Civility in conflict

Sometimes a movement's worst enemies are its most ardent supports who, out of zeal for their cause, make victims of their opponents and therefore make their opponents heroes. Christians of the first three centuries faced intermittent experiences of persecution.  The persecutions did not have the intended result.  In fact, they had quite the opposite effect.  Christianity grew in popularity even as its leaders were thrown out of the synagogues by religious leaders or thrown to lions by political leaders. Tertullian addressed early Christianity's persecutors once by saying, "The more often we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow.  The blood of Christians is seed." This lesson from history is often lost in today's conversations around questions of religion and politics.
            Today, we create labels for the people who disagree with us. We are too easily convinced that a person’s whole character can be reduced to those labels we place on them. We will take one issue and make assumptions about the person’s whole character based on that one position on a single issue.  Frequently, we are guilty of not even completely understanding what that person believes about that one issue.  Certain topics like “abortion,”  “patriotism,” “gun control,” or “equal protection” trigger emotional responses that get in the way of genuine dialogue. We may not execute or excommunicate our opponents.  We may use condemnations, logical fallacies, sarcasm, condescension, histrionics, sneering satire, labeling, assumptions and shouting as tools we to silence people.  Yet, today’s tools are as ineffective as their more violent predecessors.
I find that on most issues, I’m hopelessly moderate.  If I have a passion it is a passion that people learn engage conflict hospitably.  We should assume that people who disagree with us are not bad.  We should limit the assumptions we make about people.  We should let people define themselves on their own terms.   We should limit the amount of labeling, name-calling or generalizing we do.  And we should value the opportunity to be in conversation with those who disagree with us.  As I say this, I’m very aware of the times that I have failed to follow my own advice.  Which means I should ask for one thing more—we should show grace when people speak to divisively or angrily in an initial way.  Grace means everyone gets a second chance including those who try to deny that chance to others.  Today’s hotheads can also repent and their repentance should be trusted.
Listening is not the same thing as agreeing.  But listening is usually the first step in the journey of mutual growth and understanding. Christians who have strong opinions about social issues need to stop and ask themselves if they want to win a war of words or participate in real and lasting change.  Winning the war of words is easy.  Find a label that sticks and tell a joke that stings and you win!  Change is much more difficult.  But Christ has not called us to be winners in a war of words but citizens in a kingdom governed by love.  This includes loving our enemies—loving our opponents.