Congratulations to the Colorado Avalanche for advancing to the NHL Western Conference Finals!
There’s a Reason These Debates Don’t Happen
I’ve always been fascinated with presidential history. I’ve read many books from the post-World War II period, from which the trajectories of more than one president can be glimpsed. I think especially of John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon.
Recently Politico Magazine published an interesting article about the earliest days of their political careers when they journeyed together to Western Pennsylvania. They went to debate a controversial law that had been enacted that many felt adversely affected labor and organizing. Many are aware of the famed 1960 television debate Kennedy and Nixon had while running for the presidency. This debate happened in 1947 while they were still young congressmen.
The article is part narrative, part lament. Why can’t we have these kinds of debates today? Why won’t politicians set aside their handlers, sloganeering, and fears of reelection, and really dig in and debate issues out among the people? The author Bryan Bender goes to great lengths to show that there were plenty of cultural and political tensions in this period, making participation in the McKeesport debate especially daring. Yet these two novice politicians proceeded anyway.
They were joined by roughly 100 people, including local labor leaders. Nixon had to defend the less popular proposition in the debate, but Kennedy had nothing to gain either. He represented a congressional district in Massachusetts!
As I read the article, I grew a bit frustrated. I realize Bender is a journalist, not a news anchor or producer. However, there’s more than one reason why these kinds of good faith, on-the-ground debates don’t happen.
Yes, political polarization is part of the problem.
Yes, politicians in lobbyists’ pockets are part of the problem.
Yes, fears of being primaried or ousted in an election year are part of the problem.
But the article fails to note what so many media ecologists (and ordinary Joes) have observed for years: our media environment isn’t hospitable to nor interested in serious debates about public issues.
When we say “media” we need to remember how odd a word it even is. “Media” refers to any set of mediums which serve to mediate information. In fact, some understandings of the word take us beyond the realm of information to areas as diverse as electricity, purchasing power, and more. This nuanced, McLuhanesque way of looking at the word reminds us that “media” is everywhere.
Even if we focus on news media, it’s omnipresent: network news, cable news, social media, magazines, newspapers, podcasts, etc.
Now take the entire picture of the American news landscape, and ask yourself, “Do most of the decision-makers about production in these areas seem committed to thoughtful, calm, reasoned discussion of serious public issues?” You now have another reason why such debates don’t happen.
I realize the local news station isn’t solely responsible for providing venues for these events to happen. As the Politico article notes, it was a civic club that hosted the Kennedy-Nixon debate. We certainly do need more local, community organizations to foster healthy, constructive dialogue. But it’s also hypocritical when major journalistic institutions blame politicians for the erosion of willingness to put ideas on the line out in the open. Not only do they have an obligation to sponsor venues for such debate. They have a responsibility to cover the issues fairly.
Imagine you’re a first-term congressman in a close reelection race. A local news organization approaches you and your opponent about holding an informal discussion about a controversial issue on the campus of a local community college. The news organization has a history of making headlines, not reporting them. They fire journalists who don’t toe the party line on race, gender, sexuality, and the like. Moreover, they’re notorious for quoting people out of context. Does this sound like an event you’d want to participate in?
One of the best ways we can incentivize constructive, serious conversation is by careful listening, thoughtful questioning, and fair-minded representation of others’ views. The body politic desperately needs this. News persons have an obligation to provide it. And institutions like the church should be ones which model it.
Punishing honesty with dishonesty only engenders more dishonesty. No wonder we have a dishonest culture.
Other Dumb (Unhelpful) Things Christians Say
In last week’s newsletter I discussed how much the phrase “the next generation” annoyed me. For those needing a refresher, hop back to Newsletter #19. At the risk of sounding really grumpy, let me add another to the list of unhelpful (basically dumb) things Christians say: “in church.”
Some time when I have a few hours to give, I’ll write just on the problematic ways we use the word “church.” But prepositions always make sentences much more interesting. Thus, “in church” has come to enjoy widespread usage in Christians’ vocabulary. Let me give two of the most typical examples:
“We really need to get back in church.”
“Pray for my son; he hasn’t been in church in years.”
Usually “in church” refers to the condition of a professing believer who has not attended church services over some sustained period, often years. Insomuch that people raise these concerns in a small group, prayer service, or other communications, we should be quick to hear them, and commit to pray for the person who happens to not be “in church.”
But how helpful is this way of speaking about the unchurched? My concerns are two-fold.
First, there’s a tendency to use “in church” to make a sharp distinction between a person’s actual standing with God and a particular set of behaviors. I know this may sound like I’m over-interpreting what some people mean, and perhaps in some cases I am. But ask yourself, why not just say, “Pray for Bob. He’s not walking with Jesus”? Doesn’t that more concretely express the concern, whereas the lack of church attendance and commitment are an indicator of a problem?
Second, there’s also a tendency to preserve this distinction when “in church” is used more positively. “How is your brother doing spiritually? I haven’t seen him in a long time.” “He’s in church. He and his wife attend such-and-such Baptist Church.” Notice how the reply is summed up in a behavior—church service attendance—in response to a question about a person’s spiritual well-being. One presumes that if someone is attending church with some regularity then they must be fine spiritually. Of course, anyone who has ever been deeply involved with a church knows that, as a barometer of spiritual vitality, attending worship services is more of a floor than a ceiling.
Far be it from me to pick on people for their colloquial use of terms. I regularly discover expressions in my own speech that seem to confuse rather than clarify! However, Christians speaking of something as well-defined in Scripture as “church” serve themselves, fellow Christians, and their unsaved neighbors better to use greater care with these kinds of words.
Currently Reading:
Rosaria Butterfield, The Gospel Comes with a House Key: Practicing Radically Ordinary Hospitality in Our Post-Christian World.
Quote of the Week:
…we should be holistic and attentive to the body in our discipleship work when it comes to seeking transformative change. Human beings are psychosomatic unities: body and soul exist in a reciprocal relationship. It is insufficient to read book after book on a particular temptation or sin if we are not wakeful to the body’s habits — what the eye sees, what we laugh at, the company we keep, and our physical location often determine what we do and feel. Think of the Bible’s own warnings and commands to flee youthful passions, to behold the glory of God, to not be drunk with wine, and to imitate your leaders. (Gray Sutanto)