This past weekend, a shooting rampage happened in Arizona. A female Democratic Congressional Representative and a male Republican Federal Judge were killed. I wanted to wait to write something because the news were unclear and because assassinations of this magnitude need careful analysis rather than instant reaction. What I could do, I did. I prayed. I prayed for our nation; I prayed for the families of the Congressional Representative and the Federal Judge; I prayed for wisdom for our leaders.
I have read many articles. So far, most of them have been rather lacking in analysis and heavy on the language of talking heads. I have found one article that seems to have neatly assessed the situation thus far. It says:
. . . So far, the voices have been defensive, accusatory or noncommittal. The first two are unhelpful and the third is ineffective. . . . This tragedy has prompted not reflection but just another round of sparring. Some liberals quick to point the finger are linking 22-year-old shooter Jared Loughner to the Tea Party—showing the same lack of restraint and tendency to demonize their ideological opponents that they accuse the right of having. Some conservatives, meanwhile, were more concerned with the political consequences of this tragedy than with the possible impact of their rhetoric.
Sadly, that is what I have seen as well. On the one hand, some liberals have been quick to blame the “verbal violence” that they see in the Tea Party and the Oathkeepers, etc., as setting up a climate that inevitably leads from verbal violence to physical violence. On the other hand, some conservatives have been so busy defending, that at least one article I read went back to a minor Democratic campaign operative in 2004 in one corner of the USA, who used “bullseyes” just like Sarah Palin did in her campaign to oust Democrats. Can you see how neither side is seriously thinking through what happened?
I did see one article that I feel correctly forecast that this will increase the separation between elected representatives and the people. Why? Because elected representatives will be less likely to face open forums of people and more likely to rely on carefully controlled meetings in which everyone has been checked out beforehand. I cannot say that I disagree. Politicians are not police or the armed forces. Nothing in their job description commits them to face armed strangers.
Nevertheless, speaking of civility and restraint in our approach to politics, the article goes on to say:
. . . This weekend’s shooting may be waking a lot of people up to how far we have to go on both scores.
Thankfully, at this point, there are both Democratic and Republican voices saying that we all need to be quiet, take a deep breath, and analyze the situation carefully and cautiously. But, what about a Christian viewpoint on the matter? My first theological studies were at Ashland Theological Seminary, a seminary of The Brethren Church. (No, I have never been Brethren.) When I attended, it was still possible to see Amish buggies coming to Ashland, Ohio to buy from some of the stores. The area has many Mennonites, Amish, Brethren, and Quakers.
I remember that some of the professors talked about verbal violence. They said that verbal violence is every bit as non-Christian as physical violence because the thought is the father of the action while the speech is its mother. There are some good Scriptures in the New Testament in which Our Lord Jesus Christ says that calling your brother a fool is like murdering him. At the same time, Our Lord had no problem taking on the Pharisees and the Sadduccess with some rather tough words. I am sure that “whitewashed tombs” was not received as a mild criticism!
Perhaps the best that I can come up with is to avoid gratuitous verbal violence and inaccurate portrayals of those who disagree with you. There are times when one certainly needs to call someone to account, as Our Lord did with the Pharisees, but those times should be based on sound information and not simply on political spin.
The other side of the coin is the reception of criticism. There are times when one needs to defend oneself against false charges. Look at how Saint Paul defended himself before Governor Festus. Look also at how Saint Justin the Martyr wrote defenses of the Christian faith to the Emperor of Rome. But, all too often criticism in political America is met simply with denials, or counter-accusations (he did it first, it’s not fair!) which are at best childish and at worst utterly false, or professional spin control whose purpose is to make the charge (even if true) rebound on the other person.
As a country we need to find the balance between gratuitous verbal violence and accurate criticisms of policy. As a country, we need to know when to defend ourselves against false charges and when to simply accept the truth of the accusation. As Christians, we should always be able to do both.
Perhaps the old British Victorian attitude is the best one. Always speak publicly with a large dose of careful and polite language, even when in disagreement. Maintain the social niceties, not for the sake of the nicety, but for the sake of enabling civilized discourse. And, as Christians, our attitude should always be that which Saint Paul counseled about a love that hopes all things. That is, perhaps we should be better as Christians at seeing the more positive side of someone’s statement rather automatically assuming the negative. We will inevitably still have to call people on various matters, just like our hierarchs have done and still do periodically. But, perhaps it is time to try civility and respect, even when we must say to someone that what they have done or said is inappropriate. It may be time to speak softly and put the emotional words down for a while.
Leave a Reply