Recently, I read an article featuring a pastor with whom I had strong disagreements. The more I read, the less I liked -- and it was a long article. That pastor made statements about the nature of the Gospel and society to which I took personal offense. Unfortunately, this happened right before I went to bed and I spent an hour or so awake and fuming, wondering how this person could read the same scriptures and see such a different Jesus than the one I call Lord. The more I thought, the more I began to view a fellow Christian, whom I had never met and to whose beliefs I had been introduced third hand, as "the enemy." Like cement carelessly poured on a sidewalk, my thoughts hardened my heart into a stumbling block for my faith. Of course, my reaction isn't particularly unique or even surprising.
Religion evokes intense responses because it plays an essential role in our lives. Our beliefs reflect who we are, what we care about, our purpose -- what Tillich would call our "ultimate concerns." I serve as the Associate Dean of Religious Life and the Chapel at Princeton University. Much of my work involves encouraging interfaith dialogue between students of different religious traditions, including a group of 30 students called the Religious Life Council who have committed themselves to being part of a community of diverse faith traditions and beliefs (including atheists and agnostics) that acknowledges difference while maintaining respect and friendship. This stretches the students as Muslims and Jews, Hindus and Sikhs, Christians and Buddhists articulate their disagreements on questions of the existence of God, how society should be structured, the relation between religion and international politics and the nature of salvation. When speaking to someone from a different faith, we start out with the basic understanding that we will and should disagree, but we can sit down and have some tea and talk together.
Inter-faith dialogue is hard, but intra-faith can be harder. Every Christian claims Jesus, so essential questions of how we understand Jesus, his earthly ministry, the meaning of the crucifixion, the nature of his call upon our lives (questions to which a non-Christian is largely indifferent) become the grounds of our essential debate and, literally, a matter of life and death. When we encounter a Christian who thinks and believes differently, we experience that difference as an attack on the principles upon which we have built our lives and as a betrayal to the faith. This feeling only increases when you add in politics. In recent elections, both sides of the political aisle found inspiration and legitimization from Christian constituencies. Political debates often adopted theological rhetoric, and religious leaders adopted political strategies. The result has been a "winner take all" attitude with Christian groups being particularly brutal toward one another.
These battles are not new. I remember being disheartened in seminary by the contentious nature of our debates over Christian traditions and their social implications. A fellow student reminded me that, as evidenced in Paul's letters, Christians have been disagreeing since the early church. The comment was meant to be comforting, and it is good to consider that our internal conflicts are not the result of any unique sinfulness of our time. But if we look at the history of our faith, we cannot gloss over the horrible violence committed by Christians, not only against people of other religions, but between ourselves. Thousands, maybe millions of people have died as the result of theological, social or ecclesial differences. Thank God we do not appear to be anywhere near that point today, but our history looms as a warning. Civility, and more specifically Christian Civility, serves as a safeguard against any threat of further violence or brutality. But more than utilitarian, Christian Civility should be adopted by every follower of Jesus as an important part of the spiritual discipline of our faith: not merely as one tool in our spiritual toolbox but as an integral part of what it means to be a Christian.
The word civility shares the same root as citizen. Citizens of a common nation survive because they enter into the basic contract that they need one another, and that all individual citizens have a role to play so that they might be collectively enriched. Laws are created that grant citizens individual rights balanced by mutual responsibilities to one another. The locus of civility within the Christian life is the kingdom of God to which we are all granted citizenship through our faith. In God's kingdom, we are bound by the covenant of the two great commandments: that we love God and love our neighbor -- even those whom we imagine to be our enemies -- as ourselves. Civility in the kingdom of God demands a commitment to reconciliation that goes to the heart of the Gospel.
The importance of reconciliation is stressed by Jesus in Matthew 5:23-24, when he instructs his followers not to come to the altar if we are in a dispute with one of our sisters or brothers. In this age of the Internet, in which anonymous vitriol and cruelty is as easy as a click of the keyboard, Jesus' specific demand that we approach the one with whom we have a disagreement face-to-face offers a profound correction. Just like the interfaith engagement of my students at Princeton, personal interaction forces us to recognize the humanity in the person whom otherwise we might easily demonize or dismiss. The more we know about a person, the more we appreciate their vulnerabilities, their aspirations and the reasons for their convictions. Hopefully we might ultimately acknowledge that God is working in her or his life as well as in our own.
The advantage of being authentically engaged with people whose beliefs differ from our own is that it serves as a safeguard against idolizing our own ideology. If we are around only people who nod affirmatively we risk the casual merging our own truth with the Gospel truth and subsuming the Way of Jesus to our own way. When we become adherents of our own certitude, our faith can calcify and stagnate. Christian Civility requires humility, a somewhat under-emphasized virtue among Christian leaders. Yet our commitment to "walk humbly with our God," as Micah requires, gives space for us to learn and grow from God and from our Christian brothers
Christian Civility does not mean that we won't disagree. There is a difference between incivility and disagreement. Incivility breaks down communication and ruptures God's kingdom, but disagreement between Christians is inevitable -- and even productive. One example is the disagreement between Christian leaders around the Civil Rights Movement in America. Many Christians were encouraging Martin Luther King, Jr. to temper his demands, to slow down his movement and to not create so much tension or disagreement. MLK responded in his now famous Letter from Birmingham City Jail: "But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word 'tension.' I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth." Like MLK Jr., all of us benefit from clarity about where we stand. A call for civility is not a call for lack of conviction, rather it is about remaining engaged with those with whom we disagree in the hopes that we might somehow continue to move forward together forging new consensus as we go. The Civil Rights Movement is one example of civil tension that led Christians to a more authentic faith.
We will continue to have tension among Christians until we all agree on everything or Jesus comes again -- and I am betting on Jesus. Therefore the call for civility begins today and with each one of us. Christian Civility doesn't work if it is reduced to me pointing the finger at someone else and telling him or her to be more civil. While I still disagree with the pastor of my earlier confession, instead of only pointing out the speck in his eye, I should start by paying more attention to the log in my own. Perhaps then, when we can see each other more clearly, we will be granted the vision to build bridges into the future.
This article was first published as the forward to the book 'Uncommon Decency: Christian Civility In An Uncivilized World.'
Follow Paul Brandeis Raushenbush on Twitter: www.twitter.com/raushenbush
Andy Borowitz: In New Era of Civility, GOP Says Obama Born 'Near America'
Obama, Perkins, Palin, and a Plea for Christian - God's Politics ...
Paul Raushenbush: Dear Religious (And Sane) America
Demand Religious Sanity of Glenn Beck - The Beatitudes Society
So you say. Others would say what you criticize is one of the basic, foundational tenants of the Christian religion: that one is either saved or damned, and that there are far more people who fall into the latter category than the former.
1. Evolution. Darwin's idea was all species are branches from common ancestory, and the scientific evidence has proved it hundreds of times over. A significant segment of Christianity has been fighting him over this for 150 years, and since they are fighting against truth they are actually fighting against God.
2. Left Behindism. This is a spectrum of beliefs. Some believe the world will be destroyed soon, and perhaps they even encourage it. Others are not so sure, but Christianity is not taking up the battle and fighting against Hagee and those calling for war with Iran. When Israel started their last war with Lebanon, the Bush administration took the approach that the war needs to end, but not immediately, first Israel needs make sure they have done enough damage to the infrastrusture. This is true, Rice said it, and Christianity didn't go to war with Bush over the issue.
3. Conservative politics. Bush got elected because the serious Christians voted overwhelmingly for him, like 80%, even the second time after the torture revelations. If a segment of Christianity wants to be taken seriously, it needs to figure out how to distance itself from conservative Christianity. They need to make the break and see they have almost everything in common with progressive non-believers, and nothing in common with conservative Christians.
That is not true. On the most critical issue, the great majority of that "segment" share a belief with conservative Christians, and stand a world apart from progressive non-believers: a belief in the same God, a belief that God became man in Jesus to do something transcendentally important for mankind for all time. A belief that they must try to understand what God was up to, and what their own role in the plan is, and find their way to a personal relationship with the Creator of everything.
The arguments between Christians, including those over issues such as homosexuality and abortion, are intramural. As hotly contested as they are, they are very small change compared to that shared goal of relating to the Almighty, of trying to fulfill His purpose in the World.
Even I, an agnostic, can see that what the most "liberal" and "conservative" Christians (terms that do not do justice when used to describe political beliefs, and are woefully inadequate when used with respect to religious beliefs) have in common is far more significant than what either have in common with those who, say, generally vote for similar political candidates.
It is not enough to tell people to be nice. The truth has to be firm and nice but you have to take a position.
The position that we take determines whether or not we are truly being nice.
We are only truly helping people when we are speaking the truth in love.
A word that is not entirely true is entirely deceptive and it is a disfavor to those listening.
We need to be showing our true colors... at some point.
"They can disagree about the nature of god, his biography, his message to the world, and yet still be civil.
The history of the world is writ large in the blood of those disagreements, and yet they can still be civil.
And yet, for a good portion of the more conservative religions, just let me say that I am gay and would like to be treated civilly, and suddenly, my very existence is a threat to everything that is holy, and there is no lie, distortion, or halftruth that they can utter that will be vicious enough.,
Ain't that nice? Ain't it holy? ain't it just so goddamned god like?"
I don't paint all christians, religionists, or conservatives with that ugly brush. I was gaymarried by a minister, even though we are atheists. For those of you who posted support, thank you.
But for those who keep thinking that you are justified in your decidedly uncivil behaviour towards gay people, who think that your religous beliefs should trump my civil rights and participation in society, who are sure you finally have it right about who it is that god wants you to judge when you should not, hate but call it love, "witness" the truth but will tell any lie to make sure people hate us as much as you do....
I'm talking to YOU!
"the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy. And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace."
I suspect it's just another case where Christians egotistically assume their faith is responsible for what is, in fact, an instinctive behavior common to all normal humans.
The author states, "The locus of civility within the Christian life is the kingdom of God to which we are all granted citizenship through our faith." I have no faith in God. I wonder if the author would conclude that I can't understand civility? Or that Christian civility need not be extended to me because I'm not a member of their kingdom.
I suspect neither; the author strikes me as a nice guy. So I repeat the original question: how is Christian civility different from other kinds of civility?
He was rightly criticized for that remark and later apologized, but obviously that was what he felt or he wouldn't have said it. As Christopher Hitchens so astutely observed: religion poisons everything...
Peace,
Willis
http://musingsofwdw4.blogspot.com/2011/01/nature-of-faith.html
I'm not saying he was wrong for seeing other as his enemies, excoriating them, or even doing a bit of assault that day in the temple with the money changers.
And in the end he forgave them - at least according to the gospel accounts.
But he didn't follow the "civil religious dialogue model" - not even a little bit.
But regardless - you are really are adorable when you threaten me with judgement like that.
This well written and articulate discussion of inter- vs. intra-faith conflict is a marvelous example. It simply assumes Christianity's preeminence, and then proceeds to construct an marvelously detailed edifice of nit-picking on that sandy foundation.
From the outside, it resembles nothing so much as alcoholics fighting over brands of booze. It never occurs to them that such fine distinctions are meaningless to anyone capable of seeing that their livers are all rotting at the same rate.
...because there is observable evidence of us having a Creator/God who is all knowing, all powerful and able to stretch out time and space. The function of the basic elements all working together inside of you is evidence of your Maker because we know that working parts cannot exist without having a maker.
Not in my life. You folks argue all you want about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Just don't catch me in the crossfire if your disagreements turn into real shooting, as they have many times in the past.
I know that civilly is the way to behave, quite without any reference to religion. It's as simple as, if I'm civil to others than others will be civil to me.
That's quite a leap without evidence. Maybe billions? Trillions?
But we do have accurate records of the over 100 million who died because of godless philosophies, in the last century alone.
And I'll let it stand at 100 million without my biased opinion upping the amount. That number stands alone.
Millions is certainly not an exaggeration. Christian theologians - Catholic and Protestant alike - have admitted that the roots of the Holocaust lie in Christian anti-semitism, which is clearly visible in the writings of the early church fathers, as well as such highly acclaimed clerics as Martin Luther.
So we're up to six million right there. Please don't argue the fact with me. Just do a bit of googling and you'll see for yourself.
In addition, there's an awful lot of well researched church history, with numbers attached, for anyone who wants a body count. It's been a long time since I reviewed the material, but really in all sorts of places and times, the rivers have run red with blood because of acts perpetuated in the name of the christian god.
That's not to say Christians, or even the religious, have a lock on this sort of thing. But the reason their numbers are smaller than those of (say) the communists in the fomer USSR as well as in China is simply because they didn't have such effective killing technology. Had the tech been available for the past 20 centuries, the Christians would have made a better showing.
As to your last paragraph, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot (all non-religious) murdered millions by starving/working them to death or by firing a bullet into the base of their skulls. Not exactly high-tech. Nope, these atheists did it the old-fashioned way.
There’s a model for a functioning community where disagreements easily co-exist with civility. The scientific community has developed a process to deal with disagreements civilly, it is called the scientific process where facts and observations lead to conclusions and those conclusions are discussed in peer reviewed forums with the best conclusions gaining the most support. As facts and observations change, conclusions change. For example, the conclusion changed from an earth centered solar system to a sun centered solar system with the invention of the telescope.
However, people of faith have no process for dealing with disagreements in a civil way, because conclusions are not based on facts, but on adherence to dogma. Conformity is more important than change. There is no process in the faith communities to experiment on principles of faith and change the principles based on observations.
The only way to maintain civility in a faith based disagreement is to remove all expectations that anyone will fundamentally change their beliefs. You suggest that we should maintain civility “in the hopes that we might somehow continue to move forward together forging new consensus as we go.” Consensus will only be reached in faith based communities when one person has convinced the other to change.
Does any of this make sense?
"The religious" will manage to find their consensus -- or not -- without the "help" of anti-religion fanatics. They have managed to do so over centuries at least as well, if not better, than the rest of society where consensus must also be reached on many diverse issues -- with or without the scientific process.
until his "execution" on Calvary. Though in another "dispensation" of time, we live in New Testement
times..That was long ago, and Christ was never with "idol-hands". "A Cabinet Makers Son".
He was a stranger in every hamlet, town and/ore Village, he set foot in.
The Messiah gave to all men liberally, he upbraideth not.
He gave Guys, like you and me, a "Helping-Hand' and iniated all his disciples, with the out streched hand. He carried the [Levitcal Priesthood]. A (tm) Christian-deor kind of fellow. Christ knocked
on many doors, but the prerecusite was that the door knob was on the iniates side.
In his very methodolgy, he made Men love there Wives with more intensity and fortitude.
Christ bonds in reverence and "Dignity".
He also preformed his "Alms" in private. Beloved John the Babtist, Man Borne of Woman
"lost his head" after Jesus was Babtized in the River Jordon.
..."He lives, He lives who once was dead...He lives my ever living head"....{Trinity}
[Mormon Hymn "I Know that My Redeemer Lives]