If we are going to build unity within the church, we must be civil with each other in the public square, especially in matters of partisan politics.  This is a challenge for most churches, but it is a particular challenge for multi-ethnic churches that are racially and economically diverse.  In every election cycle, our congregation lost members because of incivility with each other in the public square.  Our failure to get this right not only prevents us from developing unity, but is also a genuine threat to the witness of the church.  Remember Jesus’ prayer in the upper room:

 

I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.  May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.  I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one – I in them and you in me – so that they may be brought to complete unity.  Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (John 17:20-23 NIV) 

 

In their book Compassion and Conviction, Justin Giboney, Michael Wear, and Chris Butler tell us that “civility shows itself in respect for disagreement and in granting others the right to express it.  Civility shows itself when we acknowledge the best in our political opponents’ line of thinking and the best in our political opponents themselves.  Civility is mercy and forgiveness.  It is a form of public grace." They continue, “Civility is the recognition of human dignity.  All incivility is, at its root, preceded by dehumanization.  Incivility is toxic because it stems from a lapse in the recognition of human dignity.  In its purest form, incivility amounts to public hatred.”  We must commit to loving our brothers and sisters in Christ, especially when we disagree with their perspective.

 

But the answer isn’t to avoid discussing issues of public import.  The answer isn’t to avoid discussing issues of injustice.  “People who are proponents of civility but quietists on everything else are, in fact, a great threat to civility.  They are silent on voter disenfranchisement but quick to urge the disenfranchised to be civil in how they express their disagreement.  They are silent on the inequities and injustices in our criminal justice system but are more than happy to retweet videos of protesters blocking highways or cursing at pedestrians.” (Compassion and Conviction, p. 123)

​

Justice is a kingdom principle.  We must acknowledge the injustice that is part of the weekly news cycle if we are ever to achieve racial unity in a multiethnic church.  In Romans 12:15 Paul tells us to “rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.”  We must acknowledge the pain of our brothers and sisters in Christ, even when we disagree with their perspective on the problem or the suggested solution.  The answer, then, is to enter those conversations deliberately but to do so with empathy and civility.

 

Let me suggest that we focus on the impact of actions and policies on various groups of people.  Doing so has the power to build unity, as it demonstrates that we are taking the time to see the other group of people and how they are experiencing life differently.  This can work even when we disagree on the best policy solution. “Christians can be one while disagreeing on prudential policy matters, but we cannot be one while expressing contempt for one another in the public square” (Compassion and Conviction, p. 124).

 

It seems straightforward enough, but it takes deliberate effort to ensure we do it without expressing contempt for each other in the process.  Let’s discuss some of the ways I’ve seen leaders of my church express contempt for each other in the public square.

​

Attacking the Motives of Other Christians

​

“Slander is when we move from arguing about effects to arguing about intent, which is a way of undermining the standing of those we are arguing with in the public square.  When we make accusations about their intent, we are in fact saying, “We don’t have to pay attention to the substance of their argument because their motivations disqualify them.” (Compassion and Conviction, p. 125)

 

Just before a contentious presidential election, a leader at my church recommended a book to several other church leaders.  When I researched the book, the promotion poked at one of the presidential candidates, saying, “he fails to consider justice or the poor in his policy decisions.”  My friend was shocked when I told her that publicly promoting this book would erode the unity that Jesus calls us to.  The reality is that when politicians are forming their policies, they primarily consider what their base supports.  So when we claim, in the public square as this Christian writer was doing, that a particular politician doesn’t consider justice or the poor in his policy decisions, we are, in effect, saying that our brothers and sisters in Christ that support those policy decisions do so without considering justice or the poor.  The truth is, a Christian could make justice and the poor their sole criteria for arriving at policy decisions and still support either relaxing immigration policies or honoring current immigration law, either expanding the social safety net or creating jobs, either increasing federal spending or ensuring inflation doesn’t surge.  One can care deeply about the poor and believe in personal responsibility.  Instead of slandering the motives of our fellow Christians, we need to do the hard work of articulating why we believe our preferred policies would better serve the poor and narrow racial inequality, and then take the time to listen to our brothers and sisters in Christ explain why they believe those same policies hurt the poor and further widen racial inequality.

​

Name-Calling

​

Name-calling often goes hand in hand with attacking the motives of our political opponents.  When we feel uncomfortable with the subject, we deflect the topic away through name-calling.  For example, whenever I discuss in the public square how a specific policy or action impacts black Americans differently, I can count on someone inserting the word "Marxism" into the conversation.  The term "Marxism" never fits the topic I’m introducing, but the word association communicates that no one needs to pay attention to the substance of what I’m saying because those that talk about injustice are Marxists, disqualifying anything that I have to say.

 

Another common label is “you are racist.” Ibram Kendi tells us that we all have the capacity to think, say, and act in ways that increase racial disparity.  So, instead of labeling others as racist, let’s talk about specific thoughts, words, actions, and policies and how they increase or decrease racial disparity.  When Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted, someone in my family stated that he was acquitted because the judge was biased.  The reality is that we are all biased, and that impacts our decisions.  To deny that is folly. However, the validity of judicial decisions is based on the rule of law, not whether the judge is biased. As such, if we are to build unity, we must focus our public dissent on how a decision does or doesn’t meet the requirements of the rule of law or how current laws contribute to racial inequality.

​

We had congregants from our church participate in Black Lives Matter protests, calling for greater accountability for law enforcement and greater equity in our criminal judicial system.  We also had congregants from our church attend the Washington, DC, rally on January 6th, expressing their desire for greater election transparency and integrity.  Yet, on Sunday mornings, I hear congregants at my church labeling other Christians who attended these events as terrorists or insurrectionists.  Violence and the destruction of property should not be tolerated.  But the Bible makes it clear that we are to express empathy with our brothers and sisters in Christ when they are hurting over perceived injustice, whether we agree with their perspective or not.  Resorting to name-calling prevents us from listening to and understanding the deeply felt concerns that our brothers and sisters in Christ have.

​

Character Attacks

​

I recently went into the public square and proclaimed that it is important that we see people of color; the Bible sees distinct tribes, languages, and peoples, and Dr. King constantly mentioned the negro as a distinct group that was experiencing life differently from white America.  One of the responses I received back was that Dr. King was an adulterer.  Why?  Because attacking Dr. King’s character, in effect, implies that we need not listen to the content of what he had to say because his moral failings disqualify anything he said.  By attacking Dr. King’s character, we not only deflect away from uncomfortable conversations, but it can feel like we are telling our brothers and sisters in Christ that they are not worthy of being listened to either because they follow the teachings of Dr. King, who had flawed character.  The same can be true when we make character attacks on politicians.  Such personal attacks prevent us from having meaningful dialog about real issues of injustice and how various actions and policies impact people of color, the poor and the most vulnerable in society.  And character attacks on politicians are often received as personal affronts by brothers and sisters in Christ that the politician represents.

​

Those of us who are married understand that when our spouse does something that really bothers us, it is important that we discuss it and not stuff our feelings.  There is the opportunity for the conversation to lead to greater unity if we say, “When you did this, I felt this,” but it will likely quickly spiral out of control if we resort to attacking our spouse’s character by saying something like, “You are just like your mother!”  The same principle is true when discussing politics in the public square.  Discussing the impact of various policies can lead to greater unity but it’s not possible to build unity with other Christians when we are publicly making personal attacks against politicians that other Christians support.  I’m not saying that character isn’t important to how we personally select our leaders; I’m merely saying that we can’t build unity in the body of Christ while we are disparaging politicians in the public square.

​

"You Aren’t a Christian If You Vote Differently Than I Do"

​

Christians disparaging the character of politicians was popular during the terms of President Clinton and President Obama.  But recently, that has morphed into Christians openly disparaging the character of other Christians merely based on having political views that are different from their own.  Sometimes, it is as simple as the subtle public question, “How can a Christian vote for…?”  Other times, it is very direct.  I remember an elder at our church posting an article just after the 2016 election that claimed that 83% of White evangelicals put partisan politics ahead of their faith when they voted for Donald Trump.  Such statements result in congregants and other church leaders feeling that their own character and discipleship are being questioned, which has contributed to valuable leaders leaving our church.

​

How is it that we’ve become comfortable publicly disparaging the character and discipleship of other church leaders and staff members at our church?  One reason is that many of us do not understand how we arrive at our own political decisions.  We typically believe that our decisions are based on universally held Biblical principles such as justice, caring for the poor, sanctity of life, etc.  We do not realize that our life experiences greatly influence our thinking and definition of each value.  Consequently, Christians diverge on how to apply Biblical values to public policy.  For instance, a devoted Christian may advocate for increasing the social safety net, while another devoted Christian may advocate for increasing access to jobs for low-skilled workers, while another Christian may believe that meeting the needs of the poor is the responsibility of individual Christians instead of the government.  Christians further diverge based on their individual perspectives on the harms caused by a specific policy.  One Christian may advocate ignoring immigration laws to remove barriers for those who seek to come to America to find a better life, while another Christian may advocate maintaining the legal immigration process on the basis that removing border checks increases racial disparity by enabling the sex trade, drug trafficking, and violent crime, all of which disproportionately impact communities of color. Even Christians who agree on the interpretation of specific passages, how the passage should be applied to specific policies, and even the benefits and harms of those policies may diverge on which Biblical values are the most important when several are in conflict.  How should one vote when one believes that there is no candidate who can claim that all his policies align with Biblical values?

 

A decade ago, I asked one of our black congregants why the sanctity of life wasn’t a priority for black evangelicals.  She replied, “white evangelicals focus on the life of the fetus, and black evangelicals focus on the child’s life after birth.”  Her comments were instantly convicting, as I realized that, as Christians, we elevate the importance of some Biblical values and completely ignore others based on our own life experience and culture, not on clear Biblical teaching.   And knowing that I am as guilty of this as others, I must become more humble and remain open to the possibility that Christians on the other side of the political divide may have valuable insights that I lack when interpreting Scripture, how to apply it, and the benefits and harms of various policies.  Because we interpret the Bible through our experiences, dialog with Christians with vastly different experiences is vital to having a full understanding of God and His mission in our world.

​

Resisting Hateful Rhetoric

​

The reality is that we will vote differently, coming from diverse experiences and points of view.  Christ’s message challenges us to respect one another and avoid any kind of slander or character attack. To live into this calling, we must spend more time filling our minds with Scripture and Bible teaching than consuming partisan media, which relies on hateful rhetoric to gain market share.  We must resist the prevalent message on social media that tells us that only those from our tribe are worthy of respect and remember that our fellow congregants are all created in God’s image, including those that look different from us, have a different culture from us, attend Black Lives Matter rallies calling for police accountability, and participated in the January 6th rally calling for election integrity and accountability.

​

Paul warns us about bringing the hierarchies of the world into the church (1 Corinthians 11:17–33).  This warning is not just about showing favoritism based on socio-economic class but also about showing favoritism based on political beliefs, assuming that some Christians are morally superior or inferior to others based on their political perspectives.

​

As Christian leaders, we must do more than modify our own behavior.  If we want the community outside our walls to point at us and say, “Jesus must be at work in that church,” we must develop a culture so distinctive that everyone who attends understands that hate has no home within our body.

​