This is a neat resource list. Thank you for compiling them. I have some additional perspective on number 9:
The Minnesota Council of Churches' Respectful Conversations have reached 7,000 people in over 300 conversations since the program began in 2012. The easy majority of these conversations have been held in congregations seeking to depolarize a conflict within the community or in their broader mission field. Churches have used them to train members in discipleship practices of listening with love as well as to be sources of peace blessing their broader communities. Over 68% of participants report more empahty for those with whom they disagree, and level II evaluations indicate lasting change in people's ability to listen, to be curious about perspectives they do not share, and to be in relationship with others with whom they disagree.
In addition to being employed by churches, denominational bodies have also undertaken Respectful Conversations. These include an assembly of 600 UCC members engaging the topic of white privilege, two ELCA synods coming together to talk about a divisive energy infrasturcture project impacting both of their mission fields, and 800 UMC delegates discussing a vision of LGBT inclusion. Institutions of higher ed have made also the conversations a mandatory element of freshman orientation in order to better shape classroom discourse and equip students with the tools to engage in dialogue, rather than debate, over their differences.
In the last two years MCC has taken the Respectful Conversations to public schools, training teachers in this model for classroom engagement that's been more powerfully needed ever since the 2016 US Presidential campaign. Students have so integrated the practice into their daily lives that they have voluntarily employed it to handle disagreements that occur during recess!
Anyone interested in more information or in training to deliver Respectful Conversations should feel free to go to www.mnchurches.org or reach out to our staff, [email protected].
That's a great tension presently felt across the "civility" world. What is the ultimate objective? There is a way in which holding a Respectful Conversation, or any other "structure" of conversation, on a divisive issue inherently legitmizes the variety of perspectives on a topic. Are there perspectives, such as white supremacy, holocaust denial, or climate change denial, which it is dangerous to legitimize?
The Minnesota Council of Churches' Respectful Conversations are not persuasive tools, group consensus measures, or anything like that. What they do is make you hate your opponent less, help you understand them more, and remain convicted of your own perspective. They achieve empathy and depolarize a conflict.
Sometimes empathy is a necessary step towards something greater; sometimes it is the final step in a community's conflict, and sometimes it is the wrong step in a situation where agitation is more called for than depolarization.
Posted in: Good Conversations on Polarizing Political Issues
This is a neat resource list. Thank you for compiling them. I have some additional perspective on number 9:
The Minnesota Council of Churches' Respectful Conversations have reached 7,000 people in over 300 conversations since the program began in 2012. The easy majority of these conversations have been held in congregations seeking to depolarize a conflict within the community or in their broader mission field. Churches have used them to train members in discipleship practices of listening with love as well as to be sources of peace blessing their broader communities. Over 68% of participants report more empahty for those with whom they disagree, and level II evaluations indicate lasting change in people's ability to listen, to be curious about perspectives they do not share, and to be in relationship with others with whom they disagree.
In addition to being employed by churches, denominational bodies have also undertaken Respectful Conversations. These include an assembly of 600 UCC members engaging the topic of white privilege, two ELCA synods coming together to talk about a divisive energy infrasturcture project impacting both of their mission fields, and 800 UMC delegates discussing a vision of LGBT inclusion. Institutions of higher ed have made also the conversations a mandatory element of freshman orientation in order to better shape classroom discourse and equip students with the tools to engage in dialogue, rather than debate, over their differences.
In the last two years MCC has taken the Respectful Conversations to public schools, training teachers in this model for classroom engagement that's been more powerfully needed ever since the 2016 US Presidential campaign. Students have so integrated the practice into their daily lives that they have voluntarily employed it to handle disagreements that occur during recess!
Anyone interested in more information or in training to deliver Respectful Conversations should feel free to go to www.mnchurches.org or reach out to our staff, [email protected].
Posted in: Good Conversations on Polarizing Political Issues
That's a great tension presently felt across the "civility" world. What is the ultimate objective? There is a way in which holding a Respectful Conversation, or any other "structure" of conversation, on a divisive issue inherently legitmizes the variety of perspectives on a topic. Are there perspectives, such as white supremacy, holocaust denial, or climate change denial, which it is dangerous to legitimize?
The Minnesota Council of Churches' Respectful Conversations are not persuasive tools, group consensus measures, or anything like that. What they do is make you hate your opponent less, help you understand them more, and remain convicted of your own perspective. They achieve empathy and depolarize a conflict.
Sometimes empathy is a necessary step towards something greater; sometimes it is the final step in a community's conflict, and sometimes it is the wrong step in a situation where agitation is more called for than depolarization.