CONVICTED CIV Is public discourse worse now than it’s ever been . . . or does it just seem that way? The director of Gordon’s Center for Christian Studies draws some parallels from history. BY
e are bracing ourselves for another election with its inevitable amplified shouting that characterizes the public square in recent years. Those of us in swing states will be drowning in political ads with images of our candidates posed with family, friends and the American flag, and images of their candidates caught off guard doing or saying something to embarrass themselves. There will be the parade of pundits for both sides making the rounds of talk shows, created not for respectful conversation about issues and candidates but for political theatre. Many Christians will find their favorite parachurch organization, media preacher or home pastor lobbying for certain causes and suggesting the only Christian alternative is to vote for the candidate who holds their convictions on these subjects.
DANIEL RUSS
INSEPARABLY BOUND Such political wrangling disturbs many of us, especially when it spills over from the culture into the Church. However, public disputes are inseparably bound with both the Church and democracy. We know, for example, that the Book of Acts records the conflict over fair distribution of food between Greek and Jewish Christians, which gave rise to the office of deacon. We know there were debates about how Jewish Gentile converts must become to be considered Christians. Indeed, after the Jerusalem Council, which resolved this issue, we are told that Paul and Barnabas had a sharp disagreement over John Mark, and they went their separate ways. Likewise, Alexis de Tocqueville writes that democracies, especially American democracy, “cannot form a precise code in the case of social graces,” because traditional manners are built on the idea that everyone has a station in life. He concludes: “Thus one can say in a sense that the effect of democracy is not precisely to give men certain manners but to prevent them from having manners.” Despite this history of incivility both in the Church and democratic culture, we still must ask: “Is it worse now than in the past?” Yes, I think it is worse in contemporary America, because our disagreements are over the most foundational issues: Church and state, the humanity of the unborn, and the definition of marriage and family, to name a few. Robert Bellah has written, “Cultures are dramatic conversations about things that matter to their participants . . . an argument about the meaning of the destiny of its members.” He goes on to define the three major strands of the American cultural conversation as biblical, republican, and individualist. He then concludes that in the latter part of the 20th century, the biblical and republican were largely excluded from the public square. Lately, however, those representing the religious and the republican have reasserted their voices in the conversation, causing individualists to shout for exclusion of Church from state and against legislating morality. Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary, says Christians are called to a “convicted civility”—holding “onto strongly felt convictions while still nurturing a spirit that is authentically kind and
8
GORDON COLLEGE STILLPOINT
■
SUMMER 2004