As the number of candidates dwindles the decibel level rises in every cafe in America. A Presidential election is a passionate affair. Battle lines are drawn, forces marshaled, and fierce defenses made of party and platform – often in tones more suited to a shouting match than a debate. When logic fails to convince, personal attacks, abuse, and contempt quickly follow. Listening to one of these confrontations quickly reveals a cardinal rule of coffee-house political debate: grant no merit to the other candidate’s platform and admit no fault, not the slightest ambiguity, in your candidate’s positions.
In another context, what I have heard loudly proclaimed like Greek tragedy, with echoing chorus, would have the elements of a shared delusion. Only once in fifteen years of clinical pastoral work did I encounter this fascinating psychotic disorder, but it stands out in memory precisely because of the unquestioned statements and unchallenged assumptions of those involved. Critical thinking, present in other aspects of their lives, was placed on hold in the defense of their shared vision of the world – a bizarre one at that. Passionately held beliefs need not be bizarre or even unhealthy. A given belief, no matter how cherished, might not be the only lens through which one can look at the world, and one political solution might not be the only way to solve a problem. It is like photography, where multiple aperture and shutter speed combinations give exactly the same exposure. You can get to the same picture through multiple routes. But not if one view blinds us to all other possibilities.
Jesus’ caution to his disciples is still good advice: “See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” To be wise as a serpent is to be discerning, to question what we hear, especially those dogmatic assertions that admit no other viewpoint, those propositions presented as universal truths, yet lacking supporting evidence, and those demagogic statements that create false dichotomies and belittle those who dare to differ with us. To be innocent as doves is never to be naïve; it is to be mindful of the impact of our words and to put in the forefront respect for the one who stands before us. There must always be room for acknowledging heartfelt disagreement while preserving relationships. The alternative is rigidity and an unshakeable, Pharisaical certainty that embitters and isolates.
We have a right and even a duty to state our opinions. But Dag Hammarsköld’s aphorism ought to govern our social and political discourse. “Only tell others what is important to them. Only ask them what you need to know. In both cases, that is, limit the conversation to what the speaker possesses. – Argue only in order to reach a conclusion.” Too often we argue to win when consensus is clearly impossible. We argue to dominate. Too often we parrot what others have said about matters about which we have little, if any, personal expertise. If we limited the conversation to what we possess – our own expertise – we would be silent.
“Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one,” is sound advice going far beyond oath-taking and truth-telling. It is a call for tempered speech in all contexts. It is nothing less than a demand to acknowledge our own limitations; to stand by our beliefs while defending others’ right before God to stand by their beliefs. To prayerfully seek wisdom and guidance from the one who has promised to provide it is our only defense against being drawn into the shared delusion, the folie à deux, of social and political discourse.
John Budde's Weblog 