When is the last time you got into a healthy disagreement? A healthy debate in which you and another person were having a conversation and you happened to disagree on an idea or a topic. A conversation in which each of you took the time to thoughtfully express why you believe what you believe without either of you getting offended by the end of the conversation. How often does that happen?
I recently had the privilege of having one of these conversations with another teacher at the school I work for. I am very fortunate to teach at a great school with a great team of teachers. At lunch, another teacher and I got into a conversation about the new Texas Senate Bill 1515 that was passed by the Senate just last month in Texas. If you haven’t heard about this bill, if passed, public schools in Texas would have to prominently display the Ten Commandments in every classroom starting next school year. That is if it goes on to be approved by the House. During the conversation, he asked me what I think about the bill and then we started talking about separation of church and state, as well as the free exercise clause and establishment clause found in the first amendment. As we were talking, he asked me some great questions and challenged me on the issue and I was also able to ask him some great questions and challenge him on the issue. You could tell we were mostly on different sides of the issue even though we probably agreed on whether or not the bill should be passed. Overall, it was a fun conversation where we mostly disagreed on our perspectives and yet, were able to respectfully challenge one another. As we were wrapping up the conversation, another teacher who had been sitting and listening in spoke up and expressed how encouraging it was to see a conversation where two people disagreed, but could have a healthy debate and share their thoughts in a compelling and respectful way.
This conversation, as well as other recent experiences got me thinking, “What happened to our ability to engage in civil discourse?” Sadly, as my colleague pointed out, it seems like these conversations are quickly becoming the exception and not the norm in our society. What happened to our ability to have conversations where we exchange ideas and perspectives even when we disagree on those ideas and perspectives? With this in mind, I want to spend some time talking about the topic of civil discourse. Now, let’s take a moment to define it,
Civil Discourse: is a discussion or debate characterized by reasoned, respectful, and thoughtful exchanges of ideas.
On the other hand, here’s what civil discourse is not,
Civil Discourse is NOT: an emotional display of ideas that contain personal attacks, direct insults or deliberate falsehoods.[1]
So, here’s a question, which one is more common in our society today? A discussion or debate characterized by reasoned, respectful, and thoughtful exchanges of ideas or an emotional display of ideas that contain personal attacks, direct insults, and deliberate falsehoods? Sadly, I would say the latter. We live in a culture where canceling, ghosting and personal attacks are the new norm. So here are three questions I want to help us answer in this article: Why is civil discourse so important? Why is it missing from our society today? What can we do about it?
Why is civil discourse so important?
First, I would argue that the ability to engage in civil discourse is an indispensable foundation that our nation was built on. We have a great example of this in American History with the Constitutional Convention of 1787. This was the event in Philadelphia where our founding fathers drafted our constitution. When you look at the men involved in this event, they were deeply divided on the issues being discussed. They were dealing with controversial issues such as slavery, representation, and states’ rights vs. national government. And I would argue they were just as passionate about the issues of their day as we are about the issues of our day. Yet, at this convention where they were drafting our constitution, they were able to come together and have these challenging conversations and debates in a productive manner that ultimately led to one of the greatest political documents ever written, the American Constitution.
Going into this convention they set up some important rules for their debates,
1. They had to address issues without making personal attacks or interrupting other speakers
2. They gave everyone an opportunity to speak and to be heard
3. They gave the speaker their full attention and weren’t allowed to distract themselves by reading or other activities during the dialog[2]
Was it perfect? No, but there was a sense of humility about many of these men. I love what Benjamin Franklin said about the event. He said,
“I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on more important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others.” -Benjamin Franklin
When I read these words, there is such wisdom and humility in them. With that said, the ability to engage in civil discourse really is an indispensable foundation that our nation was built on.
The second reason civil discourse is important is because it allows us to live together in a society, even when we disagree. The reality is not everyone we do life with agrees with us. In fact, even our closest friends don’t see eye to eye on everything. Our family members don’t always see eye to eye on everything. This is one of the reasons it’s dangerous to bring up politics at Thanksgiving. Then, we have to think about our broader sphere of relationships; like the people we work with, the person at the grocery store, and the list could go on and on.
So, we have to be able to function in life with all of these people, in all of these different contexts, with all of these different perspectives and ideas. And I would argue that we can’t and shouldn’t try to cancel everyone out of our lives simply because we don’t agree with their ideas. In fact, civil discourse is the thing that allows us to have conversations that bring out compromises and some of the best ideas.
The last reason it’s so important to engage in civil discourse and these types of conversations is because it’s one of the best ways to learn how to think well. Again, this is the goal of Speaking Your Lingo, “To help this generation think well.” When we get into conversations, especially with people we disagree with, there are a few things that happen. We gain perspective, we hear viewpoints and ideas different from our own, and we’re challenged on our own assumptions. All of these are really good things.
Anyone who knows me well knows that I love to have a good debate. I’m one of those weird people who debate for fun. So, for me, there is nothing better than having some sort of philosophical or theological debate with good friends and taking a side. But one of the primary reasons I like to debate is because it helps me learn. Even if my views are not completely changed after a good debate, my views often shift and sometimes they shift quite significantly from when the conversation started. This is due to the fact that through these conversations we’re forced to use our logic to build understanding and to think through these topics at a deeper level. In other words, when done well, I would argue a good debate is a beautiful thing.
What happened to Civil Discourse in our society?
So, what happened to Civil Discourse in our society?Where did these types of conversations go?I think there are four things that happened to our ability to have these types of conversations.
First, we have stopped valuing truth. In America today, one of the reasons we don’t value civil discourse is connected to the fact that we don’t value truth. You need at least two things in order to have these types of conversations, a desire to seek truth and humility. Here’s why, when we each value seeking truth in a conversation, even when we disagree on a subject or topic, we are at least trying to pull the rope in the same direction. We are at least trying to ask the same kinds of questions, even if we come up with different answers to those questions. Truth gives us that common foundation to build on. But as I spoke to in the last article, in our relativist culture, many people aren’t searching for truth anymore and this only makes it more difficult to find that common ground.
Something I think all of us need to recognize is that one of the reasons we are so challenged by truth is due to its exclusivity. Truth is exclusive by nature. Meaning, if the truth is one thing, then it often excludes all of the other options. For example, the truth that Michael Phelps alone has won the most Olympic Gold medals of all time is exclusive. It means that this is not true of anyone else. With that said, if someone believes for example that Matthew McConaughey has won the most Olympic Gold medals of all time, that would be incorrect because the truth excludes that option.
Another example of truth being exclusive by nature, is if I were to day, “I am my wife’s husband.” Now assuming we have a monogamous relationship, which we do, that excludes all other women from being my wife. Now that’s not narrow minded, that’s just reality. This is the same when religious claims are made. For example, take the truth claim in Christianity that, “Jesus is the only way to God.” Is this claim exclusive? Yes, absolutely. But is it mean or is it narrow-minded? No, it’s just a claim about reality. All of these claims are just that a statement about reality. Wherever you land on these claims will inevitably exclude all of the other options because again truth is exclusive by nature.
Second, we have redefined the word tolerance and have made this false definition an ultimate virtue. One of the greatest challenges to our ability to engage in civil discourse is the modern or relativist view of tolerance. The modern definition of tolerance is this, “All views are equally valid; no view is better than another.”[3] Here’s the challenge, because of this view of tolerance, if you think someone’s opinion is wrong or incorrect and you share that concern, even if it’s done in a polite way, you have broken culture’s ultimate virtue and you are often labeled hateful or even worse, intolerant. But think about this for a moment, can this definition of tolerance be true? Are all views equally valid and is no view better than another? I want to point out that there are some major issues with this view of tolerance. For example, as Greg Koukl points out, the idea that, “All views are equally valid and no view is better than another,” is hopelessly contradictory. Here’s why, you could also say that if, “All views are equally valid,” then you would have to include the view that all views are not equally valid,” because that’s a view in itself. The statement falls apart on itself. In other words, this view of tolerance is not coherent.[4]
Another issue with this modern view of tolerance is that in order for us to tolerate someone, we actually need to disagree with them first. Think about it, we do not need to tolerate someone we agree with because we already agree with their views. There is nothing to tolerate about someone if we agree on the same views. So, we actually need to disagree with someone in order to tolerate them.
Pastor and theologian Tim Keller makes a great point in saying, “Tolerance isn’t about not having beliefs. It’s about how your beliefs lead you to treat people who disagree with you.” In other words, true tolerance is not about holding ideas or how we treat ideas, but how we treat people. True tolerance is respecting peoples’ beliefs and their right to hold those beliefs that are different than our own. But again, we have to actually disagree first. The beautiful thing about true tolerance is that it allows us to disagree on culturally sensitive issues including religious beliefs and politics and yet, at the same time, treat the people we disagree with with dignity and respect.
Third,we have traded face-to-face conversations for cheap digital interactions. This is a big one because when we are online and on social media, we have way less empathy for the person sitting behind a screen than a person sitting face-to-face in front of us. This automatically allows us to be more combative and less polite. People can’t read our faces or our body language, or hear our tone. So, it makes these conversations so much more challenging when having them digitally.
Another challenge of our online world is that we also have the ability to isolate ourselves into our own little echo chambers. We only watch and listen to people who think the way we do and we don’t get to hear any other voices. We start to think that the whole world thinks the same way we do and we don’t know how to respond when someone happens to disagree with us.
Fourth, we are a nation turning towards fragile identities. Many people in our society have fragile identities that are based on fragile ideas. When your value and your worth are based on fragile ideas and someone challenges those ideas, it is very hard to separate your emotions from the conversation. (There is a lot more I would like to say about this and maybe I will go into this more in a future article.)
How do we get back to Civil Discourse?
- In order to have civil discourse, we have to stop being easily offended by ideas.
We have to be okay with and expect people to have different ideas than us, even if those are what we consider bad ideas. That doesn’t mean that we have to like those bad ideas or that we can’t argue against bad ideas. In fact, I think we should argue against bad ideas, but people are free to have those bad ideas and I don’t have to be offended by them. When we talk about ideas turning into bad actions, that’s a different conversation. Those are two different things, but people have to be able to express ideas, even the ones we disagree with. For example, as a Christian, I am not offended by people who don’t believe that God exists. People are completely free to hold that position and by not being offended by it, it actually allows me to have some amazing conversations with people who see things differently.
- In order to have civil discourse, we need to attack ideas, not people.
Not all ideas are equal. There are a lot of bad ideas out there. So, let’s attack those, but we don’t want to attack people in the process. We have to stop these personal attacks against people we disagree with and choose to honor those people, even if we disagree with their ideas.
- In order to have civil discourse, we need to learn to ask good questions and listen carefully to the responses.
Asking good questions can help us gain understanding in a conversation and it allows the other person to share their insights. Before we share our views, it is always best to try and understand where someone is coming from and how they got there. This is what helps create empathy and directs our tone in the conversation. Now, I know that I am speaking in broad terms and some conversations happen in different contexts. Yet, if you have the ability to have one-on-one personal conversations, asking questions is the way to go. Two of my favorite questions to ask are,
“What do you mean by that?”
“How did you arrive at that conclusion?”[5]
These questions can help keep the conversation focused and allow you to gain an understanding of how the person arrived at their conclusion.
- In order to have civil discourse, we need to do our best to be approachable.
We can still choose to love people that we strongly disagree with. Tim Keller has a great quote that speaks to this, he says, “Be the kind of person about whom people conclude that, even if they disagree with you, you are someone they can approach about such matters.” This should be our goal in these types of conversations, to be the kind of person that when people disagree with us, they still feel that we are someone they can approach about such matters.
Conclusion:
Whether you agree or disagree with my thoughts, I hope this article has challenged you to think well about the topic of civil discourse. In the next article, I am going to be looking at the concept of morality and justice. Is there such a thing as objective morality? If so, what do we ground it in? Lastly, what role should morality and religious convictions play in politics and government? Until next time, thanks for reading.
[1] Center for Civic Education. We the People: The Citizen & the Constitution -Level 3, High School. Calabasas, CA. Center for Civic Education. 2009.
[2] Center for Civic Education. We the People: The Citizen & the Constitution -Level 3, High School. Calabasas, CA. Center for Civic Education. 2009.
[3] Greg Koukl, “The Intolerance of Tolerance,” Stand to Reason, January 1, 2006, https://www.str.org/w/the-intolerance-of-tolerance.
[4] Greg Koukl, “The Intolerance of Tolerance,” Stand to Reason, January 1, 2006, https://www.str.org/w/the-intolerance-of-tolerance.
[5] Koukl, Gregory; Koukl, Gregory. Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions. Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Speaking Your Lingo 
Leave a comment