Against Such There is no Law: Love, Peace and Self-Control in a Divided Country

For this reflection paper, I interviewed a variety of leaders across a range of sectors, including government, universities, churches, nonprofits, and think tanks, to ask why this country’s discourse has descended so rapidly into divisiveness, vitriol, and cruelty. My goal is to identify the root of our antagonisms and measure the possibility of recovering civility, regardless of ideology. Their candour offers a path forward, marked by a gracious and intentional commitment to peace within the chaos of conflicting visions for this nation. These conclusions from individuals across the political spectrum do not amount to a call for unanimity that dilutes spiritual clarity and deep conviction for truth. Rather, they are an admonition to reconcile disrupted families, a divided nation, and hearts indifferent to our fellow neighbor. Through meaningful conversations and written responses, I was encouraged by the posture of respect and earnest desire for renewal in our country. 

These interviews serve as the basis of my conclusion that meaningful steps toward ameliorating our corrupted discourse, which laws and regulations alone cannot adequately address, demands a countercultural honoring of one another that is stronger than contempt, sacrificial respect that seeks mutual understanding, and humility to redress our pride. Law alone cannot deliver these reforms of human character in a divided country. Love, peace, and self-control can, however, and as the Apostle Paul said, “against such there is no law” (Gal. 5:23).

1. The Problem: Why unity?

All human beings are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). In Genesis 1:26-27, the Bible records how God formed humanity with a special value, worth, and attention different from that of previous created beings. His design gave human beings a standard of dignity that others can neither give nor take away. It is inherent and intentional. It was very good. Disobedience in the Garden of Eden resulted in severance and sin, establishing the need for redemption from this newfound separation (Gen. 3:1-13). The brokenness of human nature and history is revealed in laws enacted and enforced alongside actions of evil that seek to denigrate those who bear the image of God. 

Jesus came to save the world and, in His ministry, advanced the truth of His Kingdom. While loving and serving those who many would call unworthy and “the least of these,” He saw, understood, and cared for them, admonishing His followers to do the same (Matt. 25:31-46). It is not enough to only love those who love you, for “what then distinguishes you from anyone else?” (Matt. 5:46-48) It is the challenge and command of Christians to love both enemies and neighbors, and to “pray for those who persecute you,” to prove themselves to be of the Father. To do so reveals commitment to His promise and obedience to His words. 

Jesus, in response to the question, “who is my neighbor?” told the story of a man who was beaten and robbed of his health, clothes, and possessions and left for dead on a road.  Two men passed him by, while a third had pity. This man, a Samaritan, bandaged the wounded man and took him on his own donkey to a nearby inn where he nursed him to health, paying for his stay and additional expenses. This Samaritan, who had no responsibility for the man’s well-being, was filled with mercy and acted as a neighbor to the man who fell at the hands of the robbers. Martin Luther King, Jr., in his final speech delivered the day before his assassination, speculated about the thoughts of the two men who passed the half-dead man.¹ What if the robbers are still around? Is it possible that the man on the ground is faking this situation to lure me into a trap? And therefore, their conclusion was, “If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?” But the merciful one reversed the question: “If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?”² This act of compassion represented “a kind of dangerous unselfishness,” King added.³ This type of love, which is represented in the principles of Jesus’ commands, broke down barriers that divided the men in the parable: circumstances, ethnicity, and religion. In this act, those differences were laid aside to minister to the wounded man’s immediate need. The Samaritan saw him not as an enemy, but as a neighbor. As King says elsewhere, “it is love that will save our world and our civilization.⁴

2. How did we get here? 

“We have never been without division, and I would be concerned if we did not have robust disagreement,” remarks Michael Wear, founder and President of the Center for Christianity and Public Life. He observes the ever-present friction of political disagreement, while highlighting the spirit of debate that is alive in this country. To be sure, whenever policy is concerned, tensions will run deep and disagreements will be substantive. 

The presence of disagreement is not necessarily the issue, posit Dr. Robert P. George and Dr. Cornel West. The two men are distinguished professors who have been close friends, despite their political disagreements, for years. They said, “We don’t represent the quest for agreement.”  In mutual search for truth, they are brilliantly gracious, understanding, and respectful to each other. “We treat each other like human beings,” they added. But if disagreement itself is not an issue, what is it that prevents us from overcoming such stark polarization? The key, as proposed by these gentlemen, is to treat one’s political enemy as an image bearer, even in the most passionate disagreements.

3. How has social media and the news that we consume played a role in our division?

“Social media is a reflection of the fire raging in the human heart; this blaze is not new. We have always been divided. There was never a golden age of public discourse. The issues being revealed in online debates, and the human impulses on display, predate social media,” said a veteran of government affairs who used to work on Capitol Hill. His statement echoes the biblical truth of the original sin nature that resides within the human, convicting the heart of the individual rather than an external source or platform. As one pastor told me, “the problem is the human heart; social media is not the root cause but the accelerator. It further entrenches people in their own ideology.” These ideas highlight a deeper source of responsibility for online dysfunction while seemingly exonerating another. Does that mean that social media platforms are free of blame for the chaos they cause? 

“Social media and the modern news industry reward speed and outrage, and that can train us to assume the worst about people who we disagree with politically,” said Utah Governor Spencer Cox. Here, we see dual responsibility on the part of the individual and the responsibility of platforms for their tools that fan the division. Various respondents described how social media algorithms, an abundance of news platforms, and the twenty-four-hour cycle can feed content that silos users into echo chambers of ideas they only agree with, giving different and sometimes conflicting information to evaluate and incentivize entertainment over reporting. This represents a paradoxical position for social media engagement although vast amounts of information exist, platform algorithms compartmentalize us according to attentional preferences. As a result, what we see becomes an unchallenged truth, and criticism of those views is wrong. This narrowing of ideas forms limited visibility, summarized well by a community college admissions counselor that I spoke with: “On social media, we see the things we only want to see. To get another perspective, you have to seek it out.” Utah governor Spencer Cox remarked similarly: 

“These platforms are engineered to reward outrage and division because that’s what keeps people hooked. That’s not accidental; it’s a business model. Social media companies need to own the damage their algorithms cause. At the same time, each of us still has a responsibility to choose what we amplify and how we treat one another. A healthier public square will require accountability from the platforms, and a little more restraint from all of us.”

4. A New Way Forward: Where do we go from here?

As eager participants who exercise the right to speak freely in this country, passionate and valuable conversations are held in the competition for the strongest ideas to be implemented. Based on convictions, circumstances, and experiences, it is evident that Americans will not always draw the same conclusions about policy. How we respond to those differences is what matters. “This is our moment; it is not a unique moment, but a moment to be unique,” one federal affairs director told me, concerning the need for Christians to engage in civic discourse that honors the imago dei.

If these actions are not being demonstrated in the public square, should not Christians in the culture lead? We have a command to love that requires us to serve humbly and pray earnestly, but that does not excuse us from sharing the truth that has changed our lives. “If we have a biblical worldview, truth and love are not in tension. God’s law perfectly upholds the law of love,” added the federal affairs director. 

Because we have been forgiven much, in kindness and compassion, we are compelled to forgive others (Eph. 4:32). This shift begins with the words used to characterize the image bearer we disagree with, no matter which side of the aisle they fall on. It supposes an understanding of what it means to listen when it is inconvenient and serve when we get nothing in return. When Christians begin promoting unity with those they know best and within their immediate spheres of influence, they begin the work to remove the vocabulary that silos opponents and degrades political rivals: pejoratives, straw-men arguments, and titles that dehumanize them to a level where their murder is deemed just. All bitterness, wrath, and anger must be rooted out, with no unwholesome speech characterizing our interactions. In this truth and conviction from Jesus, who modeled it perfectly, we must remove malice from us and forgive because we have been forgiven (Eph. 4:22-32).

5. Prayer and Scripture

“Our prayers should be for: political courage for those who make courage necessary, to vote, and leaders that set a different example and hold people accountable and responsible,” said CCPL’s Wear. For the groups around us, including ourselves, there is value in seeking greater standards. To pray with and for another person alters our relationship to that person. It turns out we cannot hate those we pray for; prayer has the effect of dissolving contempt and replacing it with benevolence. We may pray for our leaders, the decisions they make, to act justly, to promote peace, and to serve humbly. Prayer for our families—to love patiently, to forgive repeatedly, and to support earnestly. And prayer for ourselves—to sacrifice daily, to share willingly, and to honor joyfully. For those who see no hope for unity, Christians should encourage them with the peace of the Gospel, and challenge them with the work of faith, hope, and love. This is the progress which must be seen and is rarely displayed on the platforms that stir our emotions. “I think about Micah 6:8, the life of Jesus, and the denial of myself and picking up my cross,” said Dr. Cornel West. Micah 6:8 reads: “He has told you, mortal one, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”  In her thoughtful reflection of service, former Chairwoman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, shared a perspective of grace: “We need to see with spiritual eyes, rather than always focusing on winning politically.”

6. Conclusion: Is there a policy or legislative solution to the issue of division that we see?

“I don’t know what law you can pass to make them decent,” said a former Member of Congress who worked in the justice system. “You can’t legislate this,” adds another former Member. Bluntly stated, these thoughts underscore how short legislation comes to reforming the bitterness of the tongue, and the curses of the heart. The inadequacy of the law in relation to governing the temperature of speech paints a sobering portrait of human nature. However, the weight of the responsibility to do good to and honor our neighbor cannot go unstated, regardless of status in the highest perch of leadership or those they serve. A pastor I spoke to reinforced this idea clearly: “No matter the profession, there is no way to excuse yourself from gentleness and kindness.” Going further than the niceties and grandstanding that come to mind when we discuss political courtesy, we must uphold the value, worth, and dignity of our political “enemies” who are fellow humans created in the image of God, honoring them in our policy conclusions and discussions and revering their Creator by how we see them. For Christians, that is a command and one that directly opposes the impulse to repay evil for evil, and insult for insult (1 Peter 3:9).

Our basis for the treatment we show others must strike deeper than unctuous praise or reaching unanimity; this love must be radiant and overflowing for all people, with a commitment to sharing the good news of redemption and hope to come (1 Thess. 3:11-13).  Those we disagree with are not enemies to be destroyed or collateral to fall, but immortal souls destined for splendor or horror, that we should treat, in light of their extraordinary status, with the “charity of real and costly love.”⁵ Disagreement can be frustrating and damaging to our patience and self-regard, but the love we choose to demonstrate is glorifying to the Creator. We must not be known by the whims of rage, but the fruits of peace, gentleness, and kindness (Gal. 5:23).  In the training and taming of our own tongue, we must recognize our personal responsibility to act in love while expecting accountability from the tools that platform our voice. 

Our greatest moments of unity as a country reside in times of observed humanity, when party and grievance are sidelined to connect on matters that weave together our shared dignity, hope, and circumstances. These situations bridge the divide that aggression and malice extend. They are moments of sacrifice and forgiveness in our country, such as with Representative Shirley Chisholm reaching Governor George Wallace in his darkest hour. Chisholm, the first African American woman elected to the House of Representatives, risked losing her seat and supporters in Congress when she visited Wallace at the hospital in 1972, her party rival and an avid segregationist, when he was publicly shot and left paralyzed.⁶ Wallace, once described as “the most dangerous racist in America” by Martin Luther King,⁷ was met with care and compassion in this moment, deeply moved by the encounter. Shirley recalled telling supporters who criticized her visit, “I wouldn’t want this to happen to anybody.” When it was time for her to leave the hospital, she said of Wallace, “he held on to my hands so tightly—he didn’t want to me to go.”⁸

The contempt Governor Wallace reserved for so long was reconciled in the years following this visit. He would go on to seek forgiveness from and apologize to civil rights leaders, renouncing the views that so vehemently devalued men and women created in the image of God.⁹ Three days after George Wallace died in 1998, Representative John Lewis, a trailblazing civil rights leader and Congressman at the time wrote of the “changed man” he met in 1979, who took responsibility for his harm and sought forgiveness and reconciliation: “When I met George Wallace, I had to forgive him, because to do otherwise — to hate him — would only perpetuate the evil system we sought to destroy. George Wallace should be remembered for his capacity to change. And we are better as a nation because of our capacity to forgive and to acknowledge that our political leaders are human and largely a reflection of the social currents in the river of history…I can never forget what George Wallace said and did as Governor, as a national leader and as a political opportunist. But our ability to forgive serves a higher moral purpose in our society. Through genuine repentance and forgiveness, the soul of our nation is redeemed. George Wallace deserves to be remembered for his effort to redeem his soul and in so doing to mend the fabric of American society.”¹⁰ This is an American story of forgiveness and honor remembered today as a portrait of the power of grace.

“The unanimous declaration” America’s founders pleaded in 1776 reverberates through American history, a bold proclamation relevant to all, and pertinent in the year of this country’s two hundred and fiftieth anniversary: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”¹¹The foundation on which this statement is based upon is the standard of the inseparable and inherent value of those around us, and the responsibility of our actions to emulate this conviction.

There is hope that perseveres amid perilous and divided times. The potential for civility and solution to division may lie deeper than civics education, primary structure reforms, and advertising incentives, though these and similar initiatives may contribute to soothing our process. What we wrestle with is a deeper diagnosis of hatred, discord, and rage that has sown deep animosity and contempt for those on the other side of our beliefs. In the tempest of division, we accept thoughts that yield callous disregard for the human in front of us, and substitute that with language that ushers in the most heinous attacks against our fellow neighbors. This is the hostility, dissension, and anger that the Apostle Paul warns about in his letter to the Galatians (Gal. 5:16-21).  The behavior that is antithetical to these impulses is found in the work of love, peace, and self-control, in which there is no law against demonstrating to our fellow man (Gal. 5:22-26).  In this contrast of behavior, it is clear which actions will foster stability, respect, and understanding in our discourse. This conclusion should not just guide the way we speak, but also the policy that flows from this realization.

Abraham Lincoln, 41 days before he was assassinated in 1865, delivered his second inaugural address.¹² He solemnly acknowledged the “wounds of the nation” amid the “mighty scourge of a war” fought over the “wringing of bread from the sweat of other men’s faces.”¹³ His speech illuminated his heart, burdened with the weight of a divided country and the judgements of a just God in response to the offense of slavery. Needless to say, in a bitterly divided time characterized by infighting, there seemed no point to administer “malice toward none with charity for all,” as Lincoln pleads.¹⁴ Regardless, in the same spirit as the Good Samaritan and with an attitude of justice, he admonished listeners to care for those who braved the fight and their families by doing all they can to finish the work of healing the nation. This, he said, “May achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”¹⁵ In the year of the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the nation, we must thoughtfully ask: Will America live up to such a call?

¹ King, Martin Luther, Jr. “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop.” Speech, Memphis, TN, April 3, 1968. American Rhetoric.
² Ibid.
³ Ibid.
⁴ Martin Luther King, Jr., “Loving Your Enemies,” sermon delivered at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery, Alabama, November 17, 1957.
⁵ Lewis,” The Weight of Glory.”
⁶ Shirley Chisholm, interview by Dr. Camille O. Cosby, Excerpts from the National Visionary Leadership Project, May 7, 2002, Archives of Women’s Political Communication, Iowa State University, published March 9, 2017
⁷ Martin Luther King, Jr., interview, a candid conversation with the nobel prize-winning leader of the civil rights movement, January 1965 
⁸ Ibid.
⁹  George Wallace Jr., “Redemption,” Governor George Wallace
¹⁰ John Lewis, “Forgiving George Wallace,” The New York Times, September 16, 1998
¹¹ National Archives and Records Administration, “Declaration of Independence: A Transcription,” last reviewed February 25, 2026
¹² National Park Service, “Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address,” accessed June 1, 2026, National Park Service
¹³ Ibid.
¹⁴ Ibid.
¹⁵ Ibid.