I'm not biased! You're biased!

Maybe you’ve heard this argument: If liberals are so upset about using the military to save Iraqis from Saddam, why did they support Clinton in Kosovo? And then there’s the converse: If conservatives are such grand humanitarians, why didn’t they want to save the Kosovars?
Yes, yes, the situations are quite different. But I think there’s something to both arguments. And I suspect that Drew Westen, a psychologist here at Emory University in Atlanta, does, too.

You see, Westen has studied how people choose their positions on various hot-button political topics. And if you think that they judiciously weigh the positions, consider them in light of their values, and then calmly choose a side, regardless of their party affiliations ... well, you know better people than I do.

As it turns out, 80 percent of the subjects in Westen’s study took political positions based on their biases, political affiliations, and preconceptions – not the facts. Specifically, the study asked subjects to consider the case of a fictional soldier accused of abuse at Abu Ghraib. The soldier claimed to be acting on orders, and he wanted to subpoena President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to prove it. Subjects were asked whether the soldier should be granted the subpoena. But they were also offered variations on the scenario – sometimes the soldier had compelling evidence to support his claims; other times he didn’t.

In the end, it didn’t matter. In 80 percent of cases, people’s feelings about the Bush administration, etc., guided their decision regardless of the facts.

The study doesn’t make a compelling case for the value of dialogue. It does point to our culture’s postmodern character, a state of affairs in which "facts" depend on your context.

But it should also be a reminder to Christians that certainty about one’s own beliefs is always dangerous.

Think I’m wrong? Are you certain of your faith? Certain of your values? So was the German church under Nazism, with notable exceptions like Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. So were the judges in the Salem witch trials. So were the pre-civil war Southern Christians who argued that the Old Testament the letters of Paul "proved" that slavery was Biblically sanctioned. (The Southern Baptist Convention split off over the issue) So were the leaders of the Inquisition.

Oh, come on! We’re not the Third Reich, right? We abhor slavery, right? We have nothing in common with those people.

Actually, we do. We are all sinful people capable of misreading God’s word in ways that simply reconfirm what we want to believe or already believe. The history of Christianity demonstrates this well. The early church, for example, followed Jesus’s teachings to "love your enemy" by becoming pacifist. But they wouldn’t have "turned the other cheek" if they were attacked by terrorists, right?

Well, an awful lot of them did become martyrs.

My point is this: Christians must engage the Bible with open minds and open hearts. Just because James Dobson says it doesn’t mean it’s right. And just because you hear James Dobson say it doesn’t mean its wrong. We should all be careful about certainty, fear our own sinfulness, and be open to the possibility that we need to repent of things we don't even recognize.

We can always debate "Crossfire"-style, getting across talking points but never listening to each other. Listening is hard. It's also risky, since it might mean changing your mind, swallowing your pride, and admitting that you are wrong. It requires humility.

Let's all pray for more of that.