“As I get closer to the end of my life’s journey, I have felt the desire to leave something about me for my children so that they might know me and what makes me, me,” Hank wrote to his ten adult children.

“But first let me say that I respect all, especially my children, to have diverse opinions that are different from mine.  Again, this is about me.”

Hank’s letter began by telling his life story, but later in the letter he shared his beliefs about politics, race, sexuality and religion.

Throughout his letter, he would interject pre-emptive defenses against what he knew might be strong opposition from his children, “My political and religious feelings have been with me from a young age.  They have not been from talk radio or Fox News.  They only confirm, for the most part, what I already know.”

Rebecca, one of Hank’s daughters, was furious when she read the letter.  “How dare he!” she cried on the phone to one of her sisters. “He’s so selfish. He just wants to make us believe what he believes.  He doesn’t understand or respect people.  He wants to shove his awful political beliefs on us. He’s being brainwashed by cable news.”  She called several other family members who had also received the letter. Some sided with her. Some with their father.

Rebecca eventually picked up the phone and called Hank.  What happened next only deepened the wound.  She called him racist.  A sexist.  She couldn’t understand how her father could ever support someone like Donald Trump and his agenda.  The phone call lasted four hours.  Both Rebecca and Hank left the call deeply wounded.

I’ve been a mediator for 15 years and seen just about everything.  Over the last several years, Hank and Rebecca’s story has become a familiar one.  I’m in awe of what seems to be a deepening divide of mistrust, anger and frustration around politics taking place within families.  It’s been well documented that our political polarization has taken a massive toll on our country.  But it’s also pulling apart families.

“I’m afraid to even call home these days,” one of my students said.  “I just can’t stomach what I’m going to hear.  I’ve lost my parents to Fox News.”

“I’m afraid to even call my child these days,” said the frustrated parent of one of my students. “They have changed since they went to the university.  I don’t recognize them anymore.  They’re being brainwashed.”

On social media, people are unfriending family and friends that hold different or offensive beliefs.  Others are avoiding any interaction with anyone who doesn’t see politics or social views their way.

“What’s the point?” one colleague said. “I’ve lost all respect for them.  It’s made me question whether staying in relationship with them is even worth it anymore.”

“They are deceived,” another colleague said. “How can I respect someone who is so easily manipulated by fake news?  It’s time to cut them out of my life.  Good riddance.”

The problem of political and social polarization has reached a boiling point in the United States and in many other countries around the world.

As conflict escalates, anger, vitriol and blame limit our ability to engage in the sort of collaborative problem solving we need to transform the biggest problems that face us today: from a global pandemic, to racial and economic injustice.

When even family members can’t seem to have constructive or civil discussion about the problems we face, we are in trouble … but things are not hopeless

No matter how intense or intractable the polarization, we have the capacity to transform this division into something more constructive in ways that show strength of character, accountability for our own ways of seeing the world and openness to the needs and concerns of others.

We have the capacity to dangerously love our enemies.

Practicing dangerous love doesn’t mean we have to agree with people who hold different beliefs than ourselves.  Or that we have to like their political or social beliefs.  We can even actively be working or campaigning against their beliefs while still showing love and respect for them. 

Dangerous love isn’t about conformity of giving in.  It’s about caring enough about a person that their needs matter as much to me as my own and being committed to finding ways to get all of our needs met.

Politics is often a zero-sum game.  It is about power and self-preservation.  Dangerous Love is about us-preservation.  It is not a game.  It is a deeply committed approach to finding solutions that work for all of us.

We are in desperate need of dangerous love right now, in our homes, in our communities and in the world.

 To cultivate dangerous love, I think three critical principles need to be considered:

1. Seeing people as people. This means switching from an inward to an outward mindset toward others and striving to see their needs as equally valid as our own. Others are no longer obstacles to overcome, or vehicles to be used or even irrelevant. They are people with whom we can empathize and feel compassion toward — even when they don’t see us that way.  And even when their political and social beliefs differ from my own.

One way we can get better at seeing people as people is to spend more time building relationships and listening and less time teaching or correcting. When we do make time with people, make sure that it isn’t spent just fixing them or teaching them. Do things for the sake of the relationship. Listen without an agenda.

These political divides often are just exposing pre-existing fault lines in a relationship.  It was clear from short conversations with both Hank and Rebecca that they were feeling disconnected before the letter.  The letter just exposed an already ailing relationship.

In fact, one of Hank’s children said simply, “Don’t write me a letter telling me what you believe.  Just spend time with me.”  That’s telling.

Had Hank, instead of writing the letter, reached out to Rebecca and asked to spend more time with her, or just to listen and learn more about her, he likely would’ve had a different outcome.  The same holds true to Rebecca.  If she had taken the letter as an attempt by Hank to engage and to help her see why Hank thinks and believes the way that he does, I think she would’ve reacted differently.

Often times the people in our life that we love are sharing their political and social beliefs with us because they care about us.  Those beliefs are important to them.  They feel like those beliefs are part of their identity and could be helpful to us.  It’s rarely done to create offense. 

Yes, there are occasions when our family members are crossing the line between sharing and abuse. There are also real power imbalances that may be at play that may make a conversation uncomfortable without agreed upon ground rules. Toxic and abusive relationships are an unfortunate reality in families.  If that is what is happening, then creating physical and emotional boundaries may be the best approach. 

However, sharing an offensive belief doesn’t alone make the person sharing it a bad person, nor the sharing of the belief, alone, abusive. Unfortunately, when we fail to see people as people, anything they say or believe that doesn’t align with our own way of seeing the world tends to create offense.

I’ve been working in conflict mediations and programs in the Middle East between Israelis and Palestinians for over a decade.  If their political and social beliefs or power imbalances, alone, were disqualifiers from having collaborative problem-solving sessions, there would never be any progress. 

While dangerous love doesn’t require that we enter into or stay in an abusive relationship, it does require us to see the humanity of and try to work with people that hold beliefs that aren’t what we believe.

2. Turning first. This involves an inside-outside transformation. To solve difficult conflicts takes looking inward and asking ourselves, “In what ways may I not be seeing these people correctly? What assumptions have I brought to this conflict?” This is the opposite of the blaming and dehumanization that often plagues conflicts.

One way we can get better at turning first is to get intensely curious about them and where their perspectives come from. When we feel connected to people and people feel connected to us, the chances that we fall out of dangerous love diminish. Regularly check in with people about how they are feeling, what they are struggling with, and how you might help.

When conflict does rear its head, take a deep breath and ask yourself, “What is it that I don’t understand?” When we are seeing people as objects, we are quick to make assumptions about motives and character. 

When a family member shares a political or social belief that we find offensive – we get curious about what lies underneath that belief.  Why do they feel so strongly about that?  What is in their life story that makes them believe what they do?  What sort of fears or dreams do they have that aren’t being met?  The question “why” is a magic one. The more you ask why, the more understanding you’ll have and the better you’ll be able to find a collaborative solution to your problems.

When family members share misinformation (a major problem right now on social media) that you know to be false, instead of yelling “Fake News” ask them about the sources that they are relying on.  Ask them if any other sources are out there that can verify it.  Ask them how confident they are that the Facebook post that the reposted is the whole story. Telling people they are wrong almost always leads to resistance.  Asking people to look at their beliefs more carefully and deeply can lead to deeper introspection and understanding.

The more understanding we have, the deeper our ability to find solutions that work for both of us. Hank wrote the letter to help Rebecca see his humanity.  Rebecca made the phone call to help Hank see hers.  But neither were attempting to see each other.  That’s why the conflict escalated.  They both were waiting for each other to turn.  When we are stuck in conflict, that can be a very long wait.

3. Inviting collaborative problem-solving. When faced with conflict with another person, commit to finding solutions that meet the needs of all of us. It doesn’t mean avoiding or giving in to the conflict, but engaging with the other person with respect for both that person’s needs and our own.

Seeing someone as a person and turning first doesn’t mean we agree on things.  In fact, we can dangerously love someone and still feel strongly that the other person is wrong.

“So . . . what should I do?”

What should we do when we are concerned that a family member is acting or supporting racist, sexist, anti-religious, or anti-democratic policies or leaders?

“That depends,” a wise conflict professor once told me years ago when I was in grad school. “It’s been my experience that the theory of the conflict often leads us to its solution.”

“Okay, that makes sense,” I responded. “So, what’s your theory of the conflict?”

“Actually, the question is, what’s your theory of the conflict?” he replied. “I’ve found that either we can be right or we can have peace. It’s pretty hard to have both. My question to you is, do you want to be right or do you want peace?”

Typically, in conflict we want to be right. We want validation. We want to change others.

As I’ve gotten older and been through hundreds of mediations, my perspective has changed. 

Often, in conflict, being “right” isn’t “right” at all and the way we pursue “peace” doesn’t actually bring “peace.”

Instead of being concerned with who is right and who is wrong, we ask ourselves a related but fundamentally different question … “Am I right with this person.”  Are we seeing them and valuing this relationship?  And if we truly did, couldn’t we work together to find solutions that work for both of us and not just me?”

Is there a way to stand for racial justice, diversity and equity and still show respect for family members who see such a stand as a threat to the way they have viewed the world in the past?  Is there a way to stand by values you hold dear and still show concern and respect for family who are striving to have more inclusive or open values?

I believe there is. 

Is there a way to work together to hold the past, present and future together?  Can we be both humble and committed?  Determined but flexible?  Dedicated to change while still showing respect for those that feel threatened by it?  Patriotic while still being alive to pain that so many have felt and suffered at the hands of our country?

If we can’t do it with our loved ones, with the people we came into this life with, how are we ever going to do it in our communities and in our country?  How will we ever get back to the principles, never fully realized, that make us – us.

Hank almost got it right in his letter.  Changing one word would have changed everything else that he wrote and the reaction from all of his children.

“But first let me say that I respect all, especially my children, to have diverse opinions that are different from mine.  Again, this is about …” not “me”, but “us”.

This is about us.