Christianity, Pluralism, and Public Life

INSIGHTS INTO THE BRIDGE-BUILDING PROCESS
Bridge building is difficult, time-consuming work. By definition, it is only necessary because of a significant breach or gap. As
Rev. Canon Dana Corsello, Canon Vicar at the Washington National Cathedral, explained, “To be a bridge builder, there has to
be some deep water in between.” It is not a simple process, so it requires arduous work and serious dedication to the task. It
also requires that those engaging each other reflect deeply and confront their own shortcomings in preparation for the work
of reconciliation. Corsello described the task: “We have to do the work on ourselves first to understand the bridge we actually
need to build, for it to be authentic, and strong, and have a real foundation.”
One essential component of effective bridge building is taking the time needed to listen to one another carefully and hear
each other’s stories. Mark Labberton described it this way: “So I think the first part of bridge building is actually listening,
and actually not stepping on somebody else’s voice and not trying to control the conversation and not trying to presume that I
or people like me get to define power.” Such listening is difficult but essential to understanding people across differences and
building trust. It also requires great humility. As Robert George explained, “we need to be willing to listen, to entertain what
the other person has to say. Consider whether we might be the ones who are in the wrong, have a truly honest discussion, but
expect and even demand the same from those on the other side.”
Another important element of bridge building is bringing people together in person. Several interviewees talked about
the power and effectiveness of such gatherings. Rev. Dr. Stephen Bouman, Pastor at St. Luke Lutheran Church and former
Director of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America Domestic Mission, described the act of assembling together as “holy,”
explaining: “... there’s something holy about propinquity, about being in the same space together with others, without
any other agenda but to be there with them.” Several others echoed the theme of leaving agendas aside to promote deeper
listening and more humble interactions.
Gathering together has other benefits as well. Aristotle Papanikolaou explained, “What I do see is, when people are on social
media, they tend to speak and to post and to engage in ways that tend to be much more aggressive and kind of a diametrical
opposition sort of engagement than when it’s face to face.” It is far easier to demean others when alone at a computer or other
device than when sitting in a room interacting personally with them. Papanikolaou continued: “And when I see a face-to-face
engagement and I know people are serious about their Christian convictions, I do see people drawing on those convictions as
a way of relating to the person in front of them with whom they really very strongly disagree.”
Although a range of models exist, most of the leaders we interviewed thought that bridge building tended to be most effective
at the local level. Congregations are a natural starting place, as members already know one another and have existing
relationships on which to build. Tish Harrison Warren discussed her congregation as an example: “People actually have
relationships with people that are ideologically different in our church, and there’s just very, very few places that that still
happens in America.” Once parishioners have succeeded in the hard work within their own community, they can then look
outward to help bridge divisions in the wider community.
Christianity, Pluralism, and Public Life in the United States | 23