Facilitating Engagement & Dialogue

Saint Francis of Assisi: Mediator or Political Activist Part 5

In this post I conclude comments on guidelines from the FAN position paper “A Franciscan Approach to Civility in Discourse.”

Recognize that all human engagement and dialogue is an opportunity to promote peace.

In the presence of a mediator such as St. Francis, skilled at facilitating engagement and dialogue, this axiom rings true. However, human engagement and dialogue alone does not guarantee an opportunity to promote peace. When a political activist advocates for a position the other side believes will cause them harm the likelihood of peace diminishes rapidly.

A highwayman may accost a stranger on the road and engage in charming banter but when he demands the stranger hand over his money, the engagement and dialogue fails to promote peace no matter how chatty, witty, or erudite the thief may seem. Perhaps the proposed axiom should be rewritten to say “all well-intentioned human engagement that honors mutual self-determinism brings an opportunity for peace.”

When we act as mediators in the tradition of St. Francis we enter into a special form of engagement and dialogue that promotes peace. If we intend to act as peacemakers we must prepare carefully for this task, and we must realize the role of political activist does not inherently promote peace. More often than not when we advocate as an activist we promote division; we have “a dog in the fight.” We seek to choose winners and losers through the exercise of political power. And, as a result, we are not viewed as peacemakers.

This is especially true when our partners or allies in a political cause have a history of intentionally creating division and strife in order to further their narrow interests. If we find ourselves allied with political radicals, we might as well be traveling with highwaymen. If we find ourselves associating with political radicals who foment dissension, dissatisfaction, and revolution as means to their ends, we fail as peacemakers. If we wish to bring peace we must be, first and foremost, peacemakers.

Later in this series, I will discuss the liability of being perceived, correctly or incorrectly, as an ally of political radicals who cause dissension through deception and manipulation. The negative legacy that arises from such associations has a long shelf life, so it becomes important to the peacemaker to avoid being confused with radicals who do not fully embrace our faith-based mission of peacemaking.

Recognize that dialogue and engagement can lead to new insight and mutual understanding.

This worthy goal is more easily attained in mediation than in smoke-filled back rooms where political deals are conceived. The activist seeks to bring about acceptance of their view through domination and coercion and through political power rather than through mutual understanding. In contrast, the mediator or conflict specialist convinces political activists on both sides to lay down verbal (and other) weapons they use to defend positions.

Unlike the activist, the mediator strives to nurture creative insights and mutual understanding between all parties. The mediator invites parties to enter into deeper relationship, into an I-Thou relationship, in order to mutually discover respective needs and interests that may be satisfied in new, creative, and collaborative ways.

During the FAN webinar on healthcare legislation collaborative dialogue did not take place. The “man with the microphone” dismissed concerns and reiterated the FAN political position. Was he intentionally disrespectful? I think probably not. But in the absence of a mediator trained to slow the process and facilitate mutual investigation of facts and opinions, the goal-oriented drive of the activist took over and prevented an increase in understanding.

As we can see, new insight and mutual understanding do not spontaneously sprout from human dialogue and engagement. Rather they must be carefully nurtured. They are the hard-won products of diligent work. There would be less strife in the world today if mutual understanding were something that magically came about with little or no effort. The legacy of Francis provides us with an approach to reconciling relationships, based on engaging the human heart in a search for God, an approach that is not easy to apply but that is tremendously effective.

Summary Civility in Discourse…

The guidelines FAN proposes as a route to “civility in discourse” are valid within the mediation context but fall short when applied in the context of political activism. We cannot reasonably rely on activists to simultaneously advocate for a cause while holding an impartial stance that allows them to monitor the rules of civil discourse.

I have suggested there might be instances in which FAN (perhaps inadvertently) has violated the very rules for civility they suggest. When FAN assumes a partisan role they can no longer function as a fair and impartial process broker; this is an inherent shortcoming of zealous advocacy.

If FAN wishes to enjoy the fruits of civil discourse while at the same time advocating for partisan positions they need to call upon a neutral party who can oversee and facilitate dialogue. They need to consult with a conflict specialist to determine if they are violating guidelines for civil discourse.

When faced with this type of dilemma FAN may be well served by turning to the legacy of Francis that, in my view, recommends abandoning political advocacy and taking up the role of mediator or conciliator in a society greatly in need of reconciliation. Francis advocated for a single cause: living a Gospel life in devoted imitation of Christ. That advocacy involved working tirelessly to reconcile relationships, a cause that is consistent with living according to the words of Christ. Perhaps we ignore his example at our peril.

FAN, in the position paper under consideration, has identified a primary problem in contemporary society—policy discussions have become contentious. Division and strife are the norm. Civil discourse is abandoned when opposing sides view each other’s actions as threats to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Given the contentious nature of the political landscape perhaps the best way for Franciscans to advance their charism is in the role of mediator, conciliator, or conflict specialist.

Warring parties benefit when relationships are strengthened in the presence of gospel-inspired love. When parties recognize the divine in one another they tend to create mutually satisfactory outcomes rather than temporary truces subject to the ever-changing fortunes of political power. It is this task of reconciling relationships and bringing about peaceful outcomes for which St. Francis prepares us so well.

When Franciscans take partisan political positions and become allied with change agents who do not share Francis’ deep love of Christ they risk not only their reputation but the reputation of St. Francis as well. Franciscans have so much to offer in a world unsettled by turmoil. We are messengers prepared to announce the joys that flow like water from a life informed by gospel-inspired love. Do we risk compromising this precious gift as a result of becoming political activists?

Upcoming posts will look deeper into the liabilities of political activism and the fruits of peacemaking.

St. Francis: Mediator or Political Activist? Series Posts

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4: Civility in Discourse
• Part 5: Facilitating Engagement & Dialogue
• Part 6: Resurrection Politics and Rules for Radicals
• Part 7: Immigration Reform
• Part 8: Beyond Corruption and Deception

Related Posts

• Saint Francis of Assisi: Mediator or Political Activist? Part 3
• Saint Francis of Assisi: Mediator or Political Activist? Part 2
• Engaging Interfaith Dialogue
• Civility in Discourse
• Immigration Reform