"Why Can't We All Just Get Along?"
That was the cry of Rodney King, the African-American man who was mercilessly beaten on March 3, 1991, by members of the Los Angeles police department. It became a rallying cry for the nation in the midst of hostile race wars. And it’s applicable today, as we find ourselves in very different—but no less contentious—culture wars.
The simple answer is, we are unique people with conflicting passions. But, shouldn’t it be different for followers of Jesus? Shouldn’t those of us who claim to follow the Prince of Peace be able to stand firmly upon our convictions without being offensive, cutting or downright mean?
Historically, there have always been pockets of Christians who give God a bad name—the Crusades, slavery, segregated America. While those are some of the most egregious examples, late-20th century Americans nurtured a new unChristian trend: incivility in public discourse.
Many Christians during this period noticed the widespread breakdown of morality in America and responded with organized political activism. A passion developed among America’s faithful, and with it came vicious public debates on hot-button issues like prayer in schools, the public display of the Ten Commandments, abortion and gay rights. As America polarized, public attacks became commonplace—even among Christians.
This struggle for control of our nation’s rudder—these “culture wars”—has hurt the public perception of Christianity. As recent Barna research shows, most non-believers feel “Christians are prideful and quick to find faults in others.” Today, 70 percent of non-Christians aged 16 to 29 say Christians are “insensitive to others.”
Such perceptions have triggered Christian thinkers from the right and left to wonder if this is the best practice for Christ-followers. Public engagement and personal passion over moral issues is laudable, but we should defend our deeply held convictions logically and lovingly instead of emotionally. We should temper our rhetoric with grace, humility and respect. We must learn to disagree without being disagreeable.
“Continuing the present course of the culture wars spells disaster for the United States and a historic failure to seize the moment and demonstrate to the world the significance of the American experiment,” writes Os Guinness in The Case for Civility.
On his God’s Politics blog, Jim Wallis posted “Rules for Christian Civility,” saying we should “not attack our fellow Christians as Democratic or Republican partisans, but rather expect and respect the practice of putting our faith first … even if we reach different conclusions.” Conservative columnist Peggy Noonan spoke out in her recent book, Patriotic Grace. “What we need most right now, at this moment, is a kind of patriotic grace,” she writes. “A grace that takes the long view, apprehends the moment we’re in, comes up with ways of dealing with it, and eschews the politically cheap and manipulative.”
Political incivility last year prompted Mark DeMoss to launch The Civility Project. DeMoss is the president of the largest Christian PR firm in America and has represented such conservative icons as Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham and Charles Colson. “During the 2008 election, I began noticing some of the ugly things being said about people like Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, much of it by evangelicals,” DeMoss says.
DeMoss’ Civility Project asks people to pledge to be civil in public discourse and behavior, respect others whether or not they agree, and stand against incivility. “I think more people than we realize are clamoring for more respectful debate, especially on politics,” he says. “People are getting turned off to the entire system, Republicans and Democrats.”
DeMoss is careful to point out civility doesn’t mean unity. Americans will never agree on everything. Furthermore, civility doesn’t simply mean being nice. ”There are pragmatic and practical reasons for civility,” he says. “It is virtually impossible to have constructive dialogue or to inform and educate people in an uncivil environment."
Incivility is a cultural problem, and is not localized to the Christian community. From Kanye West’s infamous mic-snatching during Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech at the MTV Video Music Awards, to South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson shouting “you lie” at President Obama in the middle of his address to Congress, to Serena Williams’ expletive-laced rant after a line judge called a foot fault on her during the U.S. Open, it seems we’re no longer concerned about people’s feelings.
But Scripture says our attitudes should mirror Jesus’ as we put others above ourselves. Somehow, I just can’t imagine Jesus at a town hall meeting screaming His lungs out and comparing the president to Hitler.
Rather than getting dragged into the vicious spirit marking today’s public debates, Jesus would express the fruits of a greater Spirit: love, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness and self-control. Rather than letting opposing positions frustrate us, let’s see them as opportunities to live the virtues of our faith. Let’s infuse grace and humility into an uncivil world.
This article first appeared in Relevant Magazine.
Mike D said:
Good words. I find it especially frustrating that I find the need to censor my thoughts and actions because some within the Christian community would not only disagree but would be quick to judge, spite , and even attempt to ostracize me from the faith because of my words.
I look at many of my classmates from my time in junior high and high school and I can recall a sense of anger permeating disagreements and discourse especially among other young men.
Civility is based in common respect, not niceties, but an internal grasp that ones difference in opinion does not equate a difference in worth.
Many in my generation don't have a firm grasp on this idea, which is stunted most, it seems, in situations where people are surrounded only by those who are similar to themselves. A pack mentality does not make for a civil mentality.
Posted: January 11, 2010
Bob Allen said:
Good post, Jonathan. Civility is a much-needed component of all of American society but, as you say, those of us who say that Jesus is Lord and that the Holy Spirit lives in us should be civil. There are times when anger is appropriate and when it is appropriate to act on that anger in a public way (John 2:13ff) but not nearly as many times as our words and actions indicate. Incivility usually results in a hardening of conflicts that might otherwise be resolved -- incivility leads to deafness and blindness.
Posted: January 12, 2010
Rick Cochran said:
An important post - the art of civil discourse has been mostly lost, and we shout sound-bites at each other across the abyss.
Civil discourse is learned by example. The best example I know of, and one which touches on your area of interest, is the way my friend, Dr. Richard A. Baer, taught the course, "Religion, Ethics, and the Environment" at Cornell University. Dr. Baer made his respect for the value of each of his students clear while presenting often controversial material. He taught how to think Christianly about environmental issues, and how to speak Christian thought into today's culture.
The syllabus and audio from most of his lectures is available at no cost at https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/~rab1
Posted: January 12, 2010
Travis Mamone said:
But shouting matches are fun! You end up looking like an idiot, but they're still fun. *sarcasm alert*
Posted: January 12, 2010
Bill Beahan said:
I find it "interesting" that suddenly after 8 years of vicious hateful speech by the left that when the tables are turned and people are pointing out that the new administration is filled with Communists (admitted as in Van Jones) and Communist sympathizers (Anita Dunn admitted admirer of Mao) that those who point out these things are being told to pipe down and be quiet by a newly formed "civility movement". The timing is very interesting. It must just be a coincidence.
Posted: January 12, 2010
Jonathan Merritt said:
Bill,
I think you're illustrating my point.
Jm
Posted: January 12, 2010
Mike said:
Is it just me, or did poor Bill just get tagged as "uncivil"?
DeMoss and Lanny Davis' group looks quite sincere. The statement of what they are not should reassure people of their intentions: They are not:
•A surrender of personal beliefs, convictions or ideology
•A call to limit or police free speech
•A “tolerance” campaign (we can be civil even about things we don’t tolerate or accept)
•A campaign to define or legislate “hate speech” or to seek government involvement in any way
•A call for unity
•A call for an end to partisanship
Of course, even "civility," in the hands of politicians, can get used as a political weapon, which might be the point Bill was getting at. Hence, the Democrats somewhat comical emphasis on "civility" during the outpouring of opposition during the town hall meetings, even as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi engaged in angry verbal attacks on those who disagreed with them. I suppose another example of insincere concern for civility would be to profess concern for civility during one president's tenure and not another. But I don't think that is what is going on here.
We might need a reality check, though. Political anger is nothing new. Every year we hear about "this is the worst mud-slinging ever," etc. A good book to read would be Eric Burns, "Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism." Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Wilson, talk radio and the public's anger seem tame by comparison.
Posted: January 13, 2010
Justin said:
Jonathan, Allow me to play my broken record.
"historically, there have always been pockets of Christians who give God a bad name—the Crusades, slavery, segregated America. While those are some of the most egregious examples, late-20th century Americans nurtured a new unChristian trend: incivility in public discourse... late-20th century Americans nurtured a new unChristian trend: incivility in public discourse."
You have already made my point here, namely that incivility pales in comparison to bigger problems. Worse still, civility is often a way to pretty up a destructive opinion. The southern gentlemen that is well schooled, lettered, worldly and a fantastic dinner guest but nonetheless an ardent and eloquent supporter of slavery vs. the unlettered, fire-breathing anti-slavery activist in a prior century. One is civil, the other not, but so what?
Additionally, what about the communist witch hunting of the 20th century as an example of uncivil political speech? Was that any worse than what is going on today? Whatever you think of the severity of the communist threat in the United States during that era, there are obvious examples of excesses and hysteria.
I don’t think this problem of ‘incivility’ is any worse/better than before, it’s just a matter of proximity bias. I also remain of the opinion that far bigger problems than how people look and express their views, but the content of those views and their consequences. Civility is window dressing.
Posted: January 14, 2010