Civility in Public Discourse

One of the most troubling realities of my life has been my deep differences with some of the people I love most. When it comes to some of what I feel with the most intensity, believe with the strongest conviction, care about most deeply, I have had to accept that these beloved ones are not going to change – and neither am I. 

I realized that for many or most of these participants this sharing circle was the first time they had the space to really tell their story or cry out for answers. 

The Internet does not have a good reputation for encouraging civil conversation and thoughtful dialogue. It’s a place where people can spew hatred, vilify their opponents, and generally behave in unfortunate ways. It’s a place people claim either has zero consequences or massive consequences for “the real world,” depending on the issue and their personal preferences.

While that’s all true, I’ve also found the Internet a place that expands my ability to engage with those with whom I disagree.

I was recently in a conversation with a friend who had a visceral reaction to the word “socialism.” I was hoping to engage in a conversation about what one of the current presidential candidates was promoting: “democratic socialism”—but my friend would have none of it. She clearly had an emotional impediment to even discussing it. I wondered why that was. 

David Gushee recently wrote a couple of blog posts noting how the issue of inclusion of sexual minorities in the church is redefining the evangelical landscape. It is putting the squeeze on communities to such a degree that it is permanently reshaping institutional and relational boundaries. Synod 2016 will feel that pressure.

I want to invite you to ponder the following. While this squeeze feels new, difficult conflicts like this aren’t.

Okay, so, I’m wrong a lot. I should start there. It’s true. And I know it. And when I forget it, I am reminded, often. I am also kind of young, and pretty new at my job.

However, that is not what I want to talk about today. I don’t want to talk about being right or wrong. I want to talk about being simplistic and reductionist. Because it drives me crazy. 

Editor's note: This is the second post in our new series How to Stay in Conversation with "the Other Side". During this series, we hope to learn together how to communicate about contentious issues in ways that build up the Body of Christ. Above all, we hope that this series will help you stay in conversation in constructive ways that honor and respect the image of God in those you disagree with and in the people affected by the issues about which you are talking.

Editor's note: This is the first post in our new series How to Stay in Conversation with "the Other Side". During this series, we hope to learn together how to communicate about contentious issues in ways that build up the Body of Christ. Above all, we hope that this series will help you stay in conversation in constructive ways that honor and respect the image of God in those you disagree with and in the people affected by the issues about which you are talking.

In response to the San Bernardino shooting and increasingly hostile anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rhetoric, the Office of Race Relations and Office of Social Justice have collaborated on this litany and prayer. The litany is drawn from the Christian Reformed Church’s three confessions, the Contemporary Testimony (Our World Belongs to God), and one Ecumenical Faith Declaration (Belhar Confession).

Litany

People of God, from where does your hope come this day?

I have a confession: I talk about my congressperson more than I talk to my congressperson. I talk about politics more than I participate in politics.

I often rant about how disappointed, upset, or annoyed I am for how my representative voted on this or that, how he does not care, listen or have any sense. Is that gossip? Maybe. But, more importantly it is unproductive. What if I instead went to the actual person and let him know how he has disappointed me and then addressed how we can move forward?