Earlier this week, a friend shared this meme on his social media feed: “Being taught to avoid talking about politics and religion has led to a lack of understanding of politics and religion. What we should have been taught was how to have a civil conversation about a difficult topic.”

I’m not entirely sure where this rule of acceptable social conversations began. I can imagine that it might have started during the Reformation of Europe. Before this, religion (state) and politics (church) enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship of power that controlled every aspect of society. There was one Church in Europe – the Catholic Church. The monarchy could not operate without the blessing of the Church. The Church, in turn, needed an ordered and peaceful state to protect its vast wealth. 

Then, in 1517, the Church split with the start of the Protestant Reformation. Two religious entities now vied for the influence of the royal houses, dividing Europe. In countries such as Scotland, England, France, and Germany, Catholics were persecuted, forcing many to worship in secret. 

Within such an environment, speaking about religion in public could be a deadly affair. 

Two centuries later, the French Revolution brought about a definitive separation between Church and State and a new wave of violent conflict. The Reign of Terror in France quashed political insurrection by executing political prisoners, clergy, aristocrats, and anyone who posed a threat to the fragile monarchy. Expressing support for the Palace or the Revolution might have lost your head. Silence was the safer option.

This may be why religion and politics remain unwelcome conversations in social settings. Unfortunately, our reticence in discussing these topics means we don’t sufficiently exercise our thinking about political and religious issues. Our grasp of the complexities and subtleties in these fields is scant, and we may only have access to one side of the debate – the side we’re on. If we speak about religion or politics, we prefer to do so with those who agree with us to ensure that no ugly disagreements arise. 

In the absence of safe spaces to share divergent opinions, listen to the argument of an opposing view, and be unable to express ourselves, we often fall back on emotion and the flashy slogans we’ve seen in the media. We may feel the need to defend our ideological position and lash out angrily, shutting down the conversation. 

We’re returning to a time of strong-arm politics and religious division (we see this in both Christianity and Islam). But we also live in a time of immense opportunity, where we can learn from one another; but only if we are prepared to engage with and learn from one another.

Returning to the theme of my friend’s meme, how can we, as people of faith, have a civil conversation about difficult topics, be it religion, politics, or anything else?

St. Paul’s advice in Galatians (cf 5:13-26) is a good place to start. He reminds us that Christ has called us to be free, but he warns that we remain enslaved if we “bite and devour each other” because we “will be destroyed by each other.” The antidote, he says, are the fruits of the spirit: “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, gentleness and self-control.” 

When we engage in difficult conversations, let us exhibit forbearance (i.e. tolerance) -- listening to each other with kindness and loving even those with whom we disagree. I can hold firm to my position when I speak, but I do so with self-control, in a spirit of peace, gently leading my listeners to consider a new idea. I certainly won’t convince them by bludgeoning them with my opinion! 

This weekend, as we sit around at a braai or go for a walk with a friend, we can try to speak about those forbidden topics, and we might be surprised by the new worlds that emerge.