Broadening the Categories

Quite often issues have far reaching implications that labels and slogans fail to capture. In fact, all too often, labels and slogans tend to make our "agenda" too narrow and lure us into a trap of smug comfortability with the rightness of our position and dismissiveness of anyone who differs with us at any point of the debate. When we take the time to think seriously about the implications of what we say we believe, we'll find that there are more serious ramifications than we first thought possible. Just one example - without violating my commitment to not put forth my own social and political views in this blog - "What does it mean, in terms of how I treat a person (any person), when I say that I am a Christ-follower?" What are the implications and ramifications of such an identification with Christ? That one question alone serves to broaden the categories.

Compromise is not necessarily a bad thing.

There's an old saying, "Half a cake is better than no cake at all". However, in the emotionally-charged arena of social and political discourse, we have slid into an "all-or-nothing" mentality where it insisted that one "buy the whole package", without any deviation from "the party line", of a particular agenda without stopping to consider that the truth of all social and political issues may very well be nuanced and certainly more complex than reduction to sloganeering would suggest. A good way toward more civility in our discussions would be to admit that we have succumbed to the disease of "hardening of the categories" and at least be willing to admit that those with whom we have disagreements have reasons why they hold their particular positions. A good beginning on the journey toward civility would be that of going to meet someone "halfway".

Avoiding the Labels

One of the surest ways to inhibit a robust dialogue on significant issues is to attach a "generalized" label of some kind to those with whom we disagree. If we can hang the tag of "liberal", "conservative", "tax and spend_____________", "big government", or __________________ (fill in the blank) on someone without taking the time to even understand the meaning of the terms, we've "won" the argument without having to listen to an explanation of their position. Genuine debate and discussion requires listening carefully to another person and considering the argument on its merits. If we drop the labels and start to listen, we're taking a great step in the direction of civility in the public discourse.