I hope that after the election I will continue to remember that we are more alike than we are different. Ultimately most of us want the same things. I know this is an overused expression, but forgetting it is a recipe for disaster, and all too often war.

-Gene, Jewish
September 2024

1. How is faith influencing your thoughts and fears this election season? I ate lunch today in Cuero, Texas, sitting in a local diner amid table after table of jubilant voters. They were relieved that the nightmare of the last four years is over and that happy days are here again. The name of the diner was Bahnhof Cafe, which was simple enough for me to remember when the woman at the DMV recommended it. I took the opportunity to tell my trip companion about Deitrich Bonhoffer. This theologian, who thought deeply about the role of Christianity in public life, returned to his native Germany from the United States in mid-1939, sacrificing his comfort, safety and, ultimately, his life, in an effort to forestall the atrocities he was witnessing.

Going into election night, I felt strangely calm and open. I wasn’t hopeful; I wasn’t afraid and worried. I anticipated the result that unfolded, so I sat and witnessed. This morning, I wasn’t gutted or sad; I wasn’t worried or scared. This is apparently who Americans are now. Here all of us are.

2. What are your commitments as part of your faith tradition and how do they inform how you will engage in the aftermath of the election? I’m no Deitrich Bonhoffer. I won’t walk into the fire. I’m not brave enough for that. I know, though, that God is with me and for me. Cindy Rigby may have given me the words to describe it, but I know it to be true in my heart of hearts anyway. What I will do is protect myself and my dear ones. I will walk towards safety, with effort and expense and risk alongside. I will do each next faithful thing. That will look like completing my passport application and end-of-life paperwork just in case, and ultimately packing up my stuff and driving to Illinois. A place that won’t be hostile to who I am.

And when I get there, I’ll do in that new place what I’ve done every day in each place up until now: I will be Christ in the eyes of all who see me, Christ in the ears who hear my voice, Christ in the hearts of all who know me. Because I know that Christ surrounds me and surrounds those I love and surrounds all those who are about to get very, very hurt, both stateside and overseas. I will pray that others will step into Dr. Bonhoffer’s shoes, and I will hold the hands of those who can’t.

God bless us all.

-Ollie, Christian
November 6, 2024

Pre-Election Encouragement from Pastor Carrie

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez

Nov 5 is arriving soon. It's a big day, and the days, weeks and months which follow it will be perhaps even more important as we each decide how to treat our neighbors in the wake of election results, and how to nurture -for ourselves and for others- our spiritual, mental and emotional health along the way.

I know so many of us are experiencing stress, if not outright distress, over this election season. Folks are understandably worried for many reasons and on many levels. My prayer for us is that we would remember deep in our beings that the government is very important, but not a god. For those reading this who are people of faith, there is something -Someone(s)- beyond ourselves who offers us care, strength, resilience and connection whose depths reach far past what we can manufacture for ourselves. I wish each and all of you deep Peace today and in the days ahead. I wish for our unshakeable conviction to make our voices known in our political convictions while prioritizing behavior of embodied love and dignity for all human beings whose paths we cross, even when it is difficult. 

I thank you, because if you are reading this, you likely value that bridge building conversations have not been shut down everywhere. They continue in our midst. They will continue in our midst, regardless of political outcomes. Dialogue is a courageous act; I'm grateful for your courage! You are a part of that miraculous space being held for foundational love of neighbor. I thank God for you, and for our connection as peacebuilders. 

I look forward to continuing our crucial conversations together, and I look forward to looking back on this time and being thankful that we were here, together.

If you'd like to read on, here are some additional personal reflections I wrote in early Oct as a reminder and re-commitment to dialogue in such a pivotal moment for our country and culture:

Matthew 22:36-40 (nrsvue)

36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

I have 2 priorities this election season.

The second one is to vote. Pretty dang important.

The first one is to focus on loving my neighbors who do not vote like me and do not think like me.

Please allow me, especially in this season, to encourage you to live in the reality of who our neighbors are, and to commit to words and actions that love them.

Here are my efforts that I hope may help yours, too:

My focus is on understanding and curiosity, and trying my best to move away from judgment. Even when I am judged.

My focus is on giving dignity to my neighbors, whether they are neighbors whose rights and protections I am concerned for, or neighbors whose votes will trouble me.

My focus is on refusing to oversimplify my American neighbors. I do not believe half of the country is stupid. I want to live in the realities of humankind being complex. I want to remember that it is not informational differences that lead us to different conclusions, but rather subcultural, paradigmatic differences. To create understanding, it doesn't mean sending articles to people. It doesn't mean yelling at people on the internet or in-person. It means entering my neighbors' world to understand their worldview and genuinely caring about it and committing to learning from it. This is much harder work than concluding 165 million people are stupid, because it is work that accepts the reality that other good, intelligent people might conclude something I cannot currently fathom concluding for myself.

It also means bringing an open mind and an open heart to conversations with folks who are different than me. Instead of assuming they need to change, I come willing to be changed myself. What can I learn from this person who is speaking to me?When that is mutual, everyone changes, learns and grows for the better. The hard part of that is, of course, losing control over one's own agenda and hopes for how others need to change; the good part is by letting go, the possibility for all of us to change in yet un-imagined ways emerges.

What I am describing is not something I do perfectly and may never do perfectly. But it is my highest priority for several reasons, including that my faith commands me to love my neighbor and this is me taking that very seriously, to think about what that means and how it needs to look in my life and then trying my best every day at doing this.

It is also important because strong communities exist due to doors that are kept open to conversation, understanding, compromise and change that occurs together. If we shut the door on one another, if we insult each other and denigrate each other, if we belittle one another, then the possibility of creating a critical mass for the kinds of communities we want and need over time is also shut down.

Some say to me that standing up for the rights of the marginalized (whether unborn babies, LGBTQ neighbors or other children of God) stands in tension with staying in relationship with those who would vote against those marginalized neighbors. That the line must be drawn. That choosing to be in relationship over being right sounds nice, but that sometimes being right is important to the basic rights of human lives.

I believe standing up for what we believe in, and protecting the vulnerable in our midst is crucial. There are ways to do this without tearing down those voting against the interests of the vulnerable. If we believe dignity is for all humans, I encourage you (and me) to not take dignity away from people even when they take it away from humans, from souls, we are trying to protect. If we believe in dignity for all, we must model giving dignity to all, and to not inadvertently make it a trading game, or a game at all. If dignity is for everyone, then the hard part is that it is for everyone.

The power of committing to love of neighbor, while seated in the realities of our neighbors different than us, is a power I've seen grow people together in ways my faith tells me only God can make possible. It is a lifetime's worth of work, but it is worthwhile for the ways it forms us and draws us together meaningfully, and for people of faith, the way it draws us to God. Seeing God's work in this way spurs me on to continue to see what happens when we take seriously the mandate to love others -meaning with our minds, our hearts, our souls- in all the best ways we can.

If you are in the trenches of trying to love neighbors that are hard to love with mind and heart and soul, and if you ever need encouragement, please just say the word. We are in this hard work together! God's Peace be with you, child of God, as we take seriously the call of peacemaker (Matthew 5:9).

Announcing Our 2025 Empowering Experiments Mini Grant Recipient!

Holly Porter Phillips is a pastor, writer and trained spiritual director through Anam Cara. After years of wrestling with her place in the church and overthinking life with God, she’s found new ways of encountering the Spirit through simply being. Holly serves as co-pastor at a small church in Austin, Texas where she lives with her musician husband, their three kids and a backyard full of birds.

We are pleased to announce the newest recipient of our Empowering Experiments Mini-Grant: spiritual director, Holly Phillips! Her project is entitled Listening Like a Spiritual Director. The project aims to help more faith leaders adopt the posture of a spiritual director, rather than an authoritarian figure. With the current landscape of church shifting, Phillips sees a need for pastors to serve as a witness to the lives of the community. She says: “When I first began applying to spiritual direction training programs, my director said to me “spiritual direction is the future of the Church.” At the time I didn’t understand what she meant, and imagined it to mean more people would practice or attend spiritual direction. I have grown to realize that what she likely meant is that the posture of spiritual direction, much more than the practice, is the future of the Church. As described above, I believe that there is a shift happening, where people are no longer looking for a pastor to tell them what to do – people are looking for someone to bear witness to their lives. The top priority of this project is to help pastors and other ministry leaders engage with the changing roles they (we!) are being called to. This workshop series will allow pastors to grow spiritually by learning to listen more closely to themselves, to others and to God.”

Listening Like a Spiritual Director will take place once per-month in early 2025 (January, February, March, April) in Austin, TX. Local pastors will meet for 1.5 - 2 hours monthly for four months for a time of centering, teaching and practice. These groups will be part instruction and part spiritual direction groups.

Phillips’ mission aligns with The Church Lab’s mission to envision the Church’s future and the future of faith practice, and we are thrilled to empower her important work!

Facing Calamity: Finding God?

Bushra Zafar is a longtime participant in The Church Lab’s dialogues. She religiously identifies as Ahmadiyya Muslim, and she graciously agreed to write on her experiences with persecution both in Pakistan and America and the ways in which her faith informs how she processes these experiences. We are deeply grateful to Bushra for taking the time out to vulnerably share her stories so that we may grow in understanding and compassion. 

As I sat down to write about persecution, I was faced with the decision of which aspect to focus on. Should I write about the blatant persecution faced by my cousin, who as a teenager got burning hot water thrown on him just for his faith, then as a grown man and a father got caught in the suicide attacks on two Ahmadi mosques in Lahore, Pakistan in 2010? Or the more insidious persecution, where he along with wife and son, for the past 8 years are living statelessly, waiting for a country willing to offer refuge? Alternatively, I could discuss the assassination attempt on my father due to his faith. Or on a grander scale should I tackle how my country of choice, the United States, is behaving myopically to the events in Palestine and Israel. In the end, I found inspiration in the resilience of the persecuted Palestinian civilians, whom I witnessed being martyred, maimed and displaced again and again. Despite the constant loss, when news of another loss was reported to them, in countless videos I would hear them respond with the words: 

“Sufficient for us is God, and an excellent Guardian is He” (Quran 3:174).

Growing up in Pakistan during the oppressive regime of military dictator, Zia ul Haq, being an Ahmadi Muslim was made illegal. Merely saying “Assalam-o-Alaikum”, a greeting of peace, could lead to jail. Many Ahmadis in the 80s were jailed for the offense, and as a lawyer my father got to represent some of them in court. Many Ahmadis even lost their lives at the hands of mob violence. In Islam, anyone who loses life while testifying steadfastly to their faith is honorably called a martyr. The Arabic word for martyr is “shaheed”, although its etymological meaning is more closely that of “witness”. Here, I must confess that as a child, witnessing the painful persecution made me idealize martyrdom. I saw it as a shortcut to finding salvation, which normally requires the toil of righteous living, and bearing through persecution. It’s only with time and experience that I have understood that the true essence of martyrdom lies in bearing witness to one's faith by living each day in the presence of God, not through death but through living.

Now, the question remains: what does living in the presence of God actually entail, and how can it be put in action in our daily lives? Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and the Promised Messiah in his book “How to be free from sin” expounds on this subject and makes the case that only through living in the presence of God can a person achieve true salvation and it can only be achieved through balancing two things, namely:

• the Rights of God and 

• the Rights of Man.

As an exercise in testing this theory, let's juxtapose Taliban’s religious extremism and French secularism. They exemplify the consequences of losing balance in either direction. The Taliban's extreme focus on the Rights of God results in the infringement of human rights, including the policing of women's apparel. Conversely, the French are committed to keeping God out of public life, again, leading to, among other things, to the policing of women's apparel. These contrasting approaches highlight how extremism in either direction can ultimately lead to persecution of people who may have a differing viewpoint.

The question remains that how can we find comfort in a world where God’s commandments of doing good unto others, a teaching found in all major religions, is ignored because of corrupted interpretations or intentions? What’s the prescription for breaking the cycle of hate and violence?

As I look at the broken world around me, I for one find comfort in the response by God’s chosen ones who refused to reply in kind to hate and advocated for love and compassion. I find comfort in the words of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad: 

“You should conquer hearts and hearts are not conquered through wars, but through superior morals.” (Malfuzat Vol.10 P.437)

 The words of forgiveness on the lips of Jesus (peace be on him) while on the cross inspire me:

“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).

I learn from the wisdom of a victorious Prophet Muhammad (Peace be on him) as he entered Mecca. To avoid bloodshed, he announced clemency even for his most ardent enemy, Abu Sufyan, the Meccan leader who had tortured and persecuted him and his followers. I also find comfort in the words my father said to me when Zia ul Haq died in a plane crash in 1989 and I gleefully brought him the news that the wicked persecutor of Ahmadis had finally met his fate. He replied in the most somber manner with a couplet of a Sufi poet:

“Do not rejoice in the death of your enemy, for your friends too will die one day.”

So, in the end, through analyzing the response to the persecution one might be able to discern whether the persecuted have the power to see God and be seen by Him. The ones who respond to calamity with equal or greater force or those who say, through their pain:

 “Sufficient for us is God, and an excellent Guardian is He” (Quran 3:174).

Election Season Dialogue Series

Photo by Marek Studzinski

As we head into the thick of election season, TCL is getting ready to offer up some politically-centered dialogues. We hope to provide impactful support as many of us serve as both activists AND bridgebuilders leading into and coming out of Election Day on Nov 5.

TCL will hold a series of dialogues this fall:

• a Republican spotlight on Sept 30

• a Democrat spotlight on Oct 7

• a post-election debrief dialogue on Nov 11

All are 6-8pm Central. They can be attended IRL or online, with an RSVP to carrie@thechurchlab.org.

What is a spotlight dialouge?
A spotlight dialogue is where we will spend a chunk of initial time showcasing a voice or voices from a particular political party, and what their experiences are like. I will provide support and help to spotlight voices so they feel ready and steady, and so I can facilitate the whole group dialoguing the rest of the session around themes that will come up from the spotlight voices. 

Would you like to be a spotlight voice?
If you are willing to share your perspective as a "spotlight voice" of what it's like to be a part of your political party in this moment in history, we'd love that! It'd be so helpful for others to better understand your world and where you're coming from. Please click the RSVP link below and write to let us know you're game to share your perspective by August 30 for the Republican dialogue, or by Sept 7 for the Democrat dialogue.

Want to share but not as the spotlight voice?
If you want to share your voice, but you're hesitant, you're welcome to email me and I'll zap you 10 questions to answer in writing or on a video of 3-7 minutes (either one would work well) that we could share out during group time. I'd need your responses by or before Sept 9 for the Republican dialogue and Sept 23 for the Democrat dialogue.

Want to observe but not share?
If you just want to observe one or both of these dialogues, you can RSVP and simply let us know that you're observing anytime before 10am the morning of the dialogue.

Otherwise, you are welcome to simply come participate in the dialogue (no need to be a "spotlight voice,") so long as the ground rules we introduce at the beginning of the dialogue are amenable to you. RSVP's for participants can also be done anytime before 10am the day of the dialogue.

Please don't hesitate to lmk if you're interested!

With gratitude,

Carrie

Featuring Our Spiritual Entrepreneurship Guest Speakers

One of our main missions at The Church Lab is training and supporting innovative ministry initiatives. This year we will complete our first seminary cohort for spiritual entrepreneurship at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. The cohort is entitled SpirEnt (short for Spiritual Entrepreneurship) and we invited six spiritual entrepreneurs at varying levels of their career to speak to the students about their experiences and to answer any questions they may have.

As a thank you, we want to share with you a bit about these entrepreneurs and the meaningful work they do!

Stephen Norberg is a social entrepreneur who has started 6 businesses (including Ants Gourmet, Inc. which makes sauces, spreads and seasoning out of ants!) and 2 nonprofits. He hosts an anti-bullying podcast called Fight Monsters in which he hosts conversations on adversity, trauma, emotional health and spirituality. 

Amina McIntyre is a Theology and Practice Fellow at Vanderbilt University and a playwright. She serves as the assistant director of the Sun-Walking Fellowship, an organization which cultivates creative approaches to reimagining youth ministry. She considers herself a womanist artist minister, who writes plays that examine the human condition of longing and seeking. Her plays are meant to be agents of healing as they address the complexities of race, gender, religion and socioeconomics.

Jillian Mason Shannon is the owner of Neotopia, a bookstore in San Antonio that sells books and holds classes and events in the realm of theology, philosophy and culture. The space is meant to be a sanctuary for seekers and skeptics to help participants deconstruct our preconditioned notions about God and reconstruct to promote human flourishing. 

Ryan Cagle is a trained spiritual director and graduate of the Center for Action and Contemplation’s Living School. He hosts a podcast and spiritual direction experiment called Roll for Spirituality which discusses the intersection of tabletop role-playing games and spirituality. 

Ben Johnston-Krase is an organizing pastor of Farm Church in Durham, NC. The congregation meets on a farm and addresses food security by honoring people with locally grown food. Farm church asks the question: How can we love and honor people with good food? 

Alicia Llewellyn is a co-founder of Quite Uncommon, a technology firm that organizes, builds, tests and launches innovative ideas. She is also a strategist at NASA. Her background is in education, communication and theology. She wrote a book we recommend entitled “What Comes Next?: Shaping the Future in an Ever-Changing World - A Guide for Christian Leaders.” 

What IS the bridge?

View fullsize

photo: Joe Beck

By Carrie Graham

I was recently training facilitators around bridge building, and one participant asked a central yet very astute question:  What IS the bridge?

If we are peacebuilding, a.k.a. "bridgebuilding" with one another, exactly what is the bridge?

Here are a few thoughts on this that feel timely:

First, what it's not: Building a bridge does not mean building consensus or persuading effectively. These are worthy efforts in many scenarios. They are simply different pursuits than what bridgebuilding refers to here.

The bridge we are building allows us to understand each other more fully, allows us to love our neighbor for all of who they are, for where they are the same and where they differ, for their sense of humor and taste in food and care for others just as much as the beliefs that contradict with our own. 

Why do that? What is building this bridge for? 

There are many reasons. The one most compelling to me personally is that it's transformative. Oftentimes, we go into a dialogue hoping others will be changed. Dialogue is a process of becoming true friends with people who differ from ourselves, which changes us. It changes everyone involved in unexpected, unpredictable ways. More touching to me is that it changes us toward growth, toward a maturity we did not suspect possible. It moves us from a posture of defense to a mutual posture of vulnerability, from a sentiment of holding one's ground to a freedom to be sincerely curious about the lens through which a person so different than us sees the world, understands it, cares for it. 

In so doing, it also provides a space for us to exist as our whole selves, free to be curious, to express ourselves without fear and with kindness and directness, to connect, to play, to be more whole than when we started.

Ultimately, on this bridge, we learn to freely welcome and be welcomed, somehow in the face of - rather than the denial of - mutually exclusive beliefs. We are invited into a spiritual maturity which allows for this paradox to exist in our minds, hearts and interactions.

The shorthand for dialogue is indeed making friends. It's just with people we might never think we'd become friends with, joke around with, delight in, reach out to when a need arises. 

When we find ourselves in friendships with others with mutually exclusive beliefs, this then helps us to imagine the humanity of strangers with different beliefs. It shifts how we interact with others at work and even how we engage with our loved ones at home. 

When social and political tensions rise and we have already invested in these bridgebuilding tools, they come to our aid. It is not a perfect scene, but we find ourselves being more thoughtful about the purpose and utility of what we share not just with other dialoguers but in any environment, as well as in what we ask, where and when and how. We find our voice, too; we know its worth and can let it ring both clearly and compassionately at once. Here is where the bridge becomes a place of community service and leadership.

With division at an ever heightening climax, where burning bridges with others feels like the best thing to do to preserve and protect our own dearly held convictions, there is a long-term tragedy embedded in this scene that is converting into an ever nearer threat of reality. Insistence on distrust of others -whether nearby or seemingly far away from us- by nature escalates and moves to speaking without listening, shouting for a way of life in a way that insists that others are at best wrong and at worst a real and present threat to our own way of life. This process is both sadly reinforced, and the downward spiral of it is exacerbated, in our online engagement. 

In some cases that said threat is true and real; our opinions and policies threaten to, or already do, in some cases impinge on some citizens' way of life, their values, their beliefs. It is a deeply affecting, deeply emotional experience to watch this happen before our eyes. The bridge's purpose is not to be an impediment to standing up for one's beliefs, for activism which involves us exercising our voices and expressing our convictions. The bridge is a companion and anchor to any such efforts.

History tells us, however, that louder and louder shouting -when the ingredients are centrally anxiety and fear and not care and love- leads to violence. We have already seen that. Escalation leads to war, to death; it doesn't lead to a better life for anyone. It doesn't accomplish what we hope it will. It feels smart to choose "might makes right." It feels pragmatic, realistic. Unfortunately it is none of those things. 

The bridge can be, though. Leaning into seeking to understand before being understood, as the prayer of St. Francis of Assissi states it, is not at all naive work, as it seems to some. It is, if anything, the opposite. It is hard, urgent-yet-long-term work which faces directly what many of us are afraid to confront: the neighbor status of the person who we feel threated by, and the difficult road of finding a way to honor each other that is accomplished not by shouting or hoping others will change, but being willing to be changed alongside neighbors of difference in a long-term commitment (-this time frame including years beyond our own time, as an investment in future generations) to this bridge. Here is where we find solutions, here is where we find our better selves, a better life for all of us, a platform of compromise that upholds the greater good and nurtures a paradigm for precisely that. It is a more nuanced way of holding one another with the insistence that we can, after all, love our neighbors as ourselves. 

Thanks be to God.

Amen. 

-Rev. Carrie Graham

founding pastor, The Church Lab

Movie review: The Pope: Answers

*This review reflects the individual views of the author, and not the views of the entire organization.

In March of 2024,  some folks from The Church Lab gathered together to watch The Pope: Answers and discuss their reactions afterward. The response to the documentary was overwhelmingly positive and inspired rich dialogue by TCL. This is unsurprising. The documentary shows ten young adults from all over the world, presenting Pope Francis with the very real issues of their lives, and they held nothing back. The young adults included a sex worker, a young man who was abused by a priest as a child, an atheist, a non-binary person, a feminist, an evangelist who protests outside Planned Parenthood, and more. The diversity of their experiences and their opinions ensured heated debate - but what we saw was a demonstration of advanced dialogue. 

The Pope set the tone for healthy dialogue, as he did more listening than talking. He seemed non-judgmental over the - sometimes provocative - experiences of these young people, only expressing the occasional grimace (as with the mention of women aborting their fetuses with a clothes hanger). One may have wished to hear more input from the pope at times, as most of the documentary was back-and-forth dialogue between the participants. However, the fact that he embraced the opportunity to hear from the people and observe rather than insert himself says a lot about his intentions. Rather than seclude himself in his bubble and force his own theology on the outside, he allowed the real world to puncture his bubble. 

When Pope Francis did take his turn to speak, he was clear on his opinions. Once everyone expressed their diverse points of view, he would point out that the best points of each side are the ones that come from a place of sensitivity for the human person. He’d remind everyone that these are not mathematical problems, but human problems. In other words, when we are dealing with issues of the heart, we can’t look to a spreadsheet or statistical data for our answers. We must look into one another’s eyes and hear them speak from the heart.

That being said, Francis appeals to the dogmatic rules of the Church in times of difficult confrontation. For instance, when a young woman - who identifies as a feminist - challenged him as to whether a women could ever be in his role, he maintained that the ministry is a role for men, while women carry equally - if not more important - roles elsewhere. This answer seemed to disappoint the woman who asked the question, and that reaction was likely shared by a large portion of the audience. Yet, it serves as a blunt reminder that dialogue doesn’t always mean we change our mind, or say what the other people want to hear. Perhaps agreement is not the goal, but engagement and relationship despite disagreement.

A final take away from Pope Francis is his profound point that we tend to over identify with adjectives, confusing these adjectives for nouns. We say things like, “I'm a feminist/nonbinary/conservative/Christian/atheist/insert your own.” But God, he says, is more concerned with nouns that adjectives. “Adjectives are not baptized, nouns are.”

Each person - from the Gen Z participants to Pope Francis himself - remains authentically themselves throughout, never bending under pressure or fear of criticism. I found this film to be exciting to watch for that reason especially. It felt like a once in a lifetime opportunity to hear Pope Francis comment - unprepared - on the true realities of our generation. Whether or not final conclusions were drawn on difficult issues, the true take-away was that the only way to evolve as a culture is by practicing the way we speak to one another despite our differences, and to view each other not as mathematical problems but as our fellow human beings. 

By Jillian Mason Shannon.

Shannon is the pastoral assistant at TCL and a spiritual entrepreneur. She is the owner of Neotopia, a non-profit bookstore in San Antonio, TX that holds classes and events surrounding subjects of theology, philosophy and culture.

Spotlight Organization: Cure with Love!

Emanuel “Boo” Milton started Cure with Love Strategies, LLC in 2020 to build out immediate and sustainable strategies to provide relief and support to communities. Since its start, Cure with Love has distributed over 3,000 physical units of social emotional learning kits, connected 90 youth with optical health care, and advised multiple leaders in nonprofits, government, and youth services in effective impact.

When I became aware of Emanuel “Boo” Milton’s company Cure with Love, I was taken by its specific mission to help teens and young adults with conflict resolution. In particular, the Cure with Love program “C.H.I.L.L.” which trains teens on how to deal with conflicts when they arise. In this way, Cure with Love specializes in preventative work--helping young people, specifically in the Baton Rouge area, deal with conflict before it escalates. We at The Church Lab view dialogues as preventative measures to conflict. As we have witnessed, those who are practiced in the tools of dialogue are more readily equipped to handle tensions in relationships when unexpected conflicts arise, whether that’s interpersonal conflict or big systemic division such as with the upcoming political election. Not only does dialogue prevent conflict, it also encourages richer, more flourishing relationships in and through inevitable tensions. 

Please enjoy the following excerpts from a conversation between myself and Boo as we relate the similarities between his mission and TCL, and hear how he explains the way Cure with Love came about, and how its evolution mirrored his own story. 

“I actually began my work in the interfaith realm. A lot of people don’t even realize that. But right after high school I got linked with an internship with Interfaith Federation for Greater Baton Rouge. But my work then shifted into public safety, violence prevention work. So to even think about the intersection of interfaith organizations (as preventative) and public safety blows my mind. 

Cure with Love is really an evolution of who I’ve become, manifested into a business model. I started off in high school as a rapper. Then as I evolved as a person and things started shifting, God opened the door for radio. So I was a radio personality for a couple years after that. I had a number 1 show on MAX 94.1 here in Baton Rouge. And as I started to evolve even more, God showed me that what I enjoyed most about the entertainment industry wasn’t the vanity of it, but the connection with people. 

From there, I started throwing more community-based events. My first event was “Boo Milton and Friends Give Back Weekend”--manicures and haircuts for kids or anyone in the community who wanted it. Then came my dodgeball event. We had about 120 people participate and 1,000 people in attendance. We had security at the event, but we made sure to have at least one officer on every team to increase positive community and police relationship.

We did a survey with 10% of those in attendance and 76% said they made between 1-5 connections and 18% said they made more than 5 connections. All it takes is 1 connection for you to really feel an impact. Another question on the survey was “How often do you see law enforcement act in a positive way in the community?” Before the event, 79% said never. After the event, 90% said they did. So we created a touchpoint for those who never see law enforcement in a positive way, see them in this space. 

After this, I got a fellowship with a group called Cities United. A network of over 150 cities that work with their mayors on creating public safety plans for that city. If we can get [mayors] on board, then we can make the most impact saving the lives of young Black men and boys, because they are the most victims of homicide.

We look at violence as a public health crisis and we look at preventative measures for violence. Law enforcement is a piece of that but they often monopolize the conversation about public safety. It’s illogical because people call the police after something happens. Their job is to enforce the law, so a law has to be broken for them to even engage. At that point it’s already too late. It’s a reactive measure instead of a preventative measure. 

I knew what I was doing was helping, but I needed the language and the knowledge of how this connects and makes sense to the larger landscape of saving lives. So Cities United gave me that language. From there I started Cure with Love. 

Once I started Cure with Love I started expanding the types of things I do to different outreach initiatives. For instance, C.H.I.L.L. is a conflict resolution model. It stands for Calm, Hear, Interpret, Lead, and Learn. This teaches kids the core of decision making as a whole, anytime you get hit with any type of conflict--anywhere from a flat tire to larger interpersonal relationships.

Social media is by far the biggest conflict teens are facing today. There are conflicts that you don’t even realize stem from social media. So engaging in social media in a healthy way from the jump is what stops all that from happening. 

DigCitCommit (Digital Citizenship Commitment) is a toolkit for dealing with social media. It emphasizes the idea that we are citizens in this society. What defines a citizen is living in a certain community and abiding by a certain set of rules. With the internet, you live in this digital world but there are no rules. How do we create a space that is safe and healthy for everyone in a world with no rules? So some of the largest tech companies in America came together and created competencies, ways we can live on the internet that don’t just present a list of don’ts but tell them what they can do.

Ultimately, our goal at Cure with Love is to create and leverage moments of joy and connection. Because joy and connection are the foundations of any type of positive social impact. So I prioritize relationship building as a preventative measure. 

It’s like what you guys do with interfaith work- connecting people of different faiths so that whenever war or something does happen we have these core moments of connection. If we can do a better job at creating positive moments between people then we can get to the social impact that we want to see.” 

TFW: You Flopped!

by Jillian Shannon

It’s 5:55pm. Class starts at 6pm. You pace the room waiting for people -anyone!- to arrive. A part of you hopes no one shows so you can call the whole thing off. (You’re not as prepared as you would like.) You play scenarios in your head: I would rather nobody show up than just ONE person. Imagine teaching a class to just one person?! How awkward! 

Jillian Shannon is the pastoral assistant at TCL and a spiritual entrepreneur. She is the owner of Neotopia, a non-profit bookstore in San Antonio, TX that holds classes and events surrounding subjects of theology, philosophy and culture.

At 6pm on the dot, two people arrive simultaneously. You begin the class, but you’re already in your head. You float above your body and watch yourself speak, and judgmentally tally the amount of times you end a sentence with “right?” - your nervous tick. You wonder what the students are thinking as they watch you with blank stares. Are they into this? Are they bored? Did she just look at her phone?\

It’s 6:25 and you’re out of material. Class is supposed to end at 6:50. Usually you leave space at the end of class for questions and comments, but this group is particularly quiet. 

Luckily the students pull through and ask some interesting questions! Maybe they enjoyed the subject matter after all. Still--you know this wasn’t your best. And you will beat yourself up for it for the rest of the night. Maybe tomorrow too.

The above scenario happened to me a few weeks ago. I wonder if any of you can relate? As a newbie in the spiritual entrepreneurship world, a recent graduate and sudden “authority” on complex subjects, I so often live beyond my comfort zone. Most of the time, the uncomfortability pays off. Then there are times when you feel like you failed and you are tempted to question what you’re doing. 

As the name “The Church Lab” suggests, spiritual entrepreneurship involves experiments, and not all experiments go according to plan. But failures (or perceived failures) are an important part of the process. Here are some of the take-aways from my reflection on this night:

1. It would help to establish my personal rules and boundaries. What is my minimum number of participants? i.e. if only one person shows up to a class, do I cancel? Reschedule? Adjust the style of the class and continue as a one-on-one? 

2. My personal style (this may be different from person to person) is to overly prepare. I thought I knew the subject well enough to swing it in the moment, but when the circumstances threw me off balance, I became insecure with the material. If I had a solid lecture prepared, it would have helped a lot. 

3. The irony of this particular situation is that the topic of that class was Thomas Merton’s false self/True Self. The false self is our superficial identity, our preferences, our appearance, or, as we call it in the West, our “personality.” The false self worries about gaining the approval of others. Our “True Self”, or our “essence” as they call it in the East, is our incorruptible spiritual nature. The True Self is attentive to a different vibration in the room. In that particular class, I worried how I was being received and that worry interfered with my role as a vessel for information and connection. 

Pastors, teachers, leaders and speakers of any kind dealing with spiritual matters must face this issue a lot. We know that the reason we feel called to speak is to connect other people to something greater than ourselves and to access that sacred space beyond the superficial realities to which we’re accustomed. Yet, we occasionally collapse into the smallness of the moment, concerned for our own image and the reputation of our work.

Spiritual entrepreneurship requires us to put our egos and personal agendas to the side and act as a vessel for whatever mission we are trying to accomplish. This leads us to accept failures as a part of the learning process. Perhaps, then, we can more easily laugh off the flops and find more joy in our vocational process.

Spotlight Organization: Neotopia!

Hello TCL readers! Jillian here, your pastoral assistant from over the summer! I am absolutely thrilled to be back to work with Carrie and The Church Lab.

As you know, The Church Lab loves to empower innovative ministry initiatives. One of the ways TCL plans to empower fellow ministries is by spotlighting them on the blog. We’ll be kicking off this new tradition with my own company, Neotopia!

Neotopia began as an instagram page deconstructing our preconditioned notions about God, and reconstructing to promote human and cosmological flourishing. This is done by looking at God and religion through a lens that merges—rather than rejects—science, and through biblical interpretations that are usually only learned by going to seminary. The goal is to bring theological education to the everyday person who wouldn’t ordinarily seek a seminary degree, but is still interested in the subjects.

Last year, the Neotopia instagram came off the pages and into the flesh with a bookstore (Neotopia Books) in San Antonio, TX. This bookstore sells books in the realm of theology, philosophy and culture, and holds classes on subjects like biblical interpretation, science & theology, and mystical contemplation. 

Most recently, Neotopia became established as a 501c3 organization so that we may obtain the necessary funding to keep up this work. The classes and events have proved to be fulfilling to the community, and Neotopia serves as a sanctuary for seekers and skeptics (of any or no religion) who may not otherwise have a spiritual community with which to express their deeper questions about God. 

To follow along with what we’re up to over in San Antonio, follow the instagram or check out the website for a curated selection of books to sink your teeth into!

Thank you for welcoming me back into this community. I look forward to the meaningful work ahead!