My post on civility yesterday got far more than the usual amount of feedback on Facebook. Some of the responses explored nuances I failed to consider. Others led me to believe that I had leaned into the notion of civility so much that I did not made it clear that I believe strongly in speaking up. So I thought I’d break with my normal blogging schedule to revisit the topic.
What is civility anyway?
Let’s start with a definition of civility — something I didn’t bother with in yesterday’s post. According to Merriam-Webster, civility means: “civilized conduct, especially: courtesy, politeness; a polite act of expression.”
When I think of civility, I think of the first part of this definition: “civilized conduct.” In my mind, civility is common decency. It’s taking the high road. Once you bring politeness into the definition, I wonder if civility is overrated after all. As I mentioned in my last post, Jesus was not always polite.
Both civility and incivility are difficult to define. It’s easy for someone who is offended to point to behavior and call it “incivility.” But if you offend someone, you weren’t necessarily uncivil. Incivility is offensive. But legitimate protest can also come across as offensive to the targets of the protest. John the Baptist told Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife” (Mark 6:18). Herod reacted by throwing him into prison. John was offensive but perfectly civil.
When is it okay to…?
Another problem is deciding when behavior is or is not civil. There are so many gray areas. Is swearing uncivil? If we don’t measure incivility by whether or not people are offended, then is swearing always okay? What about when Samantha Bee called Ivanka Trump a c*nt? As I mentioned in my post yesterday, Jesus called the Pharisees “brood of vipers,” among many other things. Bee used a word many people consider offensive. Other than that, is there any difference between what she had to say and what Jesus had to say? Perhaps because I see c*nt as an incredibly sexist term, I have a problem with Bee’s language. To me, it stoops to incivility. Other people might say that harsh times call for harsh language.
Reflecting on Jesus’ terms for the Pharisees brings another problem to mind: Is it ever okay to use dehumanizing language? Despite the frequent comparison of people with animals these days, the general consensus seems to be that such language isn’t civil. This gives those of us who are Christians something to wrestle with. As this Methodist pastor points out, the prophetic voice can be pretty harsh. But when is it okay to compare people to animals, and when is it not okay?
Maybe I shouldn’t be talking about civility at all. It’s not in the Bible. As one friend pointed out, we are called to be loving, which isn’t the same as being civil.
This friend also noted that the command to turn the other cheek is a command to individuals on how they should respond to individuals. She’s right. I’ll take her point even further: Too often “turn the other cheek” is hurled by those in power at those without power, encouraging them to put up with abuse in the name of Jesus. I don’t know if he ever literally told a woman to “turn the other cheek,” but think of the way Paige Patterson counseled abused women to pray for their husbands rather than leave the situation or report the abuse to the police. Jesus did tell us to “turn the other cheek.” But we need to be careful that we aren’t using that command to uphold injustice.
So, where does that leave us?
All I’ve done in this post is to point out problems: problems with my last post and problems with trying define civility and incivility.
But I stand behind my main point in yesterday’s post: We should not stoop to behavior that we condemn in others — even if it means losing the midterm election. I realize that things are bad. I believe we need to do everything within our power — within the bounds of common decency — to turn the tide. But we need to look carefully at our own behavior. Are we living up to the standards to which we hold our opponents?
It is ridiculous that this administration got upset over the fact that Sarah Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant, given the things Trump says and does on a daily basis. And whether or not you think Stephanie Wilkinson’s behavior to Sanders was uncivil, it would be too mild to use “incivility” to describe some of the responses to the Red Hen incident. People have thrown eggs and excrement at the Red Hen (and other restaurants with that name). They’ve made death threats (and these threats have reached people who have nothing to do with the Red Hen in Virginia). Death threats aren’t uncivil; they are evil. This sort of behavior makes me reluctant to criticize Wilkinson.
But in the end, I believe it comes down to this: How do you feel about the Supreme Court’s decision to allow businesses to refuse service to gay couples who are getting married? Do you believe this ruling protects the religious freedom of the business owners? Then you have to accept that Wilkinson, too, was making a decision about the morality of someone’s behavior. She refused service to Sanders because she didn’t want to support her behavior.
If you believe that businesses should not be allowed to discriminate against gay couples, why was it okay for Wilkinson to refuse service to Sanders based on her feelings about Sanders’ behavior? Maybe she should have tried another approach — something along the lines of what the cast of Hamilton did when Mike Pence attended the show. She could have served the table herself and asked Sander to reconsider her continued defense of Trump’s policies.
Civility is a slippery thing to pin down. I don’t know if this follow-up post has really done any good in trying to clarify my thoughts on the issue. And in the end, I am not God. I have no doubt that I am wrong about many things. But I believe that we need to wrestle with this issue and to hold ourselves to high standards — even while we fight for change. As I said in yesterday’s post, doing the right thing doesn’t guarantee a win. But we must not embrace that which have condemned in others for the sake of winning.