Conviction and Civility
We are both evangelical Christians who believe that our treatment of the poor, weak, and most vulnerable is how a society is best biblically measured. Yet we usually find ourselves at opposite poles politically and often differ with each other. We believe these political differences are normal and even to be expected among citizens expressing their faith in the public arena, for God is neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
In the aftermath of the horrible and senseless shooting in Arizona and some of the troubling responses to it, we, as leaders in the faith community, affirm with one voice our principled commitment to civil discourse in our nation's public life. The President rightly said that no act of incivility can be blamed for the profoundly evil shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the tragic killing and wounding of 19 of her constituents. Nonetheless, we should not lose this moment for moral reflection and renewal. We must re-examine the tone and character of our public debate, because solving the enormous problems we face as a nation will require that we work for a more civil public square.
We live in a world where evil is very real and, in Arizona, we have just witnessed a brutal example of human depravity that has broken our hearts. Yet, at the same time, the nation has been inspired by the heroism of so many ordinary people who rose to that terrible occasion and demonstrated our most noble human virtues. This tragedy reminds us that we always have a choice to appeal to our "better angels" or our worst. We believe that the faith community should lead by example and model the behavior that is informed by our biblical teachings—behavior that also essential to the survival of democracy.
First we affirm the politics of conviction. Conviction is not inconsistent with civility, which is far deeper than political niceness, indifference, or weakness. We recall the example of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who could never be accused of a lack of passion; yet he persisted in the non-violent treatment of his adversaries, hoping to win them over rather than to win over them.
Where moral concerns lie beneath our political debates, we should be firm in conviction yet also open to genuine dialogue (as Dr. King always was), and be "quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry" (James 1:19).
The obligation to show respect for others does not come from a soft sentimentalism but is rooted in the theological truth that we are all created in the image of God. How we speak to each other should reflect the honor and respect we owe each other as fellow human beings.
That means that when we disagree, especially when we strongly disagree, we should have robust debate but not resort to personal attack, falsely impugning others' motives, assaulting their character, questioning their faith, or doubting their patriotism. It also means recognizing in humility that "we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror" (1 Cor. 13:12). In other words, when it comes to policies and politics, we could be wrong.
We must be ever mindful of the language we use and the spirit of our communication. Arrogance and boasting are indeed sins, and violent language can create a poisonous and dangerous public atmosphere. We must take care to not paint our political adversaries as our mortal enemies.
The working of democracy depends upon these virtues of civility. Standing for principle is crucial to moral politics, but demonizing our opponents poisons the public square. Therefore we must strive for both truth and civility. To be able to pursue the common good and to preserve the peaceful transition of political power means a commitment to both moral and civil discourse.
Star Trek Into Darkness
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
Displaying 1–3 of 164 comments
See all comments
Mark S
A couple of books really opened my eyes to what Modern Liberalism has devolved into: "Radical Son" by David Horowitz (a former 60's left-wing radical) and "The Socialist Phenomenon" by Igor Shafarevich, a Solzhenitsyn cohort. Shafarevich's book is one of the most comprehensive compediums of socialist failures throughout history. The book is a little hard to read because of tranlation difficulties, but Shafarevich actually sees the socialist impulse as rooted in a subliminal desire for self-destruction. These books point out that some of the biggest enemies modern society has are: 1)ignorance in general, but of history in particular; 2)apathy and 3)materialism (which can lead to #2).
Dan H
Read Animal Farm, 1984, Brave New World for literary visions of what we see today in politics and religion. Every time I hear the political animals in DC talk, I can't help but think of Huxley's quote: "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD". (Animal Farm)
Roger McKinney
Mark S, Yes, my first experience with theological liberals was when I went to a "Presbyterian" college and took some theology classes in the 1970's. The profs were totally unbelieving liberals, yet the used the same terminology as evangelicals. Terms like salvation, God, Son of God, love, even truth meant the opposite of what evangelicals mean by them. Yet when you call them on the blatant deception they charge you with lacking love and tolerance. Later I studied economics and found the same bag of tricks among socialists. It's no coincidence that theological liberals are flaming socialists, too. Again, they deceive. They say they aren't socialists but liberals or progressives or communitarians or believers in a third way between socialism and capitalism. But their ideas are no different from socialism at all. Of course, they define socialism as what the USSR practiced, but that was an extreme version of socialism. European socialism is the oldest and most common version.