Some years ago I engaged in a lively conversation with a friend about the intricate nature of morality, specifically questioning whether ethics is inherently influenced by cultural contexts. We expounded on various forms of relativism, the many ways moral language has become incoherent in our society, and the sources of authority that should guide our ethical decision-making. Referencing recent events in Afghanistan, my friend asserted: “If a person cannot instantly declare that throwing acid in the faces of little girls who wish to attend school is morally evil, then I have nothing more to say to them.” In other words, if the egregiousness of such an act is not self-evidently clear, no further argument could possibly persuade. This failure to comprehend would amount to moral obtuseness beyond the pale.
These words still resonate with me—not only because they underscore the necessity of moral absolutes but also because they highlight the reality of irreconcilable dilemmas. At times, seeking compromise is not merely a concession but a profound betrayal of one’s faith. Life often presents stark dichotomies that we should not attempt to reconcile. Along such lines, the Bible compels us to choose between God and Baal (1 Kings 18:21), warns against serving both God and mammon (Matt. 6:24), contrasts paths leading to life or death (Matt. 7:13, 14), and advises building our foundation on the rock rather than sand (verses 24-27). These narratives, emblematic of what the Christian writer Søren Kierkegaard calls “either/or situations,” demand our unconditional obedience and, with it, the dispensing of any middle ground. According to him, to falter in this complete allegiance means not loving God—and, by extension, “hating him.”1
While some may deem such binaries too rigid, they underscore an essential truth: in some cases, clear, decisive, this-or-that stances are not only appropriate but necessary. In the face of overt evils—torture, racial bigotry, and sexual violence—entertaining nuances or “shades of gray” constitutes not only insensitivity but moral depravity. On that point, too, the Bible offers numerous examples, including Paul’s stark admonition of anyone presenting a false gospel: “Let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). His strong language emphasizes the need for unyielding clarity in matters central to faith, in “here I stand” moments upon which the church stands or falls.2 In these instances a kind of polarized thinking—choosing a clear side decisively—becomes crucial for upholding integrity and faithfulness.
Moral and Spiritual Dimensions of Polarization
In contemporary discourse, however, “polarization” often carries connotations beyond decisiveness. It refers to a pervasive state of division and antagonism that affects how individuals and communities interact. It is not just about stances but also how positions are expressed and how we relate to others, particularly those viewed as adversaries. Riding on volatile emotions and rigid judgment of outsiders, polarization, by its very nature, can lead to profound fragmentation within communities, rendering it difficult to find common ground or pursue the common good. It effectively mirrors the Tower of Babel narrative—a symbol of misunderstanding and discord. Thus, polarization is no trivial matter.
Properly understanding polarization requires a multifaceted approach, integrating insights from history, sociology, political science, and social psychology. Yet crucially, as believers, we must also delve into the moral and spiritual dimensions that deeply influence how we confront this issue. What does polarization reveal about our collective and individual character? What impact does it have on our spiritual life and pursuit of God’s kingdom (Matt. 6:33)? These questions are crucial because polarization transcends mere “flesh and blood,” involving the realm of “principalities” and “powers” (Eph. 6:12)—spiritual forces of darkness driven by the “father of lies” (John 8:44, NIV). Historically, these forces have effectively sown division and discord through insinuations and half-truths. This kind of polarization, by its very nature, possesses a diabolical aspect to it.
This issue calls for vigilance and critical self-honesty, requiring repentance and prayer to avoid demonizing and dismissing others as irredeemably wrong. Unfortunately, many Christians adopt rigid ideological frameworks that skew their perception of others, fostering suspicion and hostility toward those with differing views. To combat this, we must acknowledge that truth can come from unlikely sources—as illustrated by the biblical stories of Balaam’s donkey (Num. 22:21-39) and Pharaoh Necho conveying God’s message to King Josiah (2 Chron. 35:20-27). Or, as the theologian Karl Barth once quipped, “God may speak to us through Russian Communism, a flute concerto, a blossoming shrub, or a dead dog. We do well to listen to Him if He really does.”3
We should note here that simplistic narratives such as “all supporters of X are really Y” are often exploited by demagogues, a key point in Hannah Arendt’s seminal work, The Origins of Totalitarianism.4 Arendt shows how societies riddled with deep divisions and mutual distrust, fueled by denigrating language used to describe others, become fertile grounds for authoritarianism. In such environments people may gravitate toward authoritative figures promising to resolve deep-seated conflicts and grievances. Therefore, polarization fosters a dynamic interplay of rigidity and susceptibility to manipulation. Given this context, it is essential to critically evaluate polarized messages and their distorted constructions of reality. We must ask: Who benefits from these divisions? Who is fueling them? Who gains power, influence, money, or reputation from these perceptions?
In a polarized world, true hospitality isn’t just vital; it is transformative.
Polarization, Debate, and Resisting Truth
A brief caveat is necessary here. It is crucial to understand what polarization is not. Strong disagreements, debates, and harsh criticisms do not inherently constitute polarization. In fact, the absence of such vigorous discourse often signals the shutting down of openness to new information and contradictory viewpoints. For instance, the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) showcases a heated debate regarding whether Gentile converts to Christianity needed to observe Jewish law. While this discussion was intense and aimed at discerning truth and maintaining unity within the diverse body of believers, it did not completely resolve the issue. As reflected in Paul’s epistles, particularly Galatians, this matter continued to be a source of significant contention within the community. This highlights that while the council demonstrated a commitment to addressing complex theological issues through dialogue, the process of dealing with polarization is ongoing and does not always result in immediate harmony. In short, robust debate enriches public discourse, whereas polarization stifles it, creating barriers that hinder mutual understanding and respect.
This ideal of debate can often be compromised by underlying narcissism, in which what seems to be concern for “truth” may actually cloak a deep-seated resistance to correction. On this point Adam Grant offers insightful analysis. He argues that overconfidence obscures our recognition of opposing viewpoints, greatly hindering productive dialogue and mutual understanding.5 Individuals often enter discussions with prosecutorial zeal, aiming not merely to discuss but to win, or with fervor intent on converting others to their viewpoint. Such attitudes, Grant notes, run counter to the scientific mindset, which values inquiry, testing, and revising beliefs based on new evidence. Thus, he advocates intellectual humility and adaptability, which are essential traits for countering the effects of polarization.
Viewed from a Christian perspective, much of this makes sense as we consider core traits of fallen human nature—traits that inherently resist truth and truthfulness. We display tendencies of truth resistance, such as pride, indifference, and an unwillingness to remain teachable. We often don’t want to hear the truth, that is, information and input that goes against our desires, commitments, and interests. The apostle Paul rebukes such “itching ears” (2 Tim. 4:3), surrounding ourselves with teachers who approve of what we want, as one of the defining characteristics of this age.
While more could be said on this point, so much is clear: denigrating intellectual virtues such as receptivity, humility, curiosity, and openness cuts from the lifeblood of vibrant spiritual living. These virtues are essential for learning from others, advancing in understanding, and remaining receptive to the transformative movements of the Holy Spirit. In turn, when we give in to polarization, we not only isolate ourselves from these virtues but also sever our attunement to the Holy Spirit. This disconnection hinders our spiritual growth and reduces our capacity to engage meaningfully with others. In stark contrast, the Bible implores us to adopt a posture of humility and openness. For instance, James 1:19, 20 exhorts us to be “quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry” (NIV), underscoring the importance of teachability and patience. Similarly, Proverbs 18:15 states, “The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge, for the ears of the wise seek it out” (NIV), highlighting the critical value of a curious and receptive spirit.
Perhaps another word of caution is warranted here. The critique of polarization can sometimes become implicated in the “politics of polarization” itself. When we label others as “polarizing,” we may implicitly or explicitly elevate our stance to a moral, intellectual, or spiritual high ground. Often such labels are applied to those whose views we perceive as “extreme,” “rigid,” “simplistic,” or “overwrought,” while we consider our own position “balanced” or “moderate.” This represents “false centrism,” a cognitive bias that leads us to see our own opinions as reasonable and all others as extreme. It can distort our understanding of true diversity, misleadingly positioning our perspectives as the norm. By recognizing others as sources of polarization, we often expose similar tendencies within ourselves, underscoring the need for deeper introspection and humility.
The Contradiction of Hospitality
Much more could be said about polarization, yet its most profound tragedy lies in its contradiction of hospitality, arguably the core of Christian moral practice. Genuine hospitality—in Greek, philoxenia, or “the love of the stranger”—generously embraces, suspends judgment to truly listen, and finds enrichment in differences. It creates a space in which everyone feels valued without fostering indifference or false commonality. True hospitality respects and dignifies without being naive or indifferent. In a polarized world, such hospitality isn’t just vital; it is transformative.
In his Free of Charge Miroslav Volf shares an account that illustrates the depolarizing power of genuine hospitality. It is the story of Ivo Marković, who, like many people during the war in the former Yugoslavia (1991-2001), suffered grave personal loss when the Bosniak-led Bosnian army massacred several elderly people in the village of Šušanj, including his father. After the war he returned to the town to visit the house where his brother had lived, only to be warned that “a fierce Muslim woman” had, in the meantime, claimed it for herself. Indeed, when he got there, the woman was waiting for him, cigarette in her mouth and rifle cocked. She barked: “Go away or I’ll shoot you.”
“ ‘No, you won’t shoot me,’ said Father Marković in a gentle but firm voice, ‘you’ll make a cup of coffee for me.’ She stared at him for a while, then slowly put the rifle down and went to the kitchen. Taking the last bit of coffee she had, she mixed in some already-used grounds to make enough coffee for two cups. And they, deadly enemies, began to talk as they partook in the ancient ritual of hospitality: drinking coffee together. She told him of her loneliness, of the home she had lost, of the son who never returned from the battlefield. When Father Marković returned a month later she told him: ‘I rejoice at seeing you as much as if my son had returned home.’ ”6
Such stories remind me of the power of simple, grace-filled gestures to upend the circular logic of polarization and intolerance. These hospitable gestures can come in different forms: an act of listening, a suspension of judgment, an expression of kindness, or an act of blessing. They foster a feeling of solidarity with broken humanity, and when tied to faith, truth, and proper moral sensibilities, they are premonitions of the kingdom of God. As an end-time people, can we have any greater calling?
1 Søren Kierkegaard, Provocations: Spiritual Writings, ed. Charles E. Moore, 1st ed. (Farmington, Pa.: Plough, 1999), p. 11.
2 I explore some of these issues in Ante Jerončić, “The Liminal Church: Exilic Consciousness and Adventist Theopolitics,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 50, no. 2 (2012).
3 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975), vol. 1, part 1, p. 55.
4 Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1973)
5 Adam Grant, Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know (New York: Viking, 2021).
6 Miroslav Volf, Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), pp. 190, 191.