Saint Francis of Assisi: Mediator or Political Activist? Part 3

In the previous posts I argued Francis was more likely to act in the tradition of the Great Mediator, Christ, than he was to become a political activist. Francis’ activism, I concluded, would be limited to advocating for a gospel life, not for politics.

Of course I recognize living according to the Gospel does not exclude participation in politics. As Christians, although we are hopefully not “of this world” we are no doubt “in this world.” Thus, politics cannot be entirely divorced from the moral imperatives of the Gospel. We have an obligation to care for our brothers and sisters. However, when we are forced into the realm of politics it is wise for us to maintain our focus on the core value and end goal of our lives: the Kingdom of God.

So we might ask, if Francis were to advocate for a political position, what could we expect? At the very least, we can surmise what his approach would not have been. We can assume he would not embrace coercive or deceptive tactics; he would not lend support to those who use domination and deception to achieve power; he would not support activists who justify using “any means necessary” to achieve political dominance. Instead, we know St. Francis would seek to be perfect in his imitation of Christ.

I imagine most Franciscans would agree with the above analysis, however, it is likely that at least a few Franciscans may see matters differently. For example, my brief exposure to the Franciscan Action Network (FAN) causes me to wonder if I have missed something: their position papers and political positions challenge my understanding. The following post is an attempt to address my confusion within the context of the question, “Francis: mediator or activist?”

It is always good to begin an analysis by focusing on areas of agreement, so I will begin with the position paper “A Franciscan Approach to Civility in Discourse.” Though I agree with the principles the paper advances, I believe a thorough study of the principles supports a new direction for FAN, a turn toward the role of conciliator rather than activist. I will argue that in order to live up to the proposed principled guidelines FAN will be forced to switch to the role of mediator, conciliator, or conflict specialist.

Though “Civility in Discourse” acknowledges Francis’ unwavering focus on faith, the author positions the goal of FAN in a slightly different manner: “Franciscan Action Network is engaged in the process of policy reform to promote peace, care for the environment, and a concern for the poor.”

Ironically, FAN appears eager to engage in political debate and advocacy while at the same time noting: “Currently in our national conversations on policy we are experiencing a great deal of inflammatory language… that exaggerates differences and hardens positions.”

FAN may not have realized that when they take sides in a political cause they automatically join the battle; actors with opposing views see FAN as a foe working against their interests and welfare. They will have engaged others as a partisan, and should expect to be treated as the opposition.

On the other hand, one might view the contentious and divisive nature of polarized politics as an ideal opportunity for FAN to become a force for reconciliation. If FAN desires to mend divisions and encourage civil discourse, however, they will need to adopt the role of mediator, conciliator, or conflict specialist.

When FAN takes activist political positions they forfeit the role of an impartial broker of peace. They nonetheless wish to call for civil discourse. It is easy to speculate FAN’s plea for civil discourse signals an as-yet-unrecognized desire for a change in roles.

To help us sort out the apparent dilemma, we will consider the following principled guidelines for a civil discourse. And we will ask, Is it possible to adhere to the guidelines while functioning as an activist?

FAN proposes discourse should include the following guidelines:

Respect the dignity of those who hold an opposite view.

Respect is a valid, foundational principle in mediation. Mediators work with parties to increase mutual respect and trust, and they do this by insuring the interests of both parties are considered equally in a good faith attempt to satisfy those interests. This respectful approach allows parties to engage in mutual discovery and collaborative problem solving.

On the other hand, when an organization like FAN advocates for a political cause that others view as a threat to their welfare, they lose the neutral standing required to issue calls for respect. It becomes nearly impossible to issue a call for respect when the other party fears you intend to land damaging blows on them or their interests. The call for respect seems self-serving, a tactical move designed to gain advantage. Neither party in a conflict possesses the removed, impartial viewpoint from which to adjudicate process fairness and respect— therefore, in most cases, a neutral third party must be called on to facilitate the process.

As an example, during a FAN webinar on healthcare legislation callers raised issues of concern, including concern over matters of conscience, concern regarding costs and viability, concern regarding union corruption and government deception, and concern over the adverse long-term effects of political ideology that opens the door to the tyranny of big government.

In response to these expressed concerns, FAN representatives were polite but politeness is not equivalent to respect—one can politely disregard the very real concerns of another. One can politely continue to do exactly as one originally intended and refuse to alter one’s plans so as to take into account others’ concerns. A polite tone of voice is not, by itself, equivalent to respect for the dignity of others, as politeness can also be patronizing and disrespectful.

In order to show respect for the other’s dignity one must truly honor their real needs and interests. Rarely is this achieved in the realm of contentious political discourse without the assistance of a mediator, conciliator, or conflict specialist. Parties advocating for opposing positions rarely have the impartial standing that allows them to legitimately serve as monitors of respect during the adversarial engagement. An analogy would be selecting an umpire from one of two teams competing for a championship; regardless of good intentions, the player selected to umpire would be suspected of bias.

To further illustrate the point, I reference a FAN position paper on immigration in which FAN (perhaps inadvertently) violates its own call for respect. The author writes “…our concerns are heightened by a public climate that equates all undocumented persons with violent drug gangs.” This factually untrue statement insults those who have expressed valid concerns regarding illegal entry by millions of migrants. The words can appear provocative and disrespectful, they can appear to be designed to demean and discredit those who seek enforcement of the law along with a real solution for immigration reform.

Thus we see it is easy to violate norms for civil discourse—even norms that one establishes oneself—when one engages in political activism. A conflict specialist would look at the words in the immigration position paper and instantly recognize the insult delivered. He or she would immediately anticipate a backlash and would anticipate a need to de-escalate the conflict. In fact, a mediator most likely would turn the negative into a positive by seeking consensus among the parties regarding the adverse effects of drug gangs. He or she would use the problem of drug smuggling as a bridge to draw the parties closer together rather than drive them apart.

If we sincerely desire to show respect for the dignity of those who hold opposing views we need to be sensitive to the possibility we will give insult as a natural result of our passionate advocacy. We are so close to our own views that we fail to recognize the offense they telegraph. As one who has frequently ruffled feathers unintentionally, I am quite familiar with the adverse effects of my unacknowledged bias. When we engage in political activism, we automatically risk sacrificing respect. Perhaps it was for this reason that Francis appeared to eschew political activism.

In the next installment of this series I will continue to explore the proposed guidelines regarding civil discourse.

St. Francis: Mediator or Political Activist? Series Posts

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4: Civility in Discourse
• Part 5: Facilitating Engagement & Dialogue
• Part 6: Resurrection Politics and Rules for Radicals
• Part 7: Immigration Reform
• Part 8: Beyond Corruption and Deception

Related Posts

• Saint Francis of Assisi: Mediator or Political Activist? Part 2
• Saint Francis of Assisi: Mediator or Political Activist? Part 1
• Facilitating Engagement & Dialogue
• Immigration Reform
• Mosque in Manhattan