As I continue to think through the Sunday message at First Wayne Street, I decided to share some additional thoughts here.
Somewhere along the way, we began to confuse conviction with contempt.
Political and religious differences are not new. The early church navigated empire, persecution, and deep internal disagreements. What feels different (to me) in this moment is the speed and scale of dehumanization. Social media rewards outrage. News cycles monetize division. Leadership at the highest levels model name-calling, belittling, and distortion (or flat out lies). As a result, we are being discipled into suspicion.
It is especially disheartening when those proclaiming the name of Jesus participate in mockery, dismissal, or cruelty. It is not Christlike to hate. It is not Christlike to belittle. It is not Christlike to bully. The One we follow told us plainly to love…even our enemies.
In the Gospel of Matthew 25, Jesus identifies himself with the thirsty, the vulnerable, the overlooked. “I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink.” In Romans 12, Paul stretches us further: “If your enemies are thirsty, give them something to drink…Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
That is not sentimental spirituality. In many ways, that is a call to moral resistance.
We have grown comfortable labeling those with whom we disagree as “the enemy.” We reduce people to voting records, theological stances, party affiliation, or even a single opinion. Once labeled, it’s easier to dismiss and ignore. It becomes easier to justify our hatred and contempt once someone is named an enemy.
I believe that contempt is corrosive. It doesn’t just wound its target; it reshapes the soul of the one who carries it.
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. warned us about this. One of the principles of nonviolence he taught was simple and piercing: Attack forces of evil, not persons doing evil. Dr. King understood that the goal of justice is not humiliation but reconciliation. Dr. King encouraged us towards the creation of the beloved community.
Dr. Cornel West has said that justice is what love looks like in public. If that is true, then dehumanization is what fear looks like in public. And fear is a powerful political tool. Fear is often what political candidates and religious leaders alike use to get us to vote and believe as they do.
The question for Christians is not whether we will resist injustice. As a follower of Jesus in the United Methodist tradition, my baptismal vows call me to resist evil, injustice, and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves. This is important work for all followers of Jesus. As we do this work, we are called to resist without surrendering to hatred. There is a difference between opposing harmful systems and despising human beings.
Some dismiss calls for civility as “being soft.” They argue that strong convictions require sharp rhetoric. But the gospel offers a different imagination.
Walter Brueggemann often spoke about the “prophetic imagination,” the capacity to envision a world beyond domination and fear. The prophets did not mince words about injustice, but their fire was directed at systems that crushed dignity, not at the denial of humanity itself.
Stanley Hauerwas has insisted that the church’s primary political task is to be the church. The Church should embody a different way, a better way of living together that tells the truth about Jesus. If our congregations mirror cable news hostility more than Christlike love, what story are we telling?
Civility is not pretending disagreements do not matter. It is choosing to treat the person in front of us as someone bearing the image of God, even when (or especially when) we believe they are deeply wrong.
The Gospel is not about winning arguments, it’s about love. Maybe the best witness of the Church isn’t how loud we can be regarding our strongly held convictions that are often more political than biblical. Maybe the best witness of the Church is in how faithfully we love God, neighbor and enemy.
When Christians participate in ridicule and conspiracy, when we amplify false narratives, when we slander, the watching world notices. And not in the way we hope.
Jesus said the world would know us by our love. Not by our volume. Not by our dominance. Not by our ability to “own” someone online.
By our love.
Love is not passive. Love confronts injustice. Love tells the truth. Love protects the vulnerable. Love refuses to dehumanize.
In Romans 12, Paul writes, “If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” Notice the realism: if it is possible. Not every conflict resolves. Not every relationship heals. But as far as it depends on us, we are not to let hatred dictate our character.
In a culture that monetizes outrage, civility is countercultural. In an environment addicted to mockery, kindness is disruptive. In a society that labels enemies quickly, refusing to reduce a person to their worst view is radical.
In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus said that those who give a cup of water to those who thirst will be among those who inherit the Kingdom. Giving a cup of water to an enemy in the ancient world was not weakness; it was a refusal to let vengeance define you. Today, it might look like refusing to share demeaning memes; listening before reacting; verifying before amplifying; praying for someone whose worldview unsettles you; advocating for policies that protect even those you disagree with. This does not mean abandoning convictions. It means anchoring our convictions in love.
Lent asks us to examine our desires. Are we thirsty for righteousness or for being right? Are we seeking the flourishing of all or the humiliation of some?
When Jesus says, “I was thirsty,” perhaps he is also asking: What kind of people will you become in a dry and divided world? Will we allow political affiliations to shape our tone more than the way of Jesus? Will we let cable news discipleship trump Jesus? Or will we practice a deeper allegiance?
Returning to civility is not naïve nostalgia. I believe it is a faithful act of discipleship. It is choosing to see the image of God in every face. It is resisting evil without surrendering to contempt. It is remembering that Christ died not only for those who agree with us, but even for those we are tempted to label “enemies.”
Perhaps the call before us is simple and profound: become people who refuse to let hatred dry up compassion. Become communities where disagreement does not equal dehumanization. Become Christians whose public witness looks like Jesus.
In a culture of contempt, may we be the kind of people who offer a cup of water to our enemies.

