Love, Not Hate.

I sit down to write this the morning after a historic vote on Health Care here in the United States. I’ll confess right up front that I’m happy about the result (just to get that out of the way) but I know that many others, especially many Christians, are not. I don’t pretend to think that all Christians agree on everything (or the the bible dictates that one political party is right and another wrong) and I’m glad we can have such wide ranging views on the world and still follow the same Christ. All that being said, let me dive into my point:

This morning as I drove to my local Starbucks, I was listening to talk radio. They were, of course, talking about health care and taking phone calls on the topic. It was a self-proclaimed liberal talk show, so I was surprised that they took a call on the topic from an unashamed conservative. The caller mentioned, right off the bat, that he wasn’t happy about the bill’s passage and a conversation ensued about the good and bad points of the bill. I sat there shocked. A conversation ensued. Respectful back-and-forth took place. There was no yelling. There was no name calling. There were questions like “What don’t you like about the bill?” and statements such as “I can understand why you don’t like that…” I was flabbergasted. This was the political conversation of my dreams. Respectful adult disagreement on an important issue which was totally devoid of hate. I felt like America had progressed, even for just a minute.

Now, let me say that I have no illusions about why this conversation came easier on a liberal talk show than it might have on a conservative one today. It’s easy to feel generous and to be a good listener when you win. It’s easy to respect the other side when you know you bested them, politically. I won’t pretend I would be writing this blog entry if I was on the other side this morning…but good is good, even if I wouldn’t have felt like saying it after a ‘defeat’ of my ideals.

We Are A People Of Love

That brings this entry back around, as it always does, to my faith in Jesus and my involvement with Christianity. After hearing this debate on the radio, I sat down to my computer and launched my social networks. The vast majority of my friends on these networks are Christians and I was afraid to see what was being written.

Stop there for a second.

Why should I be afraid of what Christians were going to be writing this morning? Is it because I knew that a majority wouldn’t be happy about the outcome of last night’s vote? No, I wasn’t afraid of disagreement (the radio conversation just inspired hope through the voicing of disagreement). What I was afraid of was hateful disagreement.

The fact that I was afraid of this was based on previous experience. In the past my political and religious math tells me that Christianity + Politics = Hateful Speech. I can’t think of hardly a single exchange over the past years where a person of faith talked about political issues in a way that uplifted me or inspired me to follow Christ and love others more intensely.

Why is that? Why is today’s Christian political discussion seemingly based on mudslinging hate against “the gays”, “baby killers”, and “liberals” instead of on love, hope and inspiration? If I was outside the faith, why would I want to sign up for such hateful religion?

The Proper Response

I want to bring it back to that radio talk show discussion. Then I want to ask a question that I don’ t have an immediate answer for: How should Christians who disagree with last night’s vote address today’s world in love? What would a truly Christian response look like? Would it talk about killing babies or would it be thankful for the millions who will be helped through these changes? Would it assert the positive (and respectfully voice overall disagreement) or only mention the negative?

I know, I know. Christianity doesn’t mean being a hippie that only sees good. We know that there are evils that need to change. Jesus clearly saw those and spoke out against them (but let’s not forget: we’re not Jesus either, so we need to take that behavior with a grain of self-doubt). Is the most effective way for us to change things an approach based on love and respect? Or on hate and mudslinging?

I only ask for a loving response today. I don’t ask for agreement. I don’t ask for acceptance of things that go against our faith. But I do ask for love and respect. How are you, as a Christian, responding to last night’s vote? In love (be it disagreement or agreement) or hate?

Print article

This entry was posted by Bob on March 22, 2010 at 11:06 am, and is filed under General. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

Bruce

John, I think you may have misunderstood my tone. I in no way intended to breach the positive angle of Bob's post and I apologize if my comments came across that way.

I'm actually hoping to do exactly what the post asks for and have a "respectful back-and-forth conversation." Asking for additional responses on certain topics doesn't automatically make things negative does it? Maybe I'm missing something.
Josiah Ritchie

Ok, here's a start at something of a bibliography on that topic.

Christian View of Government and Law - Good read all around imho:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/xian-pol.html
Since civil government is necessary and divinely ordained by God (Rom. 13:1–7), it is ultimately under God’s control. It has been given three political responsibilities: the sword of justice (to punish criminals), the sword of order (to thwart rebellion), and the sword of war (to defend the state).

Rom 13:1-7
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%2013:1-7&version=NIV
Josiah Ritchie

:-) Bob, thanks for throwing the challenge down. Now I gotta go dig up my proper scriptural support.
Bob

In relation to Josiah's comment and the following discussion about the role of family/church/government, a post today by Jim Wallis over at Sojourners adds some interesting commentary on this issue. Specifically, it talks about why he believes that personal/church support is important, but inadequate if it doesn't partner with the rest of society and government.

Give it a read here
Mike Dunphy

I don't pretend to have any deep spiritual insight on the matter. I'll admit I'm very immature in my faith. I love Bob's original post and is hits home how we should respond in the model of Christ's love. Another question that goes hand-in-hand with Bob's is how we respond to mudslinging aimed at us.

I have to say that I'm pretty far-right leaning in my politics and in my political debate experience, I'm often immediately put off by liberals (no malice meant in the term) as narrow-minded and bigoted merely for not sharing the same view point. That because I voted for McCain, that somehow I'm racist.

I know the example is extreme, but the tone from the left isn't anymore grace-filled than the shameful tone from some of the right. So the question I struggled with is, how do we respond in civil discourse with those who refuse to be civil? I'm still searching on that one.

Josiah's description of old testament views of government, church, and family are great and something that I've never thought of. And, Beth's "snide jokes" comment really hit home.

Blessings!
Paul Clifford

I don't think I've ever agreed so much with a comment as the one by Josiah.

I don't think the people in Matthew 7 would have a good defense if they said, "We're Americans; we paid taxes so we fed You when You were hungry and clothed You when You were naked."

Paul
Josiah Ritchie

Bob, let me give a bit more structure to my statement. I believe that God ordained three institutions in the old testament that remain in place today. His first was family, the second government and third the church. Each part remains separated throughout scripture. The lines blur from time to time, but I think that it is pretty clear that God gave the responsibility of justice and security of the whole to the government. He gave responsibility of spiritual and physical care to the church and then the family has responsibility for the smaller unit and training of the youngest of us.

I studied this rather deeply in college for a project on the death penalty. I really struggled with my understanding of the death penalty for quite awhile when working on that project. Once I came to the conclusion that God had ordained government to be responsible for the delivery of justice I came to the conclusion that it was on the governments shoulders to decide what was just punishment. It is a strange thing that our government allows us any participation in that at all; consider monarchies. I see no scripture that supports or disparages any particular style of government.

This has been a topic that's come up more frequently for me, of late, so I really should study it again and get my scriptural support back in order. I used to have it. :-)

On a rather random aside, I also question if the government should be in the business of education, but I think this gives them precedence of a sort for getting into the business of health care. We outsourced our family responsibilities to our government a long time ago. My view is that the loss of this balance has been a problem for a long time.

As to the question of whether the church can do it or not, I'd say it was shown in the case of New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina that the church can and has done it better than the government. That day the government fell down and the churches stepped up. To me, it was a glimmer of hope that the church can still handle their responsibility, if only they recognized the need more urgently. So who is hiding the need? My answer is government programs. "We pay our taxes, what more should be expected of us?" I hear the same attitude in relation to missions, "We give money to the missionary, what more do you want?" Ultimately, they are the same heart problem. It's someone else's problem as long as I just part with some of my abundant cash.
Bob

Brilliant stuff here, Josiah. Thanks for sharing an insight that I'll chew on heavily for the coming days. Can you post any resources/scripture that support the roles you've laid out here? It jives with my understanding of God, but I'd love to see it in writing to dig deeper.
Steve

John, I think you may have misunderstood my tone. I in no way intended to breach the positive angle of Bob's post and I apologize if my comments came across that way.

I'm actually hoping to do exactly what the post asks for and have a "respectful back-and-forth conversation." Asking for additional responses on certain topics doesn't automatically make things negative does it? Maybe I'm missing something.
John Kozicki

It stayed positive for 3 comments. Not bad considering the topic.

Well said, Bob.
B.C. McWhite

Yes.
Steve

Good thoughts.

I'd love to hear your definition of "hateful speech," in that you used this term many times without really clarifying what it is and what it isn't. We all know "hate" is a buzz word right now, used both socially and politically to paint one's opponent into a corner. I'm interested to know your take on that issue, for clarity's sake.

Also, part of me cringes at your words: "some things are too big for anyone but countries (government, presumably?) to do." Jesus addressed the issue of taxation specifically, putting it squarely in the government category. But because so much of Jesus' message involved helping the poor and downtrodden ("keeping the playing field level" would of course be an INTERPRETATION of Jesus' message, not his actual message), it seems unbiblical for you to assert that the task of helping the poor should land on government and not the Church. After all, the Church is Christ's body, and to say that something is too big for the Church implies that it is to big for Christ. I understand I am splitting hairs here - I'm just interested in your response.
beth g sanders

You really spoke to me with this post. I'm so frustrated with the way Christians think it's OK to demonize people who disagree. We crack snide jokes at the "other side's" expense and then tell each other "good one" and like it on Facebook. We think we are funny when we come up with a clever way to disparage a group of people.

Why can't we just disagree, say why we disagree without the mud-slinging.

I'm not saying Jesus would agree with everything the Obama — or any other — administration does. But I think many Christians have given themselves far too much license to say what they interpret as "the truth" in a most unloving fashion.

Let's really speak the truth in love — and don't forget the love, ok?

P.s. I've hidden a couple of folks on Facebook this morning.
Josiah Ritchie

Thank Bob! This is probably going to be the only conversation related to health care that I'll have anything to say on. That is because of the approach you are taking on it.

I disagree with it and that ultimately has to do with my conviction that the church has out-sourced their responsibilities to the government. Perhaps this is needed because the church has failed in another area. I long for the days of mission hospitals filled with loving Christian people who served the physical needs and brought a spiritual insight into the mix.

Anyway, to answer your question, "How should Christians who disagree with last night’s vote address today’s world in love?"

Where do we learn to talk politics? Conservative people, the Christians far from excluded, have learned how to talk politics at the feet of Limbaugh and company, not Christ. Limbaugh is an entertainer. His job is to keep your attention and sell ad time. He does a marvelous job at this playing on the weaknesses and humanity, appealing to the need to feel like a part of something and to be right, to be in the special group that has figure it all out. He's talking to his listeners, not to the world. He doesn't care about people who don't want to listen and he profits from ripping apart those who disagree and dare call into his show. What part of that looks like Christ? Yet the conservative Christian learns to talk politics by daily taking in his thoughts and others.

I think the first thing to recognize is that the tone and words used make pretty clear that the speaker doesn't care about those on the other side. If we truly cared our tone and words would be persuasive, not biting. They would be soft and inviting, not hard and closed. They would be respectful and considerate, not hateful and hurtful. In the end, I think we've learned to talk politics from those using tactics exactly opposite the appropriate response that our faith would encourage. We've neglected to realize that their objectives (sell ad times and entertain) are not our objectives. Then we must learn to love, but also respect and consider our audience. Are they truly served by what we have to say or are they being confronted with hatred?

If we can't do that, we must keep our mouth shut.
Bob

Good stuff here. I just wanted to say that in a conversation with a friend this morning, he said exactly the same thing: This happened because the Church failed to take care of their responsibility of helping those in need.

That's an interesting take away that I hadn't seen until you two mentioned it. I think it's partially true, but partially laying an impossible burden on the church. In my view, some things are too big for anyone but countries to do. I count collection of taxes, maintenance of a military/security, and protecting the poor and downtrodden (and keeping things on a fairly level playing field) on a national scale three things under this category.

Although I'd like to think The Church could do something this big, I'm not sure it could or should. I think we should care for people one at a time and through personal relationship, not in large groups. Regardless, it's a good observation to think about.

Love, Not Hate.

We Are A People Of Love

The Proper Response

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Reads

My Stuff