Further thoughts on civility

A week ago, I wrote Community demands civility. Yesterday (September 29, 2009), the New York Times published an op-ed piece by columnist Thomas Friedman entitled, “Where Did ‘We’ Go?” Friedman identifies a catalogue of factors that he believes are responsible for the demise of civility in American politics: “the wild excess of money in politics; the gerrymandering of political districts, making them permanently Republican or Democratic and erasing the political middle; a 24/7 cable news cycle that makes all politics a daily battle of tactics that overwhelm strategic thinking; and a blogosphere that at its best enriches our debates, adding new checks on the establishment, and at its worst coarsens our debates to a whole new level, giving a new power to anonymous slanderers to send lies around the world. Finally, on top of it all, we now have a permanent presidential campaign that encourages all partisanship, all the time among our leading politicians.” In sum, Friedman contends that these factors have diminished if not destroyed a widespread for the national interest that transcends individual interest.

I agree with his assessment of the national condition. What is the Church doing about this problem? What should the Church do about this problem?

Answering the first question is relatively easy. The Church, as a whole, does little to reverse the general direction of political debate and sentiment in this country. Too often, religious groups are stridently apolitical or stridently subscribe to a particular partisan view. The former tacitly condones the demise of civility while the latter actively contributes to that demise.

The second question, what should the Church do, demands more careful reflection. The answer begins with the cultivation of genuine community that transcends political differences. Applied ethics often leads one into taking political stances. However, the genuine humility demanded of those on the Christian journey requires acknowledging that no matter how strongly one may hold a particular position, the possibility of error exists. Consequently, the community should always have room for active dissent. Furthermore, God calls those on the Christian journey to respect the dignity and worth of every human being. This means giving equal and ungrudging respect to those with whom one agrees and those with whom one disagrees. Common bonds of respect, and hopefully love, unite the community we build, not an insistence upon uniformity of belief, whether that belief is theological, ethical, or political. Intolerance, quite simply, has no place within Christian community.

Overall, the Church has performed abysmally at this task. Bill Clinton routinely suffered vilification by Christian communities for his personal behavior; few Christians stood or voiced support for him as a person of faith. George W. Bush routinely suffered vilification by other Christian communities for his domestic and foreign policies; few Christians stood or voiced support for him as a person of faith. I strongly disagreed with most of Bush’s policies. I am always highly suspect of decision making premised upon hearing God speak, e.g., the type of decision-making that led to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. However, George W. Bush – however wrong he may have been – was not an evil person bent on destroying the United States. I truly believe that he did what he thought was right. Respect for his dignity and worth as a person demands nothing less. My disagreements do not cause me to pass judgment on him as a person.

This week I saw a bumper sticker on a vehicle in the John Locke Foundation parking lot in Raleigh: “Don’t blame me. You voted for Obama.” I wanted to change the bumper sticker, but refrained out of civility, so that it would read: “Please accept my thanks. You voted for Obama.”

Dissent is essential for healthy community. Dissent without civility destroys community. Civilization without community is impossible. Therefore, the Church, in addition to advocating other elements of its theological and ethical agenda, must consistently, actively, and assertively advocate for community.