Last post, I introduced two concepts – one a learning process model, the other a conceptual frame for understanding individual reasoning and a common source of conflict. The learning process – PARIS (presentation, application, reflection, implications, strategy) – is one of my own design; the conceptual frame is Chris Argyris’s Ladder of Inference (L.O.I.), a description of ways we make sense (or nonsense) of new information. I presented L.O.I. last time. Now I want to look at it applied – where I have encountered it in my own life in the past few years.

Back in 2022, I wrote an op-ed on the plight of immigrants and the ongoing dysfunction of the border entry processes, dating back a decade. This is all I reflected upon. I named no names, I pointed no fingers, I simply analyzed a system that was failing on many levels. Here is an email response I received at the time: “I resent the attack on Obama and Biden, ignoring the damage Trump did. At least Obama and Biden didn’t hate immigrants, and your desire to keep them out of our country is sad.” What was the journey up the Ladder of Inference for this individual? I stated that the immigration system in America was failing and not being adequately addressed. 1. This individual received this information and 2. observed that Joe Biden was president in 2022 and Obama in 2012, 3. so I must have been actually singling them out 4. for criticism 5. which indicated my politics 6. which conflicted with their politics 7. meaning that I was wrong and 8. needed to be corrected, thus their response.

Last November, I wrote the following: “Like him or not, love him or hate him, agree with him or disagree, Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, Donald Trump is our president. And this makes the role of the Christian community all the more important. No longer can we count on government to fulfill the mandate of Jesus: “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:35-36) The response I received? “Trump Derangement Syndrome much? Fueling up dislike for Trump because you dislike him is infantile. Jesus brought good news to the culture in which he lived. Donald Trump is simply following Jesus and bringing the good news we need to hear today. Just because it is the opposite of what Jesus said doesn’t make it wrong.”

Well, okay then. What happened here? 1. I stated the obvious – at least to me – Trump was elected president and based on his first term and the promises he made to get reelected, I felt that the church would need to step up to do what Jesus instructed instead of relying on government programs. This person heard something very different.

2. Observing the wide range of reactions to the election of Donald Trump, 3. this person selected the negative options noted, 4. interpreting I was not a supporter of Donald Trump and 5. therefore assumed I opposed Trump, and 6. concluded that I was casting him in a negative light compared with Jesus, 7. challenged their belief that Trump was/is promoting a relevant “good news” to our current challenges, hence 8. I needed correction to my thinking that they understood but that I didn’t.

One last example: in February I led my community of faith in a capital campaign, and when introducing it I said, “Now, I understand that there is currently a lot of economic and financial insecurity and concern, so I want to remind you that we are asking you to make an “estimate of giving” – what you hope and intend to do – realizing that things could change. This is asking you to make a commitment of faith in uncertain times.” The response from one individual? “It took me a while to realize you were making an anti-Trump statement. I can’t believe you would make a church project into a political attack. Get over it. Trump was elected by a majority of people whether you like it or not.” You can work your way up the ladder on this one.

For the most part, I keep partisan politics out of the church, and I rarely use names and criticize specific individuals. When we declared ourselves a Sanctuary Church, these were the scriptural explanations we gave:

• “When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” (Leviticus 19:33-34)
• Jesus instructs us to “welcome the stranger,” but literally, in context, a more accurate translation would be to welcome the refugee, the immigrant, the asylum seeker, the outsider. (Matthew 25:35, 43)

Not once did we speak against any person or policy; we declared from a faith base our decision and position. Yet, individuals chose to frame our decision as anti-Trump rather than pro-Gospel. Folks leapt up the ladder of inference to redefine and reinterpret what was being said. We all do this, all the time, and generally it is unconscious. But it highlights how easily misunderstanding occurs, and how difficult it can be to climb back down the ladder.

I feel successful in that both conservatives and liberals have chosen to misunderstand me in equal measure. This indicates in my mind that I am truly focusing on a gospel interpretation of the best ways to respond to the world, and they are decidedly NOT the same as our politicians. Faced with a choice between Jesus and our elected leaders, I choose Jesus every time!

Next time I want to engage in the reflection step in the learning model: if the L.O.I. is valid and true, why? What do we gain? What do we lose? How does it make communication more challenging? How can we learn from it to improve our communication processes? This is vitally important if we are to navigate the emotionally charged times we are living in, and make things better instead of worse.