S5: E3: Civil Dialogue
S5: Civil Dialogue
E3 The Accuracy of Name Calling
Imagine sitting at a banqueting table where civility qualifies you to be there in the first place. Set before you are the finest tableware. Eleven pieces of silver cutlery are precisely situated: a fish knife and fork, dinner knife and fork, salad knife and fork, soup spoon, oyster fork, butter knife, and a dessert spoon and fork. The dinnerware is made from the finest bone china: a service plate, dinner plate, salad plate, butter plate, and soup bowl. Immaculate crystal glassware is placed at the top right in front of you: a water goblet, red and white wine glasses, and champagne flute. To your top left is a delicate coffee cup and saucer, silver teaspoon, pressed linen napkin, personalized salt and pepper, and a place card written in calligraphy in case you have forgotten your name.
If this is too overwhelming, imagine Lumiere and Mrs. Potts from Beauty and the Beast welcoming Belle to the Beast’s castle singing Be our Guest accompanied by the cutlery, dinnerware, and glassware joining the chorus, “Be our guest, be our guest, put our service to the test; tie your napkin around your neck, Cherie, and we'll provide the rest; soup du jour, hot hors d'oeuvres; why, we only live to serve, try the grey stuff, it's delicious; don't believe me, ask the dishes!”
This is civility at its finniest – and civil dialogue is cut from the same cloth, so to speak.
You see, the popular use of civility dates back to the 16th century referring to someone who has been educated in the humanities. That person would be skilled in rhetoric, or more directly the art of persuasion. So, if such a person addressed opposing views it would be with euphemisms like, “my worthy opponent” or “my learned friend” or “my honorable colleague”. Civility is courteous, polite, respectful, and measured behavior within discourse. Most of all civility contends for a position on something, but without malice.
Defined this way, there is still a great deal of cultural variance in what is considered to be civil in dialogue. For example, the Bible is filled with vigorous dialogue, especially in the gospels and the letters of Paul, John, Peter, and James. But can such dialogue be considered civil? Undeniably, Jesus did call certain people hypocrites, blind guides, fools, serpents, murderers, and even children of Satan (Matt. 23). Sounds like a nasty presidential debate, right?
How do we reconcile alleged name-calling with other verses in Scripture? For example, Jesus said, “Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ [a term of contempt] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell” (Matt. 5:22).
Well, there is more at play here than meets the eye.
The Greek language of the New Testament uses the word “hypocrite” to refer to an actor or a stage player. Any reference to a “serpent” was understood as a real and present danger especially to travelers. It was not uncommon for a snake to bite the ankle of someone not paying attention. And regarding a “fool”, the Greek language of the New Testament defines it as a closed-minded person. However, in the Hebrew Wisdom literature the words hypocrite, serpent, and fool are unquestionably rooted in a person’s morality. For example, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1).
Without developing a rabbit trail that distracts from the subject of civil dialogue, it is enough to say that Jesus, John, Paul, Peter, and James used words that carried a different tone and understanding to our present interpretation of those same words. Without trying to overreach this important observation, think about Victorian Britons. They referred to a child without a father as a bastard because it meant “illegitimate”. Well, try using that word today!
My point is simply this, civil dialogue must have a broad vocabulary to develop the grounds for taking up a position on something. At the same time, a broad lexicon can provide some light entertainment that would only bruise the ego of the insecure. Here are some examples:
“I prefer a battle of wits, but you appear to be unarmed.”
“I regard you with indifference that borders on aversion.”
“Sometimes I need to be reminded of what only you can provide.”
“I would agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.”
“It is impossible to underestimate you.”
Now, think about Jesus and some of the things he said.
For instance, there is great irony in saying, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Matt. 22:21). There is comedy in stating, “Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit” (Matt. 15:14). There is hilarity in this ludicrous image, “You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel” (Matt. 23:24)? These are just some examples that Jesus used to drive home a point.
Before there was such a thing as political correctness, woke, snowflake and so on, there was accuracy and inaccuracy. Let’s go back to Jesus and take a closer look at his civility.
Jesus clearly said, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” (Matt. 7:1). He also said, “But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one” (Matt. 5:34-37). However, these verses do not mean we cannot accurately judge, or accurately swear an oath. If this was not the case, there would be irreconcilable contradictions in Scripture.
For example, Jesus said, “Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly” (John 7:24). He also told a parable about the unjust judge (Luke 18). When Jesus (and James) forbade swearing an oath, it does not mean the US military, first responders, presidents, and other government officials that are sworn into office are somehow guilty of sin. The point is to accurately judge and swear an oath as opposed to inaccurately, which is clearly wrong.
Now, the same can be said for the names that Jesus applied to certain people: hypocrites, blind guides, fools, serpents, murderers, and even children of Satan (Matt. 23). In no way does this contradict his own words: “Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ [a term of contempt] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell” (Matt. 5:22). Once again, the point is accuracy. The contemptible term “Raca” was rather inaccurate, much like calling someone a “Complete Idiot” for doing something idiotic.
You see, civil dialogue can include “my worthy opponent” or “my learned friend” or “my honorable colleague”. But it can also include, “I prefer a battle of wits, but you appear to be unarmed.” If the person spouting (or shouting) their opinion is obviously witless, then the statement is not wrong. This is what Jesus did. He accurately used certain names that carried a deeper meaning than our present use of the same words.
We know from Scripture that Jesus had a keen mind. He “grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52). As a boy, his parents “found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions” (Luke 2:46). As a man, “he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law” (Matt. 7:29).
Here are six things you can do to increase your vocabulary in the discipline of civil dialogue:
1. Read: Encounter words within their context to see how they were used, and how they are used today.
2. Use a Dictionary: Use the same word in different ways. For example, the word “insightful” is synonymous with “intuitive” “discerning” “perceptive” and so on.
3. Use Flash Cards: Aim for using a new word every day, third day, or once a week.
4. Play Word Games: Scrabble, or any number of smartphone word games are not only competitive, they sharpen the mind.
5. Subscribe: Join a “Word of the Day” app and use them in your texts, social media posts, and emails.
6. Conversation: The most important practice is to use new words in conversation.
I started this blog with the word “imagine”, so allow me to finish the same way. Imagine yourself at the banqueting table with all the bone china dinnerware, crystal glassware, and silver cutlery set before you. During the fifth of the ten-course meal, a conversation gains your attention. You agree with several things that are said but disagree with other notable things. To coin the old adage, “What Would Jesus Do?”[1]
Well, I doubt that he would become politically correct and instead he would use civil dialogue. Check out some of his conversations at the dinner table (Luke 5:27-32; Luke 7:36-50; Luke 9:10-17; Luke 10:38-42; Luke 11:37-53; Luke 14:1-24; Luke 19:1-10; Luke 22:14-38; Luke 24:28-32; Luke 24:36-43)
[1] Originally used in the 1800’s popularized by the Book “In His Stapes: What Would Jesus Do” by Charles Sheldon and revived in the 1990’s youth group leader at Calvary Reformed Church in Holland MI, named Janie Tinklenberg.