Debate for the sake of heaven
Be always respectful to those with whom you disagree
Editor’s note: Look for a sermon or lesson from Houston’s diverse faiths every week in Belief. To submit a sermon, email robert.morast@chron.com.
This past April New York Times columnist, Arthur Brooks, wrote, “Liberals should be liberals and conservatives should be conservatives. But our duty is to be respectful, fair and friendly to all, even those with whom we have great differences.”
The title of the article was “Bipartisanship isn’t for wimps, after all.” Brooks was right. We’ll always debate issues, and in the 17th century, a rabbi taught that we should debate for the sake of heaven.
But how do we know if we’re arguing for the sake of heaven?
“If the [debaters] love each other completely in heart and soul, then that is a sign that their argument is for the sake of heaven. But if they are enemies, and they bear hatred for each other — that is not for the sake of heaven, and Evil will live inside them.”
Criticism is a healthy part of de- bate; expressed constructively it enables us to hear each other. Contempt leaves no room for debate and it’s a reliable signal of impending doom. It’s as true about marriage as it is about the fabric of our nation. The question is, “What kind of disagreements and debates are we going to have with each other?” Will they flow from mutual respect or will they emerge from unmitigated aversion. History proves that arguing from unmitigated aversion leads to objectifying and demonizing our foes. The results have led to social marginalization and ethnic cleansing. Arguing and debating with mutual respect, even when it isn’t with complete love in our hearts and souls, has always proven to be the nobler way.
In 1984, Barbara Tuchman wrote, “[Truth, justice, and temperance] may in truth be in every man’s power, [but] they have less chance in our system than money and ruthless ambition to prevail at the ballot box. The problem may be not so much a matter of educating officials for government as educating the
electorate to recognize and reward integrity of character and to reject the ersatz. “Perhaps better men flourish in better times and wiser government requires the nourishment of a dynamic rather than a troubled and bewildered society.
“If John Adams was right, and government is ‘little better practiced now than three or four thousand years ago,’ we cannot reasonably expect much improvement. We can only muddle on as we have done in those same three or four thousand years, through patches of brilliance and decline, great endeavor and shadow.”
We’ll all have to decide which times we’re entering, brilliance and endeavor or decline and shadow. Whichever one we choose is a matter of opinion; but, how we act is not.
Our respective faiths and cultures demand that we challenge our adversaries only through means of civil justice granted us by the Constitution and laws of the land. Violence and demonization are not answers.
Today, our hope and prayer is that everybody will adhere to the highest values of their respective faiths and cultures in order to achieve the greatest good for our country.
When Tuchman wrote about the follies of civilizations and nations of the past, including our own, she wrote in hindsight and couldn’t have foreseen our current circumstances. She was, nevertheless, warning us about them.
As we prepare for inauguration day, let all lovers of America debate our future with hearts and souls turned in affection to each other for the sake of Heaven; and, may all our efforts be worthy of God’s blessing on our great land.