Church institutions respond to social change. They seem to fall into two camps. They decry it, or aspects of social change are never enough. Should churches engage in the public square? Yes, but I do pray that churches get a lot better at it. Few things seem to annoy folks in the pews, and outside them, more than churches taking a political stand when they disagree with that position.
I’ve been looking at the work of John Gottmann in relationships, what helps them and harms them. In his review of thousands of hours of couples, he noticed a common thread in decaying relationships: contempt. That is a strong word, indeed. it has the sense of disrespect, even being beneath respect for a person or an idea. Denunciation seems to be a favored tactic. At times, we slide into the judgmental posture that someone is “less Christian” than I if we disagree on a political issue. We seem to have little trouble castigating whole groups of people with ease.
In our polarized environment both sides engage in this contempt. Both sides often take on extreme positions,. Moral certainty is the enemy of nuance and compromise in political discussion. the right wing equates disagreement with persecution. They ally themselves with the Republican issue positions and slap a moral imprimatur on them. Armed with moral truth, they seem unwilling to engage in examining policy alternatives with data, precision, outcomes, or awareness of different options for different matters.
Many of the older established denominations take the tack of being what they call “prophetic.” In practice that means denouncing opponents. We demonstrate contempt for the intelligence of opponents. Perhaps worse, we make assumptions about the moral status of opponents. when it comes to politics, “love the sinner, hate the sin” seems to go out the window.Sometimes, what President George W. Bush called the “soft bigotry of reduced expectations” arises. No disagreement is to be heard, as if underdogs in society require a safe zone of immunity from engagement on public policy.
The Bible, not surprisingly dealt with political failure in a variety of ways. We do have the political fire of some of the prophets, such as Amos. we also have a consistent pointing toward justice as aspiration. Amos 5:24 would be quoted by Martin Luther King, “let justice roll on like a river and righteousness like a never-failing stream.”
Faced with the presence of a moral crusade on drinking, Abraham Lincoln took a different approach.In 1842, he urged a group of temperance/prohibition advocates to be less condemning and more persuasive. “ Those whom they desire to convince and persuade, are their old friends and companions. They know they are not demons, nor even the worst of men. They know that generally, they are kind, generous, and charitable, even beyond the example of their more staid and sober neighbors. They are practical philanthropists; and they glow with a generous and brotherly zeal, that mere theorizers are incapable of feeling. Benevolence and charity possess their hearts entirely; and out of the abundance of their hearts, their tongues give utterance. "Love through all their actions runs, and all their words are mild." In this spirit they speak and act, and in the same, they are heard and regarded. And when such is the temper of the advocate, and such of the audience, no good cause can be unsuccessful.”
Kindness is a Christian virtue. Perhaps a little more of its demonstration could make the differing approaches toward social change and justice more persuasive.
No comments:
Post a Comment