Alex Haskins

On Redemptive Silence/Listening

Alex Haskins, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Politics and International Relations

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
    yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
    and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
    so he did not open his mouth. (Isaiah 53:7, NIV)

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. (Mark 14:60-61, NIV)

There is a long-standing joke in political science that everyone is a revolutionary until they have to govern. The joke usually indicts (post) communist global South regimes, but there’s an argument to be made that it applies as much to the global North if we extend our historical horizons beyond the twentieth-century back to the American and French revolutions. In short, the public nature of governance has a way of exposing flaws and humbling even the most utopian of political actors.

I begin with this joke because I see a parallel to how polarization—the theme of this year’s CACE seminar—operates. Regardless of political outlook, when faced with increasing polarization, there is a strong temptation both to extol the virtues of one’s own preferred position and to chide the “oppressive” tendencies of those with whom one disagrees without honestly assessing how one’s preferred position can become oppressive. In U.S.-based discussions around polarization most (if not all) voices—conservative, moderate, and progressive alike—narrate their preferred approach as a kind of humble “David” facing the seemingly insurmountable “Goliath” of top-down, oppressive regimes. For conservatives, this often means an embrace of grassroots traditional religious and civil liberties advocacy in the face of an oppressive DEI orthodoxy in present-day American society. For progressives, this often means an embrace of grassroots DEI advocacy in the face of an oppressive traditionalist, white supremacist, sexist, and heteronormative orthodoxy in past and present American society. And for moderates (and some conservatives and progressives), this often means a grassroots emphasis on intellectual diversity in opposition to the extremes of the conservative and progressive alternatives outlined above. But, again, rarely do such conservatives, moderates, and progressives honestly assess how their preferred positions hold oppressive potential.

Thus, I view much of the contemporary civil discourse work being done by conservatives, moderates, and progressives (including the participants in our seminar) as efforts at “ground clearing”: we remove the “weeds” of tendencies toward repression—regardless of ideological origin—by committing to engaging in productive dialogue across difference.

And yet, after reflecting on our discussions and readings in this year’s CACE seminar, I believe a severely understated key element of such dialogue (and concomitant action) is redemptive silence—an element readily available across Christian traditions.¹

To be clear, redemptive silence is not the “condemnatory” self- or other-imposed silencing that often happens in the college classroom, dorm, or even in broader society.²  Rather, it is—to respond to John Rose’s question “How will people know we are Christians in talking across difference?”—to humbly emphasize the act of listening well, not by emphasizing (as we are wont to do) the right to talk or not be silenced.

Of course, there are potential dangers to this kind of silence—whether in promoting misinformed forms of deference,³  entertaining false equivalences,⁴  or in failing to attend to the disproportionate impact silencing can have on traditionally underrepresented groups.⁵

And yet, I am of the firm belief that such redemptive silence holds the power to break cycles of condemnatory silencing by calling for a dynamic and voluntary practice of redemptive listening in proportion to one’s privilege. For instance, an anonymous PollEverywhere survey on day one made it clear that conservative voices were a minority in our group. In light of that survey, I took particular care (as one who was in the arguably privileged position of being politically progressive/moderate) to listen carefully and charitably to my conservative colleagues in the seminar. I am certain I did not do this perfectly or even adequately, but the ongoing import of redemptive silence is a willingness to concede narrative control. Thus, whether or not I was ultimately charitable is for my conservative colleagues to determine.

And if Isaiah 53 and Mark 14 (above) are any indication, Jesus also engaged in redemptive silence to great effect. If we are called to be “quick to listen and slow to speak” (James 1:19), we would do well to take heed. Polarized voices shouting each other down—and even moderate voices unwilling to cede narrative control—do little to convince folks to change their mind and worse, they are often a terrible gospel witness. Maybe engaging in attentive, redemptive silence offers another way toward kingdom growth and the eternity we are called to, even if it feels like a kind of “death” to one’s right to free speech. As we know, to die is gain.
 

 ¹ Like Matthew Ichihashi Potts’ views on loving your enemy, I view redemptive silence as a particularly Christian teaching, but it need not be illegible across (non)religious traditions or stifle interfaith dialogue. Rather, my emphasis on redemptive silence’s particularity to Christian traditions is a reflection of both my (relative) ignorance of other traditions and my reluctance to presume to tell other (non)religious traditions how they ought to make such a concept legible in their own contexts: See: Greco, Suzie. “In Review, Reframing Forgiveness: An Interview with Matthew Ichihashi Potts.” Harvard Divinity Bulletin Autumn/Winter 2023 https://bulletin.hds.harvard.edu/reframing-forgiveness/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=HDS+Current.

  ²Camp, Emma. “I Came College Eager to Debate. I Found Self-Censorship Instead.” New York Times March 7, 2023; Allen, Danielle. “We’ve lost our way on campus. Here’s how we can find our way back.” Washington Post December 10, 2023.

  ³Táíwo, Olúfémi. “Being-in-the-room Privilege: Elite Capture and Epistemic Difference.” The Philosopher vol. 108, no. 4 (“What is We?”).

  ⁴George, Robert P. and Cornel West. “Truth Seeking, Democracy, and Freedom of Thought and Expression - A Statement by Robert P. George and Cornel West.” James Madison Program on American Ideals and Institutions March 14, 2017.

  ⁵Sanford, Amy Aldridge. “Confrontation and avoidance: Alternatives to civil discourse.” Conflict Resolution vol. 19, iss. 8 (2018); Britton-Purdy, Jedediah. “We’ve Been Thinking About America’s Trust Collapse All Wrong.” The Atlantic January 8, 2024; Deresiewicz, William. “On Political Correctness.” The American Scholar March 6, 2017; Khalid Amna and Jeffrey Aaron Snyder. “Yes, DEI Can Erode Academic Freedom. Let’s Not Pretend Otherwise.” The Chronicle of Higher Education February 6, 2023; Gutkin, Len. “A Decade of Ideological Transformation Comes Undone.” The Chronicle of Higher Education December 22, 2023.