civility

Is Convicted Civility Still Possible?

/ rtrube54 / Leave a comment
john_home_by_sir_henry_raeburn_crop

Rev. John Home, one of the Scottish Calvinists who was friends with David Hume.

I’ve just begun reading Richard J. Mouw’s memoir, Adventures in Evangelical Civility. I suspect that some would believe that the last two words in this title are an oxymoron. What caught my attention was a discussion in the first chapter on his pursuit of “convicted civility,” a chapter entitled “Calvinists in an Edinburgh Pub.” He speaks of the efforts of a group of Calvinists including John Home to promote a more productive engagement with Scottish Enlightenment thought. One of his regular dialogue partners was the skeptic, David Hume, whose ideas gained ascendancy in most academic circles in Scotland. He asks himself:

“For all my good intentions and proper Calvinist motives, I have asked myself on occasion whether I am unwittingly giving aid and comfort to the increasing relativism of our own day, encouraging the widespread assumption that being clear about borders is not a matter of great importance.”

Mouw touches on one prong of a two-pronged dilemma for those who think convicted civility is possible. One prong is that conviction is muted by association with those who differ. Either the sense is one of “agreement by association” or that truth is relative–you have your truth, we have ours. And the point is missed that this is an engagement about questions of truth upon which we may disagree. Logic actually dictates that we both cannot be right, at least in the same way. We could both be wrong or one of us right and one wrong, or both of us partially right in differing ways, at best.

The other prong, which may be more prevalent of late, is that when we disagree about a question of truth, we cannot do so agreeably toward each other. If you disagree with me, you must hate me, and there is something morally defective with you that you would disagree with me. What we miss here is that to disagree about ideas we hold, even hold deeply, is not to disagree with us in the sense of our fundamental dignity.

Part of the problem is that it is difficult to find people characterized by “convicted civility.” It is more common to find those who are convicted but uncivil, and perhaps even more common in our “tolerant” age to find those civil but unconvicted. It has been observed by a number of people, including O’Neill’s son, that Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan were partisan foes who could fiercely disagree, then hammer out compromises, and enjoy drinks together at the White House. Convicted civility isn’t nice, but it provides the basis for a functioning civil society.

If ever there was a time for the practice of “convicted civility,” we are in one of those times. It feels to me sometimes like I live in two countries, each of which detests the other and wishes it could get rid of “them.” Sometimes, it seems that these two countries reside on my Facebook newsfeed which makes me wonder what would happen if I invited all my Facebook friends to the same party! (It also makes me wonder what it says that I somehow remain friends with these two countries!) I don’t know whether it is possible to practice “convicted civility” in this climate, but I also know that the future trajectory of the alternative seems fraught with even greater dangers.

Here’s what I think it takes to practice “convicted civility”:

It involves conviction:

  • It means that we have a clear sense of what we believe about the good, the true, and the beautiful and know what core beliefs we cannot compromise.
  • It means that we can articulate that sense in plain words.
  • It means that we can explain why we hold these convictions.
  • It means we are willing to accept the consequences of holding those convictions.
  • It means that we can distinguish between convictions on which we believe we cannot compromise and matters of application, or opinion, or even liberty where we might differ or where multiple good paths are possible.
  • It means a willingness to admit where we are wrong when persuaded because we are lovers of truth rather than lovers of being “right.”

It involves civility:

  • It means I respect the person with whom I disagree as an equal.
  • It means that I recognize that none of our disagreements undermine the bond of common humanity we share.
  • It means a willingness to find the places of common ground that arise from that common humanity, while being honest about our differences.
  • It means a willingness to grant the same level of attentiveness to and understanding of the words and ideas of the other that I would wish.
  • It means I refuse to attack the character of a person when I disagree with what they think.
  • It means that I might remain friends with someone with whom I deeply disagree, even sometimes affectionate friends.

Sadly, it appears we are in a day where those who would practice “convicted civility” face attack from both their convictional compatriots and from those with whom they differ, despite their civility. From the former, they are viewed as sellouts, even “relativists”, particularly if they acknowledge that the “others” have anything valid in their thought. From the latter, the danger is always one of being branded “intolerant” simply because they have the courage at points to disagree. Often the former attacks are far more vicious and disheartening.

Why bother then, you might ask? I guess it comes down to the fact that I’m convinced and convicted that it is the right thing to do. If we are going to have a civil society instead of civil war (without or with guns), then we have got to figure out how to do this. Short of tyranny, mass deportation, or genocide, we are not going to get rid of half the country, let alone that guy on Facebook who persists in disagreeing with us. I wonder if we have stopped to look at it that way, because if we do we might yet have a chance to back away from the precipice. What it seems that we can’t do is just think that our toxic rhetoric, and our inability to maintain any kind of civil dialogue across our deepest differences can persist indefinitely without consequences, none of them good. Alongside that, I would take “convicted civility” any day. How about you?

Two Qualities for Public Conversations

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment

License: Creative Commons Uploaded by: Wikiphoto

Let’s face it, many public conversations are about as pleasant as the sound of chalk squeaking on a blackboard. Often they are less real conversation than serial monologues where each person makes talking points and attempts to score rhetorical points against the other. Very few represent a serious attempt to hear one another that affirms what we hold in common, carefully makes distinctions where we differ, and argues both thoughtfully and graciously for those distinctions without personal animus. I would suggest that there are two essential qualities, or two “C’s” for good public conversations.

Perhaps before I discuss those “C’s” I should try to articulate what I mean about what is a “public conversation.” I see a public conversation as one that occurs in a public forum, whether that be a political debate, or a town hall meeting, or a university seminar, or a presentation in a community room at one’s local public library. It is a conversation about some public and social good, about what will benefit the flourishing of human beings and the social and physical environment in which they live. And it is inclusive, reflecting the diversity of the public attending. No one group controls or presumes to control the conversation.

I am indebted to an article titled “Advice to Those Who Would Be Christian Scholars” by Nicholas Wolterstorff, a philosopher at Yale for the two “C’s. In answer to the question of how a Christian scholar might speak with a Christian voice into the public conversations at a university he writes:

“Well, for one thing, the Christian voice will be a voice of charity; it will honor all human beings, as Peter puts it in his letter in the New Testament. It will never be abusive. But there is also a more subtle matter to be raised here. The voice with which one speaks must be a voice such that one can be heard – a voice such that one genuinely participates in the dialogue of the discipline. Every now and then, when teaching at Yale, I would have a student who did not know how to speak in the voice appropriate to philosophy; invariably this was an evangelical. Evangelicals often interpret the response they get as hostility to evangelicalism, or hostility to Christianity. Sometimes it is that; but not always. Sometimes it is just that the person has not learned to speak in the appropriate voice.”

The first of the two “C’s” is one he mentions by name. It is charity. No public conversation will be constructive if it tears down people. No conversation will be constructive if it assumes the worst in others. No public conversation will be constructive if begins without good will toward others and the effort to find common ground in our humanity and in at least being willing to give a fair hearing to the ideas of the other. I find it helpful to assume that another has been at least as thoughtful if not more than I about the matter we are discussing. All this is charity.

The other “C” summarizes the idea of a “voice that can be heard.” The idea here is cogency, “the quality of being clear, logical, and convincing; lucidity.” It means speaking with a voice that is knowledgeable. It is a voice that speaks in terms that are shared and may be grasped by the listening public and the others in the conversation. It means a voice that makes its case with thoughtful argument and not simply provocative soundbites. If charity takes the dignity of others seriously, cogency takes the minds and thoughts of others seriously.

It seems to me that it is these two qualities, practiced together, that produce a third quality, a third “C” that is so wanting in much of our discourse, that of civility. I wonder if one of the criteria we ought to apply in considering candidates for any high office is whether they practice the qualities of charity and cogency resulting in civil public conversations. It seems to me that if they do not meet this criteria (and I think there are those who do not), then they should not be considered fit candidates. Civic leadership at any level should rest on the quality to engage with civility with the civitas, the whole body of citizens one aspires to serve and lead.

Equally, in the academic world, which is often known for its vicious politics, it seems that the qualities of charity and cogency also apply. Universities needn’t be places where people agree. In fact, it is the disagreements that make them interesting places! The rigorous clash of ideas sharpens thinking but it needn’t make enemies. And for those to whom Wolterstorff speaks, Christians, his challenge is one of choosing charity and the hard work of cogency, over pat answers and put downs.

I have no illusions that a magic wand can be waved as in a Disney movie that makes everything sweetness and light. But if enough of us practice these qualities in whatever public forum we engage, and prefer those for leadership who approximate to these virtues, we might at least give others the whiff of something better.

But will they follow their noses?

A Civil Public Square at Work

/ rtrube54 / Leave a comment

This past week, I had the chance to visit the beautiful campus of Miami University at the height of its autumn glory. However, I don’t have pictures of tree-lined walks and pleasing campus buildings. Instead of celebrating the aesthetics of Miami, I want to talk about Miami as an example of a civil public square at work.

Miami Code of Love & Honor

Miami Code of Love & Honor

During a meeting I was in, I was given a card that is given to all students and faculty at Miami known as the Miami Code of Love and Honor. Here are the fourth and fifth statements on this card:

“I respect the dignity, rights, and property of others and their right to hold and express disparate beliefs.”

“I defend the freedom of inquiry that is the heart of learning.”

I learned that these principles had been put to the test in the past week as Miami hosted George Will, Washington Post columnist for a lecture. Will’s lecture was heavily protested because of his June 6, 2014 op ed in the Post.  In this article Will makes the statement describing victimhood as “a coveted status that confers privileges”. He then goes on in this article to focus particularly on the growing discussion around sexual assault.

Understandably, anyone who has been raped or knows someone who has would be infuriated by Will’s inference.  One student is pictured in an article in The Miami Student holding a sign that reads “My status as a victim is so coveted that I moved schools because I was taunted by my rapist and his friends.” Another student sign is quoted in the article that read, “Sexual assault leaves you with scars, not privileges.”

The best construction that can be placed on Will’s article is that it was a badly executed attempt to raise a wider conversation about the language of victimhood and the dangers of abridging “due process” rights in allegations of sexual assault. Rather than focus on those issues, which are significant discussions in the higher ed world right now, I want to focus on what the administration at Miami did and didn’t do.

They did not rescind the invitation for Will to speak although heavily pressured to do so as have many other high profile colleges when they discover that an invited speaker holds views considered objectionable by at least part of the college’s constituency. Nor did they suppress protests against Will’s ideas and presence.

Instead, what they did was to allow him to speak and defend his ideas, which were questioned during a question and answer time. At one point, Will made the argument, “The First Amendment does not say, ‘Congress shall not abridge freedom of speech unless the speech annoys somebody,’” he said. “And if you’re not annoying someone when you speak, you’re not speaking properly.”

Miami University President David Hodge wrote a letter explaining the university’s decision to allow Will to speak in terms of the Miami Code of Love and Honor:

“Bringing prominent speakers to campus provides unique opportunities for our students and community to engage with high profile, influential individuals. Many of these individuals are controversial and their positions often challenge us, especially when they appear to clash with our core values. Our values also dictate, though, that we protect “the freedom of inquiry and the right to hold and express disparate beliefs.” While the urge to suppress the voices of those with whom we disagree may be great, it is instead our responsibility to engage and challenge those opinions with evidence, reason, and purpose.”

He goes on to state how the university supported freedom of inquiry and the expression of disparate beliefs in this instance:

“The response of the Miami community was respectful and constructive. Those who disagreed with the choice of Mr. Will as a speaker expressed their disappointment with thoughtful letters and petitions. Some who attended the lecture challenged Mr. Will on his opinions during the allotted question period. Those who protested his lecture effectively expressed their points. A teach-in at Cook Field provided a great deal of information about Miami’s efforts to educate students about sexual assault, to support survivors fully and sensitively, and to take appropriate action against those found responsible.”

This, it seems to me, is a civil public square at work. Civil public squares do not suppress objectionable beliefs. They challenge them through argument, protest, and advocacy of what are thought to be better ideas. I suppose a number walked away unhappy on the different sides of the discussion. Reading the account of Will’s lecture, I find myself thinking, “there are things he just doesn’t get.” But considering disparate views is often uncomfortable. Serious inquiry doesn’t always make me happy. But if it results in sustaining our “first freedoms,” in sharpening our thinking about the challenging issues of the day, and in better policies in pursuit of the good society, then it will have been worth it.

Whence Civility?

/ rtrube54 / Leave a comment

Driving on one of our main thoroughfares, we were stopped behind a car with a bumper sticker that was such a vulgar slam against our President that I will not repeat it here. There was a time when we wouldn’t speak of the county dog-catcher in such terms. And yet this is increasingly commonplace.

So often we act like this is just harmless good fun. But I think this is like children who don’t realize that playing with matches can burn down the house until it does. We attack the character of our office holders until any self-respecting person is unwilling to endure such treatment.  We engage in ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with us, not realizing that we might in the process turn fellow-citizens with whom we share much in common and with whom we differ on some things into intractable enemies. We reject the time honored arts of compromise in which reasonable people find ways to arrive at the best approximation to agreement on what will serve the public good.  And in the process, we convince the more volatile among us that violence and force rather than reasoned discourse are the only way to get things done.

What is most troubling to me is that it seems that we easily forget that those with whom we differ and those they represent are also citizens and that we all share the rights, responsibilities and considerable benefits of living in this country. Why must we be attacked as a country to remember this? Why must we identify some greater enemy to stop treating each other as enemies? And why do we forget that the idea behind e pluribus unum is that our diversity coupled with our common citizenship (we are all Americans) is what makes us strong as a nation.

For those who are Christians, we believe that the diverse members of our one body are like diverse parts of a single body. Eliminating our diversity is like cutting off a part of our own body. Can we determine that while we will engage in vigorous and principled argument about what best makes for a good society, that we will refuse to attack the character of those with whom we disagree, because to do so is to attack our very selves?

If we value those with whom we disagree, we might even listen to them and try to figure out why they disagree with us and how they could think the way they do. A civil discussion engages what a person is really saying, not our caricature of what they are saying.

Above all, civility is rooted in the idea of treating others as we’d like to be treated. We don’t want our own character to be impugned. We consider our own ideas rational and well thought out.  We want others to carefully listen to us and to engage us in terms of what we are actually saying. This is the Golden Rule principle, and for good reason–the practice of this rule is precious, and sadly, all too rare.