Too many of our conversations with others, especially about issues related to religion, morality, and politics, unnecessarily foster division. Rather than a love of truth, hope for furthering the common good, and a concern for unity, our discussions are marked by a desire for victory, the hope that we can shame or embarrass our rhetorical opponent while exalting ourselves and our viewpoints. Ultimately, and unsurprisingly, this leads to deep division rather than unity.
Examples of this are too easy to find. Get on your favorite social media platform, and observe discussions about these topics. Or examine how our politicians, pundits, and many pastors interact with those who have an opposing viewpoint. We deflect, we show disdain for others, and we dehumanize them. For what? For having a different view than we do? For refusing to toe the party line at school, work, or church? Anyone who reflects upon the state of our civil discourse can easily see these problems.
I have seen a professing Christian offer the following reply, on social media, to several plans and policies of “the left” (e.g. tearing down statues, transforming the United States of America, and renaming John Wayne Airport in southern California), with the following refrain: “GO TO HELL.” It is easy to think that “these are merely words, they do not cause much harm,” or “People need to be tougher,” but the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount rejects such justifications and minimizing of the harm that angry words do. Concerning anger, Jesus says “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire” (Matthew 5:21-22). It is clear that anger and words spoken in anger to others are taken very seriously here.
We all have witnessed, experienced, or engaged in discourse that is uncivil, insulting, or characterized by vicious anger. I have witnessed it, engaged in it, and been on the receiving end of it. People to the right of me politically have told me that I have imbibed “the liberal Kool Aid” because I take a moderate position on how we can reduce gun violence in the United States of America. Others have questioned my commitment to Christ because my website does not have the word “Jesus” displayed prominently on its homepage. I have also experienced disdain from those on to my political left, telling me that it is good that I live in Kentucky since I have such backwards views about God and politics (though he misunderstood my views on both subjects). Honestly, this kind of thing used to bother me a lot, given my personality and emotional makeup. But over time I have learned to handle it better, minimizing the space I give such commentary in my life. To be sure, this kind of feedback should be expected, insofar as I sometimes write about controversial issues. But whether we are witnessing it, are on the receiving end of it, or are perpetrating it, such verbal behavior is out of bounds. As James 3:10 tells us, “From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so.”
What if more of us who follow Christ set a different standard? What if we took the words of James to heart? What if we followed the example of Christ himself? “When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:23, NIV). Why was he able to respond in this way? There are many reasons, but among them is the fact that humility and love are central virtues in the character of Christ. They led him to eschew responding to insults and suffering at the hands of others with insults or threats. Instead, they led him, and ought to lead us, to adopt a practice of rhetorical nonviolence.
What is rhetorical nonviolence?
We can understand rhetorical nonviolence as verbal behavior that reflects, in both content and tone, a respect for one’s opponent as a person made in God’s image, rejecting insult and vicious anger, with a goal of coming to know and apply the truth in unity. Humility is necessary here, because only by it can we approach those we disagree with in a spirit of openness and willingness to being corrected. In humility, we put truth and the good of our verbal opponent at the center, rather than ourselves, our reputations, and our desire to win. We may, of course, be right, and we must resist what seems to us to be false. We should not be passive. We can be right, resist what is false, fight for truth, goodness, justice, and beauty as we engage in debate and dialogue with others. But we can interact with others—both fellow Christians and those who do not share our faith—in ways that reflect humility and love, rather than vicious forms of anger.
It is right to do this, first and foremost, because in so doing we follow the example of Christ who refused, when reviled by others, to revile in return. But I have found that it is also effective, that the words of Proverbs 15:1 are actually true: “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (NIV). This proverb is true both in real life and in our online interactions. In the past few years, I have tried to adopt this approach of rhetorical nonviolence. I have not done so perfectly, but I have made significant progress. I have seen several benefits to this approach, apart from knowing that it is a way I can express love for God and others. My experiences in working at this have made a difference, not just in the tone of my interactions with others when we disagree, but also in the substance. It is incredible to see how a response to someone’s adversarial tone, or even an angry or insulting one, can change the dynamics of a conversation. I have seen this for years in the classroom and in-person discussions, but it also works in social media interactions. Instead of firing back, so to speak, we can ask a question, see if there is common ground, or simply ask someone why they believe what they do, in a genuinely curious way. Instead of being opponents or enemies, we become partners in the quest for truth.
I am not advising we always do this. Rhetorical nonviolence can take other forms as well. Sometimes, it may mean simply not responding at all. If someone is consistently antagonistic, fails to respect boundaries, or engages us in verbally abusive ways, rhetorical nonviolence does not counsel us to passively receive such verbal assaults. There are times when it may be wise to simply block someone on social media, or suspend and even end in-person relationships.
There are more benefits produced by the practice of rhetorical nonviolence. In my experience, it opens the door for better conversations, softens my opponent’s heart as well as my own, and refocuses the conversation on the substance of our discussion. If we truly desire and seek after truth, then this approach can help us get there.