Civility and Civics

In our Christian witness, we can seek to bring honor to our Savior, and even in our interactions with
fellow believers, we can conduct ourselves in a manner that is consistent with His presence in us. 1st Corinthians chapter 1 states:
9 God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

That seems like a tall order, but it is a worthy goal.  Being unified doesn't mean that we don't carry our own opinions or that we don't see eye-to-eye with our brothers and sisters in the Lord - but we can take positive steps to not become divided so that our rancor and disunity are on display to a world that needs to see love.  And, side issues that are not necessarily related to the truth of Scripture can distract us and place us at odds with one another - we have to make sure that our hearts and our words are right toward fellow believers.

+++++

The Bible offers us some "rules of engagement" with our fellow believers, that can guide us in
disagreement without become divisive, perhaps to be opinionated without becoming offensive. Galatians 5 states:
13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
15 But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!

When you embrace a particular cause or call for certain behavior, you really should make sure that you are demonstrating those principles.  There was a survey that was released this past fall, which was taken in the time period following the 2018 election.  While this may seem old news, it keeps being recycled in various forms in order to make a case for political change, including changing the political practices of Christians.

It was released by LifeWay Research.  One part dealt with the issues most important to Christians; alarmingly, at least in this group, it showed a de-emphasis on what are commonly thought to be
Biblical issues, such as abortion and homosexuality. The survey's summary says that respondents were asked "which three public policy concerns are most important to them." The responses by those considered to be evangelicals:
Healthcare - 51%
The economy - 46%
National security - 40%
Immigration - 39%
Religious liberty - 33% and
Abortion - 29%.

Addressing racial division was at 21% and LGBT issues - 4%.

This information brought concern to Jim Daly of Focus on the Family, who was quoted at The Epoch Times website: “Am I surprised? No. Am I disappointed? Yes. Life and religious freedom are first principles that make physical and economic health even possible.”

The article says:

Daly attributed the change to “the product of a relentless ‘drip, drip’ of a culture being fed lie and after lie. Consider the fact that Planned Parenthood has been able to convince hundreds of thousands of mothers each year to not treasure the baby in her womb, effectively de-naturing and de-nurturing countless women. What we’re witnessing is the reaping of a whirlwind, the unmooring of a culture increasingly antagonistic to the pursuit of higher ideals.”

The LifeWay survey also highlighted respondents' attitudes toward civility. The summary says, "Two in 3 Americans with evangelical beliefs (66%) believe being civil in political conversations is productive, with 22% dissenting and 12% not sure." And, "Around 8 in 10 (82%) say their faith influences how they engage others politically."

Here's a telling sentence:

While 58% say they tend to believe those who disagree with them have good motivations, 54% say when they disagree with someone politically, the other person tends to take it as a personal attack.

Here are some other nuggets:

Less than half (42%) say they have expressed public disapproval of political allies for using what respondents recognized as unacceptable words or actions.

A third (33%) admit that when someone with their political beliefs is accused of wrongdoing, they typically respond by citing examples of wrongdoing by the other side.

Around a quarter (26%) say they tend to believe insulting personal remarks made by political leaders who share their ideology toward opponents are justified.

And, almost 3 out of 5 evangelicals believe that, according to the survey, "if those with whom they disagree politically are able to implement their agenda, 'our democracy will be in danger.'”

Armed with this information, a Southern Baptist entity, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, or ERLC, which commissioned the LifeWay Research study, expanded on the data to put together a report called, Faith and Healthy Democracy.  The organization's latest magazine also features essays concerning how Christians can exercise civility in the public square.  

But, back to my original point: if you are going to make recommendations for behavior, the spokespersons need to be credible in that area.  Peter Lumpkins, who serves in communications at Truett-McConnell College, in summarizing the report, lauds some aspects of it, namely that it provides some practical ways for Christians to be more civil, including breaking free of their "news bubbles" or "echo chambers." Lumpkins writes: "the researchers made it a point throughout to insist that to sustain civility in public dialog, evangelicals must learn to and practice often exchanging ideas and perspectives outside their normal circles of influence."  But, the researchers seem to have violated what they had called for.  Lumpkins writes:

First, I found the report to be surprisingly narrow in its overall perspective, especially in light of the spirited insistence throughout the research on maintaining diversity of view and avoiding at all costs "bubbles" and "echo chambers" of evangelical thought (see above). Over and over again the researchers insisted one of the main culprits to civil dialog in the public square is the "echo chamber" or thought "bubble" allegedly followed or self-created by too many evangelicals. However, when one examines a bit deeper into the backgrounds of both the researchers and thought leaders quoted in the report, an insular perspective appears to potentially take shape that overall undermines their call for diversity.

The lead researcher is Paul Miller, a Georgetown professor affiliated with the ERLC.  Writing at the CrossPolitic website, Stephen Wolfe says:

The striking irony is that the essay exhibits the very ills that it diagnoses. Miller, along with the interviewees that he quotes, betray the same sort of tribalism that the report bemoans. The purpose of my analysis is not to uncover the hypocrisy. Rather the intent is to show that Miller’s report, with all its strange and subtle contradictions, perfectly captures the blindness of evangelical elites. In their denunciation of tribalism, they reveal their own tribalism, and yet they seem oblivious to it. They project onto others exactly what they are themselves.

About Miller, the Capstone Report states: "A research fellow with the Southern Baptist Convention who once called nationalism “gross” has called for the impeachment, conviction and removal from office of President Donald Trump."  Just a note: the word "nationalism" seems to have come to mean Christians who have a love for their country and infers that patriotic Christians are idolaters who exhibit the same types of beliefs as radical nationalist groups.  Seems like with all the concern over the Christianity Today editorial taking the President and his supporters to task, there would be a few Southern Baptists concerned over a representative of their public policy arm taking what seems to be a similar position.

Clearly, to evangelical elites, civility is in the eye of the beholder.  A number of those interviewed for the Faith and Healthy Democracy project represent some of the worst offenders of civility standards.  Wolfe writes:

Moreover, what’s startling about the interview list is how many of them have been terribly uncivil in their public engagements. After all, the paper is in part a discussion on the importance of civility in Christian public witness.  

Without naming names myself, suffice it to say that a number of social media provocateurs were also included in this study.

There is so much to consider here.  And, I do want to go back to an area that Lumpkins highlighted in his critique.  We do need to be cautious of media choices - don't allow the "echo chamber" to weigh you down.  Especially if that echo chamber consists of voices that don't represent the grace and tone becoming of a believer in Christ.  If we expose ourselves to material that is strident and angry in tone and approach, it could have an effect on how we regard others.

And, if we are overly critical of others, we have to be cautious not to be hypocritical in our calls for reform.  In reference to a Biblical passage, we have to make sure we take out the log in our own eyes rather than concentrate on another's speck.  That doesn't mean that we are not to speak truth and even point out error, but we have to do so with the right attitude.

We also have to allow our convictions to be guided by Scripture.  There is material abounding where Scripture is being twisted to fit our opinions.  This applies to accusing people of sin when there is not sin present - I mentioned this obsession that some have with "nationalism," with one of the most provocative voices on so-called "Christian Twitter" listing it recently as a sin that needs to be dealt with; there is not a Scriptural basis for this.  Yes, country above God is idolatry, but if we love our country and are patriotic, that does not automatically make us sinful.  It does not enhance our Christian witness when we are seen at odds with one another publicly - and the Bible shows us effective principles we can implement in dealing with disagreements.