Politics for Adults

Stephen Carter in his column Politics for Adults bemoaned the lack of civility in political discourse. What are we as Christians to do?

The division and strife that characterize our political life, the substitution of slogan for argument and attack for policy, have grown so heated and painful that they threaten our pretensions to democracy. We face political discord that leaves us mired in mutual suspicion so deep that hardly anyone wants to talk to anybody with a different view. The challenge we face—especially we who are Christians—is what to do about it.

We know that God calls Christians to an ethic of love. He also forbids us to stay silent in the face of evil. How do we meld these competing mandates in our political stances? Over the years, I have heard and read answers that usually say a Christian is obliged to hold position X on issue Y. Sometimes this is surely true. But recognizing the causes for which we ought to fight is not the same as knowing how we should conduct the fight.

As an evangelical you might think that Carter would hold up a conservative on how to solve this problem. Rather, he holds up arch-liberal Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall for whom Carter clerked. When he asked Marshall what he thought of segregationist, John W. Davis, Marshall had nothing but praise.

When I met Marshall many years after Brown, I asked him what he thought of John W. Davis. I expected him, in the fashion of the times, to respond with the sort of vicious and ad hominem assault that I no doubt would have selected. After all, the man was—no point in sugarcoating it—a segregationist. But Marshall surprised me. He said, "John W. Davis? A good man. A great man, who just happened to believe in that segregation."

Carter concludes with a very powerful a forteriori argument.

And if Marshall could reach out across the divide of segregation and meet people on the other side with respect and even affection, and so make deals to move the country forward, is it really impossible to imagine the rest of us doing the same?

Imagine that: a politics actually worthy of adults.

Indeed.

Comments

[*** Dave]

In a sense, it's a variation of "love the sinner, hate the sin."

It's difficult, of course, to distinguish between the two sometimes. We are defined by what we think and feel and do. It's important to remember that what we think, feel, and do, is rarely limited to one narrow issue (abortion, homosexuality, whatever), and so it's possible to respect and celebrate much about a person while still thinking that they are wrong, or even evil in some aspect.

And, by the same token, it's difficult for someone to hear that their thoughts, feelings, or actions are sinful without feeling judged and condemned themselves. How, then, can someone with love and respect make that sort of identification of sin (or evil)?

That's something of a rhetorical question. I think the answer is that there are times when one has to lovingly speak in (as one sees it) truth, and other times when one has to consider how to do so will be hurtful and ultimately harmful. The answer may not always be clear, but it's likely that there will be times when one course or the other is the right one, regardless of the cost.

Similarly, recipients of such criticism have to consider not just how they receive the words, but how they were intended, and what response they have to make. One can lovingly and respectfully accept a disagreement or criticism, offered lovingly and respectfully, without feeling obliged to change one's position.

The real problem, it seems, is how to translate that into the political arena, where laws tend to carve a line between what society will allow and not allow, which is a bit different from a world of ideological disagreement but respect. It's one thing for folks of differing minds to love and/or respect each other regarding abortion, homosexuality, segregation, etc., but the law can't be written to "live with the difference" except to either permit what some folks find abhorrent or impossible, or disallow what some folks find necessary or desirable. We can't get to those legal solutions without being able to talk about them in a civil fashion, of course, but all the civility and good will in the world can't mask the degree of win-lose in the legislative and political arena.

But I'm rambling ...