The Lost Art of Controversy

On the one hand, it seems that there is no shortage of controversy in the world in which we live. One might well posit that "people argue all the time."

But, on the other hand (as it were) -- there is a tremendous dearth of what was once a treasured and well-practiced art known as "controversy." By this, I mean a "dispute, argument, or debate, especially one concerning a matter about which there is strong disagreement and especially one carried on in public or in the press." (Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003)

Alas, there was a time when arguments could be conducted in both a passionate AND a rational manner. Those "arguments" were seen as a valid part of societal discourse. To be biblical about it, as Proverbs 27:17 says: "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another."

The purpose of a controversy was to allow both sides of a point under discussion to be heard in fairness, openness, and with a basic respect for differing opinions. The root meaning of the word is "to turn to the opposite." 

I have my say, then we turn and listen while you have your say, and vice versa until we have finished. And then people make up their minds and we go on about cobbling a common life together. Controversy was not a bad thing -- it was an expected and valued part of social discourse.

But it seems that a funny thing happened on the way to the 21st century: we lost our ability to have a good argument.

Now, most social issues are projected in terms of merely who is "right" and who is "wrong," with neither side willing to give the other a respectful hearing. We live in an era when discourse has given way to boycotts, petitions, demonstrations and shouting matches.

Would the oft-cited (but rarely listened-to) "founding fathers" of our great nation even recognize us?

Men (and, yes, it was the men in those days) like Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, and others hammered out the great documents of American freedom in vivid controversies where every point mattered, every viewpoint was heard, and consensus was won by the sweat of honest disputation and discussion.

I daresay there wasn't a "sound bite" or a "talking point" to be heard in Independence Hall in 1776. Have our attention spans become so short that our politicians truly believe that our votes can be earned on the basis of phrases such as "You didn't build that..." or "He's not the solution, he's the problem?"

God help us all if that is true! With public discussions like that, we are bound to continue getting what we deserve in our nation's capital and our 50 statehouses.

I for one am determined to find men and women of good will and differing opinions with whom I can engage in a good, old-fashioned "controversy" -- (not to be confused with a good old-fashioned piano party, by the way!)

Believe what you choose to believe -- stand up for your beliefs -- do not be afraid to challenge others whose beliefs are different from your own.

But, please...please...please...be thoughtful in what you say, and respectful in the way that you listen.

We'll all be better off for it.

A Game of Chicken

That Dan Cathy sure can make a chicken sandwich.

Well, I doubt that Dan has actually put a piece of poultry between two buns in quite a while, but the heir to the chicken restaurant empire founded by his father, Truett Cathy, has been much in the news lately over his spicy comments defending his understanding of traditional marriage.

Claiming that he is "guilty as charged" when asked about supporting "the traditional family," Cathy has gone on to use ever more blatant language about just what -- in his mind (I started to say "bird brain," but thought better of it) -- traditional family and its concomitant, "biblical marriage,"  actually means.

To be precise, Mr. Cathy had this to say in a widely-quoted radio interview:

I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say 'we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.

He was speaking, of course, in reference to those who support or are in favor of allowing "gay marriage."

The former Baptist-preacher-turned-governor-turned-radio-host-turned-TV-celebrity-turned-perennial-presidential-hopeful Mike Huckabee wasted no time in entering the ensuing political-cultural fray, admonishing thousands (or perhaps millions?) of his fellow conservatives to support Chick-Fil-A, the restaurant whose profits allow Mr. Cathy access to such a public venue for his opinions. Grabbing a quick chick has now become a political statement.

(Ya' ever notice how many run-of-the-mill guys and gals have similar, if not stronger, sentiments -- but nobody ever pays any attention to them because they don't donate millions to political causes?)


Of course, boycotts from the other side of the fence have been proposed, as well, with many other thousands (or perhaps millions?) vowing never to eat another "Chik'n" sandwich at the six-day-a-week restaurants -- ever.

And, even though it mixes the metaphors horrendously to say so -- ain't this a fine kettle of fish?

Now we have thousands upon thousands (or perhaps millions upon millions?) of people shouting at one another across yet another cultural divide in America -- this one brought on by a supposed debate over what's in the Bible and what's not.

And that's where we get to the interesting thing, at least for me, as a relatively serious Bible student for the last 40 years or so. Go to any Bible concordance or biblical internet search engine and look up the word, "marriage," and you'll get a fairly mind-blowing array of biblical verses that mention the subject in some way. (There are approximately 47 of them, depending on the translation that you prefer to read.)

Included in these various "biblical definitions" of marriage are these ideas:

• If you are a young man in love with a girl who has an older sister, you have to marry the older sister first -- THEN, you can marry your true love. (Genesis Genesis 29:25-27)
• If you have married a wife and, after you have slept with her, you "dislike" her (these rules were a long time before Facebook, by the way!) -- you can call a town meeting, accuse her of whoredom, put her on trial and -- if you are able to prove your case -- ditch her to try another wife that might suit you better. (Deuteronomy 22:13 ff)
• Brides were sometimes won in battle -- sort of a recruiting prize for keeping the enrollment up (so to speak) in the all-volunteer army. (Joshua 15:15-17)
• In one of the more bizarre "biblical marriages" on record, the great King David of Israel was compelled by his would-be father-in-law, Saul, to kill 200 enemy soldiers and cut off their foreskins as a "bridal price." Ouch!
• There were the escapades of Jacob, whose name was changed by God to Israel, who had multiple wives (and unmarried consorts, known as "concubines") in order to produce the gaggle of 12 sons that became known as "the children of Israel." (Genesis 29:13ff)
• And, of course, most famously for Christians -- we have the story of Joseph and Mary, who were the parents of Jesus -- who was actually conceived by Mary before she was married and had fulfilled her marital duties with Joseph. (Can't you just see Dana Carvey's "Church Lady" pursing her lips over that one?) (Matthew 1:24-25)

Now, I would kind of like for Mr. Cathy -- and Gov. Huckabee, or Tony Perkins, or any of the other voices crying in the societal wilderness -- to tell me just exactly WHICH "biblical definition" of marriage they are defending.

Mr. Cathy claims that God has clearly designed marriage and given it to us as a human institution, devoid of cultural customs and in a supposed now-and-forever format that should not -- indeed, can not -- ever be changed by mere "laws."

I've performed scores of weddings -- all of them between one man and one woman, all of them "sanctioned" by both the church and society. But I am quite confused by all the talk of THE "biblical definition" of marriage and the manner in which it, supposedly, bestows the right of some segments of society to infringe upon the rights of other segments of society.

I completely respect the right of Dan Cathy to spout whatever belief or moral imperative that he wishes to spout; I do not have a problem with the number of millions of dollars he wishes to give to political organizations, public foundations, charities or churches of his choice. The more the better.

But I wish he'd back off a bit on the "biblical" rhetoric and be a little more God-fearing himself when it comes to speaking definitively for the Almighty. Some things just aren't as clear-cut as we might like to make them.

Fries with that, anyone?