Letting go of the "Love and Unity" cliches
True love and unity only comes with holding those causing harm accountable for their words and actions.
Election season in the United States is among us. And it promises to be a contentious and polarizing election. As a result, there is a temptation for Christians, particularly those part of more Mainline and Progressive congregations to preach on the importance of love and unity. Of course, on the surface, those themes look great. “Who wouldn’t want to preach about love and unity during a time where violence and mutual distrust is at an all-time high amongst various segments of the population?” And correct, we do need a theology of love and unity. But unfortunately, the theology often brandished about is not only frivolous and lacking in depth, but actively harmful.
I get it, when we have Christians who are vehemently preaching violence and polarization, it is imperative that other Christians sing a different tune. But often calls for “love and unity” are treated as cliches at best and at worst become a way to “nicely” silence marginalized voices. Here are some helpful reminders:
Calls for love and unity that remain silent on the very real harm members of marginalized groups are experiencing are seeking to uphold norms of civility but not justice. For instance, it is very tempting for Christians to say something like, “we need to love those who disagree with us” or “we need to be united as Christians.” But what exactly does that mean on a practical level? It’s one thing to say, we shouldn’t dehumanize or mock those based on their political party or the policies they endorse, no matter how harmful, but what does love and unity look like on a daily level?
Does practicing love and unity mean that those who vocally and loudly embrace ideologies that essentially call for the subjugation of marginalize groups are to be allowed to do so without being challenged? Are members of marginalized group supposed to just silently accept calls for legislation that actively oppress and cause harm, all in the name of “love and unity?” Are you asking members of marginalized groups to sit at the very same table of people actively and vocally calling for their oppression?
Calls for love and unity that don’t embrace accountability are toxic and shallow. This goes hand in hand with the first point. Often calls for love and unity just entail being nice to everyone, no matter their political or theological beliefs. Which, to be fair, many adults across the political and theological spectrum, could use that reminder. But when these call don’t go beyond calls to be nice, you aren’t actually endorsing a robust theology. You are just asking adults to learn basic kindergarten socialization skills.
Moreover, the reality is, you can’t actually have true unity and love if you people who are actively calling for harm towards marginalized groups are allowed to do so without being held accountable. If you aren’t challenging their harmful beliefs, you are in fact saying, you don’t care about marginalized members. And in that case, can you truly be for love and unity?
So what is the alternative? Descending into harmful and dehumanizing rhetoric? Of course not. But here’s what Christians can do.
Refuse to embrace dehumanizing rhetoric but acknowledge that living out a gospel of love means having the courage to call out harmful and toxic theology and ideologies. It often means not avoiding conflict but embracing it head on. It means being uncomfortable. And it means acknowledging the reality that you can love those who embrace harmful ideologies without having to create spaces where they are allowed to cause pain and harm to marginalized groups. It means establishing boundaries and holding people who cause harm accountable for their actions and theologies.
Acknowledge that unity isn’t always possible-and that’s ok. You can leave the door open for the potential of unity in the future while acknowledging that it is not possible at this time. As Christians, we need to acknowledge that it is impossible to have unity with those who are advocating for harm against marginalized groups. The talk about all being welcome at the table, is just that- talk. If you welcome someone who advocates for the violence and subjugation of a group of people, then you are by extension barring those who would be on the receiving end of said violence or subjugation from being at the table. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp, but for some reason, many Christians would like to embrace the illusion of unity rather than true unity. True unity entails creating a space of safety for those most often on the receiving end of oppression and by extension that means the ones causing the harm, cannot be welcome unless they repent and are accountable for the harm they have caused. You can love others and not be in unity with them.
In this season, Christians must push back against the violent and oppressive rhetoric of other Christians. But we cannot do so by advocating for a theology of love and unity that elevates niceness at the expense of truth and accountability. As Christians, we should absolutely reject dehumanizing and violent language. But we can still have a robust theology of love and unity that calls out harmful ideologies and theologies. In fact, any theology of love and unity that refuses to do so is a farce.
Demanding that perpetrators of violence and those on the receiving end of oppression, sit at the same table, demonstrates a shallow understanding of love and unity. Christians must do better.
Image: A white wall with red text: You can’t preach unity and love without also preaching accountability