Years ago someone defined repartee as, 'I say to you, "You're a bloody idiot", and you say back to me, "No, you're the bloody idiot".' It was then intended as a joke. Today it seems an accurate description of much public exchange, which is adversarial, leaves no room for qualification by either party, and condemns anyone who does not endorse right-minded opinion.
In any discussion of economics, for example, participants will soon ignore how the economy actually works and label each other as neo-liberals or Marxists, elitists or popularists. Those who take different positions on gay marriage or abortion soon describe one another as inspired by authoritarian, patriarchal religious views, eco-feminism or radical gender theory. They condemn one another as beyond the pale
This is to be seen most spectacularly in the way in which those attracted to the cause of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton speak of their antagonists. Differences lead friends to break relationships.
The challenge that faces us in this environment is how to be true to our convictions and relationships without being drawn either by our natural allies or foes into partisanship. When self-criticism or empathy with our opponents are denounced as signs of half-heartedness, compromise and wishy washy views, it is tempting to be co-opted into the True Believers' team or to smile and remain silent.
A way forward may be found in an unlikely history. Many early Christian texts demanded of believers a firm commitment of mind and heart and a firm rejection of other religions. Christians must believe in God and reject idols, must worship Christ and not the emperor, can find salvation only within the church and not within breakaway groups. Those in the ark will be saved; those outside it will drown.
In such an imaginative world the great enemies are an intellectual waywardness that mixes the Gospel with elements drawn from other religious and philosophical systems, and a moral weakness that adjusts the demands of faith to the necessities of preserving life, possessions and public reputation. Against such contamination stood prophets who insisted on what alone mattered, and martyrs who resisted compromise where faith was at stake.
We might have expected Christians to adopt an adversarial vision in which their insistence on integrity led them to shun, condemn and exclude people whose certainty and courage did not measure up. They would then have become ever more sectarian in faith and ever more intolerant of compromise.
In practice, however, Christians consistently