Learning from the Lived Experience of Polarization with Megan Phelps-Roper
In civic work and in philanthropy work, we talk a lot about the importance of listening to people with lived experiences — or the people closest to the problems we seek to understand and engage through our philanthropy. But where do we turn if we are trying to understand polarization, division, and hate? Who is closest to those issues? What perspectives are we not hearing?
These questions guided us to share in a private roundtable with Megan Phelps-Roper, the granddaughter of Fred Phelps, who founded Westboro Baptist Church. NPR shares: “Growing up as a member of Westboro Baptist Church, Megan Phelps-Roper was taught that God hated gay people. The church, which was founded by Phelps-Roper’s grandfather, Fred Phelps Sr., became infamous for picketing the funerals of U.S. soliders — whose death it believed were a punishment for America’s sins and its tolerance of homosexuality. Phelps-Roper began protesting at funerals when she was 19, though she started picketing at a younger age. ‘We held signs that said “Thank God for dead soldiers.” “Thank God for IEDs.” “God hates you.” she says.”
When Megan began to manage Westboro’s Twitter account, she says she started to have her certitude shaken. She was engaging in dialogue with many of the people her hatred was aimed at, and she says: “They started asking questions and digging into our theology…As they were able to find these contradictions and present them to me, I understood that we could be wrong about something…That was the beginning of the end for me. I had this unshakable faith and it had been shaken.” In 2012, Megan made the decision to leave Westboro, and therein, her family. Importantly, beyond issuing apologies, Megan has now made it her life’s mission to actively support the people and ideas she was taught to despise.
Earlier this year, PACE hosted a series with the Center for Effective Philanthropy to complicate the narrative on bridging and division and asked the question: are we better off divided? The series uncovered deep learnings about what divides Americans and what we might do about it.
But this question — are we better off divided? — still sits with us. And given the ways that faith and religion can divide Americans, it’s one we ask in our Faith In/And Democracy initiative too. But being divided — even on very fundamental issues and beliefs — is a different thing than hate. How do we thoughtfully mark the distinction of when principled (even if vehement) disagreement blurs into hate? We were grateful to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute for opening up an opportunity to partner with them as part of their RISE Summit to explore these questions with Megan.
A small group of PACE Members and participants in our Faith In/And Democracy initiative gathered virtually to watch Megan’s conversation at the RISE Summit, facilitated by Erin Mast of the Lincoln Foundation, which drew out the connections between education and lessons from her life about bridging polarization.
Megan then joined our group live to engage in questions, open up about her experience, and go deeper to complicate the narrative on bridging and division. Here are three things that are sticking with us:
- Megan’s views had little to do with her formal education, and her views began to change when teachers gave her the space for dialogue. Megan made the point that she came from an educated family and that many of her family members had advanced degrees. We often think when someone has views different from ours, they just “don’t know enough” or “don’t have the information” we have. But in reality, Megan said it had little to do with education. In fact, she found that her education only made her hold her beliefs more strongly and learn how to better defend them against opposition or critique. She noted that change started to spark for her when teachers created space for her to ask questions and engage in dialogue.
- The climate for personal change when Megan left Westboro in 2012 is very different from the climate in 2021. Megan issued an apology and explanation when she left Westboro, and she said she was bracing for a hostile and harsh response, going on to say “I thought the best I could hope for was that no one noticed or cared.” Megan described the response she got instead as overwhelmingly forgiving and warm. People showed her kindness and understanding, even though she felt like she didn’t deserve it. That point alone gave me a lot to think about, but then she went on to reflect that she “…got out just in time. I think if I left even a couple years later, I would not have gotten that same response.” There is a lot of discussion about “cancel culture” and the line between accountability and harsh punishment, and in the private conversation she reflected that “people don’t respond to punishment, they respond to connection.” Her reflection left me wondering, when might our well-intentioned approach to accountability inadvertently perpetuate hatred and division? Have we raised the stakes so high that it’s easier for people to stay “in their camp” even if they see a different perspective or want a way to change?
- Humanity is the line between vehemently held disagreement and hatred. A participant in the roundtable discussion asked Megan if she saw a meaningful distinction between disagreeing with someone and actually hating someone, and how to know what falls into which category. Megan asserted: “The distinction is that you can recognize that the other person is still a human being.” She reflected that it’s hard to admit the “callous and cruel” things she did that she could justify because she believed people needed to know “the truth,” but when there was open advocacy of violence, that’s when the line was crossed and humanity was lost. Since listening to Megan, I have been thinking a lot about the ways that we foster and respect humanity in our country. What do we take for granted in that process, and where can we be more intentional?
We thank Megan Phelps-Roper for sharing her time with us, and more importantly, for sharing her lived experience. These are exactly the type of conversations we should grapple with if we are to further complicate the narrative on bridging and division.
