Christian Attitudes on Controversial Issues 11/3/40

[no Scripture listed]

If we are sincere in the desire to be Christian in our approach to all of life, there is in the picture this question of what to do about controversies. For it seems to be a fact that no two people see everything alike. No two individuals will agree all the time on every matter of policy and on all issues. It would be a dull world it they did. One of the things that gives zest to life is the whetting of our wits on the viewpoints of the other fellow. Sometimes it deepens our own convictions. Sometimes it helps us to take new bearings that correct our own course. In such cases a clash of viewpoints has served a good purpose.

Sometimes the expressions of differences of opinion give rise to bitter words and loss of temper. Harsh things are said that leave wounds in the feelings of others. Partisans resort to half-truths as though they had the authority of an absolute. Friendships are strained and causes distorted.

Given the fact that we may expect differences of opinion, even with our close friends, what shall be our approach to controversial issues?

I fear that in some of our thinking there are seen only two sides to a controversial issue - “my side and the wrong side.” When we take sides in such a frame of mind we become bitter partisans, likely to snatch at any means to bring triumph to our side. That usually happens to a large degree in war. There is excitement, to be sure. There seem to be some souls who love a fight above everything else whether it is a large-scale European war or a dog-fight on the street corner in Podunk. Perhaps it is just in their natures to love a fight, to take a side and join the battle. It seemed so in the case of the Irishman who, when he came upon a street riot immediately peeled off his coat and paused only long enough to ask a bystander, “Is this a private fight or can anyone get into it?” You may remember the story about the great man who, when asked which side of an issue he favored, replied, “I haven’t decided yet, but when I do, I assure you I shall be very bitter!”

Of course there are advantages in being a vigorous partisan. In the heat of a violent conflict, the partisans of both sides hate a neutral. The position of a neutral is exceedingly difficult unless he has enough strength of tact to bring about a reconciliation between the conflicting parties. If you pitch in and take one side, at least you may preserve your popularity with the partisans of that side.

A couple of years ago there was a strike in a midwestern town on the part of workers in the factory of a nationally known product. A town that had been built largely on the liberal and beneficent policies of a successful business man, was split wide open over issues involved in the strike. As the strike wore on, finally involving the governor and the state militia and threatening to involve the Federal government as well, practically everybody lined up in active sympathy either with the union or with the management.

A minister in a Congregational Church, who had been there only a couple of years, tried to do what he could to promote understanding and fair play. He visited the picket lines. He commended the editor of a newspaper for an editorial that he considered fair and constructive. He offered a resolution to the minister’s association urging them to express the conviction that non-laboring groups of the city should respect the legitimate wishes of the majority of laboring people concerning collective bargaining. The resolution was turned down and eventually the minister was turned out! I think he was not taking the side of labor in partisan fashion, though he was trying to get people to understand it. He never discussed the issues from the pulpit of his church, but confined what he said and did to the pastoral part of his week day activities. But he only succeeded in arousing the wrath of the opponents of labor. He eventually had to resign his pastorate there. The congregation accepted it with a substantial majority.

In his attempts to discover facts, to arrive at fair understandings, to seek a just stand on the issues involved, he only got involved in the wrath of violent partisanship and lost his job. Perhaps he was not sufficiently impartial. Perhaps he did not pay enough attention to understanding the management at the same time he was trying to understand the workers. At any rate he got hurt for his pains, while the minister of another church who definitely took sides against the union and helped, in a decidedly unprofessional degree, to discredit the Congregational minister, came through in a position that, at least for a while, was stronger than ever!

It seems to me a self evident fact that controversies which are allowed to issue in an open fight are loaded not only with the ethical issues of right and wrong, but also with all sorts of un-Christian consequences. War is mostly inhuman and unchristian. Are either a strike or a lockout Christian? All of these represent man’s failure to be Christian with the apparent necessity of relying on force as a last resort.

When we talk about Christian attitudes toward controversial issues, we need to begin long before the fight. There is the matter of the number of sides to an issue. Probably instead of saying, “there are two sides - my side and the wrong side,” it would be saner and nearer to the truth to say, “There are three sides - my side, the other fellow’s side, and somewhere at hand, waiting to be defined, the right side.” When we begin with this position, we open the way for an analytical study of the merits of my side and the other fellow’s side, from which we may turn over efforts to the attempt to arrive at understanding and justice for everybody concerned.

The ability to sit down at the conference table with an opponent in a controversial issue does not seem always to be one with which our animal natures are born. It is a mark of a fairly high degree of Christian civilization for it involves the control of tempers which all too easily get out of control in all of us. It involves a critical attitude toward our own prejudices in order to be sure we can objectively justify them. It means being on strict guard against rumors which sometimes spring up so much more easily than facts. It means an untiring insistence on getting at all of the facts necessary to a fair judgment. It involves careful weighing of values.

The ability to enter a conference constructively involves a careful training and discipline in the methods of free speech, of impartial inquiry. It involves an enlightened tolerance of the viewpoints of opponents. All of these are marks not of our natural animal natures but of the discipline which we impose on ourselves. They are the “sine qua non” of Christian democracy.

A company in California engaged in the manufacture of high grade linoleum had been noted not only for its success in the production and distribution of a quality product but also for its enlightened labor policies. Its wages were higher than those of other plants and its management had a genuine interest in the welfare of its workers. When an attempt was made to unionize the workers, the management readily agreed to a vote among the workers. It was a genuine surprise when the laborers overwhelmingly voted in favor of the union. The management was somewhat hurt and puzzled when the union, feeling its new power, began to make some of the usual demands.

However, instead of fighting with the new union, they decided to try a policy of cooperation. The result was a process of education in mutual understanding. The managers began to understand how important it is for a man’s self respect that he feel he has a voice in the enterprise where he hours out his living efforts. And the laborers began to understand some of the problems of management, too. Not only did they now have freedom to speak without a servile fear of disapproval, but they began to become interested in problems of sale, payroll, etc. It is not unusual for a worker now to be the one to tip off the sales department concerning a good prospective buyer. Apparently the whole company is prospering on a policy of mutual understanding and cooperation in which everybody feels he has a part.

Blessed is the community which works upon that principle for it shall prosper in righteousness.

Now of course sharp differences of opinion will arise. We are bound to encounter them along life’s road. I began with this observation and I end with it.

But perhaps we may take a leaf from the book of experience of the Quakers at this point. No Quaker gathering would take a hurried decisive vote on an issue after heated debate. Rather would the meeting pause, wait in silence, and seek divine guidance before making its choice. After all, is not that an obviously Christian attitude?

--------------

dates and places delivered:

Pilgrim Church, Honolulu, February 19, 1939 PM

Wisconsin Rapids, November 3, 1940