This is one of my question posts. I don't have the answers. I'm hoping you can offer some.
I think that in our world today there is a serious lack of civility. When opinions differ, people tend to be mean about it. If someone does something wrong, we don't point it out quietly -- we make a scene about it. We're not civil enough to each other. And it's not just a "worldly" thing. Go to Christian discussions on the web and you'll find Christians arguing with believers and unbelievers in not-so-kind ways -- belittling, insulting, ridiculing. From Congress to the media to your workplace to your home, I suspect that you've experienced this lack of civility of which I speak. We're not as nice to each other as I would like us to be ... as the Bible would call for us to be. Worse, we embrace it, we defend it, we honor it. It disturbs me.
Still, if I were to argue that we should always be civil to each other, I'd be arguing against Scripture. Elijah walked into Ahab's court and, without civility, told him it wouldn't rain because Elijah had prayed for it not to rain. The prophets were known for being forthright instead of civil. You may try to dismiss what Jesus did to the moneychangers in the Temple as a misunderstanding, but there is no mistaking how He spoke to the Pharisees. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" (And if you understood the Jewish "woe", you'd see it wasn't kind.) Repeatedly He warned them that they were worse than the worst in terms that were not ... civil. When Peter addressed the Jews with the Gospel, he didn't soft pedal it. He told them that they crucified the Messiah. And when Paul confronted Peter's hypocrisy, he did it in public and without civility.
Clearly, then, there are times when civility is not called for. I am quite sure that most of the time we need to be more kind to each other, but there are times when rough, forthright talk is required to make a point. And that is my question. Clearly I think it is not all the times I've seen it done in person and on the Internet. Still, there are times. When? Under what circumstances are we called upon to be painfully honest instead of trying to word things kindly? When is it necessary to be uncivil? What determines those moments? I'd like to know.
8 comments:
I'd suggest one point is when lives are being lost and harmed, when matters of oppression, slavery, human rights violations, torture, killing are being addressed. THAT is a time for strong action.
Also, Jesus, in his example, was gracious and loving towards "sinners" but saved his ire almost exclusively for religious hypocrites. That ought to be a telling sign giving those of us who are religious pause.
Just some thoughts.
I agree with you, most of the time, we ought to be civil.
It might be informative to review the harsh (uncivil?) rebukes found in the Bible, you think?
Off the top of my head, I believe that Jesus' harsh rebukes were almost all for the religious, mostly the scribes, pharisees and saducees, but also for some of his own disciples (Peter, especially). Jesus rebuked the pharisees and the saducees frequently. In Matthew 23, Jesus had "seven woes..."
* Woe to you scribes and pharisees - hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses...
* Woe to you scribes and pharisees - hypocrites! Because you shut the Kingdom of Heaven against people...
Woe to you scribes and pharisees - hypocrites! For you travelwide to make one convert, who then becomes just as bad as they were...
* Woe to you, Blind guides! who say if you swear by the temple it is nothing, but if you swear by the GOLD in the temple, that is binding. You blind fools!
* Woe to you scribes and pharisees - hypocrites! For you tithe to the least of your belongings but fail to deal with the weightier matters of justice, mercy and faith...
* Woe to you scribes and pharisees - hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup but inside are dirty...
* Woe to you scribes and pharisees - hypocrites! For building shrines to dead prophets whom you or your fathers ignored while they were here - they honored the people but failed to honor the teachings of justice, mercy and love...
In Matthew 12, Jesus rebukes the pharisees - they had been condemning the good works of Jesus, calling them evil - saying "YOu brood of vipers! how can you say good things when you are evil? For from the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks. A GOOD person brings forth good out of a store of goodness, but an evil person brings forth evil... by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." [Interesting aside, Jesus had no problem seeing some people as "good..."]
In Matthew 15, the pharisees condemn Jesus' for breaking their religious rules and traditions. Jesus responds saying...
Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.'"
Condemning them for worshiping God in form, but holding to human traditions rather than concepts of mercy and justice.
In Matthew 16, Jesus rebukes the pharisees for asking for a sign...
An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah.
Jesus then goes on to warn the disciples not to be like the pharisees and sadducees. In the same chapter, he rebukes Peter for suggesting that Jesus would not have to suffer ("Get behind me Satan!" - ouch.)
Of course, in Matthew 21, Jesus overturns the tables of the businessmen who were profiteering off the poor (and others) in the temple, turning it into a "den of thieves!"
In Luke 6, Jesus had "four woes:" he said, "Woe to you..." to the rich, those who weren't hungry (ie, also the rich), to those "who laugh now," to those who are spoken well of... all of these, in context, seem to be addressing the well-to-do.
But woe to you who are rich... But woe to you who are filled now... Woe to you who laugh now... Woe to you when all speak well of you, for their ancestors treated the false prophets in this way.
In many of his parables, Jesus had sort of hidden (or sometimes not-so-hidden) rebukes for their religious and powerful. In the story of the sheep and the goats, Jesus rebukes the religious who did not do works of mercy and justice by saying that they did not get into the Kingdom of God, but were cast aside in eternal torment.
In all of these rebukes (except for Peter's), we see Jesus rebuking the religious for their bad traditions, for their greed, for their following rules of men but failing to heed God's desire for Mercy, not sacrifice, for failing to heed God's call to work towards justice and mercy. Jesus also rebukes the rich and well-to-do.
Towards the "worst of sinners" - the prostitutes, the tax collectors, etc - Jesus mostly had words of compassion, "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more...;" it seems to me he took a much softer stance towards their sin than the sins of greed and hypocrisy.
Seems to me. Thoughts?
I've listed Jesus' instances of what might be called un-civil remarks. If we look to the Old Testament, I'd think we'd find a similar pattern. Just off the top of my head, when it comes to instances of incivility, the prophets are the ones who come to mind (although the Psalmists also were at times quite harsh in their comments about their enemies...).
The unkind comments that the prophets made seem to me to fall into two broad categories - condemning nations/individuals because of worshiping/chasing after false gods and the failure to look after the needs of the poor, foreign, marginalized and oppressed.
This latter grouping of uncivil remarks towards those who'd oppress the poor and marginalized seems to be the thread that is continued in the NT, at least to me.
I think you are mistaking incivility for frank honesty. Clearly, Jesus was speaking to those who shared at least the text, if not the spirit of his beliefs. It would therefore be correct for him to correct those who were hypocrites and otherwise dishonest with some in-your-face honesty within that context.
On the other hand, where people differ in realms such as politics or different religions, even the text of the beliefs between the parties differs wildly. It would be difficult to adequately understand that different belief based on a few moments of conversation, so one should be wary of trying to convince the opposing party with invective, as you might make an ass of himself instead.
In any case, I think it is always appropriate to point out hypocrisy and outright dishonesty with the utmost disdain possible, but one should never resort to mudslinging to accomplish it. Otherwise, how could you be contributing to the improvement of the debate? To say you are any better than your opponent in this situation would be - well, hypocrisy.
Deriamis: "I think you are mistaking incivility for frank honesty."
No, I don't think so. I believe, for instance, that we are to exhort, reprove, correct (frank honesty). I believe we are to "speak the truth in love" (frank honesty). I believe that we are to always be prepared to make a defense for the faith, but with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). And I have seen people do all of this (frank honesty) without the incivility of which I speak.
I'll be honest. I'm not always civil in my discussions with opponents. I think I can say that I begin in a civil manner, but then over the course of a discussion might become less so, but ususally depending on the situation and with whom I'm conversing. I have one visitor to my blog who hits the floor running as an arrogant, condescending ass and at this point my civility stays in its holster when he shows up.
I suppose that I have no real excuse, that my reactions are totally under my control unless I abdicate that self-control. But more often than not, any incivility on my part is a result of a conscious decision to no longer honor what I perceive to be bad ideas and positions with total civility if I feel being civil stifles my ability to make my case. It is difficult to properly articulate a position if certain words can't be used for fear of offending someone. In that, it seems uncivil to restrict me so, as if assuming that I speak with ill will, bad intention or a spirit of blatant nastiness. If truth offends, the problem lies in the offended.
I also think a lot of incivility is simply a matter of the limitations of the medium. Even using italicized or boldface type, along with quotation marks and other punctuation, it's not the same as speaking face to face. Much seems uncivil when not meant to be.
I suspect, Marshall, that I'm similar, although I believe I have a fairly "long fuse". I also suspect that there is a serious shortcoming in this medium, as you indicated.
The truth is that I'm almost always smiling when I respond to people. Those who know me face to face know that prolonged seriousness is painful to me. I see humor in almost everything. As such, I'm generally not uncivil when I write, even though I'm quite sure that it appears to some that I am. I mean it as somewhat humorous and without the visual cues and such, it just doesn't make it across.
I am, in general, a very friendly conversationalist, even with people who disagree with me. That's fine. But I do react negatively to the arrogant or angry. Come at me with your best arguments in a civil way, and I will remain civil for a long time. Come at me with arrogance and ire, and I'll likely feed it back.
Of course, this post is asking the question because I'm not sure I'm what I ought to be when it comes to civility.
Post a Comment