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

Last updated on: January 4, 2017 at 10:49 am by Paul Louis Metzger

Grieve With Those Who Grieve: Dealing With Diverse Reactions to Orlando 2017-01-04T10:49:42-08:00 Paul Louis Metzger

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Photo Credit: Jacki.Ick

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.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

June 13, 2016

A Prayer for Orlando

Next Post

June 19, 2016 Dads: Do We Father Our Kids Where They Are, Or Where We Want Them To Be?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2025 April 2025 March 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz