Angela:
Hi, and thanks so much for joining me today. I'm really excited to have a conversation with my friend Christy Vines, President and CEO of Ideos Institute. They are advancing empathy through dialogue for the common good. So I'm sure you can see why the minute I met Christy, I knew we'd have a lot to talk about. So welcome to the podcast.
Christy:
Thanks, Angie. I'm glad to be here.
Angela:
Yeah, it's been so great getting to know you the past couple years and just the common passion we have for listening and creating new types of dialogue. Could you tell us more about Ideos Institute and what you all are working on there?
Christy:
Sure. Well, we're about five years old this October, and ultimately, our goal as an organization is we do both research and practice. So we conduct research in this burgeoning space called empathic intelligence. So it is, I always say, the big brother to what most of us know as empathy. It takes the work of what we often think of as emotional work, some would say a soft skill, and we actually put it front and center into real strategic ways of living and being in the world, especially in the midst of diversity and difference.
So it has application to our personal relationships, but even more, our work is really focused on how do we bring people together across divides, lessening the defensive postures that our brains are wired to push us towards. How do we actually create new skills, new tools, and ways of engaging that actually are much more comfortable, they are positive, they're affirming, and actually allow us to grow in our own intelligence about these really important issues that we're all wrestling with?
Angela:
Yeah. Every time I hear you talk about it, I get excited, because a lot of people talk about how divided we are in America and in the Church. But to hear you laying the groundwork for strategy and also the science behind this has always been so encouraging to me. So I loved your documentary and would love to start there about the Dialogue Lab, what your goal was with that, and really how you see that factoring into your work to create positive, empathetic conversations in divisive issues.
Christy:
Sure. Yeah, to talk about our film, we have to go back to what inspired it, because that was really the goal. Just after January 6th and all of the things that we experienced in 2020 and in the beginnings of 2021, I was invited by a very good friend of mine, who's a CEO, to help him and some of his peers figure out ways to help navigate the conflict that was actually happening in their companies and their organizations.
But they were also recognizing that not only was there deep division happening in their own organizations, but even as peers, they were having real challenges of having hard conversations when they were politically on different sides. What was fascinating is being brought in and then eventually having them bring another 10 people in. So we had this 13-person dialogue in the height of our largest political differences. Coming out of that a month later and realizing that not only was there something really powerful to this dialogue process that literally I had to develop on the fly, because I was not planning on doing that-
Angela:
Oh, wow.
Christy:
I was drawing from research and tools and just work that others have done. So I will definitely give credit where credit is due. There are lots of other organizations doing some really good work that we pulled from, but recognizing that the dialogue had been completely off the record. We still to this day do not share the names of those who are a part of it, mostly because those individuals literally said they would lose credibility. Some would lose jobs as a result of that dialogue. We had somebody stepping down from the Trump administration, somebody who'd worked at a pretty high level in the Obama administration, CEOs, heads of philanthropy, names that people would recognize.
So I went to my board, and I said, "We've just had this incredible outcome from this project we never planned on actually [inaudible 00:04:30], but I can't share it with anybody. What do we do?" One of my board members, Jennifer Pelling, is also a film producer and film investor, and she said, "What if we actually did this again with 12 average Americans? Do you think it would work?" I said, "You know what? Given where we're at, I don't know."
So you asked the question, "What was your goal?" I think we call it a social experiment, because that's actually what it was. It was to see, "Is this a tool that actually is reliable and useful?", outside of the very professional, buttoned-up environment that we had come out of with just regular Americans who were struggling at that moment to figure out how do they engage across some of our deepest divides?
Angela:
Wow. Well, it was so moving, and I did appreciate in the documentary, you were honest about that, that we didn't know if this will work. That actually, I think, for me, creates a freedom even as a listener and probably for participants. That's actually an interesting key to stepping into these conversations. If we don't make that a requirement that it's going to work, maybe that allows people to have some more freedom. I don't know what you think about that, but to me, it was freeing to hear you say that.
Christy:
Yeah, no, that's absolutely true. With full transparency, the 12 that we selected out of a pool of people who applied to be a part of the film, they had no idea what they were signing up for, other than it was an experiment on political polarization.
Angela:
Wow.
Christy:
That is all they knew. So it was complete trust when they walked in the door and met with all strangers and were led through a series of exercises that were complete surprises to them. So there was no preparation for them. None of it was scripted, because literally when they sat down is when they were given the instructions.
Angela:
Wow. So they didn't realize it was a sit down and talk to other people, just a social-
Christy:
Not at all.
Angela:
I wonder if that's better. I'm actually thinking of my own history in having these conversations. I think maybe it's better sometimes to not know and just be thrown in the deep end. But you actually had some really specific steps, which I appreciated you laid out in the documentary, and I was wondering how you landed on those steps. Was there science? You talked about pulling from research, and also, is this something we can incorporate individually? So I'll go through the steps for listeners, because I really do encourage everyone to watch the documentary. But basically, like Christy's saying, it's a group of people who come in. They interview them before they sit down and have conversations, and then you get to see the conversations. But there's really clear steps.
The first is search for common ground. That was step one. Step two was to listen to each other without debating, which is huge. Step three was to exchange stories. That was a really cool exercise, where they were to hear someone's story, and then they had to tell it back to the group like it was their own story using that person's voice. Then step four, you actually had them enter into dialogue. I was fascinated by the steps, so would love to hear more about that, because we used some of them in our training, but actually not in that order. So I was like, "Oh, I could learn from you guys," and also just thinking about my own personal, trying to navigate conversations.
Christy:
Yeah. We have found that this work, people come in thinking that this is either a professional competency or a political social competency. Then we get feedback that, "Oh my gosh. This worked in my own family. I now have a better way of talking to my children or my [inaudible 00:08:17]," and all of that. So it's very applicable just in everyday life. But just in terms of both the science behind the different steps, but also why we do them in that order is starting with just a search for common ground. When we know that we are going into a conversation that could be heated or we're somebody who has a very different opinion or perspective than us, our brains immediately switch into defense mode.
In fact, there's so much interesting language around this. We talk about our blood boiling, and we get heated. That's a physiological response that is already being primed the minute that we know we are going to debate somebody on a topic we care deeply about. So the idea of coming into a challenging conversation and thinking, "My job is to debate this," we immediately go into defensive mode, and our brains immediately start to look at the other person as the enemy. We immediately start to think about and focus on, "What is it that makes us different from one another?" So we immediately focus on the differences.
There is no way to go from that position to a positive, healthy outcome if that's the starting point. So we immediately have people seek common ground with somebody who they don't even realize is on the polar opposite end from them on an issue they care deeply about, because what happens is when our brains know that we're not here to win a war, we're not here to find the differences, we're actually here to find the commonality, our brains start to seek things that make us alike. So the defensive posture, that defensiveness, goes down, and you actually see physical cues, where people's shoulders drop. We had people breathe sighs of relief. You can see smiles. You don't normally see that if you're going in in defensive mode. So that's why we start there, because you prime the brain to start looking and seeking something different, seeking out the positive, rather than negative.
Angela:
Wow. So just to stop there, because I do want to hear the other steps. You're saying in the documentary people didn't know they were being paired up with someone. Okay. You guys knew it.
Christy:
We knew it.
Angela:
You had done intake forms. You paired them up. But they didn't know, so their very first encounter was common ground.
Christy:
That's right.
Angela:
That's really profound and even a profound mindset for us to try and go through life with, right?
Christy:
Yeah.
Angela:
Trying to find common ground first. That's an interesting factor that might have made this successful, because right there you're saying if they had known there was opposition, it might not have worked from there.
Christy:
Right, right.
Angela:
Wow. Really key stuff. Okay, thank you. You can go along with the other stuff, but I thought that was really interesting. I didn't realize. For some reason, I thought they would've known. That's actually interesting for me to think about, because that could even reframe some of the ways we have people ask questions, to find common ground first, before you actually know where that person stands, because that is a nervousness. I'll just take the abortion issue as an example. It's why people don't say anything, because they don't know where the other person stands. That actually leads to silence. But if we're skilled in seeking common ground first, that means we could talk to anybody, trying to seek that first.
Christy:
Yeah.
Angela:
That's really interesting.
Christy:
Even if we never do it, if that's the way we enter into our relationships, our conversations, all of that, with the idea that, "I don't care how long it takes me. I'm going to find something we have in common," our brains are primed differently from the outset, even if we don't go through that exercise. So it's definitely a physiological aspect of what we do in terms of why we start there.
Angela:
Wow.
Christy:
Yeah. Then the next step, going into our deep listening, so listening without the idea or even the responsibility of defense or debate is probably one of our most powerful exercises, because this is something we don't learn, most of us don't learn, especially in Western civilization and in particular in America. We are taught from birth to communicate, to influence, to inform, and to win.
Angela:
Wait. Say that again. Stop it. So this isn't just Christians, because I thought this had to do with my Christian upbringing. But you're saying all of us as Americans ... Say those three again.
Christy:
To influence, to inform, and to win.
Angela:
Wow. Wow.
Christy:
That is our style of communication. We've worked with college students, and I often ask, how many of them have either taken a communications class or are communications majors? So I'll get hands that go up, and I go, "In your coursework, how much emphasis has there been placed on just listening?" Very few will raise their hands. From the moment we speak our first word or scream and cry, our brain starts recognizing that when we talk, we have an impact. We get people to move. We influence people, and so the more effective we can become, the more influential and sometimes even exploitive we can become in our communication.
So if we have years and sometimes decades of our brains starting to recognize that there is a positive, something positive that comes from our one-way defensive debate style of communication, why would we ever stop and listen? But if you notice in the documentary, when we tell people that ... Their instructions were, "You are to enter into this conversation without letting the other person know what your position is on the issue that you guys are having a conversation about. In fact, your only job is to ask questions. You actually never have to debate or defend or even give hints or tips about what your position is."
So the majority of the groups actually got it, and they did it. But it's so interesting, because when we are primed not to have to debate or defend our position ... So when our brains are wired for debate and defense, it's basically closed off to any information that doesn't support that goal. So my only job is to debate and defend this and to influence you and try to win. Everything I do is in support of that, is in service of that outcome.
But if I don't have to debate and defend, a filter actually goes down. Our brain actually changes its job, which means it becomes curious, and it actually seeks to get more information and to learn and actually lessen the distance between the two individuals. So in the film, there's one moment where there's an individual who is asking questions, but then actually asks a question that very much shows his posture, his position on the issue. If you notice, there's a micro movement of him moving forward. It's an aggressive posture, and it's micro. I didn't see it until about the third time watching it through. But the minute he catches himself and goes, "Oh, wait. I'm not here to actually talk about my position. I'm here to listen and ask you questions," all of a sudden, he sits back, and his shoulders just slightly go down.
Angela:
Wow.
Christy:
It's just, again, a physiological response in our bodies that says, "Oh, we're not in defense mode. I don't have to be aggressive. I don't have to be the aggressor. I just get to sit and listen and learn." It's a completely different job for the brain. So everything then is in service of just learning and listening, which makes us so much more effective, but it allows us then to actually learn enough to be curious and respond, because most of us just don't sit and listen, respond, recognizing that there are stories and reasons beyond just the position that people hold, which is often what we debate, just the-
Angela:
Right. The position.
Christy:
Right.
Angela:
Okay. So I want to ask a tangent question on this, too, that connects with our faith, if I can. So do you see any connection ... You said the word, "If I know my responsibility is not to defend my position, but to listen." Do you see that there's an added layer for some Christian traditions where on top of the American thing, we're taught we are responsible? It becomes a mental model, a theological ... It's wrapped up with our faith. We are responsible to defend our position. Actually, if we don't, something bad will happen to us. If anyone listened to Episode Two, I talked about I had this experience when I was walking into a conversation with someone who I knew was on a very opposite side on the abortion issue. I was like, "I'm afraid. I'm afraid to sit here and listen and not defend my position, as if I might do something wrong." So that just clicked in me when you said responsibility. Can you speak to that theological or what else is happening in our brain when we've been raised to add that to the mix?
Christy:
Yeah. There's actually a very strong theological undergirding and foundation of our work. In fact, we actually tell people, especially when we're in a Christian context, that our work ... We call it the way of empathy, and we've completely plagiarized it and stolen it from the life and ministry of Christ.
Angela:
Hey, that's a great place. We do that, too. I love that.
Christy:
It's a start, right? Can't go wrong there. It is profound how this relates even to our ability to evangelize the lost. I often point Christians to Paul, who I believe was biblically one of the most empathically intelligent individuals, at least as we see him shared in the New Testament. I'll just point to one story, which is his ministry to the Greeks.
There's this point where he recognizes that the Greeks have an unknown god, and rather than destroy and tear down their entire religious beliefs, all of their cultural norms, he says, "Oh, wait, wait. I've sat and I've listened and I've learned, and I understand who you are. I understand how you see religion and your faith and your cultural norms. But hey, I have a Jesus, and I can implant him right in the center of it." So I don't actually have to tear all of this down. I can introduce you to Jesus in a context that makes sense for you."
I think this part about how we're often taught to evangelize is, one, we're often taught exactly what you were talking about, Angie, is we have to defend the faith. I often tell people, "If we are God's army and military here on earth, then we are a poor representation. We are a poor military arm." We are flawed ourselves. How can we ever be a perfect defense system for Him? The other thing, too, is we actually can't be effective if we don't understand who's sitting on the other side of the table from us.
I think that one of the worst things we can do to evangelize the lost is to go in and to debate and defend the Gospel without ever caring to know who it is that we're actually sharing Jesus with. I often think how much more effective we'd be if we actually took the time to listen and understand the history that people have, whether it's with Christianity, with other religions, with no religion or belief, so that we can be like Paul and actually implant Jesus in a way that is contextually very relevant for that individual. But how many of us have actually been through a Listening for [inaudible 00:20:40] 101 class? Right?
Angela:
Right.
Christy:
That's the idea of empathy. How many times did Christ engage with somebody brand new and just sit and listen to their story and ask lots of questions? Then He shared Himself in a way that was so relevant. The way He talked even to the woman at the well who was thirsty that "I am the living water," if he had never figured out that she was thirsty and he just walked in and said, "Look, woman" ...
Angela:
"Here's where I stand. Here's where I stand on this issue."
Christy:
[inaudible 00:21:13].
Angela:
"Here's where I stand on you having five husbands," right? He doesn't ever tell her what his stance is on that moral social issue. Wow. This piece, it just hit me. I've heard so many people talk about how brilliant Paul was with the unknown god, but you're highlighting he had to listen to know that. So it has more to do with him being empathically intelligent, like you're saying, and a good listener than maybe the brilliance where, "Oh, he had this thought." Well, he had a relationship, and he had some context, because he actually listened.
Christy:
Yeah.
Angela:
Wow.
Christy:
I'll share a theologian. He's actually a neural theologian, if I'm saying that correctly.
Angela:
Wow. Yeah, fascinating.
Christy:
Dr. Jim Wilder, a good friend of mine, just wrote a book that I was really fortunate to get to review the manuscript for called Escaping Enemy Mode. I call it a love letter to the Church, because we are hardwired to be tribal and to move into enemy mode. Our current culture actually amplifies that in us, because, sadly, we are rewarded too often for that posture. So I love what he writes, because he writes about the practical ways that we can get out of enemy mode so that we can actually love our neighbor. You can't hate someone and be in ... Think of it this way. How many people that go to war in a military context actually look across at the enemy that they're about to shoot and go, "Oh, man. I love them"?
We are taught to hate them first, to see the differences between us first before we can actually wage war against them. So if that's the posture of the Church, that we are at war with the culture, we are at war with those heathens, we are at war, but we're not proximate to them, we don't know their story, we don't listen to them, we're not curious about them, we can't actually love them. So this is really how do you do that as a way of changing the hard-wiring of our brain so that we can actually be proximate, whether that's just imaginatively, creatively, or physically, to the people who we actually see as enemy?
Angela:
Wow. That's brilliant. Thank you. You had mentioned that book the other day. We'll put the book in the show notes as well. I personally want to read that, and I want to make sure we get through all your steps, because I'm guessing this story then leads into exactly what you were just saying-
Christy:
Yes. Yes.
Angela:
... of putting ourselves imaginatively into someone else's story. Yeah. Talk about that. That was fascinating to watch, by the way.
Christy:
Yeah, and that was completely, like I said, unscripted.
Angela:
Wow.
Christy:
I know we had two teams of filmmakers filming that at the same time. So the team that was filming, Jonathan and Patricia, actually were crying while filming it.
Angela:
Okay. We should stop and tell who Jonathan and Patricia are.
Christy:
Yeah. So in the film, Jonathan and Patricia are two individuals who, like I said, joined this experiment. Patricia is very much very liberal, very much, I would say, on the extremes of the Left politically. Jonathan, much more conservative, which is why we paired them together. Didn't know that they were actually going to have a conversation about the abortion issue.
Angela:
Oh, you didn't know. They just-
Christy:
They actually were paired because of their political views.
Angela:
I see.
Christy:
It was the inquiry of Patricia, the assumptions that Patricia held about Jonathan on the issue of abortion, which is why she opened up, and they got to that point. Now, obviously, there was a lot of other dialogue that happened around that, but that was so core to their exchange. It came at the end. You saw it led to a hug. That was a wrap after that. That came at the very end of about ... I think we had two hours to go back and forth. So it shows you that when people take the time to hear somebody's story what can happen.
So what's really powerful about the story exchange, and I will also give credit to Narrative 4, an organization that has been using this kind of work. They started off in the Israel-Palestine conflict. They've done it in Northern Ireland, now actually teach teachers in primary school to do this in the classroom. We very much took this work that Narrative 4 has been doing. But the story exchange also has great neuroscience behind it. I don't even necessarily know that Narrative 4 talks a lot about this, but when we hear someone's story ... We often are told, "Tell your story."
So if I told my story to you, Angie, you'd be listening to my story, but your brain would have a filter up that's trying to pick out all of the things that you know about me or somebody that looks like me, anything that you know about me. You've already made connections about who I am based on your past experience. We accumulate all of this data over the course of our lives. Our brains are constantly making judgments to keep us safe. So you're looking at me, and if you've had experiences with me or you have opinions or ideas or biases, you are hearing my story through that lens. So rarely are you listening to my story to actually understand. You're listening to my story to actually figure out, am I friend or foe?
Your brain is doing that like a computer processor in the background. You don't even know what's happening. It's why when people say if you're a woman and you're walking down a street and it's at night, it's dark, and you see a very large, looming figure coming towards you, you have no idea who that person is. But all of a sudden, [inaudible 00:27:13] your gut. Go with your gut. What is your feeling?
Has nothing to do with your gut. It's all of that data that your brain has accumulated. It's making snap judgements based on what it knows about somebody like that. Same thing happens when I'm telling you my story. What do I know about someone like you? Is your story connecting, supporting, or affirming that, or is it leading me in a different direction? But it's calculating, basically. The great thing about doing a story exchange is if I tell you, "Angie, I'm going to tell you my story, but your job is you have to then tell my story back to someone else," your brain actually has a different job-
Angela:
Interesting.
Christy:
... because now it has to memorize. It's listening deeply, because I've got to get it right. I have to tell your story. So largely, the biased judgment filter goes away, because my brain doesn't have that job anymore. I'm not here to figure out if you're friend or foe. I'm here. I have to actually listen. It's like going to a movie or listening to an audiobook. If I'm trying to learn something, my brain is not trying to figure out, "Ooh, is this accurate? Is this right?" I have to memorize the story.
But what also happens, so that filter goes down, and as a result, the amazing thing that happens is it gets to deeply hear the story. If that story actually is counter to some judgments and biases that I already believe, that's a new data point that now my brain gets to consider. So the more I do that, the more I see individuals now as a human with their own story, and the more that that counters my own biases. Not only does it change the way I see you and the others who told me their story, it changes the way I see people like you. It has great implications-
Angela:
Whole group.
Christy:
... [inaudible 00:29:04] of race, religious differences, political differences. All of the things that we make biases and assumptions about, it completely transforms the more we do this, which means we have to be intentional about engaging with people different than us. We always say that empathic intelligence is a way of being and a way of knowing. So some of the work is about knowing. This very much changes our way of being with others.
Angela:
Wow. Oh my gosh. This is so good, and you've said a couple times, "This works because our brain has a different job. Our brain has a different job." So let's think about this. So we are doing this podcast to be able to talk about abortion without the politics, new conversations. So for us, framing this, what may we have thought? What did our brain think our job was in the abortion conversation? But if we're going to model ourselves after Jesus, how do we tell ourselves, really speak to ourselves, and say, "My brain has a different job here"? I don't know. We can dialogue about that, but I think that's such a concrete way to shift when we're going into conversations, to recognize what I was told or what my brain did think its job was, but really, according to Scripture, this is really what my brain's job is.
Christy:
Yeah, no, and all of this is so relevant to the abortion topic. I think normally, again, going back to the idea of debate, we have largely set the abortion issue and many, many other important issues as a binary choice. It's a bunch of zeros and ones, right?
Angela:
Right. Either/or.
Christy:
Either/or. Because we've told our brain that, our brain makes that assumption every time we engage in this topic.
Angela:
It's either/or.
Christy:
It's either/or. I only have one or the other choice. When it's an issue that we care deeply about, there's a bunch of research. Actually, Barna did some research recently that when people engage with others who they know have a different perspective than them on something that they feel very passionate about or very strongly about, they actually feel threatened when the other person is sharing their perspective. It's not just an intellectual exercise anymore. So again, enemy mode, right?
Angela:
Yeah.
Christy:
Brings us into enemy mode. So we see that other person as the enemy. If we're the zero, they are automatically the one. There's nothing in between. It also almost creates a robotic context for us as humans, because there's no emotion. There's no curiosity. There's no interest in the humanity of that person. We've already ascribed them with certain identities, like I said, one being that they are the enemy. So if our brain recognizes them as the enemy, it responds in a defensive posture. So practicing these kinds of skills before you ever get into the dialogue is so important not because it's just an exercise that's helpful, a skill that we should learn. It actually is a process that over time will change the way our brains are hardwired.
Angela:
Wow.
Christy:
We don't immediately see the other person as a one if we're a zero. We don't immediately see them as an enemy that we need to defend against. We actually can enter and feel like, "I am really curious to understand. In fact, I'm enjoying learning, even if the outcome is we will never agree." I always tell people, because we get a lot of pushback, especially in a Christian context, that empathy is relativism. It just means everything is true, or they look at me and go, "Oh, you must be agnostic on everything."
I go, "No, I have actually really strong opinions on a lot of things. The point is I hold them in my hand strongly enough to affirm my own identity and way of engaging in the world, but lightly enough that they're never absolute." It's an exercise in growing in my intelligence. So I see an exchange with people, especially people who I disagree with, as an opportunity to grow in my own intelligence, but then a way of learning how to engage differently so that the way I share my own perspective, kind of like Paul, engages with them in a way that it's relevant to them. I might ask questions that are very relevant to the way they see issues, but I can't do that effectively if I actually don't even know what's behind the position that they hold.
I'll use one quick example. It's not in the [inaudible 00:33:55] debate, but it's in the gun debate, gun control, violence debate. A friend of mine did a dialogue, ended up being a two-year dialogue on this issue, brought together people who were on polar opposites, people who had lost children to gun violence, others who were NRA members, very, very staunch gun, Second Amendment right promoters. She learned that as long as they were debating the issue, they were getting nowhere. So finally, she said, "You know what? I don't want you to tell me. I don't want you to tell each other what you believe. I want you to tell each other why you believe it."
There was a moment she said where this one very strong pro-gun individual told a story that as a child growing up, somebody broke into his home, held his father at gunpoint in their bedroom, all while he and his sister were sleeping, and then while holding his father at gunpoint raped his mother and stole some things and left. He said he and his sister woke up the next morning, and their world completely changed. His father from that point on was a shell of himself. Obviously, his mother was completely traumatized.
He said so he watched this one incident completely shatter and tear apart his family. He described it as, "I lost my parents that day." He said, "And so I always knew that when I became a husband and a father, I would never be in a position not to defend my family." Immediately, one of the very much gun control, no gun ... In fact, it was a parent who had lost a child. She looked across the room and said, "You lost somebody too." Instant comment [inaudible 00:35:55] ground, right?
Angela:
Yes, yes.
Christy:
Very different perspectives on how to respond to that trauma, but immediately she saw that his position was based on pain and loss, exactly as hers had.
Angela:
Wow.
Christy:
That group as a result of that exercise ended up staying together for two years and actually working together to find common legislation that they could promote together.
Angela:
Wow.
Christy:
Would never have happened had she not have moved them out of debate mode and into dialogue.
Angela:
Wow. That is so profound. That's a great example where you're saying, and I love the way you phrase this, empathy isn't relativism. Those two still felt the same way about guns. So they both experienced loss, but they had different perspective on guns. It doesn't mean that that changed just because they empathize with each other. I was talking in the last episode about my fear, and I was telling people, "I don't even know what my fear was. That was my fear."
I've been taught or somehow absorbed that if I'm empathetic, if I listen, that's going to change me in some way that isn't in alignment with who God is. What a small and not accurate view of the Father, who sees all our stories. I just think you naming that, I'm going to think about that. Empathy isn't relativism, and we can feel very strongly on things while also seeing humanity. Okay. I want to say this. Tell me if you think this will work, because as you're talking, I'm writing down and analyzing. If we can tell ourselves in these conversations about abortion or other difficult topics, "Hey, brain, your job is not to debate" ... What did you say? Influence?
Christy:
Influence, inform, and win.
Angela:
Yes. "Brain, in this conversation, your job is not to inform, influence, and win. Your job is to see the humanity in this other person. Your job is to look for common ground." I love how you're saying your job is to grow in your own emotional or empathic intelligence. "Your goal is to be curious and learn. Then your goal is to, like Paul, listen and know these people and see if God's giving you away to connect Him to this." What would that do to our neurological wiring if that is what we told our brain its job was?
Christy:
Yeah. That's exactly right. It's so powerful, and I've watched the impact of it over and over again. But I also always like to leave people with something really simple. If you forget all of this-
Angela:
That was good.
Christy:
... one thing that can really help change how you engage on really hot topics, really passion topics, and I always say if you cannot answer the question, "I understand why this person holds the position they hold," then it's your job to keep asking the question, to keep-
Angela:
Fantastic.
Christy:
Because what happens is you end up having this incredible experience of hearing somebody's story. Out of that, I would be hard-pressed to find too many people who won't find something in common, some point of connection that actually allows that defensive posture to soften, to see the other person not as a zero or one, but to see them as the full expression of a history of things done to them, done by them that have brought them to that point. It's magical what happens as a result.
Angela:
Wow. Well, thank you. I think you just plagiarized Jesus. It's literally-
Christy:
All the time.
Angela:
That's why it's magical, because that's what He did. I think, too, and even in our faith, if we sit with Him and say, "How do you do that with me, Lord?," I think sometimes I'm so hard on myself. I don't realize God's listening to my story. I think I end up having a defensive posture with others because I don't experience that from Him. But you're right. If we reorient, that's how He is with us, and we can have that comfort. That's how we can go be with others. I love that. That's our brain's job, is to find out why this person holds that view, to hear their story, and to stay present as two humans and trust God. That's fantastic.
Well, I love the work you're doing, and now I'm sure our whole community can understand why every time I talk to Christy, my heart starts beating faster. I'm just so excited that you're out in the world, being Jesus in this way, doing this work. We'll link everything in the show notes, because I know that you and your work will be such a great resource for our community. So thank you, Christy.
Christy:
Thanks for having me.
Angela:
Bye.
