Grieve With Those Who Grieve: Dealing With Diverse Reactions to Orlando

By Paul Louis Metzger and John W. Morehead

On Sunday, June 12, the news broke that there was another mass shooting in America, this time in Orlando, killing 49 people and injuring 53 in a gay nightclub. According to initial news reports, the gunman called 911 and pledged allegiance to the Islamic terror group ISIS. President Obama made a statement to the media soon after the attack, calling it both an act of terror and an act of hate. The Orlando attack is the largest mass shooting in modern American history, and if the ongoing investigation confirms initial reports, it will also be the largest terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.

Our initial response to this incident is to express our deepest sympathies with the victims and their families. We come alongside you and “mourn with those who mourn” (Romans 12:15). We also wish that as a society we could set aside time to grieve before moving to analysis, as there is a season for everything (Ecclesiastes 3:1). But we live in a media saturated society where news is immediate, as is the commentary that comes with it. In the essay that follows we provide what we hope will be a unique perspective that will challenge right and left as we work through the tragedy. It is shaped not only by our individual perspectives, but also by the research and reflection of our participation in the Multi-faith Matters grant project on interreligious engagement funded by the Louisville Institute.

Almost immediately, the analysis and commentary from the shooting assumed the contours of America’s political polarization. One fears that such tragedies serve as opportunities for politicians across the spectrum to grand-stand partisan positions. For those on the left the event signaled the need to push for further gun control legislation. For those on the right the event demonstrated that the President needs to let go of his hesitancy to use the term “Islamic terrorism,” and the nation needs to step up its military response to the ongoing “War on Terror.” Rather than address the specifics of the perspectives of left and right on these issues, we’d like to provide some thoughts on sorting out how people come to very different perspectives on such topics, and how we might better understand and perhaps even sympathize with those who come down on the other side of the ideological spectrum from us.

First, we understand the human need to label tragic events (in this context, “Islamic terrorism” and “a gun violence legislation issue”). The process of labeling a tragedy, particularly one that involves human violence, provides us, so we assume, with the ability to get a handle on it and deal with trauma. Labels, particularly those that fit our ideological assumptions, provide us with an emotional and conceptual tool to understand and begin to address events that are overwhelming.

But sometimes the immediate labels we apply to tragedies, particularly those connected to the culture wars, can further misunderstanding and polarization. What we need is a way to grapple with how others see things that help us understand and feel what others feel in response to such things. We need not only to develop our critical thinking about such things, but also to develop the right emotions that help us not only feel differently about it ourselves, but also to empathize with others who process and perceive events differently than we do.

It is here that our research in moral foundations theory as part of social psychology can be helpful. In his book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion, Jonathan Haidt discovered that liberals and conservatives draw upon very different moral intuitions, and this results in the dramatically different responses we give to the important issues of our day. Liberals tend to emphasize care and fairness. This works itself out in liberal concerns for compassion and equality, particularly for those perceived of as being on the margins of society. By contrast, conservatives tend to emphasize loyalty, authority, and purity. This results in the conservative desire for loyalty to various “in-groups”, such as church and country; respect for authority like the Constitution and the Bible; and an interest in maintaining the purity of doctrine, the church, and the country.

This accounts for why conservatives and liberals interpret and respond to events like the Orlando shooting very differently. For conservatives, given the moral foundations they emphasize, the nightclub violence is a reminder of the need to protect the purity of the country from the dangerous terrorist outsider, and the need for the continuing legal access to firearms for safety. For the liberal drawing upon their different moral foundations, the shooting is evidence of the need for more care and fairness, reducing the number of guns for less violence, and the protection of minority groups like the LGBTQ community, as well as the Muslim population who will be viewed with increasing suspicion. At the end of the day, the right and left will still disagree over the issues, but it is essential that we try to understand each other and why we see things so differently if we are ever to move beyond our polarization so as to work together for the common good on the issues that divide us.

Another thing we might consider is the need for “emotional intelligence.” This comes from Daniel Goleman’s best-selling book with that title. When it comes to intelligence, people tend to think that having a high IQ is the most important factor. We think that intelligence is important. We need smart people to help us think through the challenges we face in today’s world. But Goleman points out that sometimes very smart people don’t always succeed or perform optimally in life. He suggests that what we are missing is emotional smarts, which includes empathy and self-awareness. This is not something that is fixed at birth. Our brains have a certain level of plasticity, and if we change our relationships with others this then changes the wiring of our brains.

In seeking to empathize with others, to feel and see things as they do, we practice emotional and social intelligence that then leads to a more holistic way of thinking beyond the merely rational. In this way those who disagree with us over fundamental issues are no longer seen as the enemy, evil, or ignorant, but instead become people with real concerns who perceive the world and feel about it differently than we do based on various factors that make sociological and emotional sense. We must account for such factors, as we seek to develop holistic responses to address tragedies adeptly.

Such research and considerations should not be taken as suggestions to discount different responses or alternative proposed solutions to respond to tragedies. At the very least, such research and considerations outlined in this essay help us draw from the perspectives of people across the spectrum in seeking to address problems that affect us all. Only as we account for people’s diverse moral intuitions and emotional responses can we come to a place where we can hear them; seemingly rational solutions that do not account for such diverse emotional factors are not rational enough.

What we are suggesting in this essay is very different from much that has been offered by others. It’s easy to polarize, particularly for political gain. But what is desperately needed is an approach that seeks to bring a deeply divided nation together in order to understand each other, to empathize with how and why others feel so differently about significant issues in the culture wars, and to work through differences in productive ways. For evangelicals, it is not enough to pass along our condolences to those who mourn the loss of loved ones, to pray, and then hunker down in familiar ideological responses. We need to empathize with different ways of reacting to such tragedies as we proceed to respond effectively and comprehensively.

________________

Paul Louis Metzger is the Founder and Director of The Institute for the Theology of Culture: New Wine, New Wineskins and Professor at Multnomah Biblical Seminary/Multnomah University. He is the author of numerous works, including “Connecting Christ: How to Discuss Jesus in a World of Diverse Paths” and “Consuming Jesus: Beyond Race and Class Divisions in a Consumer Church.” These volumes and his others can be found wherever fine books are sold.

John W. Morehead serves on the Board of Directors of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy and is the Custodian of the Evangelical Chapter of the FRD. He is co-editor and contributing author for Encountering New Religious Movements: A Holistic Evangelical Approach, the editor of Beyond the Burning Times: A Pagan and Christian in Dialogue, and co-founder and editor of Sacred Tribes Journal.