Team Coriantumr or Team Shiz

The Destruction of a Civilization

The Jaredite civilization met its tragic end in a cataclysmic civil war, where neutrality was not an option—every individual was compelled to align with one faction or face death. Yet, even allegiance proved futile, as the conflict devoured all sides. The ultimatum was stark: pledge loyalty to Coriantumr or to Shiz.

Both Coriantumr and Shiz were ambitious architects of empire, but their visions were self-serving, not divine. They rejected the pursuit of a higher kingdom, such as one rooted in spiritual or communal good, in favor of personal dominion. Drawing from ancient traditions of clandestine oaths and secret societies, Jaredite rulers had mastered the art of forging alliances to dismantle and seize rival thrones, perpetuating cycles of betrayal and conquest.

Faced with such a divide, which banner would you raise? Would you rally behind Team Coriantumr or Team Shiz?

Political Tribalism

In our contemporary world, are we truly so removed from this ancient folly? Do we not engage in metaphorical battles—fierce debates, social media skirmishes, and electoral wars—to champion our preferred political tribes?
Which faction claims your devotion? Are you aligned with the Democrats, the Republicans, or perhaps another ideological camp?
For many, political discourse has become a minefield of defensiveness. Critiques of one's chosen "team" ignite outrage, as if personal identity is under siege. This tribal fervor blinds us to nuance, fosters echo chambers, and echoes the Jaredites' downfall: prioritizing loyalty over truth, team success over coming together, and self-interest over the greater good.
To break this cycle, we must recognize that true progress lies not in unyielding allegiance to human constructs, but in seeking principles that transcend group lines—justice, empathy, and shared humanity.

Tribalism 101:

Tribalism is the deep, instinctive loyalty humans feel toward their own groups—whether defined by family, ethnicity, nationality, religion, politics, ideology, culture, or shared values—serving as a modern echo of our ancient need to belong to a "tribe." This powerful drive creates strong in-group bonds while often generating suspicion, prejudice, or outright hostility toward out-groups, shaping collective identity through shared symbols, rituals, narratives, and emotional experiences. While it can inspire profound cooperation and sacrifice, it frequently leads to irrational biases, distorted perceptions, or harmful consequences like defending group wrongdoing over justice or truth.
Key Aspects
Innate Human Behavior — Tribalism draws on our evolutionary heritage, where small groups relied on tight-knit loyalty for survival in a world of scarce resources and rival coalitions. It provides a "safe" modern outlet for the primal us-vs-them instinct, helping individuals navigate social threats even in large, complex societies.
Identity & Belonging — People align with a group and adopt its markers—symbols (flags, clothing, slogans), rituals (gatherings, ceremonies, shared language), and values—to feel part of something larger than themselves. This fulfills a core psychological need for connection, offering purpose and a sense of self while balancing the desire to fit in with the urge to stand out as part of a meaningful collective.
Emotional Investment — Group successes feel deeply personal ("We did it!"), forging intense, non-familial bonds and releasing rewarding neurochemical responses. Failures or threats to the group can trigger personal distress, influencing mood, motivation, and even physical well-being, as the brain treats group outcomes as extensions of individual survival.
Positive Manifestations — At its best, tribalism drives extraordinary cooperation, altruism, and community strength—think large-scale charity drives, mutual aid in crises, cultural preservation, scientific collaborations within disciplines, or social movements that advance justice and collective welfare through shared purpose and solidarity.
Negative Manifestations — It can foster callousness toward outsiders, blind loyalty that excuses or conceals group misconduct, dehumanization of rivals, prejudice, discrimination, intergroup conflict, or violence. People may prioritize group reputation over facts, overlook harm done by "one of us," or defend abusers within the group over victims from outside it.

Covenant Christian Tribalism

The title "Covenant Christian Tribalism" immediately strikes one as contradictory—an oxymoron. How can those who have entered into a sacred covenant with God and one another through Christ possibly descend into the kind of factionalism and blind loyalty that tribalism represents?
Yet recent events within our community have revealed precisely this tension, as conversations fracture along lines of allegiance, suspicion, and defensiveness.
A recent controversy—centered on a women's council, questions of fairness in addressing an accusation, and broader debates over guilt, protection, trust, and justice—has exposed how quickly we can slide into choosing sides. 
Discussions devolve into "he said, she said" arguments, contests to prove which individual, group, or process was right and which was wrong. Some insist the council acted justly to safeguard the vulnerable and that its members deserve unwavering trust. Others question whether due process was honored, whether the accused received a fair hearing, or whether guilt (if present) justifies overlooking procedural concerns. In the heat of these exchanges, people align with one group or another, often treating the opposing view not merely as mistaken but as disloyal or even threatening.
This pattern mirrors classic tribalism: once a "team" is chosen, members tend to minimize or excuse flaws within their own side while magnifying those on the other. Friendships strain or shatter as motives are questioned—Is that person protecting their side at all costs? Are they undermining accountability out of personal bias? Trust erodes, and what should be a body united in covenant becomes divided into camps wary of one another.
At a recent women's conference, Clarice Scott offered a poignant prayer that cut through the noise. She acknowledged that we are all in the wrong—not necessarily in the specifics of the dispute itself, but in the deeper sin of choosing sides at all. By framing the conflict in terms of competing teams, we betray the very essence of the Covenant Christian identity. Covenant Christians are called to something higher: a unity rooted in Christ, where loyalty is first to truth, mercy, justice, and one another as members of the same body. Tribal instincts may be human, but they are not sanctified.

To rise above this, we need deliberate practices:

• Examine our own hearts — Am I defending a person, process, or institution primarily because it aligns with "my side," or because it aligns with principles of fairness, repentance, and truth?
• Listen charitably — Seek to understand the concerns of those who see the matter differently, assuming good faith rather than malice.
• Prioritize reconciliation — Pursue dialogue that heals rather than debate that entrenches division.
• Re-center on the gospel — Our ultimate allegiance is not to any faction, leader, or outcome, but to the King who reconciles enemies and calls us to love one another as He has loved us (John 13:34–35).

The prayer's insight remains timely: we err when we allow tribal loyalties to eclipse overrall group unity and love. May we repent of this tendency, seek the Spirit's help to transcend it, and model for a watching world what true unity in Christ looks like—not uniformity of opinion, but unbreakable fellowship amid honest disagreement. In doing so, we honor the covenant we profess and avoid the fractures that have undone other communities.
Related Links:

https://www.deseret.com/education/2026/01/24/unlikely-friends-robert-george-cornel-west-offer-advice-on-fruitful-conversations-disagreement/
https://atbmblog.blogspot.com/2026/01/with-apologies-to-emo-phillips.html