These are difficult questions. I struggle with them.

We face a dilemma when people offer us opposing views of reality that cannot both be fully true.

My personal impulse is to suspend judgment until I know more. I am aware of my fallibility. Taking action based on a vivid report could do more harm than good if the report is false or incomplete. So I prefer to wait rather than cause more harm by acting on poor information.

But we cannot remain in indecision forever. Victims needing protection will be left in peril. Systemic discrimination will continue unabated. The planet may fry, the public debt might crush our children, someone could steal an election.

When they say silence or inaction is complicity, these are the dangers they are talking about.

They have a point. Caution easily slips into willful ignorance. I’d almost always rather read another article about baseball or even do chores around the house than try to wade through floods of vitriol to try to sort out the truth.

The media are densely populated with people who make their living filtering and spinning facts to cultivate and capture a lucrative audience. Some of them are motivated by a cause, others by the money. Don’t get caught in their webs.

It’s not true that neutrality is always complicity. Our duty is to act responsibly with the light we have, not the light someone else has. We are duty bound to listen to others, but not to hand our agency over to them. When both sides are certain they are right, certainty by itself is not evidence of being right. It can be a prophetic role to refuse to take a side when we cannot discern where the truth lies – like jurors in a trial when there is still evidence they haven’t seen, or stalwarts standing up to a mob.

But don’t give in to paralysis, either. Giving up on ever finding the truth is not a civil approach. It does nothing to “strengthen relationships among disputing people while improving their ability to resolve issues justly and peaceably.”

If you can, find sources who demonstrate their ability (and willingness) to articulate both sides’ views to their satisfaction. One such source is valuable. Several such sources who come from different perspectives are priceless. Your ultimate goal might be to become such a source yourself.

By the same token, limit your diet of sources indulging in caricaturing their opponents. It's fun to "own" someone you disagree with, to ridicule and mock him. It's also addictive, and as dangerous as a drug. (People who know human biochemistry better than me say it actually IS a drug.) But if this is all, or most, of what a source is offering, and it's all or mostly at the cost of one side, it's probably profiting from polarization -- feeding your addiction for its own profit. This is your local pusher. Treat him accordingly.

You may have to work some to find sources of information who can help you see things from opposing perspectives. Jonathan Kuttab has done this for Israelis and Palestinians, which is one of the reasons we invited him to give his talks at George Fox on February 4 and March 31, 2021. Don't miss these opportunities listen to someone who has listened to enemies so well and for so long.