“In Accord Amid the Discord”
Note: A lifelong friend called and asked my thoughts about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I was working on the piece that follows when he called. It is a sermon I preached in 2010 in Phoenix and revised in 2015 in Lexington on the theme of civility based on James 3:1-10.
What follows was not composed as a specific response to last Wednesday’s tragedy. However, the shooting of Mr. Kirk last week and of Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband in June are indicative of the pervasive civil unrest in our nation whereby a vast seedbed of violent rhetoric is fomenting violent actions, some targeted and others indiscriminate. James’ warning of the power of words wrongly spoken (and written) to wreak havoc was the subject of the sermon.
It is being reported that after the murder the assailant communicated with numerous others via a social media chatroom called Discord. Merriam-Webster defines discord as a: lack of agreement or harmony (as between persons, things, or ideas); b: active quarreling or conflict resulting from discord among persons or factions: strife.
A chatroom called Discord from which death derives. Can’t make this stuff up. Facing so much vile discord and its minions – dissension, division, vitriol, violence – James’ admonitions bear repeating…and living. Knowing most of the two hundred of you who subscribe to these biweekly missives, I know you value words written and spoken with care. Inasmuch as we’re in one accord amid the discord, thank you.
“In Accord Amid the Discord”
A single panel cartoon can say more than several paragraphs. So it is with one I spotted a while back. A forlorn woman is posting flyers around town: LOST. Civility, Decorum & Respectful Public Discourse. Lost, indeed.
Pier M. Forni is the director of The Civility Initiative at Johns Hopkins University and authored a book The Civility Solution: What To Do When People Are Rude. He says, "In today's America, incivility is on prominent display: in the schools, where bullying is pervasive; in the workplace, where an increasing number are more stressed out by coworkers than their jobs; on the roads, where road rage maims and kills; in politics, where strident intolerance takes the place of earnest dialogue; and on the web, where people check their inhibitions at the digital door.” Incivility.
Surely Christians can contribute to a renewed civility. Christianity is, after all, a religion of words. Words matter. Deeply. Christians believe God has chosen to reveal God’s own self and God’s vision for creation through the words of Scripture. Even more so, Christians believe the Word became flesh and dwelt among us “full of grace and truth.” Truth be told, though, the tone and content of Christians’ words often fall short of being gracious and truthful. Christians say things using language or a tone of voice not befitting followers of Jesus Christ. Christians bring God’s name into diatribes that demean or demonize others, rhetoric that tarnishes God’s good Name and gives Christianity a bad one.
Truth be told, I, too, am afflicted with foot-in-mouth disease – Why did I say that? Why did I use that tone of voice? What was I thinking? I can think of a few e-mails I’ve sent that have left me with the sharp pang of remorse I’ve heard called “Send Button regret”: I wish I could have that one back. This is all to say that though Christians ought be shining exemplars of civility in conduct and speech, we, too, contribute to the darkness of incivility. We would all do well to make the Psalmist’s prayer at the end of Psalm 19 our own: “May the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.”
But if our words are going to be more acceptable we’ll need to tame our tongues. James minced no words when he wrote, “Every species of beast and bird, reptiles and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, but no one can tame the tongue-- a restless evil, full of deadly poison.” (James 3:7-8). How then can we tame the tongue so it may be a tool for increased civility?
We can begin by watching our diet of words. We can inventory the programs we tune into, the music we listen to, the materials we read, and evaluate the level of civility to which we’re exposing ourselves. There’s a phrase in computer programming circles that says, “Garbage in, garbage out.” If we listen to or read strident, abrasive, divisive voices with any degree of regularity, our tongues will be adversely programmed. The opposite is also true. We can intentionally seek out well-spoken and well-written people. Paul advises we apply what might be called the Philippians 4:8 test to what we set before our eyes and ears: “Beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about (read and listen to!) these things.” A first step in taming the tongue is to watch our diet of words.
We can monitor our tone of voice. It doesn’t much matter what we say if how we say it puts others on the defensive. Speak in a snarl, expect a snarl in return. Proverbs 12:18 says, “Rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing” (12:17). Hence our figure of speech – “a sharp tongue.” Ever been impaled by somebody’s tongue? Ever spear someone with your own? Are you aware when you do? Do have somebody who loves you enough to say to you sometimes, “Do you know what you sound like when you talk like that?” We do well to tame the tone of our tongues.
We also do well to give our tongues a rest and listen. Few things will improve speaking more than listening. So it is that tame-that-tongue James writes, “My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry” (1:19). Our society has it backward. We’re quick to speak, slow to listen, and quick to become angrily indignant or offended at what others say. To make matters worse, we’re prone to use the time we’re not talking not as much to listen as to come up with retorts we can use to shoot down (a chilling phrase) what the other person is saying. In responding to such negative patterns of communication, the Diocese of Cleveland released a thoughtful Pledge for a Civil Dialogue on Faithful Citizenship (now revised as “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”) that says, “The goal of our dialogue is not to ‘score points,’ but to strengthen our common ground for the sake of the common good.” That echoed in my mind the Prayer of St. Francis that begins, Lord, make me an instrument of your peace and includes the petition, Grant that I may not so much seek to be understood, as to understand. What a concept – that the purpose of dialogue is to respectfully listen to and learn from others as opposed to construing others as opponents to be talked at, talked over, talked down, and ultimately defeated.
Some humility would help tame our tongues. The motivation to listen to someone else (besides common courtesy) is the desire to better understand what they’re saying and to learn from them. But if we’re convinced we’re right and they’re wrong there’s no reason to listen. A little humility, please! We don’t know it all. None of us is the sole repository of the truth. No one bandwidth on the theological spectrum, no political party, no denomination has the corner on God. Though as Christians we believe that God has revealed his purposes through His Word (I do) and that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (I do), none of us can fully, finally know the mind of God. As I was told long ago when studying Scripture in preparation for preaching and teaching, “An inerrant and infallible Bible requires inerrant and infallible human beings to interpret it. There’s only been one of those and you’re not him. So, a little humility please when you say, ‘The Bible says….’” I find it very interesting 1 Corinthians 13 – the Love Chapter – ends with what can only be construed as an appeal for humility: “Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then we shall see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Corinthians 13). None of us knows fully. None of us has a monopoly on the truth. Now we can know only in part. One of the wisest, most respected, most successful, moral, and ethical men I’ve ever known, the CEO of a Fortune 500 company who was a member of my church in Columbus, IN, used to qualify everything he said with the words, “But I could be wrong.” A little humility can tame the tongue.
We can talk by the Golden Rule. The moral basis of civility is the Golden Rule. “Talk unto others as you would have them talk unto you” (Luke 6:31). Among other things, that means speaking respectfully of, to, and with others. James writes, “With the tongue we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so.” (James 3:9-11). What a damning observation! With the same tongue we praise God on Sunday and curse human beings made in the image of God the rest of the week. As James says, “This ought not be so!” One of the things that mars discourse these days is the way name-calling, labeling, and stereotyping is employed to disparage others. To borrow James’ words, such disrespect ought not be so! Name-calling defaces the image of God. Disrespects God’s handiwork. I served on the staff of Junior High Church Camp for more years than I can count. We began each week of camp by setting the ground rules that would ensure a good environment for everyone: 1) Keep your hands to yourself. 2) Keep your hands off other people’s stuff 3) Take a shower every day. 4) No put-downs! Adults would do well to observe the same behaviors, especially “No put-downs.”
How can we restore a measure of civility to public and private discourse? Dr. Martin Luther King, who advocated and lived for nonviolence in words as well as deeds even though targeted by vicious words and silenced by an assassin’s violence said, “We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence.” Aside from Jesus, Dr. King was influenced most greatly by Mahatma Gandhi who said, "We must become the change we want to see in the world.” In a fine set of books in which he models a deeply Christian and deeply civil discourse on several of the difficult issues facing our society, United Methodist Pastor Adam Hamilton wrote, “Part of the healing of our society must come from the church modeling for our society how we are to love those with whom we disagree[1]“
How can we tame our tongues and model civil discourse?
We can watch our diet of words and listen to positive models of discourse.
We can monitor the tone of our voices.
We can listen carefully, seeking not so much to be understood as to understand.
We can humbly acknowledge we know only in part and can be wrong.
We can talk by the Golden Rule. No put-downs!
We can denounce violence in all its manifestations, no matter its purveyors.
Says David the Psalmist and David the Shirey: “May the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer.”
[1] Adam Hamilton, Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White, pp. 22, 23.
