For or Against?

Over the past couple of days, I've watched enough television to have the opportunity to view the latest round of political advertising. Here in Milwaukee County, we will be electing a new County Executive (to fill the vacancy created by the recent election of Scott Walker as Governor) and statewide, there is a contested election for one of the judgeships on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. What have I noticed about the commercials so far?  Here goes:

Each candidate (or "independent" organization advertising on behalf of a political perspective) is busy telling the viewers why we DON'T want to elect the other candidate. Perhaps I've missed some of them, but I haven't heard or seen a single advertisement aimed at lending credibility to a candidate or proffering a rationale for supporting her/him. The campaigns seem to be more concerned with discrediting their opposition.

Now, "negative" campaigning is nothing new. We certainly have seen far worse examples than the ads currently on the air. But I'm left wondering what it means when the message the various candidates are sending is, "It's more important for you, the voter, to cast your vote AGAINST my opponent than casting that vote in favor of me." Is this what we've come to?

Apparently (if one goes by the television ads) no candidate needs to propose any viable solutions for the problems facing our community or our state; she/he need only point out, in as vitriolic and inflammatory fashion as possible, the problems with his/her opposition's proposed solutions. Certainly there's nothing new in this sort of advertising. The reason candidates and their constituents still engage in this category of political speech is because the electorate responds to it. In short, if I can make you hate/distrust my opponent enough, you will vote for me without ever actually asking me what I my values, goals or aspirations are, and if I don't have to name those values, goals or aspirations, then I don't have to defend them or address any of my own philosophical inconsistencies.

I can't fix such shenanigans, but watching all of them has led me to reflect on the importance of the speech we use around the parish community I serve. Language is, indeed, formative. The way we talk does, in fact, "construct", in some fashion, "who we are". Are we, as Christians, simply "against" this thing or that? Do we define the Christian life only by what it is not? Further, as Episcopalians, is our main claim to fame that we are "not" (Roman) Catholic or Lutheran or Evangelical or Pentecostal? Does the only way we (Christians in general or Episcopalians in particular) identify ourselves devolve to positioning ourselves "over and against" others?

When I first entered the priesthood, I sweated over every word -- the words in sermons, the words in bulletin announcements, the words in newsletter articles, the words at coffee hour, the words in e-mails, the words used in classes, the words used in informal conversation and every other sort of verbal communication. I fretted (before and after!). I edited (whenever I could). I pored over the stuff attempting to make sure that the correct nuance was conveyed (mostly unsuccessfully). Often, I was so ecclesiastically tongue-tied I prayed for deliverance from having to say anything.

Over the years, though, I fear I've gotten sloppy. Crafting a consistent message is hard, inexact and exhausting work. And besides, who am I to presume to speak either "to" or "on behalf of" an entire parish?

This recent deluge of political advertisements has called me to think a bit more deeply about how we tell our story to one another and to the community around us. To be honest, I would hope people who dare to identify themselves as "Christians" would be the most inclined to mind our words.

What would it be like if followers of Jesus ceased using our power of speech as a means to slice and dice our perceived "enemies"?
What would it be like if we recovered the creative power of our words to heal and raise the dead?
Who knows?
We might just turn the world upside down!
And it wouldn't be the first time!