The headline of this column is borrowed and slightly amended from a speech by Arthur C. Brooks given last week at the National Prayer Breakfast. The speaker is not a preacher, but he is a professor and sociologist and a person of profound faith.
A few months ago – when the current effort to put the beer and wine issue on the ballot began – I suggested that a series of forums held at different locations around Graham County would be helpful, to let people understand each other’s positions.
People with long histories in Graham County warned that such a process would only stir up the passions that we saw last Wednesday, when the Robbinsville Board of Aldermen deferred putting the issue on the ballot for the second time. Plain and simple, the advice that meeting and talking about opposing positions would be a mistake was flat wrong. There were three respected preachers who spoke with passion against putting the issue on the ballot. Their arguments were based on faith and a panoply of alcohol-related tragedies that they had dealt with personally and in their ministries.
After listening to the three preachers at the meeting, I decided to have a dialog with one of them due to one thing he said. I asked two members of his church to make the contact and within an hour, Daniel Stewart and I were having a coffee at the establishment affectionately known as “Chicken Gas.” After nearly 90 minutes of conversation, we understood each other better. Daniel is certainly a good person – beloved by many – whom he has guided spiritually over many years.
He said something important, which paraphrased is, “It hurts the ministry deeply, that so many people in this county think we would threaten supporters of your position directly in our sermons or indirectly, through other means. That is not Christian behavior and not what we are about.”
My response – also loosely paraphrased – was that “Many people are of the opinion that this happened back in 1948 when liquor sales was voted out and is happening again in the current debate.”
There are three things that are important about this conversation. First, two people on opposite sides of a very stressful issue started a dialogue and hopefully a friendship. Second – while the opinion of many in this community regarding the behavior of the faith-based opponents is widely held on the part of advocates – it never occurred to me that this would be hurtful to the accused. Third, the opponents think this debate is all about money. There are many responses to that belief that we discussed in our 90-minute conversation.
Let us dialogue over the next 60 days and gain the wisdom to do the right thing.
Roger Carlton is a columnist for The Graham Star.