[00:00:29.920]
Welcome to Episode 305 of The Non-Anxious Leader Podcast. I'm Jack Shitama. If you are new to this podcast, you can connect with me at jack@christian-leaders.com. I love to hear your comments and feedback and suggestions for future episodes. You can also find more resources at thenonanxiousleader.com, where you can subscribe to my Two for Tuesday email newsletter. And I'll also put a link to that subscription page in the show notes. Now, without further ado, here is episode 305, We Have to Do Better: How a Non-Anxious Leader Can Make a Difference. The US presidential election has gotten me thinking a lot about where our world is headed. The outcome was disappointing to me, but I also realized there are many in my country who are happy about it. Our divisions seem to define us right now, and that's a challenge. What concerns me is that if we don't figure out a different way, the divisiveness will take us in the direction of national, if not global, disaster. What really got me thinking about this was a David Brooks article, Why We Got It So Wrong in the New York Times. I'll post a link in the show notes.

[00:01:53.830]
It's a free share, so you shouldn't hit a paywall. The article makes a compelling case that identity politics no longer works. People are too complicated to identify with a cause that is solely related to their own cultural identity. I'm not buying all of his logic. After all, I'm a progressive, so I believe that things like systemic racism, white privilege, male privilege, climate change, among other things, still impact people negatively. The question is, what is the best way to address the challenges of our nation and the world in a way that can get us moving in a positive direction? Brooks ends his article with a quote that I find challenging but also hopeful. Finally, we need a social vision that doesn't rely on zero sum us, them thinking. During his first term, Trump unleashed a cultural assault based on his version of identity politics. The left responded by doubling down on its identitarian mindset. We have to do better this time. In 1959, the British jurist, Patrick Devlin, made a point that should haunt us. Without shared ideas on politics, morals, and ethics, no society can exist. He added, If men and women try to create a society in which there is no fundamental agreement about good and evil, they will fail.

[00:03:19.730]
If, having based it on common agreement, the agreement goes, the society will disintegrate. We need a social vision that is as morally compelling as identity the politics, but does a better job of describing reality. We need a national narrative that points us to some ideal and gives each of us a noble role in pursuing it. That's the gigantic cultural task that lies ahead. It seems to me that we have lost the ability to find common ground, that we can't even agree on what is truth anymore. And so, as Devlin says, our society is disintegrating. I think the challenge is clear. As Brooks says, we have to be able to do better. Demonizing those who disagree with us is defining them and not taking responsibility for self. If we continue to do this, our differences will get worse. Not better. So what can we do? My reflection this week points me back to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In last week's episode, I mentioned his six principles of nonviolence. I believe his approach to social change created a significant movement in the United States, if not throughout the world. And let's be clear, Dr. King's work and the movement did not eliminate racism, yet it did eliminate the legal enforcement of segregation.

[00:04:47.280]
It was positive change, and we are better off for it. So what can we learn from Dr. King's Six Principles of Nonviolence? What I want to do is go through each of the six principles and show you how they are rooted in self-differentiation and the ability to be a non-anxious presence. The first principle is one can resist evil without resorting to violence. This is the epitome of taking responsibility for self. Violence at its core is about blaming and trying to define others through physical means. We know it can work temporarily, but in the end, it is likely to create an even greater backlash. If you want to know more about this, read Malcolm Gladwell's book, David and Goliath, which documents how violence, oppression, and trying to force others to agree with us results in a conflict of wills and even greater pushback. The second principle is nonviolence seeks to win the friendship and understanding of the opponent, not to humiliate them. To me, this is the core self-differentiation principle of nonviolence. It is about defining self and not the other. It is about staying emotionally connected to others to create healthy emotional space for people to change.

[00:06:08.570]
I say this a lot, but non-anxious leaders say what they believe while giving others the freedom to disagree. I believe in the end, there will be a good number of people who disagree and won't change. But a movement doesn't need everybody. It only needs enough to create momentum to work towards something better. Whether we want to admit it or not, there are many people of goodwill who disagree politically but are not evil. Which leads to the next point. The third principle of nonviolence is evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed. Human beings are flawed. Most of us can't differentiate a third of the time, let alone all the time. We're doing well if we can differentiate 50% of the time. We use emotional triangles to avoid our discomfort with things that are difficult, especially things we can't change. We blame others. We scapegoat. We demonize those who disagree. This is the opposite of self-differentiation. What is brilliant about this approach is that it doesn't say what's going on is right. It just says that we're going to oppose the acts of what we believe are wrong, not the people who do them.

[00:07:24.160]
Remember, it's process, not content. Whether it's racism, sexism, human sexuality, abortion, gun control, immigration, tax policy, climate change, fill in the blank. There are going to be things that you think are evil. Work to change them, but don't demonize the people who do them. In family systems terms, when we put the responsibility for a challenge on somebody else, that's called diagnosis. It's avoid taking responsibility for self, and what it does is it causes the system to get stuck. We need to do better. The fourth principle of nonviolence is those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation, as suffering itself can be redemptive. This is quintessential non-anxious presence. It's a willingness to stand for what you believe, even if it means the consequences are dire, even if it means enduring violence, imprisonment, and even death. As a person of faith, I see Jesus as the ultimate example of this. He did not retaliate against those who persecuted him. Regardless of whether you believe in the resurrection or not, or whether you even have a theology of atonement, I think it's pretty clear that he modeled the ultimate example of redemptive suffering. How do I know this?

[00:08:51.190]
Regardless of what you think of Christianity, which over history has gotten out of control and has oppressed others, even, ironically, using violence, Jesus created a movement that's lasted for 2,000 years. I think there's a lot wrong with Christianity right now, but I'm not giving up on the basic principles of unconditional love and nonviolence. And as I mentioned last week, Mahatma Gandhi was influenced by Jesus in his use of nonviolence, and in turn, Dr. King was influenced by Gandhi. By all accounts, hearts were changed when the civil rights protest investors did not respond to all forms of violence with violence of their own. The fifth principle of nonviolence is that nonviolent resistance avoids external physical violence and internal violence of spirit as well. The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot their opponent, but they also refuse to hate them. The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape, which means understanding or redeeming goodwill for all people. This is the definition of unconditional love. It's a willingness to accept others where they are and love them, even if they do what you perceive as evil acts. It doesn't mean you have to like them.

[00:10:15.560]
I love Scott Peck's definition of love, which is an intentional act of will intended to foster the growth of another. When we love someone unconditionally, we can do so even as we define ourselves because this fosters emotional connection and healthy emotional space. I believe this is the only way someone else will consider our view of the world. To be clear, they may not. But I believe if you try to convince them that you are right and they are wrong, they definitely won't change. You will be stuck in a conflict of wills. It feels like that's where we are right now as a nation and a world. The sixth and final principle is that the non a violent resister must have a deep faith in the future stemming from the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice. In A Failure of Nerve, Edwin Friedmann contends that vision is an essential quality of leadership. A leader has to know where they're headed, where they believe they should be going. Without it, nobody will follow, and anxiety will increase. I believe that this sense of hope has to come with humility. It acknowledges that we might not be correct in our vision, but at least it gives us a starting point to discuss where we should go with others so that we might find common ground.

[00:11:38.310]
I'm pretty sure that in the civil rights movement, there were many who never changed what they thought, but there were enough people who were open to the possibility of a better world, and clearly enough were convinced that laws were changed. I think it's also important to note that Dr. King did not seek political power. My study of Christian history shows that whenever people of faith seek political power, they ultimately get coopted and even corrupted. Dr. King said, Politicians were always sticking their finger in the air to see which way the wind was blowing. So if you want to change the world, don't try to change the politicians. Change the wind. A non-anxious leader can do that. Dr. King is a perfect example. To me, this quote epitomizes the power of a non-anxious presence and of this approach. Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that. The beauty of nonviolence is that in its own way and in its own time, it seeks to break the chain reaction of evil. We have to do better. The world needs non-anxious leaders now more than ever.

[00:12:57.730]
Whatever you think is wrong with it, you make a difference. Dr. King showed us how. Go be yourself. And that's it for episode 305. Remember, you can connect with me at jack@christian-leaders.com and find more resources at thenonanxiousleader.com. If you have found this episode to be helpful, please share it with somebody else that you think might benefit, and please leave a review on your podcast platform of choice. I I would greatly appreciate it. Until next time. Thanks and goodbye.