The Shushing Tyranny of “Be Nice!”
Nov 22, 2011
Elizabeth Scalia
There is a lot to like about James Martin’s latest book, Between Heaven and Mirth: Why Joy, Humor and Laughter are at the Heart of the Spiritual Life. Aside from the amusing anecdotes and laugh-out-loud funny jokes (often ones that fry his own Society of Jesus, to his clear delight), Martin makes a fine intellectual, scriptural, and spiritual endorsement of G.K. Chesterton’s observation that “angels can fly because they take themselves lightly.” A faith grounded in gratitude and a wider perspective, we understand, can create a solid tarmac from which we may soar.
That’s easier than it sounds, of course, and Chesterton knew it—the fully delicious and playful quote comes from his profound masterwork Orthodoxy, and reads, “. . . solemnity flows out of men naturally; but laughter is a leap. It is easy to be heavy: hard to be light. Satan fell by the force of gravity.”
And gravity, as we know, is the law.
Lately I have noticed in some of my acquaintances the development of a very grave and solemn habit, indeed—a tendency to expect niceness in everyone they meet, particularly in professed Christians. When exposed to someone’s overwhelming urge to snark at politicians, headlines, celebrity-sham-marriages, and overplayed cards of indignation—all sound targets deserving a bit of cathartic scorn—these folks turn their heads away and, with a heavy sigh and choked tone, wonder why, oh why, can’t we all just get along?
Snark, they insist, is pointless, lacks charity and tears at the body of Christ. To be a good Christian, in their book, one must be nice.
Well, I concur, to a point; if one is pleasant, kind, generous, interested, or helpful, one may generally be characterized as exhibiting “nice” behavior, and whether the effort is natural or self-conscious, that courts virtue. So does holding one’s tongue in charity, so as not to unduly wound or promote gossip. But does a tossed-off snark of exasperation really warrant the nitpicking of the niceniks? Does Christianity demand “niceness?”
In Martin’s book, he recounts Nathaniel in the Gospel of John, who is encouraged by his friends to come meet the one “about whom Moses and the prophets wrote, Jesus, son of Joseph, from Nazareth.”
Nathaniel snarks, “can anything good come out of Nazareth?”
The niceniks would be all over that. What a mean thing to say about someone he didn’t even know! What a hurtful remark to the people who live in Nazareth!
Depending on one’s leanings, that uncharitable snob, Nathaniel, was either an elitist one percenter or an aloof ninety-nine percenter, but either way, he wasn’t nice!
And yet, Martin found the humor in the question, and declares that the early church for whom the Gospel was written might have chuckled knowingly, as well. Nathaniel’s snark was human and useful and as ironic as a prophecy that a King would be born in Bethlehem, of all places.
Moreover, Jesus didn’t seem to mind the question, or find Nathaniel’s demeanor too uncharitable for his company. Calling the scene “the clearest indication that [Jesus] had a sense of humor,” Martin writes, “Nathaniel’s humor doesn’t bother Jesus at all. In fact, it seems to delight him. ‘Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!’ says Jesus. In other words, here is someone I can trust.”
Jesus, it seemed, preferred someone who would speak a slightly edgy truth over someone who would be “nice,” but dishonest. Being himself All Truth, dishonesty in the guise of niceness could not serve him.
In fact, Jesus said many things that probably make our modern niceniks squirm in the pews: “Let the dead bury the dead!” (But Jesus, how dismissive!); “I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother. . .” (You’re so divisive!); “Shake the dust from your feet as a testimony against them!” (Hater!); “Get thee behind me, Satan,” (Jesus! Peter was just trying to be nice!).
But Jesus did not want Peter’s niceness; he wanted Peter’s self-awareness, that he was not nice. Jesus’ prophecy of his denials insured that Peter would, finally, see his wretchedness and so be humbled, the better to be rebuilt in Christ.
The truth is not always pleasant; it is often scalding. In Nathaniel, Jesus saw someone willing to acknowledge what was true, even if it exposed him as imperfect-in-love—as are we all.
If, as is generally agreed, there is freedom in naming a thing for what it is, then there can only be oppression in refusing to do so, all for the sake of being nice. Chiding others for daring to say (with lamentable levity) what many others are thinking is not a productive means of promoting truth or of serving Christ, in whom is our freedom. Quite the opposite; it serves only to shut down those realties that make us uncomfortable, or shake our illusions or stab at our worldviews.
In which case a sanctimonious “shush, be nice,”—far from being an admonishment to charity—equates only to “shut up,” delivered sometimes from the mouths of those who think they’re too nice to ever say something that rude, and often from the self-knowing tyrants who just want you to believe it.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
James Martin, Between Heaven and Mirth: Why Joy, Humor and Laughter are at the Heart of the Spiritual Life
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
11.22.2011 | 8:41am
Steve colby says:
And gravity, as we know, is the law.
As the famous lagomorph philosopher said, "Ehhh, fortunately, I never studied law."
As the famous lagomorph philosopher said, "Ehhh, fortunately, I never studied law."
11.22.2011 | 9:57am
Beth Banks says:
Someone once said that before you say something you might regret, ask yourself: Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? There are definitely times to speak out about wrongdoing, but the Scriptures say that we must speak the truth in love. That's not easy, but it's a laudable goal, and avoids unnecessary sarcasm and hurtful remarks that often times do more harm than good.
11.22.2011 | 11:48am
CKG says:
Of course (as Beth Banks notes above), St. Paul enjoined the Ephesians to "speak the truth in love", and those two aims - Truth and Love - can seem (especially to modern ears) to be conflicting. But, challenging as it can be to hold Truth and Love in dynamic tension, the attempt must be made (and, it is to hoped, successfully).
But 'niceness' is a pale, thin substitue for Love, which can be a 'harsh and dreadful thing' (per Dosteoevsky). Jesus, who was God Incarnate, and thus Love Himself, nevertheless drove the moneychangers from the Temple with a whip of cords, and called the Pharisees 'whitewashed tombs'. Not 'nice'; but truthful. And, we must assume, loving, given the Godhead of the speaker. . .
But 'niceness' is a pale, thin substitue for Love, which can be a 'harsh and dreadful thing' (per Dosteoevsky). Jesus, who was God Incarnate, and thus Love Himself, nevertheless drove the moneychangers from the Temple with a whip of cords, and called the Pharisees 'whitewashed tombs'. Not 'nice'; but truthful. And, we must assume, loving, given the Godhead of the speaker. . .
11.22.2011 | 12:04pm
Michael P. Walsh, MM says:
I commend to your attention the book by Kathy Shaidle, entitled "The Tyranny of Nice". Among other things, she calls attention to the ongoing campaign by the Canadian Thought Police, to suppress freedom in the name of "rights" of the sort assigned by the State to approved grievance groups.
11.22.2011 | 12:30pm
AKO Army says:
"But 'niceness' is a pale, thin substitue for Love, which can be a 'harsh and dreadful thing' (per Dosteoevsky)."
This is true CKG, it's very different if two people ACT nice to each other instead of truly BEING nice to each other. Being honest with one another is a very important trait to have in life.
This is true CKG, it's very different if two people ACT nice to each other instead of truly BEING nice to each other. Being honest with one another is a very important trait to have in life.
11.22.2011 | 12:37pm
Phil Brandt says:
Being the process of grading papers, i have just come across one about which i am finding it impossible to say anything "nice." So this struck a bit of a cord with me. One of the other colleges on my small university's campus has a GPA of 3.75 in all the courses it teaches. We have to this point endeavored to put the best construction on this and demanded to know why the admissions dept is sending genius students to them and not to us.
since this student is actually enrolled in a program through that college, i may in fact begin to surmise that my colleagues in that program are being a bit too "nice" when they simply refuse to critically read papers and assign grades which genuinely reflect what the student has done. Elizabeth addresses a problem which infects far more than the political discourse. It is indeed a pale and thin substitute for love when we would allow a young man or woman to sink into a debt for many thousands of dollars in order to obtain a degree which is hardly worth the paper on which it is printed. It is a pathetic love which nicely tells a young person they are succeeding when in fact they are failing. Yes, they were affirmed while they were here, financially ruined, but affirmed, and we were nice.
since this student is actually enrolled in a program through that college, i may in fact begin to surmise that my colleagues in that program are being a bit too "nice" when they simply refuse to critically read papers and assign grades which genuinely reflect what the student has done. Elizabeth addresses a problem which infects far more than the political discourse. It is indeed a pale and thin substitute for love when we would allow a young man or woman to sink into a debt for many thousands of dollars in order to obtain a degree which is hardly worth the paper on which it is printed. It is a pathetic love which nicely tells a young person they are succeeding when in fact they are failing. Yes, they were affirmed while they were here, financially ruined, but affirmed, and we were nice.
11.22.2011 | 1:25pm
From the Pews says:
Such Validation! Now I must Read the Book.
Thank you, Ms. Scalia. This has been a topic of mine for a while now. I come and go between God's Sense of Humour and the inability of mine to be "Nice" many, many times.
I Pray that between this Book, Much Prayer and exercising Loving Truth - to the BEST of my ability - that I am able to become someone that can be Trusted and not Nice!
Thank you, Ms. Scalia. This has been a topic of mine for a while now. I come and go between God's Sense of Humour and the inability of mine to be "Nice" many, many times.
I Pray that between this Book, Much Prayer and exercising Loving Truth - to the BEST of my ability - that I am able to become someone that can be Trusted and not Nice!
11.22.2011 | 2:01pm
Judy K. Warner says:
I've always thought it significant that the person who most famously said "Can't we all just get along?" was Rodney King, who had been in prison for robbing a store, using an iron bar to threaten and hit the owner. I can't help suspecting that people who push that idea are actually softening up their potential victims, though not necessarily in a physical sense.
11.22.2011 | 2:20pm
Maria says:
If you are not nice, then you are being judgmental. And being judgmental is the one unforgivable sin today. Unless of course you are judging someone about how judgemental they are, that's OK.
11.22.2011 | 2:22pm
Mick Leahy says:
Recently (perhaps here) read a definition of 'political correctness' as: Peace before Truth. We should all know that The Truth will 'set us free'.
11.22.2011 | 2:36pm
Jenny says:
Great article! I agree 100% that we are more concerned with being "nice" than telling the truth. It kinda goes along with the whole "image over substance" mentality that I believe has invaded Western thought and tried to silence anyone with critical thinking ability. And yes, Phil Brandt, I believe it has invaded our all our educational institutions! As a former high school teacher, I came up against the mentality about how students deserved the "A" because they "tried so hard." Never mind that what they wrote was garbage in both grammar, sentence structure and content (provided it wasn't plagiarized - which was very common).
The other twist on all of this is that our definition of "love" is also very twisted. The Greeks had a number of different words for what translates into "love" in English, but theirs had different meanings. Bottom line, however, is that as Christians, we are to be most concerned with our neighbor's spiritual well-being. When we see others committing sin, Jesus himself told us to go with a brother/sister and talk to the sinner to try to get them to change. I believe it is also why He called some hypocrites, etc. because he wanted to get their attention in order to cause change. Sometimes we have to be firm in our assessment of sin/wrong/immorality, and while we should avoid being mean-spirited, this is what I believe is meant by "tell the truth in love." Wanting the other to be in heaven, and not in hell, is what I call love!
The other twist on all of this is that our definition of "love" is also very twisted. The Greeks had a number of different words for what translates into "love" in English, but theirs had different meanings. Bottom line, however, is that as Christians, we are to be most concerned with our neighbor's spiritual well-being. When we see others committing sin, Jesus himself told us to go with a brother/sister and talk to the sinner to try to get them to change. I believe it is also why He called some hypocrites, etc. because he wanted to get their attention in order to cause change. Sometimes we have to be firm in our assessment of sin/wrong/immorality, and while we should avoid being mean-spirited, this is what I believe is meant by "tell the truth in love." Wanting the other to be in heaven, and not in hell, is what I call love!
11.22.2011 | 2:39pm
Richard A says:
"Nice", of course, comes from the Latin "nescia" which means "not knowing, ignorant", and it used to be an insult. Even today, one hears it said as a kind of generic compliment, as if the speaker can't be bothered to determine if the person or action described as "nice" is really kind, thoughtful, loving, well-mannered, sensitive, good, praiseworthy. Consider the list of things St. Paul suggests for our thought-life; "nice" never translates any of those old Greek words.
No wonder C.S. Lewis named the demon-laboratory in "That Hideous Strength" the National Institute of Creative Experimentation.
No wonder C.S. Lewis named the demon-laboratory in "That Hideous Strength" the National Institute of Creative Experimentation.
11.22.2011 | 3:45pm
Pr. Timothy Winterstein says:
"A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is." --Luther, Heidelberg Disputation, 1518
11.22.2011 | 3:55pm
Todd says:
Count me as surprised by this essay. It is easy enough to go to some websites, such as The Anchoress, and see how many times comments have been closed for niceness compared to how many times they've been closed for bitterness and division.
I see a lot of conservatives complain about niceness, but they seem to have little enough problem shushing their comboxes when things get out of control, often among their own followers.
The quality I think we're searching for is respect. It is possible to be forthright, honest, and challenging to people in one's life, and yet still respect them as people, as believers, and even for well-considered and well-defended opinions one may not agree with.
I'd say we could all get behind the motto of "Down With Tyranny," and expand it to include a rabid disrespect we see all over the culture. Of course, that might mean saying not-nice things to one's followers. It seems easy enough to decline being nice to people one disagrees with. Even the sinners do that.
I see a lot of conservatives complain about niceness, but they seem to have little enough problem shushing their comboxes when things get out of control, often among their own followers.
The quality I think we're searching for is respect. It is possible to be forthright, honest, and challenging to people in one's life, and yet still respect them as people, as believers, and even for well-considered and well-defended opinions one may not agree with.
I'd say we could all get behind the motto of "Down With Tyranny," and expand it to include a rabid disrespect we see all over the culture. Of course, that might mean saying not-nice things to one's followers. It seems easy enough to decline being nice to people one disagrees with. Even the sinners do that.
11.22.2011 | 4:25pm
Elizabeth Scalia says:
I think you will agree, Todd, that it's a rare thing when I close a discussion thread, and it's always after everyone has had their say, and things are devolving into repetition, personal attacks, possible slander and general hysterics. It says something, perhaps -- about how our ability to respect or hear each other is devolving -- that in six years of blogging, it's only in the past year I've really had to do that.
11.22.2011 | 4:53pm
JDD says:
> But does a tossed-off snark of exasperation really warrant the nitpicking of the niceniks? Does Christianity demand "niceness?"
Always an important topic, but the argument seems a little loose here. I don't see one as being the antithesis of the other. Avoiding snark isn't always just being nice. Sometimes it really is just trying to not waste one's time, and sometimes it really is finding something, I don't know, *unuseful* about the conversation.
There remains a danger in telling ourselves that all of our snark is intended to be for the good of truth. In my experience, I observe that snark is less often used to bring a truth to the surface for serious consideration; more often used to get a fraternal nod and a hearty slap on the back. How do I know this? Because, with few exceptions, the snarky comment is not followed up with a serious discussion of 'what to do about this'? 'What would Christ have us do with this?' - but rather used as an exit to grab another handful of pretzels.
Always an important topic, but the argument seems a little loose here. I don't see one as being the antithesis of the other. Avoiding snark isn't always just being nice. Sometimes it really is just trying to not waste one's time, and sometimes it really is finding something, I don't know, *unuseful* about the conversation.
There remains a danger in telling ourselves that all of our snark is intended to be for the good of truth. In my experience, I observe that snark is less often used to bring a truth to the surface for serious consideration; more often used to get a fraternal nod and a hearty slap on the back. How do I know this? Because, with few exceptions, the snarky comment is not followed up with a serious discussion of 'what to do about this'? 'What would Christ have us do with this?' - but rather used as an exit to grab another handful of pretzels.
11.22.2011 | 4:55pm
JDD says:
As an aside, although Jesus judges Nathaniel to be a man he can trust, he places him in charge of neither the money purse, nor the church, and in fact nothing more is recorded of him in Scripture. This is not to diminish the Scriptural account of his call - which I love - but for me, it's food for thought.
11.22.2011 | 5:16pm
Open24 says:
Nice used to be considered an insult? Well that's a little fact I didn't know before today, thanks Richard A.
11.22.2011 | 5:54pm
Stephen J. says:
"Recently (perhaps here) read a definition of 'political correctness' as: Peace before Truth."
I can appreciate the value of this greatly; but in counterpoint, a plaintive voice speaks up in my head and says, "I've noticed that's a lot easier for people to get behind when it's *their* 'Truth' ruining *my* peace." Too many people claim a dedication to Truth as an excuse to be cruel or uncharitable to people they don't like; and sometimes you have to be patient and tolerant *first*, so that people will believe and accept the Truth when it comes time for them to hear it from you. (As Little Orphan Annie once sagely observed, "Tellin' people they shouldn't be doin' what they already *know* they shouldn't be doin' don't accomplish much... 'cept they start to run when they see you comin'!")
Jesus was able to toss the moneylenders out of the Temple with an absolutely clear conscience because He knew both the truth and His own mind; he knew the moneylenders were guilty and knew themselves to be guilty, and knew there was no pride or ego in His just wrath. I myself have never achieved that clarity of conscience about my anger -- my own hurt feelings and pride have always factored too strongly into my urges to not be nice, just as my own cowardice has always factored into my urge *to* be nice.
I can appreciate the value of this greatly; but in counterpoint, a plaintive voice speaks up in my head and says, "I've noticed that's a lot easier for people to get behind when it's *their* 'Truth' ruining *my* peace." Too many people claim a dedication to Truth as an excuse to be cruel or uncharitable to people they don't like; and sometimes you have to be patient and tolerant *first*, so that people will believe and accept the Truth when it comes time for them to hear it from you. (As Little Orphan Annie once sagely observed, "Tellin' people they shouldn't be doin' what they already *know* they shouldn't be doin' don't accomplish much... 'cept they start to run when they see you comin'!")
Jesus was able to toss the moneylenders out of the Temple with an absolutely clear conscience because He knew both the truth and His own mind; he knew the moneylenders were guilty and knew themselves to be guilty, and knew there was no pride or ego in His just wrath. I myself have never achieved that clarity of conscience about my anger -- my own hurt feelings and pride have always factored too strongly into my urges to not be nice, just as my own cowardice has always factored into my urge *to* be nice.
11.22.2011 | 6:34pm
greggo says:
some folks are just naturally snarky. This is certainly entertaining. Some folks are judgemental without being snarky; this is often offensive. It reveals meanness, envy and jealosy. Can one be judgemental and humble at the same time?
Isn't a a mean, envious and jealous judge operating from a position of authority and perceived, at least by the judge, position of superiority? Can such a person display humility while judging?
Can humility be confused with niceness? Some folks struggle with being naturally judgemental. Sometimes these folks present themselves as being nice but try as they might they still come across as snarky.
Isn't a a mean, envious and jealous judge operating from a position of authority and perceived, at least by the judge, position of superiority? Can such a person display humility while judging?
Can humility be confused with niceness? Some folks struggle with being naturally judgemental. Sometimes these folks present themselves as being nice but try as they might they still come across as snarky.
11.22.2011 | 6:47pm
Mick Leahy says:
Stephen J., of course you are right in what you say, but that is not what I am saying. The ultimate goal of political correctness is to tolerate all points of view, no matter how different to one's own, in order not to give offense. Thus some people find it hard to condemn, for example, clitoral emasculation, in some instances, because it is part of a certain culture, (Peace) whereas I would term it an absolutely wrong thing to do, and I believe that to be the Truth of it, and I am not saying this in anger.
11.22.2011 | 7:15pm
Durin says:
Whether or not niceness is in and of itself always desireable, Ms. Scalia has quite nailed it that the _demand_ for niceness can become a sufficating petty legalism.
11.22.2011 | 8:44pm
Hieronymus says:
It IS annoying, isn't it? The particularly repulsive types are the ones who ignorantly quote Matthew 7 to squash all discussion, not understanding that (a) it pertains to hypocrisy, not to every judgment, and (b) that if it were so, it would undercut their own position.
11.22.2011 | 9:00pm
Joe says:
"But does a tossed-off snark of exasperation really warrant the nitpicking of the niceniks? Does Christianity demand “niceness?”
Of course not. But I have never thought of "snarky" as a desirable descriptor, and "tossed-off" comments often are regretted. Especially in this day when everyone seems to always have an opinion on everything, I think some reticence as well as some blunt wit is called for. Tough balance. Frank Sheed complained that "everywhere one goes, he meets the sneer." Especially as the world becomes more cluttered with bad stuff, hat's the danger to my mind. "Whetever is good, pure....Think on these things." That's the challenge.
Of course not. But I have never thought of "snarky" as a desirable descriptor, and "tossed-off" comments often are regretted. Especially in this day when everyone seems to always have an opinion on everything, I think some reticence as well as some blunt wit is called for. Tough balance. Frank Sheed complained that "everywhere one goes, he meets the sneer." Especially as the world becomes more cluttered with bad stuff, hat's the danger to my mind. "Whetever is good, pure....Think on these things." That's the challenge.
11.23.2011 | 8:33am
Lenore says:
Unbelievable. Billy speaks by the Spirit and brings people to Christ. Anyone who speaks against the spirit will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come. I am finding Catholics to be in love with their own brains and not God. I am sorry I converted. This is inexcusable. And yes, Elizabeth, you can block anyone who disagrees with you, but you can't block God.
11.23.2011 | 11:41am
Ferde Rombola says:
I question whether the giving of undeserved high grades to students, high school or university, can be ascribed to the desire of the teacher to be nice. I rather think it comes from the desire of the teacher to convince the world what a brilliant teacher he or she is.
11.23.2011 | 11:44am
David F says:
Humor can be a great vehicle for charity or a cover for a bully. I think Todd has it right, respect makes the difference.
The anonymity of comments sections makes it easy to go overboard rhetorically. In addition reading rather than hearing I have to infer tone. Was that last bit serious , cynical, meant to be taken lightly etc? If I'm honest I recognize my mood makes me more or less likely to pick the most charitable interpretation. Now if I'm angry and anonymous I can forget there's a real person receiving the message. This medium has it's advantages but it depersonalizes.
The anonymity of comments sections makes it easy to go overboard rhetorically. In addition reading rather than hearing I have to infer tone. Was that last bit serious , cynical, meant to be taken lightly etc? If I'm honest I recognize my mood makes me more or less likely to pick the most charitable interpretation. Now if I'm angry and anonymous I can forget there's a real person receiving the message. This medium has it's advantages but it depersonalizes.
11.23.2011 | 12:18pm
HV Observer says:
The Prophet Jeremiah was not nice. The Prophet Amos was not nice. St. Athanasius was not nice.
In order to proclaim and to stand up for Eternal Truth, rejection of "niceness" is a necessity.
In order to proclaim and to stand up for Eternal Truth, rejection of "niceness" is a necessity.
11.23.2011 | 3:29pm
Pat S says:
Being nice does not mean being dishonest. As my mother used to say: If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. Being critical is one thing, being judgmental is another. The stole should be under the chasuble.
11.23.2011 | 3:46pm
AKO says:
@HV Observer
"The Prophet Jeremiah was not nice. The Prophet Amos was not nice. St. Athanasius was not nice."
Moses was nice, John the Baptist was nice, even Buddha was nice. I don't think it's a necessity to not be nice to be a prophet.
"The Prophet Jeremiah was not nice. The Prophet Amos was not nice. St. Athanasius was not nice."
Moses was nice, John the Baptist was nice, even Buddha was nice. I don't think it's a necessity to not be nice to be a prophet.
11.23.2011 | 6:08pm
Barbara says:
About "snarkiness:" I would agree more if snarkiness was not all the cool rage right now. In sit-coms as well as in life, it becomes are tiring way to communicate. Simple people often don't get it. Snarkiness always draws attention to your own cleverness. When people long for niceness, they just want some blessed relief from the grating culture of snark.
I used to be the queen of snark, snarkiness that was well-directed and deserved, erudite and clever. It just made me proud and my friends watchful that they would be on the receiving end of it. I am now nice. And MUCH happier.
I used to be the queen of snark, snarkiness that was well-directed and deserved, erudite and clever. It just made me proud and my friends watchful that they would be on the receiving end of it. I am now nice. And MUCH happier.
11.24.2011 | 11:32am
Joe Jervis says:
I've certainly never felt that Christians were particularly nice. Admittedly I don't have any as personal friends, but the ones I encounter in public and online are usually screaming insults.
11.24.2011 | 3:11pm
Stephen J. says:
Most *people* I encounter online have a distressingly high probability of being found screaming insults at any given moment (I've only avoided being one myself by enforcing an ironclad policy of never saying anything on line I wouldn't be willing to say face to face in person). The tendency of the Internet's anonymity and remoteness to exacerbate hostility is well-documented; the posters in this comment thread are a highly pleasant exception.
I've been trying to get the phrase "Never judge a blogger by his or her comboxes" to catch on, but haven't succeeded yet. :)
I've been trying to get the phrase "Never judge a blogger by his or her comboxes" to catch on, but haven't succeeded yet. :)
11.25.2011 | 4:06am
Micha Elyi says:
@AKO: "Moses was nice, John the Baptist was nice..."
Double-check that with an actual Bible, please.
Double-check that with an actual Bible, please.
11.25.2011 | 9:11am
Jennifer H says:
God is the only one who can judge. He is all knowing and is the only one who does not sin. That is what Christians believe. Therefore, when Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers, we believe it was with perfect love, without sin and appropriate. He was trying to communicate that business transactions have no place in the church and that the church is for believers to come together to pray, worship, and hear God's Word.
I think, as believers, we should most definitely speak the truth, but we should not do it with snark, rude or disrespectful comments. We are not Jesus, we are not perfect and we do not know the hearts of those we accuse. Only God knows that.
12There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor? James 4:12
For the LORD is our judge; the LORD is our lawgiver;
the LORD is our king; he will save us. Isaiah 33:22
If you read the entire passage of Ephesians 4, it not only calls us to speak the truth in love, it also calls us to humility. It says at the very opening (vs. 1-3) “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
It also says (vs 26-27, 31-32), 26 “Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and give no opportunity to the devil. …..31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32 Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
I think, as believers, we should most definitely speak the truth, but we should not do it with snark, rude or disrespectful comments. We are not Jesus, we are not perfect and we do not know the hearts of those we accuse. Only God knows that.
12There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor? James 4:12
For the LORD is our judge; the LORD is our lawgiver;
the LORD is our king; he will save us. Isaiah 33:22
If you read the entire passage of Ephesians 4, it not only calls us to speak the truth in love, it also calls us to humility. It says at the very opening (vs. 1-3) “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
It also says (vs 26-27, 31-32), 26 “Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and give no opportunity to the devil. …..31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32 Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
11.25.2011 | 10:08am
Lee says:
So is it OK for me to go up to fat people and tell them just how gross they are? Just curious, since it would be good for their health if they lost some weight. So obviously being nice to them is the wrong thing to do. Or should I just shut my trap and let other people live their own lives? Hmmm, interesting question.
11.25.2011 | 11:07am
David says:
Speaking truth in love is a dangerous proposition, I think. First we ought to determine if our love is truly love, or is it an excuse to say what we think without holding it against the whole standard of the Gospel. Would the Prodigal Father say it to the son after he put a cloak on him and feted him? I could tell you you are fat and that I only say so out of love; but am I loving you, or am I only loving me when I say it?
11.25.2011 | 12:12pm
Greg says:
You can put "niceness" aside and speak your "truth" to people who'd prefer not to hear it. Just don't cry religious persecution when the recipient of your unsolicited "truth" responds with his truth and tells you that your god doesn't exist and your religion is based on lies and ancient fairytales. You might not think he's being nice but "truth" is a two way street.
11.25.2011 | 12:56pm
tigglet says:
"Lately I have noticed in some of my acquaintances the development of a very grave and solemn habit, indeed—a tendency to expect niceness in everyone they meet, particularly in professed Christians." Yes, God forbid that you actually do what Jesus asked and turn the other cheek. "If, as is generally agreed, there is freedom in naming a thing for what it is, then there can only be oppression in refusing to do so, all for the sake of being nice." And for oversimplifying something that should be fundamental. Say what you want around your dinner table, in your own home, or even on the phone, but publishing hateful rhetoric, chiding whole crowds into an angry ignorant mass, and calling an angry mob to your event for "praying" for the country DEFINITELY is NOT calling it like it is. Today's Christianity is being used to foster racism, bigotry, and the elitist rich, NONE of which Jesus supported.
11.25.2011 | 11:17pm
cedlitz says:
By all means, don't be shy. Speak up. Speak out. Be up front about what you believe just as I will be up front about who God made me. Tell people why you think my civil rights, as a man built gay, should amount to less than yours because God created me in His image instead of in yours. Why I can have full rights no matter what sins I freely commit while I must be denied my rights because of what gifts gave me in the womb. Feel free to work to oppress me and those similar to me. I don't want to belong to or be married in your church and I promise to only go there when for a memorial for a friend or relative. I will make sure I take my cooties with me when I leave. Explain to everyone why you think this country's laws should be based on your favorite interpretation of your favorite verse from your favorite scripture of you favorite superstition instead of on the Constitution that grants us the right of freedom of, and from, religion. While you're at it, explain to me again that you love me.
11.26.2011 | 4:18pm
enness says:
Thank you Elizabeth...I for one have a tendency to be dramatic and I'm trying hard to only get sarcastic if it really does make the point better than the alternative.
- Lenore: that seemingly didn't take much. (Was that snarky? Or just plain honest?)
- AKO: JtB also got his head chopped off for challenging Herod's marriage.
- Joe: Elizabeth doesn't seem to be screaming, or most of the commenters, so I'm glad you're branching out. I mean it.
- Lee: suppose it was your wife or daughter. I think you'd reconsider calling anyone "gross," but if they were in denial you might still get accused of being mean. But if their health mattered to you, what would you do? How long could you stand by and watch?
- Greg: the supposed non-existence of God is something you don't and can't possibly claim to know, so I suggest re-examining your motives.
- cedlitz: Oy, where to begin...we all have "our cross," whatever that is. I understand there is some evidence that alcoholism has a genetic predisposition but I'm not buying the AA group a round of tequila. I suppose that's mean of me. Look, we can base the laws on whatever we want but we gain absolutely nothing by trying to declare that something is not what it is.
- Lenore: that seemingly didn't take much. (Was that snarky? Or just plain honest?)
- AKO: JtB also got his head chopped off for challenging Herod's marriage.
- Joe: Elizabeth doesn't seem to be screaming, or most of the commenters, so I'm glad you're branching out. I mean it.
- Lee: suppose it was your wife or daughter. I think you'd reconsider calling anyone "gross," but if they were in denial you might still get accused of being mean. But if their health mattered to you, what would you do? How long could you stand by and watch?
- Greg: the supposed non-existence of God is something you don't and can't possibly claim to know, so I suggest re-examining your motives.
- cedlitz: Oy, where to begin...we all have "our cross," whatever that is. I understand there is some evidence that alcoholism has a genetic predisposition but I'm not buying the AA group a round of tequila. I suppose that's mean of me. Look, we can base the laws on whatever we want but we gain absolutely nothing by trying to declare that something is not what it is.
11.27.2011 | 8:20am
guy mcclung says:
My daughter tells me the only way to change the mind of a woman walking in to an abortion business is to be "nice." Telling her she is going to murder her child does not work-although it is the truth. Letting her know she is loved and those who love her will help her with the choice of life is what changes hearts. To the world-the truth of the preborn needs to be told; the woman needs nice. To Eliz Scalia, or whoever of her "people" reads this: Did you hear the one about a NCR contributor who walks into a bar with a ventriloquist........?
[great great article, muchas gracias for this use of your gift] guy mcclung. rockport tx
[great great article, muchas gracias for this use of your gift] guy mcclung. rockport tx
11.27.2011 | 8:10pm
Therese says:
I've been waiting for years for an article like this. For me it is just the other side of the 'judgmental" coin. We so easily toss off comments about judgmentalism without ever clarifying: judging another's motives OR BEHAVIORS?! We must never judge another's motives, but we are obligated to judge actions and behaviors and speak up about those behaviors that are harmful, physically and spiritually. The tyranny of nice dictates that I stand by and send you off with a smile, no matter how destructive your behavior is, to your body or your soul.
11.27.2011 | 9:35pm
jim says:
I recall hearing the words "make nice" as a child from family and neighbors to curb unruly behavior. Inappropriately and sadly, that basically sums up so many homilies I have heard over the years.
11.28.2011 | 11:17am
Greg says:
enness says: "- Greg: the supposed non-existence of God is something you don't and can't possibly claim to know, so I suggest re-examining your motives."
And the supposed existence of God is something you don't and can't possibly claim to know! Your response just reinforces my point. It is just a legitimate for an Atheist to refer to his beliefs as "truth" as it is for a Christian to refer to his beliefs in the same way. If you want to preach to those who don't share your beliefs or wish to hear about them, no matter how impolite, expect the non-believer to do the same right back. If you're not prepared to hear that your entire belief system has no basis in reality, then keep your religion personal.
And the supposed existence of God is something you don't and can't possibly claim to know! Your response just reinforces my point. It is just a legitimate for an Atheist to refer to his beliefs as "truth" as it is for a Christian to refer to his beliefs in the same way. If you want to preach to those who don't share your beliefs or wish to hear about them, no matter how impolite, expect the non-believer to do the same right back. If you're not prepared to hear that your entire belief system has no basis in reality, then keep your religion personal.
11.29.2011 | 8:21am
Jennifer H says:
Speak the truth and judge, but do it with mercy. We do not know the circumstances that cause people's actions. Most often times we judge the spec in others incorrectly because we can not see clearly with a log in our own eyes. (read Matthew 7:5). This applies to both motives and behaviors.
Also, most importantly, we should make sure our judgments are according to God's Word.
Also, most importantly, we should make sure our judgments are according to God's Word.
11.29.2011 | 2:31pm
CKG says:
@Greg -
Of course, Truth (at least in the sense of 'The Way Things Really Are') is unique, and it makes no sense whatsoever to speak of 'your truth' or 'my truth'. Our own human powers of apprehending that unique Truth are, however, limited, and even the most devout Christian (or atheist) has to admit that, at bottom, his faith rests upon things of which he can't be nail-it-to-the-wall certain. But of course, the Christian has his evidence, which he thinks compelling, as does the atheist, or the Buddhist, and it behooves each of us to conform ourselves to the Truth as best we can discern it.
You are right, of course, that those who would assert the Truth as they understand it should be prepared for others to assert different understandings of the Truth. In theory at least, that's one of the ways we help each other see the Truth more clearly. . .
But as to The Truth itself, it is what it is, however dimly we humans may perceive it. And some, if not all, of us will surely be surprised by at least some (if not all) of it. . .
Of course, Truth (at least in the sense of 'The Way Things Really Are') is unique, and it makes no sense whatsoever to speak of 'your truth' or 'my truth'. Our own human powers of apprehending that unique Truth are, however, limited, and even the most devout Christian (or atheist) has to admit that, at bottom, his faith rests upon things of which he can't be nail-it-to-the-wall certain. But of course, the Christian has his evidence, which he thinks compelling, as does the atheist, or the Buddhist, and it behooves each of us to conform ourselves to the Truth as best we can discern it.
You are right, of course, that those who would assert the Truth as they understand it should be prepared for others to assert different understandings of the Truth. In theory at least, that's one of the ways we help each other see the Truth more clearly. . .
But as to The Truth itself, it is what it is, however dimly we humans may perceive it. And some, if not all, of us will surely be surprised by at least some (if not all) of it. . .
11.30.2011 | 2:16pm
Nancy D. says:
I am wondering why you would promote a book by a priest who dissents from The Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality?
If anyone doubts that God has a sense of humor, consider this anecdote from my time as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Cote d'Ivoire, West Africa:
I was visiting some Volunteer friends of mine in a town near Abidjan, where I was stationed. After dinner, and blessedly without any t-v to turn on, we had a long conversation in the living room. The talk turned to religion, and Linda shared some of her experiences from her Baptist upbringing in Minnesota. Linda was not an irreligious person, but she was willing to poke fun at some of the excesses of the Baptists. She told about the members of her community who could state the exact day, hour, and minute when they were saved. (I honestly think salvation is quite an involved process, but some Baptists prefer the "instantaneous" interpretation.) Then she began talking about Billy Graham. There were those in her Baptist church, she said with obvious hyperbole, who thought that if God ever died, Billy Graham could just step right in and take over. I commented, with intellectual gravity, that I always found his approach to be simply too emotional. Soon, Billy was getting a thorough roasting from us. At that moment, however, I saw a black arm come through the open dining room window, holding a portable radio. It was the Ivoirian "guardien" (night watchman). He spoke French, and probably Baoule, but not a word of English. Nevertheless, he could tell that his radio was picking up an English language broadcast and thought that we might like to hear it. Yes, you guessed it. It was an overseas short-wave broadcast of a Billy Graham crusade! There, in the middle of the West African rain forest, as Billy gave his appeal to any and all to come "just as you are", we about slid out of our seats onto the floor.
Tell me, who but God could play the cosmic chess game with such finesse and humor?