"Proclaim Peace" Season 2, Episode 12 // The Courage to Disagree Respectfully, Through the Story of Jonathan and David, With Marianne Viray

https://youtu.be/CGkJonnvYt8

Listen on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, or watch on YouTube.

Marianne Viray joins Jen and Patrick to delve into the dynamics of conflict and peacemaking within leadership and society, drawing lessons from the biblical story of Jonathan, David, and Saul. They explore how leadership decisions can influence societal polarization and offer practical tools for engaging with leaders respectfully. The discussion emphasizes the importance of modeling civility and virtue in public discourse and provides strategies for individuals to break cycles of conflict. The conversation highlights the power of personal transformation, empathy, and community action in fostering a respectful and civil society.

Chapters

00:00 Introduction: Peace in the context of biblical conflict resolutions

06:39 Navigating disagreement with leaders respectfully

15:34 Disagree Better: reducing polarization through leadership modeling

23:17 The basis of true peace: love, empathy, and recognition of human complexity

30:12 The power of small, intentional acts in societal peacebuilding

38:32 Engaging civility in city councils and local government

Transcript

Jennifer Thomas (00:00)

Welcome to the "Proclaim Peace" podcast, where we discuss peacemaking through the lens of the restored gospel. And this season we're talking about the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible. I would like to welcome my co-host, Patrick Mason. Tell me how you're doing today, Patrick.

Patrick Mason (00:13)

I'm doing all right. This is beautiful outside. It's early summer. What's not to like?

Jennifer Thomas (00:19)

This is this is why we're alive, right? To enjoy the weather, the good weather. ⁓ well, today we're going to talk about, as always, a heavy topic, and we want to tackle the story of Jonathan, David, and Saul. And we want to look through look at it through the lens of how sometimes conflict that can start at a personal level can radiate out and have really profound effects on society, and what maybe are some steps that we as citizens and individuals can do to kind of mitigate.

Patrick Mason (00:48)

Yeah, I think this is a great story. I mean, we we we saw this in the Book of Mormon too, sometimes, but this is another great example in the Bible of of the way that like sometimes there's really blurry boundaries between like the personal and the political, right? And and things and the spirit absolutely. Yeah. So it goes up and down and sideways and and and you've got so here we've got these three really compelling characters, you know, Saul, David, Jonathan, who are complex characters too. It's it's not just two-dimensional like good guys, bad guys, but people who have done great things and and people who have really listened to the Lord and really sought the welfare of of their people and then ⁓ and then the same person can act selfishly and with hostility towards others. and and then you've got Jonathan like trying to figure it out and and and go between all of them. And so I actually think it reflects, it's it's it's a very human story that I think a lot of us can can connect to on lots of levels.

Jennifer Thomas (01:46)

And I think it also represents the kind of way that sometimes we as outsiders to these relationships can get stuck. We see our leaders, we we f start to follow them or engage with them and believe in them because they were exhibiting virtues that we really appreciated or they were doing positive things. And then if they start to make decisions that we don't really love, we sort of have a choice at that point. We can either see them as complex characters, we can completely disassociate from them, or we can double down on allowing ⁓ their problems to become our problems, right? Like we we choose to follow them down their paths of dare I say wickedness and or at least error. And I think one of the things that I love so much about this story is that Jonathan absolutely refuses to walk those binary paths. He he somehow maintains the ability to see the good in both of these individuals, see what they have the positive things that they have done while also seeing the negative very clearly and and and won't won't reduce them and and somehow fe to s like a simple binary, but manage to s to sit and stay in relationship with both of them.

Patrick Mason (02:53)

Yeah, exactly. And I think one of the lessons I take from this is like the the leadership really matters. ⁓ and that that leaders make decisions and and and they take people and the people who follow them in a direction that that maybe even the people didn't choose at first, as you said, because they they they affiliated with that leader because of virtues or because they stood for things that that they believed in.

Jennifer Thomas (02:58)

Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

Patrick Mason (03:16)

And then through lots of complex events, you know, sometimes they they they take it in other directions, and all of a sudden you find yourself at war, right, with people that used to be your friends. and so leadership matters, how we talk about leadership matters, how leaders learn how to become better leaders matters. and so so I'm grateful for this story and I'm grateful for this opportunity to talk about all of that and how we navigate that, whether we're on the leadership side, whether most of us are on the the follower side.

Jennifer Thomas (03:24)

Yeah. Yeah. Or your family.

Mm-hmm,

mm-hmm.

Patrick Mason (03:44)

And how do we relate to these leaders who are in complex situations, sometimes of their own making, sometimes not?

Jennifer Thomas (03:50)

And and I think one of the things that I hope our listeners get out of this conversation is both that it's really important how which leaders we choose, how we choose to follow them, but also that we as citizens or as individuals always have options about how we can kind of put try to push, pull and direct leaders into more virtuous paths. And it benefits us to exercise those options. And sometimes those options I think we'll learn from our guest today can maybe be counterintuitive and unexpected, but nonetheless really, really effective. So we are so excited to have with us today Marianne Viray Marianne is the executive director of Disagree Better, which is a movement dedicated to helping Americans navigate conflict without sacrificing either their convictions or their relationships, which is so much the about what this story is about. Marianne's career has spanned public policy, campaign finance reform, national unity initiatives and democracy-building efforts. And it's really telling to me that this is where she has landed in this moment. She teaches that healthy conflict is not a threat to community, but is actually essential to our well-being. Her work invites us to discover that peace is not the absence of disagreement, but the ability to engage disagreement with dignity. And we're so excited to hear from her today.

Jennifer Thomas (05:05)

Welcome Marianne. We are so glad to have you with us.

Marianne Viray (05:08)

Thank you. It's a pleasure to be with you both.

Jennifer Thomas (05:10)

So we are going to jump right into this conversation with the question that we ask all of our guests, which is how do you define peace?

Marianne Viray (05:17)

No, you do because I hear this on other podcasts that you posted. you know, when I was thinking about this over the past week, the concept of peace to me is is mutual benefit, right? That I don't get to claim I have peace if if it doesn't apply to you as well. That it it's a holistic collective sense of well-being that's deeply rooted in community and in relationship. So that was muddled, but there you go.

Patrick Mason (05:45)

Not not not muddled at all. I I actually think I really like that. The sense of kind of interdependence, that my well-being depends on yours and and vice versa. ⁓ no, I I think that's that's really really beautiful. So well let's let's let's dive in to the particulars here. We're gonna talk about this story of of Jonathan and and and David and and Saul, ⁓ which is such a rich story. I mean it's one of the major stories of the the old testament goes on and on and on for for lots of different chapters that spends a lot of time on it. So so I want to start with thinking about actually something that we haven't talked a ton about on on the podcast. It's it's amazing we always have like these new topics and new ways to think about ⁓ peacemaking. But I think one of the places where where people oftentimes come into conflict and feel conflict is they they feel like that they're in conflict with leaders.

Whether it be political leaders, religious leaders, you know, maybe even within within families, but but leaders. Sometimes we actually know those leaders personally. Sometimes we're actually in a relationship. Sometimes they're distant, right? They they live in a state capital or a national capital or or or or something like that. Or and and so how do we how do we disagree? How do we productively engage w in conflict with leaders without sliding into hostility into contempt. I mean, how d how does Jonathan model this ⁓ in in your reading of this story?

Marianne Viray (07:15)

He's got a couple layers to it, right? The king is also dad. And so like that that's a whole other dynamic of relationship that he's trying to navigate. But on top of leader, I think there's also his personal values, right? Things that matter to him. And then there's this sidebar covenant that he's made to David. So he's got some different tethers to different people in different positions of power, of popularity, of alignment or allegiance that he's trying to navigate. ⁓ and that that's a tough, that's a tough cookie right there, ⁓ to try to work through those and navigate them as beautifully as I think Jonathan does.

Jennifer Thomas (08:00)

I'm interested to hear how you think he models and navigates that.

Marianne Viray (08:03)

You know, I think that he he navigates it by playing the peacemaker with his father, the king, who initially is very supportive of David, you know, and and until he hears people chanting that he is triumphant over more than the king is. And then he envy sets in and personal pride sets in, and Jonathan, because of his love for David and deep friendship and covenant, he steps in in a protective way to his father to say, hey, hey now, like time out. Like you don't need to kill him just because somebody's singing a song that he killed more people than you have. Like, how about we not go there? But he does it in a way that ⁓ like doesn't demean him as the king.

And doesn't attack his humanity. And he's also not doing like the gossip campaign behind his back. But he has an exchange that we have record of where there is a conversation, where he's brave enough to have that conversation with his father, the king, and say, Hey, you might want to think about this. Could we not do this? Could you maybe do that? Like there's a different way of handling this than the way I think you're you're handling it. and I think that took a lot of courage.

Jennifer Thomas (09:16)

I completely agree and it sort of opens up the question that a lot of when we think about conflict and and peace building, we think about doing it ⁓ with people that we're already in an adversarial relationship with. But it it's a really different kind of process when you are asking someone that you love or you want to maintain an allegiance with, if when you're highlighting, hey, ha things aren't going well.

Right. I don't like how you're behaving. I'm concerned about the outcomes that might result. So tell us a little bit about what you see there in terms of what is it teaching us about what it's like to to practice peacemaking with those we actually are in alliance with, not that those that we're necessarily in overt disagreement with.

Marianne Viray (10:00)

Yeah. I I think it's having the courage to engage as a peacemaker, right? Not peacekeeping, right? That I'm like you talk about the difference there, that this isn't placating, this isn't rolling over, this isn't self-silencing, this isn't passive aggressive, this is direct conversation saying I'm gonna call you out here and I'm gonna do it in a respectful way.

And I'm gonna tell you what I'm seeing. And I think there's another way you you might not be looking at this in the best light, in the best angle. Could you consider a different approach? And and that enables the preservation of the relationship because you're having the dialogue, you're addressing the issue, and you're expressing concerns that are legitimate to you about their behavior and the potential outcomes, in this case, murder, war, you know.

Not small things. and and so I I think it takes it shows some courage that it is possible and the relationship can withstand that. A good relationship can handle it.

Jennifer Thomas (10:49)

Yeah.

Patrick Mason (11:02)

What about when the situation is a little different? I mean, I don't I don't have a personal relationship with most of my elected representatives, right? or many of my church leaders, right? I do with the local ones, not not with other ones. So there's all kinds of leaders in my life who make decisions, you know, sometimes big decisions, you know, that that do impact me or impact other people that I care about but I don't have a relationship either to preserve or to rely on, ⁓ or or or to appeal to. Do these same principles hold true in in in those cases? So something a little different than what we have here with Jonathan and Saul. What what happens when I can't text, you know, you know, my my senator directly? Yeah.

Marianne Viray (11:30)

You're right.

Yeah, you don't have their phone number direct, right?

They're they're not responding. You know, I think I think the opportunity there is what can you do to make your voice known in a respectful way that they might listen to? And so are you part of a larger collective that then has greater voice and impact because you're part of many with the same concerns around water rights and issues or a data center or whatever the case may be?

⁓ are you collectively engaging in order to elevate the concerns that you have in a constructive productive way. I I think that citizens don't avail themselves of the opportunity to call that hotline, you know, drop that note. And I think MWEG is a beautiful example of of piece by piece and like those active engagements, the note card.

Our thank you campaign effort as well, but like those efforts of saying I'm gonna praise the leaders for doing and behaving in ways that are in alignment with my values, even if the outcome isn't what I want, because that process matters, that that ⁓ disposition matters, that willingness to engage matters. And from my conversations with leaders, a thank you note for just being civil, for having you know, an engagement that is productive and recognizing the good that some leaders are trying to do goes a long way with those leaders. Like that civility cuts through the hate because they get so much hate, you know, and and that someone who calls and just says, I have a concern and I'm going to share it with you and I'm going to do it in a respectful way. And I hope you'll consider these policy positions. And if someone calls and says, Hey, I just want to thank you, like you had an opportunity to go low against your rival in this primary election, you chose a higher road. Although you're not my preferred candidate, I just want to say I appreciate the way you're approaching it and thank you. That's sticky. Like that lands and that sticks and they remember it.

Patrick Mason (13:38)

I love that even if I don't have a personal relationship that I'm proactive about not only having a distance relationship around negativity or critique. ⁓ that that that that I get a I get to choose that relationship. It may not be fully reciprocal and you know, but but I get to choose what kind of relationship I do have with those leaders and t meaning the kinds of communications that I'm sending.

Marianne Viray (13:49)

Yeah, that's right.

Jennifer Thomas (14:01)

I'm gonna share a truism about me that I just sent a text to a friend a couple of days ago that basically consisted of me saying I it was about a person who is in government and I just said I am actively working ⁓ to not dislike this person because condemn contempt is corrosive to me. Like I necessarily cannot control their behavior, but I I

And and my joke was that I feel like they just keep making it harder and harder for me. Like no matter how hard I pray pray, like I get myself to the next level of I will not see you through contemptuous eyes. And then they work harder to make that difficult for me. But it's a it's a growth experience for me. Yeah. Exactly. But I would love to have you just amplify that a little bit. Like in your experience with disagree better, like I first I would love to have you tell us a little bit about your work. But ⁓ could you talk to us about the ramifications both that you hope it will have with leaders, but also then how you hope it will change the hearts. I mean, you've mentioned gratitude, the hearts of citizens as well. Because I think sometimes we think a little bit like me, well, if that person would just behave better, then I wouldn't have a problem with them. When in fact, sometimes whether they behave or not a certain way, the problem is still with me as a citizen.

Marianne Viray (15:18)

Happy to share a little bit about Disagree Better with you and and your audience. Disagree Better is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that works to reduce polarization in America. And we do that specifically in partnership with leaders across the aisle from each other.

We focus on leadership modeling because like it or not, broad culture takes some cues from leaders. And if those leaders are giving out really lousy cues of this kind of behavior is normal, then that's the bar. And if they give better cues, then you know, that is influential. And so the social science research shows that leaders are part of the problem in how we treat each other and how we talk about each other, that because political discourse has nosedived over the past couple of decades, that that is actually in correlation to the amount of political violence that we're seeing. That a politician sa saying something along the lines of, well, I'd punch him in the face. Well, there is an escalation of violence because you just gave permission to that thought that someone might have had whether or not that was anticipated or intended by you as a leader. And so they are held to a bigger standard, a higher standard, because their microphone and their pulpit is that much larger, right? To amplify their message. They have the platform to do that. And so we are trying to work with leaders to say there's a better way. There's a better way for you to treat each other and people are paying attention. So will you model a better discourse? And we're not asking you to change your policy positions. We're asking you to engage in a more constructive, productive way for our democracy. And what we have found with individuals that they are very receptive of this message, that Americans are frankly hungry for leaders that model some semblance of dignity and respect and civility. And so they engage with our content really beautifully and they are willing to write letters of gratitude to politicians from both parties that are on a stage engaging with each other in productive, constructive, friendly ways.

And and then those leaders eat that up, you know, and it helps incentivize them to behave more like this. Because if if anything I know about having a puppy or a toddler is the behavior that we incentivize wins. So if we pay attention to the negative behavior, that is what will rule the roost. If we pay more attention to the constructive productive behavior, that's what we will see more of. So Americans have a lot of power and influence, as do leaders and we need that cycle of influence to be reciprocal and like spiral upward rather than downward.

Jennifer Thomas (17:55)

It must be a lot of fun to be running an organization that is essentially just trying to incentivize virtue, right? We don't see a lot of that in our public sphere right now. People are looking for outcomes or they're trying to achieve power. And basically it sounds like what you're trying to do with both leaders and with citizens is just to incentivize good behavior and model good behavior in a way that sort of breaks that negative kind of downward spike spiral that we find ourselves in.

Marianne Viray (18:22)

That's right. That's very and you know, it is interesting. I I get to see comments from people that have dropped a note of gratitude to a couple senators that were recently featured in a public service announcement that we launched a couple of weeks ago. And it was an advisory board member. She's a journalist and an award-winning author. And she's like, that was great. You gave me something positive to do. It felt like detox. I want to do something like that every day.

So just the sense of having something positive and constructive to activate around is good for people when there is so much doom and gloom and hopelessness that leads to a sense of overwhelm and freezing, that this activation is good. It it gives something positive to do. And on the reciprocal side, the letters that I've seen that have come from these senators or governors, two individuals that have written thank you notes. It's just like, ⁓ you're let me thank you for thanking me. You know, like they appreciated it. It genuinely landed and they felt rewarded personally for like going on that stage and preaching that message around how political violence was really hard for their family last year. This was Governor Shapiro. You know, he sent he sent some people a letter and said, thank you for, you know, letting me know that you heard the message I was preaching and that it it resonated with you. Cause that experience sucked. Like I hated it. And it was really hard for me and my family. And the fact that you let me know that it mattered to you helps me feel like it was worth me being courageous and sharing that story and experience like I did.

Jennifer Thomas (19:46)

Yeah.

Patrick Mason (19:57)

So what I'm hearing, my takeaway is that politicians are like puppies and toddlers. maybe we all are, right? we we all like positive reinforcement. We all like constructive engagement. And but it's so hard, right? I mean, we we live in such polarized times. I mean, this is the very, you know, reason for being, you know, for for your organization, for the work that you do. And every almost

Every incentive is to choosing sides, right? We here in America we have a two-party system. Other countries are a little bit different. But here we're we have two parties, right? Everything is is about polarized. Which side are you on? Are you left or you're right? Are you woke or are you MAGA? Are you, you know, I mean, you know, and all of this. And and absolutely, right? Which which which easily turns into good and evil, right? ⁓ righteous and wicked. ⁓ and

Marianne Viray (20:37)

Yeah. Those binaries abound, don't they?

Patrick Mason (20:47)

So how does, you know, I think one of the remarkable things about this story, kind of bringing it back to to this story, is that Jonathan, you know, even while Saul and David, they do, they have their camps, right? And they have their sides, and they've got their partisans on both sides, and both sides have their stories about the other, somewhat, you know, grounded in reality. And then those narratives take on a life of their own. And Jonathan loves both of them. All right. 

Marianne Viray (21:13)

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Patrick Mason (21:15)

How do you love people on both sides? How do you sit in that middle because because both sides want you to come to their side? They'll see you. ⁓ wait, you're still talking to that other side, right? Judas, you know, ⁓ you know, I mean, you're betraying us and and all these kinds of you're not sufficiently pure, right? So, so how do we what what does Jonathan teach us? How do how do we be more like Jonathan in terms of like loving people on both sides.

Marianne Viray (21:44)

Yeah, he's so courageous in that, isn't he? Because he refuses to let himself be pulled over to one side or the other, despite having made a covenant and being the son of, you know, but he is like squarely in the I'm gonna love you both. And this is a a hot mess of a situation, and I'm gonna try to do what I can to be repair, you know, to facilitate repair. And society doesn't like that.

Patrick Mason (21:46)

Mm-hmm.

Marianne Viray (22:10)

You know, those binaries are so easy to fall into, and we have to actively work against them in our own minds in order to hold that middle ground and be comfortable, frankly, with everyone being dissatisfied with us. And that is really hard to ask of people. And that's absolutely Jesus' pathway, right? Is is that vengeance is his, not ours, that our mandate is to love. And that means everyone and not just our tribe.

And and that's the harder that's the harder walk. That's the harder walk. And I think he does it by not losing the love or humanity or understanding or perspective he has of each of the sides. Like he doesn't let them become a two-dimensional image bearer. He doesn't let them become good and evil. They are nuanced, they are complicated.

That's where he sits, is in that space of acceptance of these individuals, as flawed as they all are, of of saying, I'm gonna love you despite this. I'm gonna love you despite this. I think you're both wrong here and here. And I'm not gonna let the relationship end over that.

Jennifer Thomas (23:18)

So one of the things that strikes me as so beautiful about what you've said is that I think the only way someone like Jonathan or us, if we want to play that same role in our society, the only way that we ever the the source of the courage and the moral strength to do something like that, to put yourself in opposition to literally everyone, i that probably the most profound and sincere motivator is what you mentioned is love, is just maintaining a true, deep, affectionate, sincere, reflective love of both parties or groups. And then you draw on that love as sustenance and strength as you sort of stand up and stand in the middle. And one of the other things that, and this is just a little bit off topic, but I would love to hear you kind of maybe share thoughts about this. One of the things that I also think that it, that that those people that can maintain that clarity of love, also are the only ones that in situations like that actually maintain clarity of vision. Because loving someone else doesn't mean that you don't see their flaws. What it means is that you don't you don't lose sight of their virtues, right? So so I I mean share, I would love to hear your thoughts about that. How can we what are the s the what can we bring to our society by being willing to occupy this middle space? What do we see that other people don't?

Marianne Viray (24:37)

I think real peacemakers that really can carve out that space of of that middle ground see people's lived experiences for what they are. They all frame us, you know, and and so understanding someone's story, their personal experience, things that have led them to believe what they believe allows no space for judgment. Right? Like I that's off the table.

If I had experienced what they had experienced, that very well may likely be my position or my path. And you're able to see that and understand and therefore accept. Like I'm not here to change that. That is what they experienced. And you just get to hold it. You get to acknowledge it. And when in moments of success, when I try that and I, you know, I'm really putting judgment to this side.

Like all I have is incredible compassion for the weight of people's lived experiences that aren't my own. Right. And like, but for the grace of God go I. Yeah, I would have that experience if I was raised in the home you were raised in, in the community you were raised in, in the conditions you were raised in. That would be my lived experience as well. And and it wasn't. And it helps me see the burdens that other people carry that inform their beliefs.

Patrick Mason (25:51)

Yeah. So I'm you know, I'm I'm I'm struck by, you know, the way that you're talking about this, part of what you're talking about is is sort of like breaking a cycle, right? Like like the the we're immersed in these things, there are all these narratives that were fed, there's all these incentives that were given and and you're inviting people to like make a decision to to like not continue the cycle to break the cycle. Even if you can't do it for the whole country, can you do it for yourself? Right. And then then start from there. And I think this is one of the really admirable things about David in this story. I mean, David has his issues al along the way, but but he has these multiple opportunities to to kill Saul. ⁓ while protecting himself multiple, right? He could have done it on many many case and and he would have been I I think, the story makes it clear that he would have been justified in in doing so, right? Self-defense and you know and and protecting others and all the kinds of reasons that that we could could do it. But but he he kind of refuses to become the thing that he's fighting against. All right. So so how do we do that? What are what are some some basic lessons or some basic tools that we can do? Because it's it is the the easiest thing to to do, right?

Marianne Viray (26:58)

Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

Patrick Mason (27:10)

There's this principle you know, in Renee Girard, who's like this theorist of conflict, talks about mimesis, the the the we imitate. It's it's one of the most fundamental things we do as human beings, right? we we imitate other people, including, you know, ⁓ the the way that they engage in conflict with us and then we ramp it up and and so forth. And so much of what we see in politics is just mimesis. It's just people imitating and then becoming the thing that they hate, that they said they hated like five minutes ago and now they're just doing it, right? ⁓ and and ramping it up. What do we do? What are the tools? What are the practices that we can do to foresee that, to check it, ⁓ and and then to break the pattern.

Marianne Viray (27:38)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

You know, Amanda Ripley wrote a whole book about high conflict, which I really like and I wish I could remember all of her points. But the only way to break a cycle is is to do something different, to introduce a new approach. And that imitation is just repeating that cycle. And so I think the way we break it is in approaching it differently than we've approached it before. Right? That is the only way that something is going to change is to introduce a new approach, introduce a new component. If that's my energy, if that's my inquiry, if that's my ability to listen, something's got to shift. Otherwise we will keep getting the spiral. I just got a text the other day from a friend who she and I have had lots of conversations about conflict and how to navigate personal relationships, especially with close family. And she just sent me a note the other day to let me know of a little victory.

That she had had in a conversation, meaning the conversation didn't go the same way it has gone for the past several years. Why? Because she introduced a new element. And the new element she was able to introduce was to have enough presence of mind to take a really deep breath and to say what she wanted to say in a more calm way than she had said it in every other conversation about those hot topics before.

And her ability to modulate her body and her voice and respond with basically the same set of words that she'd used before, but without all the heat coming into it, enabled the other side to concede that she had a point. Not that they accepted it, just that they could see it. And she said, We are on new footing.

And it's only because I was able to get it to this point. And I'm just so grateful because this is the healthiest this relationship has been in two years. Right. And so she's looking forward to the next opportunity where she's hopeful that the next point she'll get to make is I see you. I understand what you're saying. I get it from your point of view. I get why you would think that. So she she's got this mindset now of looking for that opportunity to find agreement with him.

So she's already introduced one tool, which is ourselves, right? Our bodies, our our brains, our emotional state, her ability to articulate something in a calmer way. Now she's got an eye to another step, which is I'm gonna look for a way I can agree with him. But that's transformative and validative. Yes, exactly. Yeah. Yeah.

Jennifer Thomas (30:13)

And validate him. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

So one of the things that I just love about what you've just shared is I think it's really easy for us ⁓ to think about the way that our society is polarizing and all the negative effects that are flowing out of that as being entirely and completely beyond our individual control. It just feels like we are swept up in a tornado, literally a conflict tornado, right? That we do not have the capacity or the ability to kind of stop swirling.

But I love the way that the steps you've just described, both in finding one small thing that we can control and then responding and trying to give that same gift back to another person, are completely and totally within our control. Like it it is a way that you're offering our listeners not some theoretical system that will change the world, but an actual practical set of steps that they can they can put into practice in their own lives to to start to make change.

Marianne Viray (31:13)

Yeah. I mean, I've I've seen this in myself. I there was a time in my marriage to my lovely husband James, where anytime we were having a conversation about a heated topic, if he didn't agree with me, I lost my mind. We didn't start out that way in our twenties. We absolutely got that way. And by we I mean me in my mid to late thirties. And I don't know why. I've got to go to more therapy to figure that out.

But it was destroying our relationship because what happened was he would shut down. He's like, ⁓ she just went from a two to a twelve in a hot second. I don't know what to do with this. So I guess we don't get to engage in dialogue anymore. So I'm just gonna say, yeah, sound sounds good. Okay, I've got to jump on this call and like bail because I took it because I was taking it as an assault of my intelligence.

I was taking it as an attack on my value as a person, on my worth, and I couldn't, I couldn't handle it. And it was destroying our connection. It was destroying our relationship. And he props to him, like A, he's still married to me. And B, he had to let me know that like this isn't working and something's gonna shift. Either you've got to do some work here.

Or just know that these 20 topics are just off limits. Like we're not, I'm not gonna engage because this is how you respond and it's not productive, and I'm just shutting down. So like something's gotta change here. And I had to figure out how I could stay an engaging conversation with the person I love the most in the world. But I had to figure that out. And now we're to a a better place where I can.

And I can hold an issue a little further out from my personal identity. But there was a rough patch of about a decade where that was really not my go-to. And I've had to do a lot of work here. All that to say that was maybe too much information, but all that to say, like we are capable of behaving differently. We can make these personal choices, Jen, that you just referred to. Like there is power, and that power is in us and in how we choose to approach people in relationship that we are with.

Patrick Mason (33:27)

So the million, billion, trillion dollar question is can that work in politics?

Jennifer Thomas (33:33)

Deep sigh.

Marianne Viray (33:35)

Yeah, right. It has to. Like because that was the foundation of our democratic system. Was mutual respect, was mutual tolerance, was competing ideas and working together for solutions for the betterment of a country. So it has to.

Jennifer Thomas (33:54)

So one of the things that I think is so illustrative about this story is the way that this interpersonal conflict between Saul and David quickly spirals beyond an interpersonal conflict into a societal conflict. And you know, to date to the point that Patrick made earlier, they then come up with their camps and their size and and it was a private disagreement, but now it becomes very public.

Tell us a little bit about what you think that has to teach us as individuals about how we can act in ways that that kind of stop the spreading of that virus, right? So we might not have been the origin of the virus. We might not have been case zero, you know, in the pandemic we're experiencing. But are there things that we can do to help stop contain help to contain? Like we've we've gives given some thought on this podcast about what we can do as individualists to sort of reduce the conflict. But are do you think there are also things that we can do to help contain the conflict and just have it not spread so quickly? Because sometimes that's a that's a fair battle to fight, right?

Marianne Viray (34:57)

It is. Absolutely. Absolutely. You know, I think, I think leveraging our power where we see that we have it has has value, has merit. I think not weaponizing the institutions that are meant to be like the place where these discussions and disagreements are held, are contained within bounds, within norms, within rules. If we weaponize those spaces, that makes it real easy to turn things into societal, into governmental concerns and issues that go off rails quite quickly. And so I think there's there's something get that we need to get back to, which is that these institutions are designed to form us, that there's some character formation there that we've lost sight of as a community, as a as a country.

And recognizing that like there are conflict entrepreneurs that make bazillions of dollars off stir in the pot and and like checking that and not allowing those tremendous influences to to rule our brains and our emotional responses to things. are a few thoughts. I don't know, Patrick, I'm curious what else comes to mind to you for that question.

Patrick Mason (36:11)

No, I really like what you said that we have to be realistic about those those other forces out there, right? Turn turning a blind eye or you know, plugging our ears that that that doesn't that doesn't do any good. but ⁓ but but but we do have to decide that we're gonna act and I I I really liked the answer to your you know, that you gave earlier. It's it, of whether we can do this in our politics, I think the only answer is like we have to. Right? We have to figure this out. We we we we have to and this is I mean we talked about it all last season when talking about the Book of Mormon, because we we know if if if we stay on this road, it doesn't go anywhere good. So like we have to find the off ramps. and that's an inj individual decision, but it's but politics is a collective business, right? ⁓ and and we have to find ways to do it collectively too. And it might be small collectives, it might be, you know, MWEG It might be Disagree Better. It might be, you know, the Waymakers. I mean, we we start with these, you know, in in in the places where we can, in the networks that we can. but ⁓ but but we have to maintain hope.

Marianne Viray (36:59)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Mean one one of the things that I in in opportunities that I have to to speak publicly or engage with communities is like the we get to choose, we elect these folks. There's some power there, you know. they're not you know, they're not appointed in all cases. Like so is how someone as a is how a politician treats other people, an issue that you care so much about that you're willing to vote on it. If there's if you're gonna be a single issue voter, and many are, would you consider letting this be the issue? Because frankly, their ability to do this better means we have a function in government. It means we will get to the better durable solutions that are best for most Americans. It means there will be more bipartisan, you know, co-sponsorship and we will have a function in Congress if people would approach each other like this.

They'll approach each other like this if they are incentivized to do so. Well, we've got some power there. And there are some institutional boundaries and limitations around that. Our primary system does not necessarily support that type of vote, right? But are people willing to go to a city council and say to their city council in a hearing, I want to understand better how you talk to each other, how you talk about each other?

Jennifer Thomas (38:13)

Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

Marianne Viray (38:34)

That matters to me more than you filling this pothole or deeming this park a zone for some, you know, the latest pickleball court or like whatever the issue is in front of the city. I care about how you treat each other. And that because of those relationships, you I know you will function better as a body. So can we as citizens make that a mandate for ourselves in how we choose to engage, who we support, who we elect, who we donate to, who we champion, could civility, could respect be one of those markers that we pay more attention to?

Jennifer Thomas (39:09)

So so because I'm the action item gal, I Patrick, I do this all the time to people on this podcast. I'm like, what are our takeaway points? I I feel like I love what the two of you have just sort of described. So if I'm a citizen and I'm in despair about the state of affairs and this and and the answer to my question is what can I do to kind of help stop the spread and inoculate society? I I hear you guys have told me three things that are actually really within my purview.

And I'm gonna add the fourth, which you talked about originally, is just making individual change. So first I'm gonna make individual change so that I'm not being a a center, you know, center point of conflict, that it's not spinning off me as well. The second thing I heard you say is supporting institutions, that I as a citizen can can sustain and support the institutions that are under attack that put guardrails around our systems and around our leaders and sort of if if the leaders are acting in ways that make them start to threaten the systems and the institutions, then it's my job to also protect the institutions. The third thing I heard you guys say that Patrick said is that do this in community. Don't expose yourself alone. Find a group of like-minded people who are willing to build towards peace and gather with them and do that work together. And then the last thing I hear you guys saying is communicate to your elected officials that your highest priority is them actually being able to do the job you've hired them to do by being collaborative, right? Like to work with other people. And those are things that every single person could get off this call and do within a week or two. You could figure out a way to start to change yourself. You could figure out a way that you're going to act in the next few weeks to support an institution that matters to you. You could figure out what community you're going to join that is espousing the values that you see. And then you can figure out how to communicate to a leader about the values that you want them to model.

And suddenly this problem that we started this conversation with that felt very amorphous and scary to me feels much more containable to me. And maybe that's just my Pollyanna, but I think it's true.

Marianne Viray (41:07)

Because you have a list now and lists matter.

Jennifer Thomas (41:09)

I have a list. Yeah. Yeah.

Patrick Mason (41:10)

Those are really easy things to check off, right? You know, it's just like, Tuesday, I'll I'll I'll do that. So ⁓ okay, well, well, Marianne, this this has been incredible. ⁓ love your insight, love all the work that you're doing. We normally close with just one question, but because you're so insightful, I'm gonna ask you two questions to close with. They're they're related, ⁓ and I'll let I'll let you choose how you want to answer them. So we always ask, where do you find peace?

Jennifer Thomas (41:17)

Yeah. Yeah.

Honest question.

Patrick Mason (41:38)

But I also want to ask the related question of what gives you hope. ⁓ in this work that you do, it's easy to lose hope. So what gives you hope in the work that you do, and then where do you find peace in your own personal walk?

Marianne Viray (41:43)

Mm.

I'll give you two sources of hope. As as as I focus our work on leaders, recruiting leaders to preach this message, we are finding a number of leaders at local, state, federal levels that are a hundred percent all in with preaching this message. For example, last week we were just filming with 12 US mayors of different parties new content. We're filming more content with state legislators next month. Why? Because they get it, because they are bought in. This is how they want to lead. This is the ethos and you know the principles that inspired them to run for office in the first place, many of them. And so I see leaders wanting to do the right thing for the right reasons and wanting to find solutions for real life problems for people.

And know that those best solutions are found in collaboration and in perspective taking. So that gives me hope that there are leaders out there standing up to our call to say, put me in content, let me be part of your initiative. And that gives me hope. What also gives me hope is how well these messages are being received, that people are hungry for leaders modeling this. And there is a vast, you know, exhausted majority of Americans. And they are movable from being exhausted to being engaged and that gives me hope.

⁓ where do I find peace? Nature. Breathe some mountain air helps me a lot. Yeah.

Patrick Mason (43:21)

Well it’s a good thing you live near the mountains. So Marianne, this has been terrific. Thank you. And really we're so grateful for the work that you do, for the hope that you're doing and and the concrete things that you're doing. I think it's so important. Leader leadership does matter. And so it's important for us to select and vote for the kinds of leaders that we want. But then also cultivate and provide models that that that they can come into and and what you're doing is just an extraordinary example of that. So thank you.

Marianne Viray (43:53)

Thank you both for your voices and your friendship. Appreciate you. Thanks for having me today.

Jennifer Thomas (43:56)

It was such a joy to have you. Thanks for joining us.

Marianne Viray (43:59)

No, my pleasure.

Jennifer Thomas (44:06)

Thanks for listening to this episode of "Proclaim Peace." To hear more, you can subscribe on a podcast app of your choice or on YouTube. You can always find full show notes or transcriptions at proclaimpeace.org.

Patrick Mason (44:20)

"Proclaim Peace" is a partnership between MWEG and Waymakers. You can learn more about Waymakers at waymakers.us. Thanks again for listening and we’ll see you next time.