By Lauren R. Stanley

What does it say about the state of dialogue in the Episcopal Church when it takes the president of the United States to remind us how to engage in civil discourse?

President Obama, speaking at the University of Notre Dame, asked, “As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?”

The president spoke about the failure of both sides in the debate over abortion to use “fair-minded words,” and said that he had learned through his own hard experience to “extend the same presumption of good faith to others” that had been extended to him. “Because when we do that,” he said, “that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.”

We in the Episcopal Church, and indeed throughout the Anglican Communion, need to take the president’s words to heart. For in our disagreements – about the proposed Anglican Covenant, about sexuality, about diocesan border crossings, about interpretation of the Scriptures – we have lost the ability to be civil toward each other, or, to put it in theological terms, to give grace just as much as we demand it. We far too often forget – or decide not to – extend the presumption of good faith to others.

And in doing so, we lost the possibility of common ground.

Any scientist, any social scientist, any doctor will admit readily that there are more questions than answers in the universe. We understand so little about the human body, the universe, diseases; we are baffled by economics; we cannot explain the workings of the mind fully. We admit that we do not know so very much, and we pursue greater understanding every single minute of every single day.

In theology, we boldly proclaim the same thing: God, Anselm of Bec taught us, is that which nothing greater can be conceived. The Apostle Paul proclaimed that now we see only dimly. Jesus said we cannot know the mind of God. We know that God is unknowable to us in all of God’s godliness, because God is so much bigger than we are. This is core to our beliefs about God, because to know God fully in this life is to reduce God to our size, which theologically is illogical.

Then one side or the other in a debate turns right around and proclaims to know the mind of Christ. In our eagerness to be more right than someone else, we proclaim that we know – that we KNOW – what God wants of us, what God thinks of us, what God demands of us. And no matter what we are debating, we throw around our beliefs as though they were written in stone, and in doing so demonize those who disagree with us, claiming that they are, quite simply, WRONG!

In listening to various debates on various subjects over the last 17 years, ever since I became an Episcopalian, I have been appalled at the abject level to which much discourse descends on a regular basis. The name-calling, the demonization, the decided lack of grace toward anyone who disagrees … it is shameful, really, how low we will go in order to try to “win.”

On the worst days of our debates, when we truly are demonizing each other, I wait, trembling in fear rather like Job, for God’s thundering response to our arrogance in proclaiming that we have all the answers. I hear God’s voice raging from the whirlwind:

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements – surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut in the sea with doors, when it burst forth from the womb; when I made clouds its garment, and thick darkness its waddling band, and prescribed bounds for it, and set bars and doors, and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed?’ Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place, that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?”

“Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty?” God asked. “He who argues with God, let him answer it.”

God alone has all the answers. We, on the other hand, are mere creatures of God, unable to understand all that God plans or all that God wants of us.

And it is clear to me that God, who does have all the answers, is not pleased when we demonize each other. We are all created in the image of God; there are no “us's” and “thems” in God’s very good creation. All of us are God’s beloved children. The only way for us to live into the love in which and for which God created us is to literally do what Jesus commanded us to do, as he stood on the edge of eternity, at the omega of his earthly life so that we could enter the alphas of our eternal lives: Love one another as he loved us. We do not love one another when we denigrate each other simply because we disagree on topics for which we truly do not know the ultimate answers.

As we go into General Convention in July, perhaps it would behoove us to be a tad more humble, a tad more willing to admit that we do not have all the answers, a tad more generous toward those who disagree with us. If we were to give more grace, and be much less boastful of our so-called knowledge of God, particularly on the points where we are most certain (and least knowledgeable), we might find more of the common ground of which President Obama spoke the other day.

Admitting that God alone has all the answers, and that we are but mere creatures stumbling about in the dark, would be a good first step toward a more gracious, a more grace-filled, discussion.

The Rev. Lauren R. Stanley is an Appointed Missionary of the Episcopal Church from the Diocese of Virginia. She is a temporarily serving in the United States.

Hi folks,

I hope to be retolling the blog soon to include an "About Us" feature, some rules for posting and links to other blogs I like. But, as the discussions on the Muslim cartoon riots have elicted some unhelpful behavior, I am going to post the new rules and guidelines now. Please read them before your post again.

Thanks,
Jim

click for more

Read more »

Update on Moday 10 am. If you are following this converation, stay with it long enough to read Daniel Robinson, who writes with firsthand knowledge of the Muslim world.

ls Here is a story--courtesy of The Washington Post--that has been brewing for awhile.

"PARIS, Feb. 2 -- Protests against European newspapers' publication of cartoons lampooning the prophet Muhammad gained momentum across the Islamic world Thursday as Pakistani schoolchildren burned French and Danish flags and Muslim presidents denounced the drawings. At the same time, more European news organizations printed or broadcast the caricatures, citing a need to defend freedom of expression.

In another day of confrontation between the largely secular nations of Europe and Muslim countries where religion remains a strong force in daily life, Islamic activists threatened more widespread protests and boycotts of European businesses. While some European officials sought to defuse the crisis, many journalists insisted that despite Islamic outrage, religious sensibilities should not result in censorship.

"We would have done exactly the same thing if it had been a pope, rabbi or priest caricature," wrote Editor in Chief Serge Faubert in Thursday's editions of France Soir, one of the newspapers that printed the cartoons."

The eagle-eyed Kat called my attention to this issue about a week ago, and, frankly, I was hesitant to post an entry about it. In the earliest days of this blog, many of the most vitriolic anti-Daniel posts that we received we even more vitriolicly anti-Muslim. Most were deleted on reception. Their gist, to the extent that it can be rendered without obscenity-laced jingoism was that Christians are morally superior to Muslims because Christians only launch boycotts when their religion is insulted, while Muslims launch jihads.

I didn't want to sit at my computer all day on bigotry patrol, so I decided to keep an eye on the issue before deciding whether to post something. I put this entry up now because a) the issue isn't going away, and b) I think most people on the blog have gotten used to each other and this has allowed us to establish some level of civility.

I often conclude these entries by pitching in my own two cents. But my knees are too wobbly on this one ot take a stand. So I am in the market for a persuasive opinion.

By the way, this is a very hot blogging topic according to Slate. And the World Council of Churches has this to say.

Gentle commentators of every opinion,

In recent hours, our conversation has been heated, and largely unenlightening. I realize that rhetorical self-indulgence is not enumerated among the seven deadly sins, but I'd rate it no lower than ninth. Can we resolve, together, to conduct our disagreements in a way that does not sin against charity?

Jim

I am always struck by how entirely those who claim to know Christ are betrayed by the self-indulgent quality of their rhetoric. Many of this morning's posts are far more offensive than anything you will encounter tonight on "Daniel"--not because of what they say, but because of they way they say it.

It is always bracing to be told one is going to hell, that one's Church is the tool of the devil, etc., and while I appreciate many of the poster's seeming concern for my soul, I wish they would show similar concern for other people's feelings. It is possible to tell someone you disagree with them strongly in a way that allows them to hear it. Give it a try, eh?

An AP story published on Washingtonpost.com has brought the blog a bigger audience, and a somewhat more bumptious one. So just a reminder regarding etiquette: Comments like "Episcopalians stink." and "Burn in hell," while admirably concise, are not going to make the cut on this blog. Thanks for keeping it cordial.