Civility

I recently stumbled upon this website which I invite you to check out: http://www.civilityproject.org/

I've been trying to become more aware, and more intentional, about civility in a culture that I experience as increasingly polarized and even hostile. I have on occasion been misunderstood by my friends both on the left and on the right in this desire for more civility: it can sound like a naive Rodney King "why can't we all get along?" statement. But that is not really what I mean, or even yearn for.

I don't think civility is a synonym for always being "nice"- especially at the expense of finding the Truth. And the Truth is not always somewhere "in the middle"--sometimes one person is right and another is just wrong. Sometimes a political or theological claim is right and another is wrong and we can get stuck in the mud of trying to find "reconciliation" between two extreme views, when what we need to do is "stick to our guns" and take a stand. We don't have to, and should not, sacrifice The Truth (or "our" truths) to be civil and "reconciliation" that splits the difference is probably cheap grace.

I do think it may be a close synonym for being polite and kind and especially humble. Even when we say that there may be a right answer, it is not a given that we are in the right and those on the other side are wrong. We may discover, in fact, that we are the one who is misinformed. As a Christian, I promise on a regular basis to respect the dignity of every human person. As a Christian, I have been commanded to love even my enemies. I think at a bare minimum this requires civility.

I am a person with pretty strong opinions, both theologically and politically. Many, but by no means all of those positions, could be described as "liberal." I tend to be fairly moderate on fiscal and economic issues and more "traditional" (or at least cautious) in some areas of theology than even some of my closest friends sometimes realize. (Certainly this is true with my liturgical sensibilities!) Ultimately I believe that there is much that is good and worth "conserving" in the theological and political traditions we have inherited from those who have gone before us and that is, as I understand it, the root meaning of "conservative." My experience tells me that I am not alone in being ambiguous: none of us are monolithic nor as "knee jerk" as the media would have us believe. Life is complicated, and so are most people I know.

But I am proudly a "liberal" in many areas because I do believe that the Bible reveals a God who speaks on behalf of the poor and asks us to do the same. I believe that all human beings (and not just the ones who look like me) are created in God's own image--regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. I enthusiastically celebrate the gains that have been made in Civil Rights over the past fifty years and cringe at the thought of turning back the clock on any of those. (When the parish I serve was founded, women were not only not ordained, but not allowed to serve on the Vestry. These were the "good old days?" For whom exactly? Never mind, I know the answer to that question!) Being open to change, open to God's liberating Spirit and the new thing that is unfolding is an act of faith and that, too, should be celebrated. The real challenge is one of discernment: what needs to be conserved and where do we need to make progress? We need each other, I think, to figure that out in a complex world.

Having political and theological convictions (whether they are liberal, moderate, or conservative--even when they are very passionately held) does not give me nor anyone a right to be uncivil. In fact, I try to cultivate friendships with people who hold very different convictions than I. Sometimes I try to convince them I am right. Sometimes they help me to see where I am wrong. Sometimes we agree to disagree. Sometimes we even get mad at each other. But rarely are we rude to each other, because we have a relationship and the relationship tempers what we choose to say or not say. We can, as our President likes to say, "disagree without being disagreeable."

I worry that the very medium I am using as I think these thoughts contributes to the intensity of the erosion of civility in what is left of our civilization. It is way too easy to post a comment on someone's Facebook page or respond to a blog or email with hostility and arrogance in part, I think, because it is such a dis-embodied media. Without relationship, there is no room for nuance; no room for gray; no room for "I don't know" or "I'm not sure." No room for a shrug or a smile or another round of beers. (Emoticons are a feeble substitute!)

On healthcare reform, there are clearly some very strong opinions out there. That is healthy for democacy and at our best, it seems to me we are continuing to wrestle with issues that are part of the fabric of this great nation, particularly around the size of the federal government and what properly belongs to Washington, DC, state capitols, local communities and the private sector. At our worst, however, an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind. I guess I am conservative enough in my doctrine of human sin to worry about the real possibility that if we are not careful we will all end up blind.