I was grieved this week. Not only because children were being separated from their parents as a result of the new “zero-tolerance” policy at the U.S.-Mexico border—something that has been opposed by major evangelical organizations for weeks, but because I saw relationships severed due to the emotional and ugly rhetoric on both sides.

We so easily villainize each other and Christians are some of the worst offenders. It seems that although Jesus calls us to be peace-makers, we’re often more interested in winning arguments. It’s not that principled persuasion is a bad thing; it’s how it’s packaged—often in ugly, belittling ways. It’s that one-upmanship and always having to have the last word. And, although I don’t talk about it often, I agree that narcissistic political leaders that play fast and loose with the truth and are quick to disparage don’t help.

The late Richard John Neuhaus, a prominent Christian cleric (first as a Evangelical Lutheran pastor and later as a Roman Catholic priest) and writer, served us well with this definition of civility:

“Civility, which I take to be a strong virtue and not simply wimpishness, requires that we not try to cram our beliefs down anybody’s throats, whether we be Christian or non-Christian or even anti-Christian.  But that we all try to articulate as persuasively as we can, what it is that we believe, of course in hope that others will be persuaded.”

Let’s think about Neuhaus’ definition related to three areas:

• Politics. “President Theodore Roosevelt adopted as his pet proverb, ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick.’ By that he meant that if the U.S. had a strong military or foreign policy, it could work its will among the nations of the world. In 1901, Roosevelt elaborated on his philosophy: ‘If a man continually blusters…a big stick will not save him from trouble; and neither will speaking softly avail, if in back of the softness there does not lie strength, power.’

When Jesus said, ‘Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth,” he was not speaking of armies and foreign policy, but some principles are the same. The meek Christian does not need to bluster, as if his or her own self-confidence could win the day. Whether we’re contesting a point, responding to criticism, or speaking of the hope within, we can do so in meekness, with quiet confidence. For in ‘back of the softness,’ within us, lies the strength and power of God.”[1]

• Abortion. Neuhaus talks about persuasion but persuasion isn’t always what’s needed. I deal with this all the time in trying to engage large mega-churches with the ministry resource I promote, Making Life Disciples (MLD). These churches often want an apologetics course; that is, something that helps their congregants win arguments with pro-choice people. But MLD isn’t an apologetics course; it’s about relational care. It’s the kind of training that’s focused more on leading with love and emotional intelligence, rather than apologetic arguments and here’s why: When it comes to abortion-vulnerable and abortion-minded men and women, apologetics is usually not what’s needed; compassion, hope, and help is.
• “Scientific” creationism vs. evolution. These two quotes by Ron Osborn address both sides of the aisle:
  • “One of the reasons I became convinced that there is something unhealthy gnawing at the heart of biblical literalism on Genesis and “scientific creationism” is because of the toxic speech habits, blatant power maneuvers (wrapped in exalted religious rhetoric) and tactics of misrepresentation and incrimination I have witnessed in some of the movements most vocal defenders in my own tradition. Those who manifest such uncharitable spirits, I concluded early on in my wrestling with questions of faith and science, are probably not the divinely appointed guardians of truth.”[2]
  • “At the same time, I have been equally dismayed by the attitudes evinced [evidenced] by some individuals on the other side of the debate on creation and evolution—by how quickly some are prepared to write off people of sincere faith who are at different places in their intellectual and spiritual journeys, by how little pastoral sensitivity they show in introducing unsettling ideas to others, and by how often their sense of scientific certainty and mastery of technical knowledge assumes the character of its own ersatz [inferior] religion. Some of these individuals, I have concluded have indeed broken faith with their Christian communities, though not for reasons as facile [overly simplistic] as whether or not they affirm literalistic dogmas.”[3]

As I read this last paragraph especially, I’m convicted. Often, I’ve written off people of sincere faith who were at different places in their intellectual and spiritual journeys, and often I’ve shown little pastoral sensitivity in introducing unsettling ideas. How about you? Which section or quote above most applies?

Friends, civility is not just an art, it’s a virtue. May God help us repent of our toxic speech habits. May he give us kindness and sensitivity to the fears and concerns of others. May he give us humility and quiet confidence in his strength and power. May he give us a greater desire to be a conduit of his grace and peace than to win an argument or have the last word.

[1] I got this from a Preaching Today online sermon illustration database some years ago.

[2] Dennis R. Venema and Scott McKnight, Adam and the Genome (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2017), 101.

[3] Ibid.