Calls for ‘civility’ are attempt to censor dissenting opinions
By Richard G. Wolling, The Layman Online, October 12, 2001
During the month of August 2001, 48 participants in a Ghost Ranch seminar on globalization drafted and signed a document calling “for a return to civility in the debates before our church.” The executive committees of the Witherspoon Society and the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship further endorsed this “call to civility.” On Sept. 11, 29 former General Assembly moderators issued a similar call to “all Presbyterians to a new level of civility in the months ahead.”
Such calls cannot go without a response because the desired civility is something quite unlike the true meaning of civility, and, these calls have a chilling effect on open communication and free dialogue in these troubled times.
It is implied in both the Ghost Ranch document and the moderators’ letter that incivility was displayed in (1) the dialogue with and hard questioning of Jack Rogers at the Denver meeting of the Presbyterian Coalition in August, (2) the failure of some to stand in the presence of the moderator when he was introduced publicly, and (3) the charge made by The Layman that the 213th General Assembly was an apostate assembly.
Richard Mouw, in his 1992 book, Uncommon Decency, defines civility as “public politeness. It means that we display tact, moderation, refinement and good manners toward people who are different from us” (page 12).
As a participant in the “open mike” event in Denver, I would characterize the dialogue with Jack Rogers in precisely those terms. People went out of their way to be polite, deferential, respectful and kind. Was Jack asked some tough questions? Yes! Was he asked to explain his actions? Surely! Was there disagreement, disappointment and even disbelief at what the audience heard? No doubt!
The moderator was questioned on the relationship of his self-disclosure as an “evangelical,” his use of the Scriptures and his interpretive approach as relates to homosexual issues. He was questioned on his views of the Confessing Church Movement and particularly on his pre-election comments in which he proffered the view that the CCM was schismatic (Is this a civil thing to say? It was ignored by those from whom the calls to civility came!).
The moderator was in a tough spot – in which his own words and actions placed him. I wouldn’t have wanted to be in his seat. It was uncomfortable for all of us, but neither he nor the audience was uncivil.
The former moderators said, “And we remember with thanks that, whenever we were introduced, gathered Presbyterians – regardless of their views – would stand as a sign of respect for the office of moderator and of the General Assembly that elected us.”
But respect cannot be legislated. Standing in an empty show of respect does violence to the integrity of the one who holds no such respect. Such drama is the very height of incivility. If all believers are priests of God, let us all stand for one another or encourage one another to set aside the formalism and simply “do unto others as we would have them do unto us.”
By far the greatest concern was expressed over the charge by The Layman that the 213th General Assembly was an apostate assembly. Having read the editorial and the correspondence between The Layman and the moderator and stated clerk it strikes me that The Layman’s charge was not unconsidered or made in a flippant or mean-spirited way. It was not directed toward persons, but toward decisions and opinions.
A definition of apostasy was given and certain particulars were called forth in demonstration of the charge. Is such a charge a serious matter? Without question! Is it uncivil to make such a charge when, in the view of The Layman, there is such a close correspondence of the criteria to the present realities? Not at all. Before a claim can be called uncivil, its applicability and validity must be addressed. Resorting to name-calling discourages making the necessary case and is an attempt to suppress dissenting voices.
The Layman and our denominational officials may disagree on the meaning of apostasy, but to make the charge, backed up by an honest and thoughtful consideration of the meaning of the term, is far from uncivil. In fact, making such a charge may be the only civil thing to do, given the circumstances. In his book, Civility, Stephen Carter writes, “rules of civility matter precisely because they contain moral content. At the same time, they help us to create a world in which democratic dialogue – respectful conversation among citizens – is possible. And, very often, that democratic dialogue is precisely about which moral vision to impose. That is why civility does not require a suspension of moral judgment and must not make us reluctant to impose moral judgments on each other. On the contrary: civility creates the spaces in which a democracy discusses what it most values” (page 213).
These calls to civility are transparent attempts to censor dissenting voices in our denomination. Charging that the very act of disagreeing – even when the disagreement is made on the basis of supporting evidence – is somehow uncivil belies a proper understanding of the term. Again, Carter states, that the very nature of civility requires that sometimes, we must “offer moral criticism of the words and actions of our fellow citizens. There is nothing uncivil in this. We can respect the autonomy of our fellow citizens and still let them know when we disagree with their choices. Civility is not a vow of silence” (page 209).
The fact is that we are all contending for the truth of God and the future of our denomination. There are strongly held opinions on both sides of the key issues before our church and men and women of sincerity, conviction and integrity will come forward and speak with strength and passion. Let the debate go on and let’s not muzzle the voices or the views under a cloak of false virtue that serves only to stifle what we don’t want to hear.
Rather, let us value one another as those created in the image of God, exhibit the fruit of the Spirit in our discourse and follow as best we know how the example of our Lord, while we pursue the truth and righteousness of God with full commitment to standing against the wrong and promoting the right. This is the true civility to which our lives in Christ call us.
Richard G. Wolling is pastor of Beverly Heights Presbyterian Church in Mount Lebanon, Pa.