Political nastiness

With the passage of healthcare legislation in Congress, American society has grown increasingly strident, with left-leaning pundits claiming the Tea Parties (which they typically describe using a phrase that refers to a sex act) are at their core racist, or right-leaning pundits calling for impeachment of the President, and some extremists even threatening Democratic Congressional representatives or shooting into a Republican Congressman’s office.

While anyone familiar with American history knows that political nastiness is nothing new, at the same time Scripture does not give Christians permission to engage in battle that way. The apostle

Paul gives clear guidelines about how to handle disputes both inside and outside of the church.

Identifying the enemy

The first thing we need to recognize is that our opponents, political or otherwise, are not our enemies. Paul tells us that “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” (Eph. 6:12) The enemy is thus ultimately spiritual, not physical.

People who oppose or distort the Gospel are actually prisoners of war (2 Tim. 2:26), suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome. We should see them as needing rescue, just like any of us apart from Christ.

Every human being is made in God’s image. This is the foundation of human value and is shared by all people, making all equal before God. We frequently appeal to the image of God to make a case for protecting the unborn, but we must recognize that Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh are all also made in the image of God. Simply put, Christians cannot demonize our opponents, because to do so is to insult the God in whose image we are made.

The nature of our weapons

In addition to the weapons and armor for spiritual warfare described in Eph. 6, we have other weapons to help us set prisoners free. Paul tells us that these weapons have “divine power to destroy strongholds,” which Paul tells us include “arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God,” and that these weapons allow us to “take every thought captive to obey Christ.”

To put it differently, on a human level, our fight is against the entrenched sin in people’s thinking, in culture, and in political and social institutions. We are to fight a battle of ideas, and we must do our best to keep the fight on that level. Contrary to Saul Alinsky, we cannot personalize the conflict; though we may identify people who hold the views we are challenging, we must never do so in such a way that presents them as the enemy; rather, we must keep the focus on their worldviews, ideas, or programs. We do not war against people, only ideas.

The rules of engagement

Once we know our enemy and our weapons, we need to know the rules of engagement. The most important of these is the Golden Rule: “whatever you wish others would do to you, do also to them.” (Matt. 7:12) This is probably the most consistently violated rule in all of Scripture.

For example, we are ready to attribute the worst possible motives to our opponents yet are insulted when they do the same to us. This was driven home to me by a number of my friends who regularly advocated conspiracy theories about President Bush, always painting him as stupid, evil, duplicitous, a dupe of Dick Cheney, or driven by greed or a lust for power. Today, I see the same tendency from the right in their attacks on President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. It was wrong when the left did it, and it is equally wrong when the right does it—unless you want others to assign evil motives to everything you do.

According to the Golden Rule, if you want others to give you the benefit of the doubt, you need to do the same for them.

This does not mean that we can never criticize the views of others. We must try to understand the worldviews and ideas that motivate our opponents, recognize that these are sincerely held beliefs, and offer counterarguments by pointing out factual errors, logical fallacies, the implications of their ideas, and so forth.

In a world given to the doctrine of relativism, that all non-scientific ideas are matters of opinion and not truth, arguing that one view is true and another false is considered intolerant. Perhaps that’s one reason why these discussions become personalized so quickly. But as Christians we must insist that not all worldviews are equal, and we need to make that case clearly and winsomely, focusing on the ideas and not the people who hold them.

Further, we cannot accuse people of acting duplicitously or out of malice or hatred of the country without clear and unambiguous evidence. When people claim to be acting for a particular reason, we need to take them at their word. For example, when an Islamist says his motivation for attacking America comes from his religious beliefs, we cannot arrogantly claim that the real reason is poverty, not religion, as if we in our enlightened society know better why they are acting than they do themselves.

Closely related to this is the tone of the discussion. This is another area where our current climate bears little resemblance to Biblical instructions, even among professing Christians. When the New Testament discusses the issue of how to deal with our opponents, the passages invariably tell us to treat them with respect. To pick just a few examples:

• 2 Tim. 2:24-26 tells us that “the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, …correcting his opponents with gentleness” in the hope that we may rescue them from their captivity to the devil. Notice the goal here. It is neither to win an argument, nor to defeat or humiliate your opponent, nor to make people fear or loathe him; it is to win the person.

Paul’s advice here is simply good people skills: when you are challenged, are you more likely to respond positively to someone who approaches you with a gentle and reasonable tone, or someone who is harsh and condemning?

• Titus 3:1-2 tells us that we are “to be submissive to rulers and authorities” and “to speak evil of [literally, blaspheme] no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy to all people.” How much current controversy is handled with “perfect courtesy” and without speaking evil of others? This does not mean we cannot disagree with people, but it does prohibit us from slandering, reviling or defaming them. Controversy and extreme statements may boost readership and make great fundraising appeals on both left and right, but this is not the way we as Christians are supposed to act, especially with government officials (vs. 1).
• 1 Pet. 3:15-16 tells us that we are to be “always … prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.” This tells us that we need to understand our faith and how it applies in all areas of life and to be prepared when challenged to defend it. But it also tells us that we cannot be harsh or condemning in our response to these challenges, but to provide a reasoned explanation of our hope.

At the same time, the passage tells us that our opponents will not accept our words and will revile and slander us, but that we need to treat them right anyway in both word and deed—a rarity in the increasingly poisoned, polarized atmosphere of the country.

But what about Jesus?

Of course, the Hebrew prophets, John the Baptist, and Jesus could be pretty hard on their opponents. John the Baptist called them a “brood of vipers;” Jesus called them “whitewashed tombs” and hypocrites; he even overturned their tables in the Temple and drove them out with a whip. How do we reconcile these with the instruction to be gentle in our dealings with others?

First, we need to remember that Jesus rarely laid into his opponents. He answered the Sadducees on their own terms when they challenged him, and he ate with Pharisees, dialogued with them, and even tried to reason with them when they attacked him. And he never reacted in kind to personal attacks.

His anger, like that of the prophets, was reserved primarily for those who were oppressing others, whether directly or through manipulating and distorting religious law and custom. When he spoke or acted against these injustices, he was focused less on the persons than on their actions. And when he declared judgment against those who oppressed others or rejected him, he often issued an implicit or explicit call to repentance, forgiveness and restoration.

Most people I suspect claim that their invective is motivated by the kind of “righteous anger” shown by Jesus. Granted, righteous anger may at times be appropriate, but experience suggests it is often long on anger and short on righteousness.

In our dealings with others we would be better served following Paul’s instructions and focusing on Jesus’ patience with his opponents and his example of not responding in kind to attack. Look at how he responded to his enemies—us—during his Passion. We need to show the same patience with those who oppose us, with the same goal in mind—winning them to the truth.