My dad signed this this covenant between Christian leaders calling for civil discourse on matters social and political. Seems like a good idea to me too. So, even though I can’t add my name to the list, consider this my endorsement of “A Covenant for Civility.”
How good and pleasant it is when the people of God live together in unity.—Psalm 133:1
As Christian pastors and leaders with diverse theological and political beliefs, we have come together to make this covenant with each other, and to commend it to the church, faith-based organizations, and individuals, so that together we can contribute to a more civil national discourse. The church in the United States can offer a message of hope and reconciliation to a nation that is deeply divided by political and cultural differences. Too often, however, we have reflected the political divisions of our culture rather than the unity we have in the body of Christ. We come together to urge those who claim the name of Christ to “ put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you” (Ephesians 4:31-32).
1) We commit that our dialogue with each other will reflect the spirit of the Scriptures, where our posture toward each other is to be “quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry” (James 1:19).
2) We believe that each of us, and our fellow human beings, are created in the image of God. The respect we owe to God should be reflected in the honor and respect we show to each other in our common humanity, particularly in how we speak to each other. “With the tongue we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God …. this ought not to be so” (James 3:9, 10).
3) We pledge that when we disagree, we will do so respectfully, without impugning the other’s motives, attacking the other’s character, or questioning the other’s faith, and recognizing in humility that in our limited, human opinions, “we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror” (1 Corinthians 13:12). We will therefore “be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love” (Ephesians 4:2).
4) We will ever be mindful of the language we use in expressing our disagreements, being neither arrogant nor boastful in our beliefs: “Before destruction one’s heart is haughty, but humility goes before honor” (Proverbs 18:12).
5) We recognize that we cannot function together as citizens of the same community, whether local or national, unless we are mindful of how we treat each other in pursuit of the common good in the common life we share together. Each of us must therefore “put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body” (Ephesians 4:25).
6) We commit to pray for our political leaders—those with whom we may agree, as well as those with whom we may disagree. “I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made … for kings and all who are in high positions” (1 Timothy 2:1-2).
7) We believe that it is more difficult to hate others, even our adversaries and our enemies, when we are praying for them. We commit to pray for each other, those with whom we agree and those with whom we may disagree, so that together we may strive to be faithful witnesses to our Lord, who prayed “ that they may be one” (John 17:22).
We pledge to God and to each other that we will lead by example in a country where civil discourse seems to have broken down. We will work to model a better way in how we treat each other in our many faith communities, even across religious and political lines. We will strive to create in our congregations safe and sacred spaces for common prayer and community discussion as we come together to seek God’s will for our nation and our world.
GeorgePWood.com 
Very well stated and much needed. Thanks for passing this on. If I could sign it, I would. Instead I will pass it on to others in the hope that the idea will catch on among Believers and nonbelievers alike.
Covenant for Civility? From Jim Wallis and Sojourners? Isn’t that the same group attempting to boycott Glenn Beck?
Look, I totally sympathize with George O. Wood’s decision to sign it. For the most part, it’s an innocuous statement. And if he doesn’t, people like Tony Jones and others can use it as propaganda against the AG when convenient.
However, I question the timing of this covenant and the organization behind it. Why is Sojourners, of all groups, doing this now? Isn’t there a conflict of interest in that Jim Wallis is a spiritual adviser to the President? Does he not delve into the political realm himself? Does Obama not stand to benefit from a document that would have a chilling effect on political protests within the Christian community?
My other concern is the whole issue of coming into “covenant” with a group of leaders, many of whom (looking at the list of names), based on their own statements, come into conflict with the essential doctrines of the historic, Christian faith.
Just to clarify, I don’t believe this covenant is actually an innocuous statement. What I should have written is that it appears to be an innocuous statement on its face. However, the more I hear about it, the more I am concerned.
The covenant’s 3rd point for example pretty much emasculates any authority to rebuke false teaching and doctrine, even though Titus 1:10-16 and I Timothy 1:3,4 suggest just the opposite.
Brian McClaren, author and covenant signee, for example, espouses a “new kind of Christianity” which is arguably not Christianity at all. He denies the Fall, Original Sin, a literal Hell, a literal Second Coming and on and on, yet we are supposed to partner with him covenantally to merely disagree respectfully on faith issues as if it’s just a matter of opinion? That does not seem to be what Paul had in mind. I think the intent of this covenant goes beyond simple civility.
Derek:
I understand your concern about how the third article will be interpreted, especially the commitment against questioning one another’s faith. This could be taken as a prohibition of questioning another’s doctrine or of their authenticity. I don’t think it ‘s meant as the former, since McLaren, for example routinely critiques what others believe and do. Instead, I think it prohibits questioning other people’s sincerity or motives. This is acceptable to me.
And really, what alternative to civil dialogue is there? If we take out article three, we are basically saying it’s okay for Christians to engage in ad hominem and character assassination against their opponents in the public square, questioning their sincerity and motives. That’s a non-starter for me because I don’t what the others to do this to me. The Golden Rule applies to how we argue in the public square.
George
George,
I think that it’s a tad extreme to say that if #3 were to be removed, it would be tantamount to the tacit approval of ad hominem attacks and character assassination. Who with any credibility would advocate that?
However, Jesus did say to “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.” How does that reconcile with #3? We absolutely can “question their faith” (with the right motives, of course), especially if the ‘faith’ others subscribe to is contrary to the clear reading of Scripture.
George, you are a well-read guy. Surely you know that McClaren, Wallis, Campolo, et al would like nothing more than to reduce Christianity to a set of “limited, human opinions” centered around the sacred cow of social justice? What they need, however, is a certain level of theological acceptance for their unorthodox beliefs. This covenant helps to provide this acceptance and I’m afraid we gave it to them.
Derek
Derek:
You seem to have missed the point of my first paragraph. There I distinguished between two ways of interpreting article 3: (1) It prohibits questioning another person’s doctrine and (2) it prohibits questioning another person’s authenticity.
I don’t see how anyone — McLaren, obviously, but even my dad — could sign this statement in good conscience if it prohibited questioning another person’s doctrine. Indeed, it seems to me that the whole point of the covenant is to allow people to question one another’s doctrine — on politics, obviously, but more broadly on theology. What it prohibits is an uncivil or rancorous dispute about these things, specifically ad hominem and character assassination.
In your response, especially your second paragraph, you clearly think that article 3 prohibits (1), although without responding to my brief explanation of why I think it prohibits (2).
If article 3 prohibits (1), then I’m with you. It would require us to abandon our pastoral duties to disciple our flocks in orthodoxy. But since I believe it prohibits (2), not (1), I don’t see the problems with the statement.
And I return to my question: In the course of disputing doctrine, what other option do we have but to do so civilly?
George
George,
When Paul says in Titus 1:10-15 that those in the circumcision group were deceivers, teaching things they ought not to teach for the sake of dishonest gain, was he questioning others’ authenticity?
Derek
Derek:
Yes.
There will always be specific cases where one can question another’s motives based on concrete evidence. I think of the healing evangelist Peter Popov, who pretended to be receiving words of wisdom about people’s illnesses, when in fact his wife was transmitting the info to him via a wireless receiver in his ear. In that case, not only would I question his doctrine, but I would also question his authenticity. Why? Because I had specific proof that he was a fraud. Perhaps Paul had similarly damaging inside information about the circumcision group.
As a general strategy, however, ad hominem is a lazy man’s form of argumentation. Instead of dealing with another person’s argument, it attempts to silence the other person through the use of labels.
For example, I find that some people on the evangelical left do this with their characterizations of those of us on the evangelical right. Most of the time, I don’t recognize anyone I know in their characterizations, least of all myself. I suspect that may be the case in my characterizations of them. So, perhaps I should be more careful about my characterizations of them and actually work my way through their arguments. If in the end I reject their arguments, it is because I believe that the arguments are wrong, not because I believe the arguer is deceptive. Perhaps that person is simply sincerely wrong.
Do you believe a person can be sincerely wrong? Or do you believe that every person who is wrong — or at least every person who teaches wrong theology — is wrong only because they have some ulterior motive?
If it is possible for a person to be sincerely wrong, then what’s the point of engaging in ad hominem? And if everyone who’s wrong has an ulterior motive, what’s the point of engaging in argument?
If someone’s theology is wrong, show them that their theology is wrong, as Paul did through three decades of ministry to Gentiles and opposition to Judaizers. Don’t just skip straight to the labels. Or if you do, don’t be offended when the people you’re arguing with do the same to you.
As I wrote above, the Golden Rule applies to our debates as well.
George
George,
I have heard that your Dad has asked to have his name removed from the Covenant for Civility. Is that true?
Derek
George,
I don’t disagree with anything you just wrote. In a nutshell, here’s what I’m saying and I will use McClaren as an example. I don’t know him personally but I can say based on the volume of books he has written that he is a false teacher. Now, if I were to publicly say he is a false teacher (while of course backing it up) perhaps for the purpose of warning my congregation for example if I were a pastor, how much do you want to bet that the Sojourner’s crowd would consider that a violation of the #3 principle? They would say that we can agree to disagree but that I had crossed the line by going so far as to say that. Is that the type of covenant we should be willing to live under? Does that make more sense?
Have a blessed Easter, George.
Derek
As I read this, it seems to say that civility is called for in matters of discussion concerning the public arena. If I read this right, it really doesn’t seem to say anything about theological positions.
Civility is certainly needed.
And, theologically, McLaren is most certainly wrong in so many orthodox stances, they are too numerous to list in any blog. He is 19th Century German liberal theology warmed over.
That said, it doesn’t mean McLaren or Wallis could say some things about the PUBLIC arena and I would just out of hand disagree. I would probably disagree a vast majority of the time, but every once in awhile they would hit on something I could agree on. And I WOULD agree with them, and voice that agreement if necessary.
But it doesn’t change the fact that McLaren is theologically off base.
Derek:
As far as I know, my dad has not asked that his name be removed from this covenant.
George
Hmmm. This link says that your Dad wrote that he did. http://mywordlikefire.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/assemblies-of-god-general-superintendent-requests-name-be-removed-from-covenant-for-civility/
Apparently he did. His name no longer appears on the signatory list. http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.display&item=100308-civility-covenant.
Commendable. Now I think the question is what is up with the National Association of Evangelicals? First, there were the debacles of Ted Haggard and Richard Cizik. Then, the NAE Board of Directors passed a liberal resolution late last year on illegal immigration. In fact, it is of all things the signature issue of Cizik’s replacement, Galen Carey. And now it appears that they weren’t entirely forthright in their representation of the Covenant to Dr. Wood. Why so many blunders? Do we really even need this organization?
If I were my dad, I would not have withdrawn my endorsement of this covenant. I would have publicly criticized how the NAE presented it to board members, but otherwise I would have stood by its content. As I argue in comments above, I think the covenant — properly interpreted — is a good thing, especially given the rhetorical overkill of our current political climate.
Regarding the NAE’s statement on immigration, I find it interesting that you characterize it as “liberal.” Any number of “conservatives” and libertarians support reforms similar to these for humanitarian and economic reasons. And I don’t doubt that any number of “liberals” — especially union members — oppose reforms similar to these for economic reasons as well.
Rather than characterizing and then quickly dismissing the statement on the basis of an inappropriate label, I’d encourage you to re-read the statement’s section on “Biblical Foundations,” as well as Daniel Carroll’s book, “Christians at the Border.”
George,
Just last month, the NAE along with ACORN, Code Pink, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, sponsored the “March for America” in Washington in support of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, which critics have called “amnesty”. This effort is being spearheaded by a bill from New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer. Last year, Schumer fawned over the NAE’s resolution after congressional testimony. So am I really off base to characterize the resolution as “liberal”?
Regarding any “Biblical Foundations”, I guess I would side with Mark Tooley from the Institute on Religion & Democracy who asks,
“But is God opposed to any lawful restrictions on immigration? Has God provided clear legislative guidance on the best immigration laws for the modern United States? Does Christian compassion compel disregard of or resistance to current immigration law?”
But my broader point was that there seems to be a pattern of a lack of discernment at the NAE. Immigration is one example, possible sneakiness regarding the convenant is another. I’m questioning whether that organization deserves to be relevant to say the Assemblies of God.
Derek
Derek:
Your reasoning is as follows:
Charles Schumer et al support comprehensive immigration reform.
Shumer et al are liberal.
Therefore comprehensive immigration reform is liberal.
That argument commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle, and is as logically invalid as this argument, and for the same reasons:
Richard Dawkins believes in evolution.
Richard Dawkins is a married man.
Therefore, married men believe in evolution.
I hope you see the fallacy in both of these arguments, both yours and my example.
So, my answer is, “Yes, you are off-base to consider the NAE resolution ‘liberal’ because of the ‘liberalness’ of sponsors of the March for America rally because your argument is fallacious.”
The second bullet point of the NAE Resolution under “Call to Action” is this: “That the government develop structures and mechanisms that safeguard and monitor the national borders with efficiency and respect for human dignity.” I think this addresses Tooley’first question.
Tooley’s second question is answered by this statement in “Biblical Foundations”: “The Bible does not offer a blueprint for modern legislation, but it can serve as a moral compass and shape the attitudes of those who believe in God.” In other words, the NAE Resolution argues that its position is shaped by biblical values, not mandated by them. It is a prudential application of those values, which others can disagree with. For me, the question is whether Tooley (or you) have seriously wrestled with the copious amount of biblical material on treatment of foreigners.
Regarding Tooley’s third question, we might ask him in return: Does Christian obedience to the state (Romans 13) require that we support the law, no matter what, or does it leave room in a democratic society to shape the law according to biblical values?
Whether the NAE has exhibited “lack of discernment” in its political lobbying, I cannot say. I don’t find the content of the Covenant for Civility objectionable, unless uncharitably interpreted. And I support the NAE Resolution. Part of that support is biblical. Part of that is pragmatic. How about you go speak to some our Hispanic AG brothers and sisters about the plight of members in their churches.
George
Fallacy of the undistributed middle? Uuuh, what?? George, it’s OK to take a break from academia every once in a while. (Kidding. I’m just kidding)
But seriously, you know I was not guilty of whatever fallacy you’re accusing me of. I not only listed liberal allies of the NAE (which is not entirely irrelevant anyway) but I also mentioned that many consider CIR to be amnesty, which is typically considered a liberal kind of policy, isn’t it? You conveniently left that part out in your logic lesson to me.
But I get it. You disagree with your dad on the covenant and that’s fine. (Although you restated the crux of the matter to be seemingly just about content. That was not the main reason your dad retracted his signature. You also restated the criticism of NAE to be seemingly just about political lobbying. I had offered Haggard, Cizik and the handling of the covenant as other examples of lack of discernment.)
Derek
P.S. I have to say that the “How about you…” sentence at the end of your last paragraph came across as, well, a bit uncivil. I also don’t think it is necessary to insinuate that I’m not worthy of occupying the same high moral ground as you in order to make your points.
Derek:
I stand by my demonstration that your argument is fallacious. Please refute my demonstration, or come up with a logically valid argument in its place.
I agree with you that some conservatives consider comprensive immigration reform a liberal policy. I also know that other conservatives, especially libertarians, consider it a good idea. My own take is that CIR is an issue on which some liberals and some conservatives can find common ground, even if they reason to their common conclusion through different lines of argument.
Let me give you another example. Conservatives oppose pornography. So do feminists. So, is opposition to pornography conservative or liberal? The answer is yes. The answer is yes when it comes to CIR too.
Of the problems you cited with the NAE, two are tendentious. The immigration statement and covenant with civility are problems only if you consider them problematic. I don’t, for reasons stated above. That leaves Haggard and Cizik. Both are examples of lax oversight, which have been corrected.
As for my last sentence, it was intentionally provocative. The AG is 38% ethnic minority, the vast majority being Hispanic. Personal conversations with the leaders of both ethnic relations and Hispanic relations have opened my eyes to the immense bigotry immigrants often face, whether they are legal or illegal. It has also opened my eyes to the tragedies that drive many immigrants to our country. I would recommend that you engage immigrant and minority AG brothers and sisters as part of your research on the topic.
George
And I would like to recommend that you read the following response to the NAE’s resolution as part of your research on the topic.
http://www.theird.org/Page.aspx?pid=1226&frcrld=1
Derek
Derek:
Thank you for the link! I thought Alan F. H. Wisdom argued his position in exactly the right manner, by asking tough questions with civility. His argument is a good example to both of us about how to argue our respective positions.
I don’t feel like going tit for tat with Wisdom on his response, since he’s not interacting with me on this blog. That being said, however, I would like to respond to this statement:
“The assumption seems to be that the church and the government are called equally to ‘reflect the same virtues’ and act in the same manner.”
But isn’t this true, to a degree? Or rather, if it isn’t, would the NAE be wrong to lobby the government for the advancement of pro-life policies? Or for the protection of traditional marriage?
Furthermore, much of the material alluded to by the NAE statement, about equitable treatment of foreigners, comes from the civil law codes of the Old Testament. Don’t these civil law codes provide some guidance about how Christians should think about political issues?
And finally, of the state, Wisdom writes: “Its mission is more centered on doing justice and seeking the common good of its citizens. It must ‘execute wrath on the wrongdoer’ (Romans 13:4), tempered with mercy and prudence as the occasion advises.” But what if the law itself is wrong or misguided? Is the state duty-bound to enforce bad laws or is it morally obligated to change them? And why can’t treating illegal immigrants as the NAE resolution recommends be considered part of the “mercy and prudence” that “the occasion advises”?
Well, not finally. One more issue caught my attention. Wisdom questions the “political competence” of the NAE to make determinations about the economic and legal issues involved with immigration. The obvious answer is that they acquired political competence by studing the issues, consulting the experts, and drawing their own conclusions. This is pretty much what any citizen in a democratic society does to make a well-informed decision about how to vote on candidates and issues.
The implicit assumption that Wisdom seems to be making is not that the NAE hasn’t done this work but rather than even if it has done this work, it will never achieve the political competence to render a reasonable judgment on the issue. In other words, to me, Wisdom seems to be assuming that the NAE can do nothing to achieve political competence on this issue. How does he know that?
George
George,
Here are some answers to your questions:
1. Pro-life and traditional marriage are black and white issues for those who believe in the authority of Scripture. The number of visas that a country issues or the decision whether or not to grant amnesty to illegals is not even close to being specifically mandated in Scripture.
2. The civil law codes of the OT can and should provide guidance about how Christians should think. But does it do that to the extent of mandating bullet points 3, 4 and 5 of the “Call to Action”. No. And I would also point out that it is debatable that what the NAE is calling for is really the most compassionate and Christlike solution. It is a very complex issue and there are unintended consequences everywhere one turns.
3. Regarding Romans 13, isn’t Wisdom just saying that the government is not a moral being. In fact, it’s not a being at all. It’s just a system ostensibly designed to maintain order and protect its citizens. The entity of government cannot engage with or love others the way Christians can and should. As such, it has a “different identity and a different calling” Now can its laws be tempered with mercy as the occasion advises? Sure, but not at the expense of justice and order, which could conceivably happen in an amnesty scenario.
4. I can see how you might feel that Wisdom is suggesting that the NAE could never do enough to achieve politial competence on this issue. However, I’m looking at the resource list and it is all pro-immigration Christian books and articles. Indeed, the Bible and Christianity are the areas of the NAE’s expertise. But when they make various legal and economic assertions without substantive support, I can see why their competence with respect to this issue is called into question.
George,
Your father’s bravery is mind-boggling. This document is written as if it were for members of the Body of Christ.
It was only after he signed that he learned people with radically different beliefs had signed.
The Alliance of Baptists, for instance, had a signatory, and they are having Tony Jones speak–the very pro-homosexual marriage advocate your father had objected to being invited to speak before the Society of Pentecostal Studies.
Civility is a wonderful thing when in a setting of like-minded people and/or Christians. But what about Radicals vs The Church? Jim Wallis has chronically & severely criticized Christian conservatives, and he’s not one who I would expect to be promoting civility – without a hidden agenda.
It would seem harmless to agree to the 7 statements or pledges, except for one thing. The enemy of our souls always includes some truth in order to get us to fall for his trick. Likewise, left-wing elements such as liberals, progressives, socialists, marxists, communists, 60’s radicals, etc, ad nauseum, if they’re using more peaceable means, regularly present reasonably sounding arguements to get us to compromise, and to fall for the included or hidden lie.
Knowing the often used tactic, the statements or pledges take on new meanings. The ultimate goal (in my opinion) is to make the church impotent, and to keep it quiet(ly praying).
Leading up to, and during, the American Revolution, pastors played a key role in standing up to the British. While Patrick Henry was still a child, his pastor preached against British tyranny. When faced with the choices forced on them by the British, the mostly Christian patriots, urged on by their righteous pastors, chose freedom as opposed to slavery. It was in a church that Patrick Henry eventually made his speech pointing out those choices – chains and slavery for the sake of peace and life, or fight for true freedom by risking everything.
When I look at the daily news, it seems that the stakes at risk today are no less than 234 years ago. In fact, today (Thurs.) one more step towards the progressive power grab may take place if Puerto Rico is approved for statehood.
One German pastor I know was in Germany leading up to WWII, and he lamented, with great emotion, that the German church did NOT speak up in opposition to what was happening.