Just to be sure we are communicating as clearly as possible,
I’ll start by defining the terms I’m using here. Every person has a worldview.
A worldview is the basic assumptions, beliefs and values a person has adopted
over the years, consciously or subconsciously as being true and good. All our
knowing, doing and feeling is intimately interlaced in our worldview, and its
content produces the answers we tend to give to the most important questions of
life, reality and death. Our worldview shapes our life, and defines our
perspective on things.
Hopefully that is not controversial. I do not mean it to be.
Assuming it isn’t, let me suggest a few modest proposals linking the lack of civility
in the public square with the notion of worldviews.
Proposal #1: Different worldviews tend to lead to different
conclusions. This can involve differing—even conflicting—conclusions about
everything from the proper goal of government, to lifestyles, to the definition
of the common good, to the identity of superstition, to the meaning of
marriage, to you name it. Again, not very controversial.
Proposal #2: Speaking effectively across worldviews is
immensely, amazingly difficult. For one thing, an idea that in my worldview is
beloved, obvious, and sacred may appear in another worldview to be irrational,
inconceivable, and dangerous. In order to truly communicate the speakers must
engage one another on levels far deeper than the idea being debated, and that
takes unhurried time, trust, and a willingness to both listen and accept
challenges to our own worldview. It can’t be done in slogans, debates, or brief
commentaries designed to maintain a media audience. Again, I don’t see this as
very controversial, but there it is.
Proposal #3: Of all people, Christians should understand
proposal #2. Some of us experienced the stunning reversal of having to
radically change worldviews when we came to faith. The rest of us know how hard
repentance is, how resistant we are to facing the hidden idolatries in our
hearts, and how difficult it is to drop ideas when shown in Scripture they are
legalisms or hypocritical or simply devoid of grace. But we forget. Because
something is obvious to us, it must be obvious to everyone, and to make it so,
we believe that speaking more loudly will do the trick. And to reassure
ourselves, we summarize our opponent’s position in a way that gets a laugh from
our side, apparently assuming that whatever is laughable to us is simply
laughable. A bit more controversial, I suppose, but fairly easily defended I
think.
Proposal #4: If we—I am referring to Christians, here—if we
are not engaged in the sort of conversation that involves unhurried time, the
intentional building of trust, and a willingness to both listen and accept
challenges to our own worldview, we should remain silent in the public square.
If you need a biblical reason, how about 1 Corinthians 13—the reason being that
we should never choose to be a clanging, clattering gong before the watching world.
OK, this is the controversial one, so I’d like to know what you think. (But
wouldn’t it be a relief?)
This entry was posted
at Monday, August 02, 2010
and is filed under
Christian faith,
Civility,
politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through the
comments feed
.