Rules of Engagement for the Coming Church Battles

[Updated 1/14/05 to add some rule-breaking phrasings encountered on other blogs, and some words to avoid, and 6/28/05 to include an "executive summary" at the beginning.]  The worldwide debate about the future of the U.S. Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada is sure to intensify in the coming weeks.  In a few days, the ECUSA House of Bishops will meet to consider the Windsor Report.  Next month the primates of the Anglican Communion will meet for the same purpose. 

Unfortuately, tempers will rise in many segments of the church, not least in the blogsphere.  High horses will be climbed.  Anathemas will fly.  Feelings will be hurt.  People will talk about casting out their adversaries, or about pulling up stakes and moving on.  (Sometimes I'm as guilty as anyone.)

Ultimately, it may well turn out that way; we may not be able to stay together as one church.  But if we claim to want to try to remain unified, then let's act like it.  Let's not let the emotions of the debate cause us to say things we might later regret.

Toward that end, I propose the following rules of engagement for the coming battles:

• Take the hit
• Don't get personal, even indirectly
• Take the trouble to signal your friendliness
• Let the facts argue for themselves
• Be careful about categorical statements
• Watch your phrasing
• No-no's:  Some things not to say

Take the Hit

"Take the hit" is novelist Nevada Barr's recasting of Jesus' command, "turn the other cheek."  If some jerk posts a comment that outrages you, don't immediately leap to your keyboard to bang out a snarling response.   Others likely will recognize him for a jerk too.  You'll score far more points with the others -- or at least lose fewer points -- by remaining kind.

Don't Get Personal, Even Indirectly

In the coming debates, by all means (calmly) state your opinion of a particular viewpoint.  Feel free to (charitably) point out flaws in someone else's argument.

But don't get personal, even indirectly.  Every "personal" comment chips away just a bit more at whatever chances we do have of staying together. 

It's perfectly OK to think that homosexual conduct is prohibited by Scripture and therefore is a sin.  It's equally OK to think that it's a sin against charity to deny homosexuals the benefits of same-sex marriage. 

But don't attack someone because s/he disagrees with you.  Don't pin a derogatory label on a group, even if they engage in conduct that you regard as reprehensible. 

If you're convinced that someone is stupid, or even evil, you don't need to be the one to say it.  Let the facts speak for themselves, no matter how hard that may be.

EXAMPLE:  You may think conservatives are uneducated, mean-spirited louts who ought not be allowed in any position of responsibility in the church.  Stifle the urge to tell them so.  EXAMPLE:  You may think liberals are heretical, satanically-inspired hedonists who recognize no higher authority than themselves.  Keep it to yourself.

Take the Trouble to Signal Your Friendliness

Signals of friendliness and good intentions are important to maintaining community.  Suppose someone of the opposite persuasion makes a really dumb argument.  You immediately recognize its stupidity and prepare to expose its flaws for all to see. 

Don't assume that the proponent of the dumb argument will understand that you're not attacking her personally.   In drafting your witty, incisive response, say something to acknowledge the proponent as a sister in Christ; to thank her for contributing, to praise whatever you can about what she had to say. 

Diplomats and parliamentarians use elaborately courteous language, especially with opponents they may despise.  Follow their example.

Let the Facts Argue for Themselves

We can take a lesson -- a counterintuitive one -- from the legal profession.  A great legal brief often has no trace of slashing attacks or florid, dramatic phrasing.  Judges usually don't react well to such rhetoric.

Instead, a great legal brief often starts with a sober, dispassionate recounting of the underlying story in a factual way.  It lays out the facts of the story in such a way that the argument fairly leaps off the page.  A truly great legal brief leads the reader to the desired conclusion before it even gets to the "argument" part.

We can aspire to do likewise in our own interactions.

Be Careful About Categorical Statements

Closely related to sweeping generalizations, categorical statements are those that insist that X is always true, or that it's never true.  Be very careful about making such statements.  (All categorical statements are bad, including this one.)

Watch Your Phrasing

Don't surrender to the impulse to blast an adversary.  You won't impress anyone, except perhaps people who already agree with you.  Readers who disagree will be put off by your tone, and will be that much less willing to engage with you.  Is that what you really want?  (Ask yourself:  Would I phrase it this way if it were my grandmother who disagreed with me?)

Here are some examples, harvested from recent comments in the blogosphere.  Feel free to add others in the comments section of this posting.

DON'T SAY:  Bishop X is a heretical [or fundamentalist] so-and-so.  INSTEAD, TRY:  It seems to me that Bishop X is misguided.  [Comment:  It's hard to overuse the phrase "it seems to me" and phrases like it.]

DON'T SAY:  Your argument is sophomoric.  INSTEAD, TRY:  I have a hard time accepting your argument.

DON'T SAY:  Obviously you haven't read Aquinas' treatise on peanut butter sandwiches.  INSTEAD, TRY:  Have you considered how Aquinas' treatise affects your argument?

DON'T SAY:  Don't you know the Bible says X?  INSTEAD, TRY:  The Bible teaches X, which is pretty important to many of us.

DON'T SAY: The Bible makes it clear that X is true.  INSTEAD, TRY:  It seems to me the Bible makes it clear that X is true.

DON'T SAY:  If this keeps up, I'm out of here.  INSTEAD, TRY:  I don't believe Scripture allows me in good conscience to remain in fellowship with people who espouse the beliefs you do. [This is long and stilted, but it gets the job done, courteously.]

DON'T SAY:  Her argument is dishonest.  INSTEAD, TRY:  Her argument seems inconsistent with some other things she previously said.

DON'T SAY:  Since when has the church ever done anything like that?  INSTEAD, TRY:  Historically, the church has been reluctant to do X because ....

DON'T SAY:  You're not a real Christian.  INSTEAD, TRY:  As I understand the term Christian, it's difficult for me to regard your views as truly Christian.

DON'T SAY:  You obviously need to read up on this topic, as I have done.   INSTEAD TRY:  I've found some helpful materials in [book title, etc.] (Added 1/14/05)

[UPDATE:]  And here's a list of some words and phrases best left unsaid (added 1/14/05 from some of the blogosphere commentary in the wake of the House of Bishops statement on the Windsor Report):

• babble (as a noun)
• disgraceful
• drivel
• farce
• gutless
• simpering excuse
• utter nonsense
• wacko
• whining
• yahoos (in reference to people)

Sure, it's more work to phrase things courteously.  But it's worth it.

No-No's:  Some Things Not to Say

Comments such as the following are out of bounds; feel free to add more examples in the comments section:

"You [liberals / conservatives] should start your own church and leave the rest of us alone." Don't say this.  Those who want to go elsewhere, will.  Sarcasm merely poisons the atmosphere and makes others reluctant to express their opinions for fear of attack.  That's not how you build a church.

"If you don't like the faith of the universal church as it has always been received [OR, if you don't like the new insights that God has been revealing to his church], then you don't really belong here." Don't say this.  Jesus broke bread with sinners and tax collectors; is that something he would have said?

We Are the Body of Christ

Remember what the apostle Paul had to say in 1 Cor. 12:21, 27: 

The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don't need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don't need you!”  ...  Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

No matter what lies ahead, we are the body of Christ.  In our dealings with each other, let's act like it.

Comments

[WannabeAnglican]

I'm sorry. But apostates and false teachers are not part of the body of Christ. And if you think that's mean, then you don't want to read about what Paul said about such.

I appreciate your call for civility. But apostates and heretics should be called out just as Paul and the fathers called out the apostates of their day.

[Karen B.]

A nice post, QC. Thanks. About the only thing you wrote with which I struggled was the following.

It's perfectly OK to think that homosexual conduct is prohibited by Scripture and therefore is a sin. It's equally OK to think that it's a sin against charity to deny homosexuals the benefits of same-sex marriage.

I take issue with the phrase "it's perfectly ok" -- as if both are morally neutral positions.

We reasserters don't believe that these are morally neutral issues. And if something is a sin, it's NOT perfectly ok. If not repented of, it could cause someone to be eternally separated from God. We believe there is light and darkness, good and evil, black and white, truth and lies. And so sometimes the debate can't be recast into two equally morally neutral positions.

But, other than feeling the need to make that clarification, I really appreciated your words, and I appreciate all the challenging comments and questions you offer on T19 and elsewhere. Thanks.

[D. C.]

Many thanks for the kind words, Karen. Please note: I'm saying only that it's perfectly OK to think that homosexual activity is a sin, or to think that it's sinful to deny homosexuals the benefits of same-sex marriage. I've never understood it to be sinful to hold an opinion, no matter what its morality; it's what one actually does that might be sinful. (That's a separate issue from faith versus works, I think, which is an argument I hope to avoid [g].)

[D. C.]

Let me add another problematic phrase. DON'T SAY: The Episcopal Church has flouted Biblical authority. INSTEAD, TRY: Many regard the Episcopal Church's actions as contrary to Biblical authority.

[bls]

We reasserters don't believe that these are morally neutral issues. And if something is a sin, it's NOT perfectly ok. If not repented of, it could cause someone to be eternally separated from God. We believe there is light and darkness, good and evil, black and white, truth and lies. And so sometimes the debate can't be recast into two equally morally neutral positions.

The problem is that I don't believe this statement at all. "Reasserters" can claim that they "believe there is light and darkness, good and evil, black and white, truth and lies." But I've seen no evidence at all for this so far during the "homosexuality" debates, since I've never heard an argument against homosexuality that's based on logic - which is the means human beings most often use to decide what "truth" is. And no one ever seems to listen to gay people and what we say about our own "truth."

So when claims like this are made for "truth," I'm afraid I take them with a very large grain of salt at this point. And that's not a good sign for the upcoming "debates," I'd say.

Gay people are not "homosexuality." We are real flesh-and-blood human beings, and that's a "truth" that hasn't quite been digested yet. As Canon Edward Norman said, significant numbers of Christians are and always have been homosexual. Another truth.

Anyway, the "gay marriage" issue here is a red herring. It's not part of these debates, since it's a political and civil matter.

[bls]

(And BTW, that argument seems to imply that "reappraisers" aren't interested in distinguishing between "light and dark, good and evil, truth and lies."

Which reminds me of the accusation by conservatives of liberals that they are "moral relativists." But this isn't true, either, and here's an argument against this easy sort of disparagement:

Conservatives often accuse liberals of "moral relativism." Now I surely disagree with most liberals on many specific moral issues. But I'm puzzled about exactly what the commonly heard charge of moral relativism in general, as opposed to a charge of moral error on a particular issue, means.

I take it that it can't be that liberals don't believe in moral principles. They surely do: Most liberals, for instance, believe that race discrimination is wrong, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, legal interference with a woman's right to get an abortion (at least until a certain gestational age) is wrong, and so on.

Now it's true that, to liberals, some of these principles admit of exceptions -- but surely this is true of conservatives, too. Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians both agree, for instance, that killing is generally bad, but the definition of when killing is evil and when it's permissible (or even laudable) necessarily has to be pretty nuanced, so that it properly treats killing in self-defense, killing in war, and the like. In fact, some liberals of the pacifist stripe may employ a more nearly absolute prohibition on killing (at least of born humans) than conservatives do -- in my view, that's their moral error, but it's not an error of moral relativism.

[bls]

So you see, the "rules of engagement" have already been broken, from my point of view, by the insinuation that "reasserters" are interested in "truth," and by inference that "reappraisers" aren't.

How's that going to work out, then?

[David Huff]

Well, since the very first comment broke the rules of engagement (as did subsequent ones, per bls above), I can't hold on to much hope that the discourse will remain civil for long.

I think it's time we realize that there is an uncrossable gulf between a certain percentage of the "conservatives" and the mainline church that they are unwilling to bridge. I don't say this from an emotional standpoint, but from a pragmatic one. I think any discussion time between these groups would be much more productively spent in discerning ways to part company in a graceful and peaceful manner vs. artificially trying to force them together.

[D. C.]

David, personally I don't regard WannaBeAnglican's comment as crossing the line (not that anyone has asked me to be the judge). He obviously has strong feelings, and he expressed his opinion in a reasonably civil way. He probably doesn't regard either you or me as fellow Christians, or BLS either for that matter, and who knows whether he'd be willing to share a Eucharist with us, but that's his prerogative.

[bls]

I'm willing to talk. I actually want all this stuff to come out into the open and see the light of day.

But we have to set some terms, and start off on an equal footing. To have one side claim the mantle of "Truth-with-a-capital-T" before talks even begin creates resentment and anger (quite to be expected, in my view), and dooms the whole project from the beginning.

You may be right, David. Perhaps there's no way to bridge the gap; we'll soon find out, anyway. All of this does seem to raise more anger and bile than seems worthwhile, at times. On the other hand, we gay folks in the United States have a responsibility, I think, to people elsewhere; there are gay people in conservative Africa, and elsewhere, that have no place at all to go.

And to be honest, I think ECUSA will profit, too, from hearing and absorbing a (reasonable) conservative viewpoint. We really do need both sides to continue to be "via media," a thing I personally value a great deal.

[David Huff]

D.C., Well, having WannaBeAnglican refer to people he/she doesn't agree with as "apostates," "false teachers" and "heretics" doesn't strike me as horribly civil (them's fightin' words). However, I may have just grown thin-skinned from hearing that stuff so much ;)

bls, I agree whole-heartedly that ECUSA needs to hear from a "(reasonable) conservative viewpoint." We have many of these folks in our Via Media Dallas group and they add to our organization in a very positive way. We wouldn't be via media without them!

Matter of fact, I think it's critical to differentiate these conservatives from those who will not come to the table with the mainline folks and who are actively working to promote schism.

[bls]

Matter of fact, I think it's critical to differentiate these conservatives from those who will not come to the table with the mainline folks and who are actively working to promote schism.

I think this might be the key to the whole thing, actually.

Again, I'm willing to listen and to talk, even with the other folks, the "unreasonable" types. But they need to listen also, and they need to recognize, from the outset, that "liberals" (am I one? who knows at this point?) are also seeking truth. That's the whole point of all this, in fact. We're not trying to be "nice," although there's nothing wrong with that, either, now that I think of it. We're acknowledging reality and trying to figure out how to deal with it.

[Robert]

I would add "ilk" to the words to be avoided list (e.g., "Bishop X and her ilk"). It just sounds so dismissive.

"Diabolical" is also bad, when referring to people, ISTM.

I know a lot of people are disappointed and the stakes (seem?) high, but do we really hate each other this much to show such utter disdain for other people, especially other Anglicans? (And, yes, I think it's hate, no matter what qualifiers or justifications are given.)