Over the last couple of years we are hearing the expression "culture wars" used more and more often amongst religious conservatives. This term is used to describe the situation in America where right-wing and left-wing forces are battling it out in the courts, in the legislature, and in the media, in order to chart the future path of the nation.

The expression "culture wars" has been coined partly due to the degree to which each side is intent on doing whatever it takes to win the battle. Secondly, this term makes reference to the fact that both sides view the implications of this situation as being of the direst importance for the future of the country as well as for western civilization.

People such as Brian McLaren and others have wondered aloud whether this kind of language is really helpful in engaging others in debate. What kind of posture are we taking, McLaren and others would argue, when we declare the "other side", the "enemy" before we even begin? I tend to agree with McLaren. It is certainly simpler to draw a neat line down the middle like this. But not only is this unhelpful, but I would also argue that it is not entirely accurate.

An assumption made by the far-Right is that individuals and institutions in Hollywood, or in what they might refer to as the Liberal media elite, are dead-set on destroying the moral fabric of the nation. The Right seems to often assume that it is a fallen nature run wild that has led to this challenge to all that is good and right in America. Biblical references to "a dog returning to its vomit" and such are used to describe the actions and the overall cause of Liberals who are aiming to deliver the country unto hell in a hand basket- so to speak.

There exists an entire religious media infrastructure that trumps this point to the nth degree. Various religious broadcasters constantly plead with listeners/viewers/readers to send in donations in order "to help fight the vast left-wing plot to destroy America". And of course, this fear-mongering certainly pays off. It is not surprising that the more listeners believe this to be true the more likely they are to see the stakes as high and therefore send in some cold, hard cash to help those on "the front lines of the battle". While this approach may be "fruitful" in this sense, is it really honest or accurate? I would argue that the premise behind this thinking misses the point by wrongly categorizing the aims of "the other side".

Contrary to what many on the far-Right may believe, those on what is often termed the Left, are, in their own minds anyway, trying to deliver the country from an archaic past into a plane of higher moral ground. This goes against the claim made by many religious conservatives. The Left, many of them anyway, are not trying to destroy the country; they are rather, again, in their own minds anyway, trying to save it.

Now if this is the true state of affairs, shouldn't this change our approach when trying to assert our own beliefs about what is right and good for individuals and for society? I certainly think it should. When I know that the person sitting across from me doesn't have it out for me, but actually has my best in mind (even if I believe him to be misguided in his beliefs) then I will, or at least I should, treat him very differently. Maybe this is the kind of person that I should be sitting down for coffee with.

As a larger community, I think we need to do whatever is the corporate equivalent of that. We need to, wherever possible, engage those with a different perspective on what "highest morality" actually is for the topic at hand. And to do this, surely my first move should be to posture myself in such a way as to help the other believe that I actually have his best in mind (even if he believes my beliefs to be misguided as well).

Dallas Willard, in his book Renovation of the Heart has made the point that up until the 1960's most Americans saw things from a Judeo-Christian worldview. That meant that people like Jesus, Moses and Paul were seen as mentors and prophets. The general belief was that these individuals, and especially Jesus of course, described a vision for life that was best for the individual and best for society. However, this all began to shift in the 1960's; at least for a large segment of the population. Suddenly a series of authority-trust-shaking-fiascos (how's that for an expression?) shifted people's allegiances. And for the first time, people like John Lennon became the new "gurus"; the new trustworthy ones. In short- the new prophets.

But to get back to our original point, what was someone like John Lennon trying to accomplish? Was it his goal to rob western society of all that was just, beautiful and good? No, on the contrary, Lennon's desire was to see society evolve into a more compassionate, more loving, more harmonious kind of community.

Did someone like Lennon swear off spirituality for the sake of "the lusts of the flesh"? No, Lennon and his band mates traveled half-way across the world to try and learn from the Maharishi- someone they thought could serve as their own spiritual mentor.

But wait a minute, didn't John Lennon pen the phrase "And no religion too" in his hugely popular song, Imagine? Yes, he did. But what exactly was John reacting against? Was it spirituality? Was it Christianity- or more specifically the ways and teachings of Christ? Or was he railing against the hypocrisy of the religious establishment, and of the institutionalized expression of religion, and of the war-torn fruit of previous religious endeavor?

I think it's clear that it was these latter elements of religion that Lennon was reacting against. And I don't know about you, but those sound like some of the very same things I can "imagine" Jesus getting upset about too. And yet, at the time, the religious community throughout western society vilified Lennon and his likeminded contemporaries.

Fast forward 40 years or so and we see this same scenario playing out today. If anything, the two sides (Right and Left) are more entrenched and distrusting of each other than ever. But again, from my point of view, we neither serve the cause, nor reflect the true reality of the situation, nor faithfully represent Jesus, when we resort to "trying to win the argument" by vilifying our "opponents".

I think it is high time that we lay down our militaristic language and posturing and take a decidedly different approach. As much as the ancient Greeks used to sit around for hours on end, splitting hairs over every philosophical issue imaginable, at least they sat down together. At least they listened to each other. At least they saw the conversation itself as an expression of community and relationship. I think that on this one we have much we could learn from the ancient Greeks.

Rather then demonizing and ridiculing the arguments of those on the Left, why don't we attempt to engage them in real and substantial dialog? I am "imagining" conversations in which, since we know we are both aiming for highest morality, we actually play out various scenarios in order to actually evaluate the fruit of various belief systems.

Everything in me believes that someone like John Lennon would have jumped at this opportunity for meaningful dialogue. Perhaps it would have taken some time to convince him that as a Christian, my aim is not to demonize him or to persecute him. But I believe that in time he would be able to see "the tree for the forest". In other words, he would see me as a person and not as a religious establishment representative. And once that was accomplished then I think a real conversation could take place. Unfortunately John isn't around anymore to have this conversation. There are plenty of like-minded people that are however.

Bring on the corporate equivalent of coffee and scones. I say it's high time that we make like the Greeks and strike up some compelling conversations.