By Korey D. Maas
Throughout the month of September, The Lutheran Witness will be sharing articles from our August 2020 print issue on topics related to religion and politics. Stay tuned to LW online to follow along.
Polite politics
Although you would certainly never guess it by observing a contemporary election cycle, listening to talk radio or reading the opinion pages of major newspapers, the words “politics” and “polite” are closely related. They share a common root in the Greek word polis, which means “city.” Likewise, the Latin word for one qualified to participate in politics (civilis) lies behind the terms “civilization” and “civil.” Still again, “community” and “communication” share their first two syllables because each has its root in the Latin word communis, “common.”
Examples could be multiplied — and prove helpful for completing crossword puzzles. But the above word pairings are more than coincidental connections. Our forebears assumed a fundamental connection not only between the words themselves, but also between what they represent.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle famously claimed that “man is by nature a political animal” because he also asserted that “man alone among the animals has speech.” The capacity for conversation allows human beings, uniquely, to discuss, debate and discern together what is just and good, and it is “partnership in these things,” says Aristotle, that constitutes a political community.
The conviction that civilized, political communities are predicated upon civil, polite communication is both longstanding and deep-rooted, explicit already in classical antiquity and subtly reflected in the language we still use today. If this conviction is warranted, though, we have good reason to be concerned: We are not very good at conversation anymore, especially when it comes to contentious subjects such as politics.
When Christians are not adept at civil discourse, there is further reason for lament, even beyond the consistent biblical warnings against being quarrelsome (2 Tim. 2:24; James 4:1) and indulging the “bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander” (Eph. 4:31) that typifies so much talk about politics. Christ has redeemed and freed Christians from such behavior. Furthermore, Christians believe that Scripture reveals God’s will not only for our eternal salvation but also for our temporal good. Therefore, they also believe that Scripture has relevant insights on how best to order our temporal life together.
But if we also take seriously our own Lutheran Confessions when they state that “Aristotle wrote about civil morals in such a way that nothing further about the topic needs to be demanded” (Ap IV 14), we will also acknowledge that Christians do not have a monopoly on political wisdom. Nor, then, are Christians likely to be the only ones who might best teach us how to converse wisely about politics — or any other subject.
Agreement in truth
In How to Speak, How to Listen, the philosopher Mortimer Adler reminded readers that the goal of all serious conversation is agreement in truth. The phrase “in truth” cautions us that our goal in conversing with others is never simply agreement, and certainly not by verbal bullying or trickery. The goal is that they — and we — agree with what is true. This emphasis on truth will certainly be embraced by Christians, who are not only exhorted to speak the truth (Eph. 4:15), but who are strengthened to do so by their participation in the Truth Himself (John 14:6).
Especially in our polarized day, however, even the emphasis on agreement is a welcome reminder. That is, the ideal of dialogue is not merely that one person “wins” by articulating the better position, but that both parties arrive at a shared position, at the partnership noted by Aristotle.
Reaching agreement — or even honest disagreement — requires first, however, understanding. Adler observed, “To disagree before you understand is impertinent. To agree is inane.” It is crucial to speak well — both clearly and civilly — so that what one means is clearly understood, and so that understanding is not hindered by a distracting or off-putting tone. Since our speech often does not clearly communicate what we mean, attentive and charitable listening is equally — if not more — important to true understanding. (For instance, many of us have probably had the awkward experience of what seemed to be a bitter disagreement being resolved with the sudden exclamation, “Oh, if that’s what you mean, then I entirely agree!”)
Ask questions
Though it probably seemed obvious to all of us while still in school, we easily forget that one of the best aids to understanding is frequently asking questions. We should not be shy about regularly pausing to ask questions like, “Do I understand correctly that what you mean is … ?” This not only allows an opportunity for confirmation or clarification, but it can also diffuse tensions by assuring conversation partners that we are truly listening and attempting to understand and that, as Luther exhorts in his explanation to the Eighth Commandment, we are trying to put the best construction on what is said.
Finally, this advice also refers to understanding why others say and think what they do. True understanding has been reached only when each party can state the other’s position — and his or her reasons for holding that position — in such a way that each approves of the other’s summary. At this point, the conversation partners have reached a simple understanding.
Toward agreement
However difficult it might be even to arrive at simple understanding, if this understanding reveals real disagreement, the arduous task of reasoning together toward agreement in truth remains. Here again, Adler offers wise counsel. If we are to persuade others that their conclusion is wrong, we must demonstrate where they may be uninformed or misinformed, or where their reasoning may be faulty or incomplete. Unquestionably, persuasion is more likely if done politely.
Here, too, correction might be received more readily if presented in the form of questions. Consider the topic of abortion. Imagine your conversation partner holds that the practice is not immoral because she believes that a fetus is not yet a living human being. Rather than immediately countering that she is uninformed or misinformed about fetal status, it might be more effective first to ask: “If it were the case that most embryology textbooks recognize that the fetus is indeed a living human being, would that affect your position?”
Quite obviously, far more could be said than space here allows. But if we are willing to acknowledge that even pagan philosophers such as Aristotle were correct to believe that civil communication is foundational for a civilized community, how much more should we take to heart the exhortations of God’s own apostle — “live in harmony with one another” (Rom. 12:16); “that all of you agree” (1 Cor. 1:10); “let your speech always be gracious” (Col. 4:6) — and so desire always to improve our abilities to speak and to listen well.
This article first appeared in the August 2020 print issue of The Lutheran Witness.
Cover image: “New York City harbor and skyline at night,” Joseph Pennell, 1921.
