But in any case, even when they aren’t plain wrong, they’re a very blunt instrument. Anyone, in any country, can be kind and courteous; anyone can be mean and aggressive, or overweight, or unwashed, or whatever other jibe you want to throw out.

Does that mean that different societies have no individuality at all?  No, there’s a huge difference between French culture and German, for instance, or Russian and Italian. And even those categories are far too broad: in my own country, between a Rossendale farmer and a Newham hoodie, proud Englishmen both, there is a great gulf fixed of mutual incomprehension. 

So what about the famed British politeness? Well, it’s not entirely a myth, though we’re changing. Like the rest of the developed world, we’re living more quickly, we have less time – or think we do -  and less patience.

But there is, across most of our country, a basic civility, a willingness to help, and a certain habit of self-deprecation that I’ve always found rather appealing. We don’t trumpet our achievements, such as they are (see, there I go) and a recent survey has shown that the average Brit apologises seven times a day – rather high, most people would think, but we would say it’s only polite. And all of this is written, of course, under the provisos of the first paragraph: none of it is strictly true.

Where was this politeness, I wonder, a few weeks ago when parts of London and other cities erupted, out of the blue, in a frenzy of riots and looting? It was genuinely shocking, though one of our Baptist ministers with an ear to the ground said he’d thought that ‘something’ was coming. Most of us were taken completely by surprise. Our courts were crowded; large numbers of the looters were identified, and they are counting the cost of their new trainers and flat-screen TVs as guests of Her Majesty.

Well: see the first paragraph again. Stereotypes are lazy. People – even Brits – are sometimes greedy and feckless, and civilization, as C P Snow says, is just a coat of varnish. But I see two things here for further reflection.

First is the lesson of the riots themselves. Things became more important than people. For the sake of a few consumer goods, people were terrified, had their livelihoods destroyed and their homes burned. Politeness seems a frail bulwark to set against that sort of behaviour. But politeness is how you behave when you see the other person as a person, rather than as an obstacle to your enjoyment.

Second, though, is what happened afterwards. Broomstick armies took to the streets, determined to clear up the mess. People were outraged that such things could be, and – here is a prophecy, if you like – it’s not going to happen again. There was a reclamation of community from the wreckers. People were embarrassed, ashamed, and determined to say to the world, ‘Our city is not really like that at all.’

That gives me hope. In the end, the kind of character our society has is based on thousands of individual acts of will. There’ll always be those who choose wrongly, but it’s possible to achieve a critical mass of those who treat other people with dignity, respect and consideration, and that will shape how a nation sees itself, and how it’s seen by others. Some stereotypes are worth living up to. 

The Revd Mark Woods is editor of The Baptist Times, the UK’s Baptist newspaper

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In many areas of contemporary life, civility seems to be a thing of the past.  Whether in politics, religion, academia, or economics, the opportunity to engage in respectful, informed discourse is decreasing.  The only true learning comes from stating, clarifying, and discussing alternatives but this is more difficult to do.  Rather than fostering dialogue and discovery, we seem to want to draw lines that will divide rather than unite. A key tactic in this “uncivil” discourse is fear.  Although fear if not necessarily a negative emotion, it is a useful tool to divide and polarize people.  Healthy fear is a reasonable motivator, but unhealthy fear has the potential to be destructive.  If a leader or opinion setter can identify what people fear, he or she can use it to further their own agenda.  We may be dealing with such diverse topics as the debt ceiling, sexual ethics, or religious practice but fear can quickly divide people into different camps that not only cannot talk with one another but refuse to do so. 

Why is fear such a powerful instrument for division?  A primary reason is that we don’t have to dig too deeply to find something that each and every one of us fears—failure, deprivation, loss, embarrassment, or “the other.”  Fear takes hold of our vulnerabilities and prejudices very quickly, often in an irrational way. How can we overcome the fear that blocks civil discourse and real dialogue?  If we will take the time for some reflection, we can break the grip of fear and find freedom.  Let me suggest several ideas. 

First, we must clearly name and acknowledge our fear.  Of what are we afraid?  Do we really understand what motivates our fear?   If we can name it, we can face it.  If we cannot, then what’s the problem? 

Second, we might also think in terms of who benefits from our succumbing to our fear.  Is someone using our fear to manipulate us for their own ends?  If so, let’s call them out and refuse to be controlled. 

The third question we should ask ourselves is, “What is the worst thing that could happen if this fear is real and the unwanted becomes a reality?”  Are the consequences physical, emotional, or simply inconvenience?  What is the real harm that will occur?

Fourth, if what we fear does happen, how can we deal with it?  We are not powerless in the face of fear.  Can we prepare so that we can thwart our fear or mitigate the consequences in some way?  What are our alternative responses in this situation? 

In responding to the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”  Although this may seem to be too simplistic to some, the truth is that fear only has the power we give to it.  Allowing fear to demoralize, divide, and incite us is a matter of choice.  We must make the decision about what to do with our fear or we will not be able to face the challenges that life and society throw our way.

About Ircel Harrison: I consider myself an itinerant educator. My time is spent in encouraging and equipping ministers through my work with the Central Baptist Seminary site in Murfreesboro and Pinnacle Leadership Associates. I also do volunteer work with my church. Other time is devoted to reading, writing, traveling, and spending time with grandchildren and my wife, Rita. our way. 

Ircel Harrison blogs at www.barnabasfile.blogspot.com.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

What’s “Your Word” Worth? by Dr. Monty Knight 

In 2009, my friend and colleague, Mitch Carnell, edited a worthy book entitled Christian Civility in an Uncivil World (Smyth and Helwys). Dr. Carnell not only wrote the Preface and the last chapter of the book (“The Power of Words”), he envisioned the project, enlisting various accomplished persons, primarily clergy-types from an array of Christian traditions, to write other chapters, such as “Civility and the Common Good,” “Christian Civility on the Internet” and “Good Manners for Public Christians.” Mitch–the emeritus director of the Charleston (SC) Speech and Hearing Clinic, a veteran college and graduate school professor and management consultant, specializing in improved communication in the world of business and public affairs–is a Baptist layman, a faithful servant-leader in his own church. And the book grew out of his concern over such strident and polarizing attitudes, rhetoric and behavior which have come to characterize our common life these days–unfortunately, too often, even “at church.” However, along the way of his “shepherding” the not-so-easy development of Christian Civility in an Uncivil World (as someone has said, “You can drive cattle, but you have to lead sheep”; or is such an endeavor even more like “herding cats”?), Dr. Carnell found himself dismayed at an apparent moral lapse he hardly expected.

One prominent minister, a nationally known figure, had confirmed with Mitch that s/he would write one of the book’s chapters. But as the months unfolded, along with publication deadlines, and various other chapter-writers submitted what they had agreed to, nothing from this particular minister appeared. Not even an “I’m running behind” notice, much less a simple confession: “I’m sorry, but I made a mistake. I over-committed. I said another ‘Yes’ to something, when I already had too much on my plate.” 

“That would have been sufficient,” said Dr. Carnell. “I would have understood, accepted the apology and merely proceeded to ask someone else to write the chapter–which I finally, in desperation, had to do anyway–when I found myself running out of time with the publisher, yet hadn’t heard anything” from the particular minister-in-default. 

This, of course, was a low-budget venture; the various contributors signed no legal contract; there would be no lawsuits. This was a gentleman’s/gentlewoman’s agreement; a deal done with a handshake; indeed, the “worth” of “one’s word.” After all, everyone involved (including the publisher) would have claimed to be “civilized Christians”–most of whom were, in fact, clergy. So why didn’t Mitch confront this particular minister? As I commiserated with my friend, I shared my own similar experience, including three different examples. At least a couple of times it has been job offers, assurances that turned out otherwise, when I never heard back from those who “gave me their word.” Another was my doctoral dissertation project–again, involving ministers– less than half of whom returned the evaluations they “promised” in exchange for some training I had provided. While yet another involved my own book. The publisher even sent complimentary copies to certain minister-colleagues who told me they would review the book–but didn’t. 

As I shared with Dr. Carnell, I haven’t confronted everyone who promised me something they didn’t fulfill. But in the instances when I have, the response has been same: “I just didn’t want to do it.” This, indeed–not from strangers–but from persons I considered to be friends. Can one not feel “de-personalized,” even in a so-called “personal relationship”? When we feel discounted; when, as we say, someone just “blew us off.”

Observing my friend’s experience, from the perspective of my own, I find myself wondering if, perhaps, certainly “Christian civility” doesn’t have at least something to do with what anyone’s “word” is “worth.”

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

            Say Something Nice Sunday was recently endorsed by Archbishop Dolan of the Catholic Diocese of New York and was celebrated in 2011 by Baptists, Catholic, Disciples, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodists and Presbyterian churches. More information is available at www.mitchcarnell.com.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

            Archbishop Dolan wrote, “How wonderful it would be if all churches and their members decided to say something positive about other Christians and other Christian groups at least one Sunday per year in recognition of our common belief in Christ.”  

            Dr. Colleen Perry Keith, president of Spartanburg Methodist College said, “Archbishop Dolan touched on something that reminds me of the song our choir will be performing at the SMC commencement in May. The title is, “One God” and the lyrics include, “Millions of stars placed in the heavens by One God…so many children calling to Him by many a different name…your God and my God are one…” “Wouldn’t tolerance be a great thing?”

            Every church and every denomination are urged to join the celebration. There are supporting materials available free at http://www.fbcharleston.org/SSN-Web-Page.html . Again this year Mark Woods, editor of the Baptist Time of the United Kingdom, will continue to publicize the event and encourage churches there to take part.

            Daises are the symbol of friendship. Each year First Baptist Church of Charleston gives a daisy to each person attending as she or he leaves the services with the instructions to give it to a stranger along with and uplifting comment. The ecumenical committee that oversees the celebration welcomes suggestions from other churches or church groups. Send your suggestions to lori@fbcharleston.org. The committee would like to hear from every church that participates

Related posts:

1. Archbishop Dolan Support Letter Archbishop Dolan of New York gives a great thumbs up...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.