Ep. 171 John Inazu - Learning to Disagree: Faith, Conversation, and Action in a Polarized World

In this conversation, John Inazu and I have a great conversation about learning how to disagree civilly. We talk the importance of seeing others as image-bearers of God, developing empathy even for those we disagree with, distinguishing facts from judgments, and finding common ground. John gave great examples of disagreeing respectfully from his legal and interfaith work. The postures of curiosity, patience, and commitment to relationships over time are crucial. Join us as we learn how to disagree, hear one another, and walk forward gracefully.

John Inazu is the author of Learning to Disagree: The Surprising Path to Navigating Differences with Empathy and Respect (Zondervan). He is the Sally D. Danforth Distinguished Professor of Law and Religion at Washington University in St. Louis. He teaches criminal law, law and religion, and various First Amendment courses. He writes and speaks frequently about pluralism, assembly, free speech, religious freedom, and other issues. John has written three books and published opinion pieces in the Washington Post, Atlantic, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, USA Today, Newsweek, and CNN. He is also the founder of the Carver Project and the Legal Vocation Fellowship and is a senior fellow with Interfaith America.

John's Book:
Learning to Disagree

John's Recommendation:
The Spirit of Our Politics by Michael Wear

Connect with Joshua: jjohnson@allnations.us

Go to www.shiftingculturepodcast.com to interact and donate. Every donation helps to produce more podcasts for you to enjoy.

Follow on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or Threads at
www.facebook.com/shiftingculturepodcast
https://www.instagram.com/shiftingculturepodcast/
https://twitter.com/shiftingcultur2
https://www.threads.net/@shiftingculturepodcast
https://www.youtube.com/@shiftingculturepodcast

Consider Giving to the podcast and to the ministry that my wife and I do around the world. Just click on the support the show link below.

Living God's Way in an Ungodly World
In a world that makes up its own rules, Christians need to focus on Who rules! The Christ!

Listen on: Apple Podcasts   Spotify

Transcript

John Inazu: 0:00

The very first starting point of any conversation or any relationship, or any disagreement should be sitting across from me as an image bearer. And that raised the bar quite a bit. I mean, it's not it's not it's not sort of optional, or some people are image bearers and some aren't. It's this person across me is an image bearer. And that's a very profound statement about not just human beings, but the created order as we look at another person and when what what that asks us to do. So that should I think, always be our first posture. And then we then we have to say, Well, what do we do from there?

Joshua Johnson: 0:46

Hello, and welcome to the shifting culture podcast in which we have conversations about the culture we create, and the impact we can make. We longed to see the body of Christ look like Jesus. I'm your host, Joshua Johnson. Go to shifting culture podcast.com to interact and donate. And don't forget to hit the Follow button on your favorite podcast app to be notified when new episodes come out each week, and go leave a rating and review. It's easy. It only takes a second and it helps us find new listeners to the show. Just go to the Show page on the app that you're using right now and hit five stars. It really is that easy. Thank you so much. You know what else would help us out? share this podcast with your friends, your family, your network, tell them how much you enjoy it and let them know that they should be listening as well. If you're new here, welcome. If you want to dig deeper find us on social media at shifting culture podcast, where I post video clips and quotes and interact with all of you. My previous guests on the show have included John art Scot McKnight and Sean appel green. You can go back listen to those episodes and more. But today's guest is John and Ozzie Jonathan Aza is the author of learning to disagree the surprising path to navigating differences with empathy and respect. He is the Sally de Danforth distinguished professor of law and religion at Washington University in St. Louis. He teaches criminal law, law and religion and various First Amendment courses. He writes and speaks frequently about pluralism, assembly, free speech, religious freedom, and other issues. He is the founder of the Carver project and the legal vocation fellowship. And as a Senior Fellow with interfaith America, John and I have a great discussion about learning how to disagree civilly, we talk about the importance of seeing others as image bearers of God, developing empathy, even for those we disagree with disagree, distinguishing facts from judgments and finding common ground. John gave great examples of disagreeing respectfully from his legal and interfaith work. The postures of curiosity, patience, and commitment to relationships over time are crucial to this conversation. Join us as we learn how to disagree, hear one another and walk forward gracefully. Here's my conversation with John and OSU. John, welcome to shifting culture. Really excited to have you on. Thank you so much for joining me,

John Inazu: 3:07

Joshua. Thanks so much. It's great to be with you.

Joshua Johnson: 3:09

Yeah, I'd love to have an introduction to you. Where are you coming from? One thing that I know is that you have done some of your schoolwork both at Duke and North Carolina. So if we're talking about learning how to disagree, as seems like there's a disagreement probably within your, your, your soul and your body, when Duke in North Carolina start to engage in in basketball or anything else. How do you how do you disagree with yourself? Like, what? What's going on? Yeah.

John Inazu: 3:41

The various astute observations off here that I have tremendous respect for both academic institutions. They've got Oh, there you go. Now, when it comes to sports, I'm definitely a Blue Devil art. And all right, I spent actually some time during graduate school, tormenting UNC undergraduates with pictures of Duke basketball players. So sometimes I disagree by using power coercive tactics.

Joshua Johnson: 4:07

That's great. Well, my wife went to Wake Forest. And so there's another disagreement right there. Yeah, but there's some great institutions there. Now, you have made a career in in law. And now as a law professor at Washington University, what I mean law has a lot to teach us to do with with arguments and persuasive speech. Does it have anything to teach us to do with coming together and being able to disagree and moving forward on the same page? Is that possible? Yeah. Well, I

John Inazu: 4:44

hope so. I mean, that's sort of one of the points behind the book is to make that case to the average person who's not in law school at law, actually is really helpful. And I actually think that we can think of the son to at least two levels, one is on a very heavy, serious level. Law is the opposite of an unchecked violence. And so we live in a lot of society for a reason. And that's a really good thing, because the the opposite of law is chaos or anarchy and violence. So even, you know, whatever we might think about the imperfections of our legal system, and there are many, we should probably recognize that having a structure of law in place is at root, a very good thing. And so that's, that's one way we can think about how law helps with disagreement. But I'm actually interested in a much more sort of down to Earth on the ground way that law helps us disagree. And this is the way in which some, some tactics, strategies and habits that we learn and teach in law school can be useful in applied to everyday situations so that your co workers or your neighbors, or maybe even family members who struggle with this disagreement can learn some postures that we experienced in law school, I can help all kinds of everyday relationships. And that's where a lot of this book is focused.

Joshua Johnson: 6:02

Well, I think it's a timely topic, it's a needed topic, especially in America, we have gone through a couple of really contentious election cycles, probably have another one this year. That, you know, even within the church, people decided to say, I disagree politically, so we can't worship together, where I'm gonna go worship somewhere else. We have a Protestant faith where there's 47,000 different denominations. And all of them were based mostly on an disagreement of saying, I disagree with you in this, we're going to set up a new denomination that has all the right things, and so we can start to work together. So there's polarization, there's division, because of our disagreements, why do you think it's important that we start to learn how to have disagreements? Well, so we don't just stop the conversation, and go into our silos so that we feel more comfortable? Yeah, I

John Inazu: 7:11

really, I really like how you said that question, because what it points to is not just our present polarization, but the fact that we've had lots of splits in the past, are they the descriptive reality of American Protestantism testifies to a lot of disagreements over time denominations split over slavery in the Civil War, over women's ordination, all kinds of things in this country, that leads us to the plurality of denominations we have. And of course, politically, we've had lots of really hard seasons in our country's past, we've had massive labor violence and unrest in the 1960s, and all kinds of other examples. So in some ways, polarization isn't new, both in and out of the church. And we've had, you know, every generation has gone through really hard challenges where people line up on different sides of an issue and think I can't believe these people I trusted. This group, I was part of this church community, I thought was a family is somehow fractured, in many cases, irreverent, irrevocably, over really hard issues. What what makes it different today? Well, I think a couple of factors. One, I think there's a growing sense of the connectedness between for Christians, especially these, these differences in church that are aligning with political and party differences, and how that is coming more and more into play for a lot of people. And the other thing that seems very new is the presence of social media, the past polarization, it just couldn't spread as quickly and holistically as I can today, you know, any, anytime you are I jump online to read something, and things can go viral in a matter of minutes. And we're increasingly sorting into different preferred news sources and social media channels. And all of this means I think, again, the polarization itself may not be that different, but the way that we consume it and experience it feels like it's just everywhere all the time. I sometimes think like, you know, probably when you and I were growing up, we got the news, at most, twice a day, the morning paper, you know, as I was heading off to school, and then maybe if I'm home in time, I catch the evening news. And you know, there were still serious issues of disagreement and really hard issues going on. But most of the rest of the day, I wasn't really thinking about them. I was living the rest of my life. And now for a lot of people sitting at the workplace or checking their phones. It's just this constant barrage of here's the latest breaking news. And here's reinforcing your priors about those people or our team. And that just happens over and over again, day in and day out. And I think it's, it's not surprising that that really in trenches are felt differences. We

Joshua Johnson: 9:54

go into different camps of news camps, where it's really They had it's really more opinion than the news. There's like, hey, this happened. Here's our opinion on it. And here's somebody else's opinion on it. How can we start to even engage the news when opinions are coming at us all the time right away? And we just don't even know what the context is.

John Inazu: 10:23

Yeah, this is where another I think that just the basic architecture of wall can be helpful. So law often, whether it's in a case that's reported, or a judicial decision or teaching in a classroom, lawyers and law students divide up the world into facts and judgments. And it's a very useful and helpful first order distinction to say there are some facts of the world that are not opinions is today, Monday, right? Is it 75 degrees outside wherever it's not 75 Here, but where, wherever it is, or if they're observable facts of the world. And sometimes those get contested? You know, we could say, you know, did you make did you make the filing on time, and maybe on time as a contestant, but those are much different than judgments judgments occur when, for example, there's a homicide. And there's a question of whether that homicide is self defense, and that legal judgment of self defense, which one side might say is obviously correct, another might say, is obviously wrong. Those are inevitably a form of opinion, tied up in decision making an authority and all kinds of things. And then you and I make all kinds of opinions, and the rest of our lives, right? Do we think that sermon was good or appropriate or boring, or it is that person kind or evil, and, and those are inevitably, somewhat subject devised opinions. But I think in today's culture, it's especially important and useful to distinguish those buckets and to say, at the end of the day, there are facts of the world and we should be able to talk about facts and hold each other to account of actual facts. As

Joshua Johnson: 11:55

you get into your book, the very first thing that you get into is how do we learn empathy? Is your your question. And I think empathy is the perfect place to start. When we have disagreements, we have to see somebody as human. What are ways that we can start to engage with disagreements and have empathy for the person? Or the people that we're disagreeing with?

John Inazu: 12:21

Yeah. So I mean, I think, especially for Christians, the very first starting point of any conversation, or any relationship, or any disagreement should be sitting across from me as an image bearer. And that raises the bar quite a bit. I mean, it's not it's not it's not sort of optional, or some people are image bearers, and some aren't. It's this person across me is an image bearer. And that's a very profound statement about not just human beings, but the created order as we look at another person, and when what what that asks us to do. So that should I think, always be our first posture. And then we then we have to say, Well, what do we do from there? When it's really hard? And I might be able to say, cognitively, yes, this is an image barrier, but I really don't like person in there, I think we can rely on a couple of tools. I mean, they're just sort of everyday practices, like, can we listen? Well? Can we be patient with another person? And then we also have the fruits of the Spirit to guide us by kit? Can we, you know, in, in relying on the fruits of the Spirit, can we demonstrate? Can we demonstrate these these ways of engaging with the person across from us. And then finally, maybe, that the most practical or ordinary level, but also really important is just finding everyday common ground connection points. This is why I think food is so great, you know, sharing a meal on one can really go a long way to, to ease or break some barriers, talk having having normal conversation. So if you're gonna, if you're gonna jump into a really hard area of disagreement, one way to gain empathy first is to start with common connections that don't don't revolve around that disagreement. Find out something you have in common, or do an activity together in common before bed. And so I these are, some of these ideas seem kind of basic, but they're very hard to put into practice. And we have to be aware of them as we practice.

Joshua Johnson: 14:19

But it seems to me that if we have empathy, but the person that we're talking to doesn't have empathy, across, it's going to be still a really difficult conversation. How do we start to engage in places where it is empathy on one side, but not the other?

John Inazu: 14:37

Yeah. And so I mean, they again, here's where I think Christians have just such a bounty of resources to draw up on so in some ways, the ways in which we're asked to engage with other people aren't really conditional and how those people treat us love your patient to those around you. Right. And that's so that's part of the answer is, even if if our empty He has not reciprocated that. So called to love and be kind. But I think there might be another way to get at this, which is, which is to say, if we're very secure in who we are, what we believe why we're in this world, we should actually be able to take a few hits. And when when people treat us without empathy or caricature us or say unfair things, doesn't mean that we should let every outrageous claim or every mistaken comment go unchallenged. I mean, I think there's a real importance of speaking truth and justice in the world. But on an individual level, if we can condition ourselves, just to take less offense less quickly, and to be able to hang in there and think you know what? I didn't like the way you said that to me, or I think you're wrong in your characterization, but instead of immediately getting defensive or reactive, maybe I'll just say, Well, can we complicate that a bit? Or can we unpack that claim? And I think to encourage continued dialogue, even when we're not receiving empathy from the other side is one way, not only how we effectively engage with other people, but it's also I think, an important form of witness? Yes,

Joshua Johnson: 16:11

I think it is important to be that witness, and to start to figure out how do we love our enemies? How do we embody Jesus in our conversations? What does it look like to be like Jesus, you know, when Jesus called us to love our enemies, he said, at the end of that sermon, if you hear these words of mine, and you put them into practice, you're going to be like the wise builder who builds his house on the rock. And that's going to take us a long way, if we put those things into practice. A lot of times we we move into the disagreement in the the dialogue world, right, so we're trying to dialogue with people. But some people say, Okay, we've had enough conversation about this. How can we go from dialogue into action, and to practically see that we could still be together and walk forward, even while we disagree, not as the practical application of these conversations. So

John Inazu: 17:15

a couple of things there. One is 111 Useful consequence of recognizing that we live in an imperfect and fallen world means that in a political, legal and policy realms, we should expect, less than everyone being happy, we should just know that's going to be a fact of the world and most political solutions, most legal solutions in our country where there's lots of difference, are going to have winners and losers. And we might someday be among the winners. And we might someday be along among the losers, restore the call to be citizens and neighbors. And so one way to practically is to recognize I mean, it's always is it's a tragic dimension of living together with other human beings in a fallen world, which is that we will not always be satisfied. And yet, we're still called to engage productively as citizens. And maybe sometimes that means we engage by trying to undo a policy or to push for change in a way that that still loves the people around us. But I also think there's another dimension to this, and this is maybe what you were suggesting in your question, which is to say that, in the real world, we're going to have to partner with a lot of people who don't agree with us on everything. It's the essence of finding common ground and way that actual policy happened. And if we, if we really mean it, when we say we love our neighbors, that also means we're going to have to love our neighbor as well with people who aren't Christians, with people who don't believe in any form of God with people who are sometimes very opposed to us on certain legal and policy positions. But we when we find those areas of common ground, you know, if at the end of the day, the question is, how do we get how do we stack sandbags in a flood zone? Or how do we get food to kids who don't have it, then we should be doing that work with with anyone who's one gardener rather than sort of doing a doctrinal test with them or worried about how it might look to be seen with them. And I think they're actually, when we really get down to the, the local and how we care for the social fabric around us. There are just an almost unending number of opportunities and examples where we can partner with people who are different than us, put our words into action, and not compromise who we are what we believe, but just find common ground. I

Joshua Johnson: 19:33

lived in the Middle East and I sat in a lot of Muslim living rooms, had lots of discussions over a meal and found a lot of common ground. And, of course, my I had an objective I wanted to point them to Jesus and say, the way of Jesus is the way that brings life and flourishing. But I was still able to sit and when they got I don't believe any of that. And see Either we have a lot of common ground, we could have conversation and civil conversation, and we don't have to be angry at one another, we have a difference of beliefs, that how important is it, I know that you have done a lot of interfaith work as well, that you have been, you know, friends and walking side by side, with Muslims with Muslims and Christians together? How do we how do you go into that space? Know that you have disagreements, even in belief systems, but still working for a common cause? Together?

John Inazu: 20:37

Yeah, you know, and I think, knowing what you believe, because I think when, when you're clear about what you believe, it makes it easier to know where the boundaries are. So with my Muslim friends, there are a whole lot of things that I will do with them. And there are some things I want to I don't, I won't pray with them together. But we can, we can do a lot of good in the world together. And I don't feel I don't feel a threat at all. But I also, and I think you kind of alluded to this in your question with your own examples. These are, these are not sort of instrumental friendships, they are real friendships. And at the end of the day, what matters deeply to me is that Eboo Patel is my friend, and he's going to call me when he's hurting, or when I'm hurting, and we still have very significant disagreements about really matter, but he's a friend and, and we can partner effectively and well, but it's the friendship that is that, or it's a trust, and you can't really fake that. And I think, you know, sometimes in some, I think especially in the 1990s, there were some sort of mission context or training that suggested this kind of friendship evangelism that was really kind of an instrumental use of friendship. And I think that's a very effective way to be embedded in people's lives. So

Joshua Johnson: 21:59

this is there's a few things, you know, when I was a missionary in the Middle East, it was really easy for me to, to work side by side with other missionaries from different organizations, ones that have different approaches than we do. Even though we disagreed on a lot of different things were like, there's some practical needs on the ground that we need to work together. But when I now step back, and as a executive of an organization, working together with other organizations, I have some other things that I have to worry about after worry about our our own donors, and we have all sorts of different competing things, it's harder to work together at a higher level, that it is on the ground, I think all the grounds, it's really is almost easier. And it's a good example that we could say on the ground, you could do it, but how do we move it up the ladder a little bit and have organizations or work together and disagree, but still move towards a common purpose?

John Inazu: 23:03

Yeah, so this is, this is such a great case study. I'm really glad you brought it up. I think that the institutional question is so important right now. And it's actually the cause of a lot of the pressure and fracturing we're feeling within Christian communities institutions. And I think part of the answer is, when you are clear on what your purpose is, then your various constituents should be on board to support the port purpose, or, you know, there are lots of other organizations to join out there. But your purpose is your boundaries. And when you have an institutional purpose, that should tell you the parameters within which you can play and partner and cooperate. And we'll set some lines to write so you're not going to be able to do everything with everyone, but but the key I think, is to be able to articulate what the purpose is. And then make sure that everyone from your board on down is committed to that purpose. And sometimes that means that someone who might disagree with what the organization is doing, but if you're committed to it, and what our role as a board a donor and executive, sort of on the ground employee, you are committed to putting the good of the organization above your disagreements. And if you're not able to do that, and it there's not necessarily a right or wrong answer here. The only wrong answer, I think, is if you hold on to the institution, without an actual commitment to what it's doing. Right. So probably at the end of the day, the best answer for some donors is to say, you're not really on board with this mission, right? You You were too much in conflict and you should be giving elsewhere we should not be taking your money. And this is, you know, when the when the rubber hits the road or when the dollar has actually come out. That's a very hard line to walk but I think it's the right line. And I think over time, that kind of clarity, which is an expressive clarity, but also a relational clarity that will help organizations be healthier, and help them cooperate in a more healthy and authentic manner than Always trying to do this dance of who's thinking wide? And how can we hold on to this group while we are over here, it doesn't make it easy, but I think it sets the parameters of how we ought to be engaging.

Joshua Johnson: 25:10

You talk a little bit in your book here, we talked about compromise. I think sometimes compromise can be healthy. Sometimes you're compromising some values. What happens when you can't go? As far as the person that you're talking to you or the the people that you're talking to want you to go, that you actually have a value you have a c&c or belief or something we say, I can't actually compromise on that. What does that look like in those, that tension?

John Inazu: 25:42

Yeah. And so this takes me back to an earlier point in our conversation, where I just think a fact of the world a world of difference. And diversity means that we are going to have really hard issues where we can compromise there are, you know, when you think about lots of national policy questions, it's not like you can take one extreme and another extreme and just kind of find a happy middle ground and call it a very often it's going to be, this is legal, or this is illegal, or we're going to pursue this as a country or not pursue it and, and when you're in those situations, as an individual or an organization that you there'll be times when you use it, you have to say, I can't be on board with that partnership, or that kind of compromise. And so you've got to step out of whatever arrangement or partnership you were in. And that might be very costly. Now, in stepping out, and I'm now thinking about, you know, when we think about the landscape of American Protestantism, lots of fracture, and fissure, whether it's the United Methodist Church, or the Episcopal Church, and the angle of cancer, we can name any number of splits, come or are coming. And those are all examples where different groups of people have said, we can't compromise on this issue. This is too Central, this is too core. And there are, you know, as you mentioned, 10s of 1000s of tragic splits within our Protestant heritage, that kind of bear witness to this, this phenomenon. And I think, you know, sometimes these splits are inevitable because this stuff does matter. And sometimes you can't compromise. Where I do wish and hope for more grace, though, is that once the once the break happens once the lack of compromise has been established, and people go ways, and sometimes split institutions are lose jobs, and we can recognize, that's really hard, that's really painful, the stakes are high. And yet, we should still be able to treat the people on the other side of that split with some kind of grace and kindness. I mean, they are still not only image bearers, but they're still also often claiming the name of Christ, they're there, doesn't mean we're going to be able to worship with them in the same way. But we have to be, we have to demonstrate a kind of empathy and kindness to them for their sake, but also for the sake of everyone else who's watching us squabble internally, about these things.

Joshua Johnson: 28:01

Let's get out. I'd love for you to give, give an example of a policy or something that is, we have a lot of disagreement on and division. And then walk us through how we can have a conversation and have empathy on both sides. figure out, hey, where where can we we go one way, where can we go another way and start to walk forward together, maybe to find a solution to some of these big problems that we have, that we have really a polarized opinions on either side? Yeah.

John Inazu: 28:38

So I'll give you an example that I talked about in the book. And it's actually I think it illustrates a basically a no compromise example, but we can talk about the posture of engagement. So one of the cases I have discussed is that Colorado case about the the gay wedding and the cake baker and the Bible, Christian cake baker by conscience says, I can't bake this for your wedding, I'll bake the cake for another celebration, your birthday or whatever, but I can't do it for your wedding. And the couple says, We want you to bake the cake for this the wedding, we know we're just buying a cake from your store. We have a right to commerce. And so this goes to the courts and and eventually, you know, for complicated reasons goes up to the US Supreme Court and the Supreme Court says no, the, in this case, at least the baker doesn't have to bake the cake. They're the couple can go get the cake from another restaurant. So in terms of how to think through that disagreement, I and I think this takes us back first to empathy. This is the hard case. These are These are real people. And this is a complex case. And when I watched the news coverage of this case, as it unfolded, neither side made it sound like a hard case. Right? It was it was if you were for the baker, and the couple was just making it up and you know they were they were just activists out to stir up trouble. And if you were for the couple then the Baker was just a big Couldn't Perth possibly have a sincere religious belief? And it's pretty clear to me that on the ground, these are all of these human beings actually deeply cared about what they were doing. And they fit with they felt experiences and had these interpersonal connections and losses. And it's a hard question. And maybe it's even harder because of local differences. So maybe in Denver, where this case actually happened, and there, there happened to be 10 Other bakeries down the street that would have baked the cake. That's one thing. But if you were in parts of if you were in a small town in the rural south, where there might be one bakery, and the couple wouldn't have anywhere else to go, that could be a very different circumstance. And then we can disagree about that, you know, we could we could say, from either direction, no, there should be an absolute rule on one side or the other in our country, you know, with with some help from the Supreme Court, and state and federal legislatures will sort this out over time. It might not get to an arrangement that that anyone in particular likes at any given time. But I think it we start from the humanity of the people, and the complexity of the situation that we get at least recognize why this is hard, and why the, the solution is not going to satisfy everyone. And then we can also say, Well, maybe other context matters, right? Maybe a cake is one thing. But a pastor or wedding singer is something else, and maybe a Marriott hotel or something else. And I think if we take the time to think through the difficulty of this, then we can at least realize that it's not, it's not always as cut and dry. Sometimes the pundants make it out to be.

Joshua Johnson: 32:19

I mean, that's a that's a great example, because that's a difficult decision. But you're in America, you know, let's we go back into law, you're you're looking at personal cases with with humans that have all sorts of emotion on on either side that want some beliefs. And then if it goes to the Supreme Court, or even in lower courts, there's, there's a precedent that set, right. And so a lot of times people look back on the precedent, and that was set with a decision, and, and something that that people are disagreeing on. And then we go back and say, Okay, that's what it's going to be like, from now on. And it'll be easy for us to make this decision. So sometimes that actually helps solve some systemic problems, but sometimes, it muddles it. How, what is the role of precedent in law in solving some of these disagreements that we have?

John Inazu: 33:27

Yeah, as you were talking, I was thinking, Oh, we probably need a semester long seminar in jurisprudence to answer that. I'll do my best at this.

Joshua Johnson: 33:37

For someone who's never gone to law school, I need I need something.

John Inazu: 33:40

Yeah. Question. And I think, you know, I think the answer is, precedent is complicated. And it's neither. It's neither absolutely predictable, nor all made up. Right. And we actually have people in society and people in law who want to push for either extreme, some people say you're just making it up, there is no law, the Supreme Court does what its want wants, I don't believe that's true. It's also not true, that precedent lays out exactly what the answer is going to be. Or the judges can just read the precedent and know by the very nature of what we're doing in the law, is setting up facts and law together in a way that tries to solve problems, and then a new problem, or a new variation of the problem comes along. And then judges and lawyers have to figure out well, is this close enough to what just happened? That we agree with it or not? Or and then this makes it even work out blacks? Or is this decision, this precedent that we made? Was it was it just raw, right was? Was it wrong to say that racial segregation was okay, at one time in our country's history? Yes. Well, why we have to look back and say that some precedents work and some don't work. And then and then some apply to certain situations and not others. That's why lawyers get paid a lot of money is to figure this stuff out. But I think, you know, underlying this, this point is, it's really important to believe in something called the practice of law, meaning that legal decisions stand in as an alternative to pure politics, or as I mentioned earlier, just totally anarchy. And there are lots of people who want to give up on that and say, No, this is just a big political game. I don't think that's true at all. I think law matters, I think good lawyering and good judging matters. It doesn't mean that these imperfect human beings are always going to get it right. And it also doesn't preclude the raw political actors. So yes, there are judges and legislators and others who are just being political but but overall There's something called law that works through precedent that people go to law school and are licensed to practice law and are subject to malpractice requirements in order to keep doing the thing that we're doing. And and I think, you know, it's easy. I know, for people who aren't lawyers to get very frustrated when they read about, you know, a couple of cases that don't go the way they would have liked or they don't understand. But when you look at the entire apparatus of the law, now hundreds and 1000s of cases that are unfolding each year that hold the country together, and very ordinary and very complex ways. I think it's I'm really grateful to be part of that. That happened.

Joshua Johnson: 36:18

Yeah. Yeah, I think it was important. I think as as believers as Christians that want to follow the way of Jesus that want to be faithful to Jesus, one of the things that he does really well, is he ushers in justice, and the US ushers in justice for the poor, the marginalized, neglected people, people that have been on the outside of society, and he wants to bring them in. And he's really easy for all people. And so how does, how does law and this conversation that we're having about civil disagreements, how does the role of Jesus and justice enter in as a person of faith?

John Inazu: 37:04

Yeah, I think I think for, for Christians to be able to point to Jesus and the cross and the resurrection, as ultimate justice that transcends our worldly interactions. That's, I mean, when we think about what that actually means, that's incredibly powerful. And it's actually it's a not just a difference in degree it's a difference in kind of any sort of worldly justice. So worldly justice, at best is proximate justice. Right, though the the kind of justice that can be meted out by people or judges or police officers, or prison officials is always going to be imperfect, you know, when when you are I experience a deep wrong in this world at the hands of another human being. There's no way that wrong is ever fully remedied. There's there's a breach in the cosmos of the universe and you know, forever. The this is this is really easy to think about when you think about kind of a bodily harm or a murder or something. But it's true with any kind of injustice when that when that injustice occurs, there is no justice. There's there's proximate justice, there's a kind of fine or punitive measure that can be be given out, but it's not going to bring full justice. And so what does that where does that leave us? Well, as Christians, it leaves us with the possibility of forgiveness. And forgiveness can be that one human act, we can actually take unilaterally that ends the cycle of vengeance, and that frees us from the injustice that has been done. That doesn't make it easy. But it's it's a, it's a possibility that that should just give us tremendous hope. And then alongside forgiveness, and for Christians, I think inseparable from forgiveness is recognizing that oh, there is this, this final justice and we are headed for a big J. Justice, we're the created order is reconciled. And we hold out that hope even knowing now that we're just going to experience imperfect examples of that in our own world and alliances.

Joshua Johnson: 39:13

So how do you not lose hope, knowing that we only have proximate justice on Earth, that we're going to continue with a whole sorts of, of evil and disagreements and a back and forth, and there's going to be some little J justice, but not all of it, until the consummation, how do we continue with hope that we can live in a society where we do see some foretaste of the coming Kingdom of God? And it's, there's some beauty at it. Yeah, well, I

John Inazu: 39:50

think you just answered the question in which we see, we see an experience of foretaste. And we do that in all kinds of ways with other and worship. Why by recognizing the presence of God in our lives by looking at the created order by looking at even my friend Jamie Smith recently said this to me, and it's stuck the idea that we we look for beauty and unexpected places, right? And we can see God's presence, even in the midst of just awful circumstances, when we see that we are testifying to that hope that is beyond us even a point of despair. And then I think we we recognize and remind each other that we are part of a very long story that is going to unfold over many generations and certainly past our own lifetimes and I think that helps us mainly tain hope in the midst of imperfect and proximate justice because we look at examples from Scripture, we look at the Jews in Babylon and exile and the promise is not, you know, in your lifetime, everything's going to work out and you will find justice and peace it is settle into this place that's really hard, raise children, how them raise children, be faithful, love your neighbors, and sometime along the way, I will rescue you. That's a that's a very hopeful message. But it's not a hope that is limited to you or me as individual people, it says a promise of hope to, to a people embedded in a story. And I think that's how we we cling to that hope.

Joshua Johnson: 41:25

That's beautiful. That's wonderful. I love that. And so good. So if we want to start to engage in disagreement with others out, I just want to note for us as, as people how to what posture do we take? What are helpful postures for us, practically? Yeah, I

John Inazu: 41:45

mean, so one is just curious, right? Kind of engagement that the wants to learn. Even I mean, I've found in my own life, that almost everybody has somebody that teach me even the person is the least informed or the most annoying that if I listened well and ask good questions, I can, I can learn something. So posture of curiosity, a posture of patience that is willing to ask follow up questions. And here, I think a very practical point is, if you find yourself wanting to pursue an issue, or a set of issues across disagreement with the real desire of learning and trying to gain empathy, and the one of the best ways to do this is to split it up in in different conversations over time, so have it so conversation with a commitment to come back in a week or in two weeks, rather, because what that does is it gives both you and the other person an opportunity to reflect on what's been said, you don't feel like you have to win the argument in one sitting or squeeze it all in. And you could even go back and you know, say, Well, you know, I actually never thought of that point or that idea. And I'm going to do some reading about it just to be better informed. And so that that posture of patience, and the willingness to commit to a relationship. And then I think, you know, going back to a point we made earlier is thick skin is probably not the right term, but something like that, where we take some we can we can be ready to receive some imperfect or offensive comments without immediately going on the defensive or immediately jumping on that person. And, you know, I found sometimes when I, I don't always do this perfectly, but when I am in situations where I do that, and I can kind of hang in there with the conversation, right? Sometimes I find out oh, actually, this is a little more nuanced than I thought, or this person didn't quite mean that or, I mean, we'll get someone to recognize that the unqualified overclaim statement was not actually what they meant, and they actually meant something different.

Joshua Johnson: 43:50

Can you give us a tip or two to engage in social media in a way that that does some of this? Because I know nuance is really hard and social media, he didn't say get off of

John Inazu: 44:02

it. Alright. Yeah. It is really hard. So I think, you know, really like, frankly, I think the best social media tip I can give is to draft responses that you don't actually send me actually write them out, you know, your own kind of witty, snarky retort, whatever it is, or you're, you're like expressing your deeply held view about something, write it out, don't send it, just leave it in a file for at least a day. Wait at least a day. Now, sometimes social media makes you think, well, if I don't respond in five minutes, I missed the conversation. Not right you don't waiting, wait a day or half a day is not going to marginalize your voice. So write it out way. And then And then ask yourself, Is this really as important as I thought it was? So for me one of the best moves I've done recently, in the last few years, as I started a couple of years ago, a weekly substack newsletter. And what that did practically for me, it meant I was less engaged and on Twitter and other social media. But what it meant is when I when I came across something on social media that really bugged me or I thought was super important, I would just put it in a file. And then wait until I was ready to write my weekly newsletter. And if it was really that important, I would then spend a bunch of time thinking through it and making the point and, and nine times out of 10 or 19 out of 20 Turned out that a couple days later. It wasn't really that important.

Joshua Johnson: 45:28

That's so good. Well, let's, what's one hope you have for your readers? What do you want them to get from this book? Yeah, I mean, you know, I

John Inazu: 45:37

hope that I wrote it in a way that is engaging so that people will feel like they're learning something. But also it's entertaining that the laugh a couple times that they'll be frustrated, they'll pause. So I hope it's the kind of book that can both challenge substantively but also engage and captivate the reader. Yeah,

Joshua Johnson: 45:56

I think you did a good job there. I, I was laughing. I was learning. It was a fantastic read. So I think you did phenomenally. I'm really excited for people to start to engage it. And hopefully, we can learn how to disagree and have these, these postures of, of humility and learning and curiosity, and that we can have discussions and even disagree and continue to move forward together and see that there is an image bearer in front of me. It's really, really good. I have a couple of questions for you, John one, if you go back to your 21 year old self, what advice would you give? And

John Inazu: 46:33

I love that question. I think, you know, I mean, especially speaking as a Christian, I think it would just be to not overthink, where life will take, because you actually can't game it out. And you can't have a plan for the next 20 years of your life to sort of be faithful in the little steps. But to hold it loosely. And I when I talk to students who are 21 That's sort of the advice I get, but you know, you know, some things you're called to today. But But, but you don't actually know where you're going to be in 20 or 30 years. So don't hold that a little more loosely, I

Joshua Johnson: 47:13

think. Yeah, that's really good, good advice, anything you've been reading or watching lately, you could recommend. And

John Inazu: 47:22

I'm actually getting ready to go to Kenya in a couple of days. And so I've been reading up on the Kenyan constitution, but I don't think they would recommend. It's probably not the exact point here. But I will say I've recently read a book on faith and politics by my friend Michael ware. And thought that was a you know, he built on Dallas Willard. And I think the, the, for those people who are interested in politics and political engagement, that spiritual practices and Christian community seemed really, really important. comes to mind. Excellent.

Joshua Johnson: 48:02

So the spirit of our politics by Michael, where Michael will be on the shifting culture on the podcast, just a couple of weeks from this conversation as it drops. So that'll be be great. Maybe you listen back to back, it will be good for you. How can people connect with you, John, go out, get your book learning to disagree? And where would you like to point people to? Yeah,

John Inazu: 48:27

thanks so much. So I mean, we'd love for people to engage with the book if they're interested. I also do have that that free weekly, substack, John and aza@substack.com. And I've got a website, John and ozzy.com, that has quite a bit of information about what I do and where I go and what I teach.

Joshua Johnson: 48:43

Awesome. Well, John, thank you for this conversation. It was, I think it was unnecessary. It's needed in our day and age that we need to figure out how to disagree with one another how to engage in conversation, I think it's a, we've lost some of this. And so we need to regain the ability to do that. And so I really enjoyed your book. And I hope they go out. They get it, they learn, and they practice with one another. So practice with some people that are that are safe at the beginning. And so because I think if we do practice, we get better at it over time. And I think for for people like you as we, we need some examples, that people can be an example that we can have disagreements, and we could still be together and move forward together. And so, yes, I hope this is one of them. And one good example for people to take so thank you for your work. Thank you for this conversation. It was fantastic. It was crazy with you. Thanks

John Inazu: 49:46

so much, Joshua. Thanks.