Click over to David Brooks’ article “Tree of Failure” and then come back a let me know what you think.
Here’s an excerpt —
Every sensible person involved in politics and public life knows that their work is laced with failure. Every column, every speech, every piece of legislation and every executive decision has its own humiliating shortcomings. There are always arguments you should have made better, implications you should have anticipated, other points of view you should have taken on board. …
But every sensible person in public life also feels redeemed by others. You may write a mediocre column or make a mediocre speech or propose a mediocre piece of legislation, but others argue with you, correct you and introduce elements you never thought of. Each of these efforts may also be flawed, but together, if the system is working well, they move things gradually forward.
Jay:
Here's an example of the problem from the readers' comments to Brooks' column (http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/opinion/14brooks.html?sort=oldest&offset=2):
"Given the fact that Brooks is an utterly clueless Obama loving and Obama worshipping loon and cultist, does Brooks have any objections to those people capable of recognizing the fact that Obama is a cancer on the United States of America? If so, what precisely are Brooks' objections to those people capable of recognizing the fact Obama is a cancer on the United States? Finally, since Brooks and the leftist freakshow freak fringe have both called Sarah Palin "a cancer", can Brooks provide the name of anyone else whom he considers "a cancer"?"
This is much, if not an outright majority, of the political speech from Brooks' sector of the political spectrum and not just directed ad hominem at the President but at those who don't their political beliefs. Not a lot of modesty there, as Brooks would put it, but I really don't expect him to call his own side out when he can declare a pox on both houses with explaining how both houses are somehow equally infected.
Politics aside, there is much truth in the article. I continue to learn more from criticism than praise. For the past 40 years, when I have produced a tract or Bible correspondence course for use in the mission fields, I've sent the manuscripts to many, asking for criticism – not praise – because improvements can't be made unless weaknesses are pointed out. (Of course, there are some people so negative that when they go out of the room, you feel like someone came in! They only offer destructive criticism.) I don't simply ask, "what's wrong" but, "how can it be improved"!
I have found myself increasingly avoiding arguments. While good can come from good-hearted people who disagree and who discuss their disagreements with humility and kindness, I have found it useful to avoid arguments on many issues in many situations because many arguments have a detrimental effect. Unless the issue is extremely important (and some issues are), it's not worth the risk of alienating a friend or potential friend. In addition, I really don't want to become the argument-enjoying man described in Titus 3:9-11 as "warped and sinful."
It’s a thoughtful article. Politics is one of those areas of life that demonstrates how Christians are strangers in this world. Politicians often have hidden agendas, Christians should be absolutely honest. Christian principles simply do not “work” in politics, but it would be a mistake to use political means to advance a religious ideology or to use religions to advance a political purpose.
It is not helpful to be argumentative with those who disagree with us. Most people are consistent in basing their conclusions on certain assumptions. Arguments take place when we do not understand one another’s assumptions. Productive conversation takes place when we consider our assumptions.
Greater humility might bring about more civility and cooperation (practical unity)…imagine that. He must ran across Ephesians 4.2 somewhere.
Great article!
Yet Paul was not afraid to call out those who misrepresented him and his ministry: see I Cor. ch. 1:12-24; ch. 7; and ch. 11.
The problem with our society – and often our churches – is not a failure of civility across the board. Civility, and the corresponding disposition to work with others – is alive and well. People tend to be polite to those they like (even the rude are polite to their friends); many within that group are civil to everyone. Ultimately real civility is premised on the disposition to work with others in good faith and good will. That makes it a character issue, and breakdown of character is not one that is unique to any particular time.
That makes the real problem that is incivility one of when a minority of people simply want what they want and care not upon whom they step to get it. They will say, and often do, anything about anybody they believe is in their way. Many folks had a problem with either Paul or his ministry or both, and they were quite prepared to damage the presentation of the gospel – and the young fragile faith of those who had first heard the gospel from Paul – to get their way. Paul stood up to them, and there was nothing uncivil about it. Civility does not require giving way to bullies, and that is precisely the problem with Brooks' diagnosis. He would paint everyone with a large tar brush, many of whom don't merit it, while letting the worst offenders escape identification, all of whom don't deserve it.