Video
Twitter
RSS Feed
Seven Suggestions for Christians in the Public Square
We have entered what columnist Kathleen Parker calls "a political era of uninhibited belligerence," that is finding expression in sermons, at town hall meetings, on radio talk shows, even on the floor of Congress -- especially when we differ. Why are people so angry and belligerent, and so willing to express their anger publicly? Why has our civil discourse become so uncivil? What does this public anger say about our private faith? What should we do about it?
Rhetoric detached from morality harms people and societies.
Political talk has had an ugly side, but things are getting worse. Hateful talk is no longer underground, but practiced openly and shamelessly. Mainstream politicians are more willing to tolerate association with fringe rhetoric.
Why is this so?
Is There a Breakdown in Shared Ethics?
It is hard to talk to someone when you have nothing in common.
Some research suggests that Americans share many common values, but this research obscures differences in how we prioritize values when goods come into conflict. For example, most American value personal liberty, but when it comes to health care many Americans place a lower priority on this than on a strong social safety net. Those that make the opposite choice, valuing liberty over services, seem cruel to the other camp.
They agree on the values, but have fundamental differences on how to apply them.
Persistent and pervasive ethical differences can begin to strain the republic's politics by discouraging compromise. When the gap between our assumptions and our opponents grows too large, our opponents become not just wrong, but perverse or wicked. Nobody hastens to compromise with the immoral!
The results are bad when pressed to an extreme. Some Americans will not even listen to a fair exposition of moral views with which they disagree, even if the majority of the nation believes them.
American Christians should not behave this way. Jesus called us to love our enemies in a nation ruled by cruel Caesars. Any religion that can love Tiberius can surely find room to love Obama or Gingrich.
Seven Suggestions for Political Discourse
Living in a republic means making political decisions. From Socrates to Reagan, wise political heads have given good advice on how to conduct oneself in public life. I don't always live up to their wisdom, but these ideas are worthy goals.
Be slow to speak.
The new media environment lends itself to haste. We size up a candidate or a policy in the blink of an eye and few encourage us to reevaluate the situation. "Blinking" may sometimes be necessary in a crisis, but it is a horrific way to form our general principles and opinions.
Strong opinions encourage authentic dialogue.
One bad reaction to a toxic political environment is to develop mushy and "inoffensive" public opinions, but it is hard to talk to people who will not say what they really think. We should argue hard for our ideas in the public square and see how things turn out.
Arguing forcefully helps minority opinions get a hearing. If we relegate ourselves to safe discourse, the tendency is to repeat what the present cultural power brokers accept with small variations.
Attacking ideas is different than attacking people.
Ideas have no feelings, but people do. Hurtful talk about actual people, and the President and Glenn Beck are real people, ought to be merited by their actual behavior. We must weigh harm done to their persons against harm they are doing. While it ought to be legal to call the President the "Antichrist," nobody should do it without overwhelming proof.
An actual Hitler or Stalin (in the modern context one thinks North Korea's Dear Leader) is a worthy target for pointed personal barbs, but the local zoning board member rarely is. American politicians are often wrong, but it is hard to think of any that merit comparison to the Taliban or to the present Chinese oligarchs.
Those are real bad guys.
Authenticity is useful, but posturing is not.
Few things are more irritating than reading a piece that seems written to get the writer "good-guy" points with the establishment in his or her own group. This happens on both the left and right and is a temptation for all of us. Instead of saying what we think, we write to curry favor with our betters in hopes of praise or reward.
Anti-intellectualism prevents discussion.
The United States is not a pure democracy for the very good reason that a majority of the people can be and often are wrong. Democracy killed Socrates and mob rule in France killed liberty during the French Revolution.
Experts are not always right, but they usually are. Christians have always understood that a calling to leadership most often requires intense training and hard work. We are people of the Book and thus long for literate leaders as well. An excellent model was an Englishman whose work helped shape American culture: John Wesley.
The great evangelist and shaper of English culture John Wesley was at home in the pulpits of Oxford and on the streets. He was well educated and could argue well, but also knew how to move men's hearts. There is no anti-intellectualism to be found in Wesley and he was no blind admirer of popular trends.
The recent trend to worship the whims of the mob, even the Christian mob, smacks more of Robespierre than Wesley.
Intellectualism prevents authentic discussion.
Just as bad is the posture that feigns intellectual interest, but never really listens to opponents.
President Obama has done a good job talking about finding common ground, but he has sometimes communicated a sneering attitude towards those who persist in disagreeing with him. He is not alone in this attitude as many in the cultural elite confuse their own jargon with knowledge and professional skills with wisdom.
It is easy to confuse the trappings of intellectuals with being an intellectual. Mainstream media often is more interested in someone sounding "smart" than in his or her actual accomplishments. Especially if accent or ethnicity does not fit stereotypes of intellectual achievement the candidate will face a higher barrier to acceptance. Having the "right opinions" also allows for a greater pass from the media in this area. A medical doctor like Tom Coburn is not given the same presumption of intellectual acumen as people with "better" opinions.
Sometimes commentators confuse intellectual achievements with wisdom. University or college education is valuable, but it is not the only way to learn important truths. In particular there is no evidence that most American college education by itself is making us wiser. Wisdom can exist in many different types of people and can be gained from many different kinds of experience.
Resentment of this intellectualism breeds more anti-intellectualism that in turn breeds more intellectualism. Real dialogue vanishes.
Be charitable in your assumptions about your opponent.
This last really sums up all the rest. It can be summed up in the wisdom of Jesus Christ that we should do to others what we wish they would do to us. Never was this advice more important for American Christians who are involved in politics.
By
John Mark Reynolds
|
September 18, 2009; 2:56 PM ET
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: The Problem is Me |
Next: Faith-Based Aid Is Unconstitutional, Period
Posted by: coloradodog | September 23, 2009 8:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Everyone except bigots, racists, homophobes, xenophobes, etc., does deserve basic courtesy.
Basic courtesy, however, does not work with raging bulls. And I have yet to see Christian America turn the other cheek. What I see them doing is slapping a whole lot of other countries good and hard, let alone their own minorities.
"Christianity is the religion of love"--An alibi. What is true is that the truth will set you free, but you must face it first.
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 23, 2009 1:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"People do not owe their Congressman anything. These people work for us... If they, the elected, are worthy of a civil discourse then they will get it."
posted by mdsinc
I'm sorry, mdsinc, but you missed the point. We are all "worthy of civil discourse. They may work for us, are you rude to your employees? Your doctor? Your electrician? Your lawyer?
Everyone deserves basic courtesy. Everyone. People you disagree with. People you dislike. People you distrust. People don't have to earn basic courtesy. It's basic.
As to your "they work for us" point, perhaps you don't understand how a representative democracy works? You don't give your representatives "marching orders" that they carry out. You vote for the representatives that you feel will do the best job, and then they do their best job, as they see it. If you are displeased, you can vote them out when their term is up.
The sad fact is, many of us out here in the general public aren't as informed as we could be. We also have our share of prejudices, we can be unfair, hypocritical and childish. Had we, for instance, put the voting or civil rights acts up to a public vote, they almost certainly would have failed. Yet few people now would regard them as a mistake.
That's one of the reasons the founders settled on a representative democracy. It gives the people a powerful voice, while not allowing for a "tyranny of the majority" that direct democracy can devolve into. And I firmly believe they would be saddened with the idea that some people, by virtue of a career in public service aren't entitled to basic courtesy and respect.
Disagree and dissent all you want. Get your ideas into the marketplace. But, if you can't do it within the bounds of basic civility, you have a problem.
Posted by: gimpi | September 22, 2009 2:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Oh do tell us about "a sneering attitude" or maybe instead we can listen to five minutes of Limbaugh and Beck or watch RNC Fox New - all sneering, all the time
Posted by: coloradodog | September 22, 2009 7:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi JMR I enjoyed reading your words ..possibly because i agreed with most of them lol this may be the case with most human beings i guess. I did see one think, or thing, that could or may not be incorrect at times ..in the idea of talking less often would help maybe make the person more focused and concise. In my personal experience its when people think that if they rarely do speak or get the opportunity to speak they put more... emphasis on making sure what they have to say gets heard. I know in the short run more people talking might be different. It may well be the correct way to do things.There is also the great point you made of people not taking the opportunity or always knowing how to interact with people they do not know but suspect they have at least some things in common. i think it may be stepping out of the comfort zone and i a big proponent of the the scientific method actually observing and listening to others to collect data to make conclusions. silly me i probably have this wrong since i'm a dyslexic artist trained by a family of phd scientists lol. thye thought i was from outer space or something and were always trying 2 fix me and make me into a mathematics or scientist which i did have some real skills but not a calling 4.. i study neurobiology with an emphasis on PTSD and the immune system as a hobby. we all found out later in life i was born to be an artist and i thought and acted different from them and when i imagined and play acted and drew things its was ok but it was most likely okay since God made me this way.. if you are able to totally discount the alien baby thing scientifically ov coarse ;-)
Posted by: artistkvip1 | September 21, 2009 10:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Oy!
Such a lot of rules. Congress has rules as well. It's called the Constitution.
See, where we the citizens are not bound by an oath of office and are not privy to the clubby atmosphere of the Senate cloak Room, the elected people who pay little attention to those that elected them are bound by LAW to act in our best intrerest.
When they do not act in our best interest, when they ignore the LAW, then it is written into the Constitution that We The People have a RIGHT to get their attention. One way or another.
Many people who show up at Town Hall Meetings have already written and called their representative and received a form letter or vague put off. SO when people go to these feeble attempts at letting the common man be heard, it is understandable that people get a little irate at being treated like a child even if they are acting like one.
An example would be James Moran of VA. During the discussion on the bailout (2008) he said he got two types of phone calls - 50% said NO, the other 50% said HE11 NO! Did it make a difference. NO, he voted for the bailout anyway.
People do not owe their Congressman anything. These people work for us. There is no royalty in America even though some people would like to see us return to a time where power is shared between a monarch and the church and the people are property of one or the other. No thanks. Too many people died to give us the freedom to address our elected officals in a manner that they deserve. If they, the elected, are worthy of a civil discourse then they will get it.
Posted by: mdsinc | September 21, 2009 2:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I was really enjoying this post but at the end I felt as if you left some of the more important stuff out; like you were pulling your punches.
It felt like "Few things are more irritating than reading a piece that seems written to get the writer "good-guy" points with the establishment in his or her own group."
You really have a lot to say about this charged climate and the Christians response--which you really did not spell out clearly, as if you were afraid of offending a particular group of Christians--if it was Christians you were addressing, but you somehow did not quite get there.
Posted by: MGT2 | September 21, 2009 2:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Great opinion. Doubt the some of the leftists on this forum will listen, those on the far right too.
They should read this article over and over and get over themselves.
Posted by: Counterww | September 20, 2009 5:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
One need only look at the picture of Wilson to see his Republican colleagues with smirks and smugness. No surprise here-it as staged.