Learning to Practice an Active Hope

This conference series, organized by Renewing Our Minds, with support from the European Christian Political Movement, started in response to the increase in division, polarization and disinformation in the world today, along with a tendency of people of faith to either withdraw from public life or to seek power through politics. The goal of these events is to challenge preconceptions and dominant narratives regarding the role of religion in politics, as well as to challenge students, political activists and professionals from various spheres from all around Europe to thoughtfully and actively engage in the debates taking place in our societies.

ROM Assistant Director Rachel Ruvarac opened the first morning by going over some principles of how to disagree well. An anonymous survey of participants confirmed our expectation that this was a very ideologically and politically diverse group, and we hoped and expected that our thought-provoking sessions would spark some lively disagreement among participants, but in an increasingly polarized world we wanted to spend time at our event practicing the skills of disagreeing well with others in humility and affirming the dignity of those we converse with.

Professor James Kennedy then gave a historical overview of the rise of nationalism since WWII, with an emphasis on the role of religious nationalism. He emphasized the role of religious communities in facilitating dialogue.

A panel on “Nationalism, Patriotism, Protest and Dissent” dove into the difference between nationalism and patriotism, and expressions of nationalism in Serbia, Romania, the UK, and the US today, with panelists sharing their personal perspectives on their role as people of faith in navigating the current landscape.

The first day closed with an evening titled “Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Pro Conversation,” which modeled some of the principles of disagreeing well discussed earlier in the day. The conversation focused on challenging simplistic narratives and binary framing and finding common ground and shared values between the different sides of the abortion debate.

The following day Dr. Noemi Mena Montes spoke about Info Entertainment, which she defined as a blend of news and entertainment, focused on emotion, personality and drama, and simplification of complex issues. She said that it is appealing because of emotional engagement, it’s easy to consume, there is a personal connection, and instant rewards, however it is dangerous because it trivializes complexity, relies on emotion over evidence, polarizes audiences, and erodes trust.

Julia Bicknell spoke about the evolution of media since she began working for the BBC in the 1980s, and the challenge today of reclaiming shared truth. She challenged us to be responsible consumers and sharers of media with practical advice on how to recognize false information.

A panel on “What is Truth?” built on the morning’s lectures, and explored questions about social media, AI, and disinformation, with an emphasis on the importance of developing critical thinking skills.

The day closed with participants preparing platforms on AI regulation in an activity that prompted them to think through the impact of AI on privacy, education, intellectual property rights, cybersecurity, the environment, medicine, and more, and led to animated discussion and many excellent practical ideas.

The third day opened with Kimberly Hart challenging us to examine our own role in the current polarization. She explained that the key to healthy political systems lies in healthy communities supporting them. There is a loop between politics and culture, and this has become a negative loop. To break out of this loop, we need to examine who we are listening to and “following,” and be open to questioning what we believe and why.

Former MEP Marton Gyongyosi spoke about hope: “For people who care about the truth, hope is not naive, it is an act of resistance and defiance, a source of strength, and an active, deliberate choice to defy everything negative and bad.” He countered the idea that people of faith should either disengage from or try to dominate through politics, instead challenging us to engage in politics as servants and truth-tellers.

Our final main session was a panel on hope and politics, where panelists differentiated between hope and optimism, and spoke about the ways hope can be manipulated. They also emphasized that hope is active, not passive. One panelist spoke about hope as exemplified by the American civil rights movement: “Hope is a path through suffering sometimes, but also a path through action, not sitting quietly to the side. It’s not a Christian recipe for domination, and it’s not a capacity to predict what will happen in the future, but a belief in God’s goodness.”

Outside of the main sessions, participants also had the opportunity to enjoy “Awakening,” an art exhibit by Romanian artist Marius Radu, attend workshops on art, psychology, burn-out, implicit bias, and more. There was also ample time over meals and free time to continue the conversations begun in our main sessions.

Participants returned home with a deeper awareness of the division and manipulation of the truth endemic in the world today, but also with tools and motivation to combat it, along with an active hope.