After last week’s post on the Collect for Peace I simply can’t resist sharing some satire with you.
Dorothy L. Sayers is most famous for her crime novels, which are the best thing ever when you have a head cold, or at almost any other time too. She was also a thoughtful Christian who engaged fearlessly with her contemporary culture. She certainly knew the Prayer Book’s collect for peace by heart:
O GOD, who art the author of peace and lover of concord, in knowledge of whom standeth our eternal life, whose service is perfect freedom; Defend us thy humble servants in all assaults of our enemies; that we, surely trusting in they defense, may not fear the power of any adversaries, through the might of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
The Whimsical Christian is a collection of essays and satire by Sayers, in which we find A Sermon for Cacophanytide, preached by the Irrev. Garble Skimmer, followed by this prayer - listen to the echos of the Prayer Book collect:
O Misconstruction, that art the author of hate and lover of friction, in juggling with whom standeth our perpetual strife, and whose service is stark unreason; assist us, thy aggressive shock troops, in all our assaults upon accuracy, that we, being practiced in giving offense, may not fear the power of any argument; through the sleight of they misleading words. Amen.
The “sermon” itself sets out exactly how to go about discussion and debate if you would like to get precisely nowhere in the search for truth. I don’t personally spend much time on the internet, but from what I hear it seems that some people who raise their voices loudly these days are following this advice:
Remember, when cultivating your coldbed of Polemic, never define, never expound, never discuss; only assert and assume. Where there is dogma [doctrine], there is always a possible basis for agreement; where there is explanation, there is always the peril of mutual understanding; where there is argument, there may be victory and the dreadful prospect of peace.
Misconstruction - the willful misinterpretation of our intellectual or political opponents’ ideas and intentions - seems to be a perpetual problem, then as now. I would hesitate to raise my voice in the public square on any controversial topic, not because I’m ashamed of my opinions, but because all those “assaults upon accuracy” might make it impossible for anyone to hear those opinions clearly.
This makes me realise how very much in need of intellectual grace our culture is. Sayers is pointing us to a pattern of gracious argumentation. I suppose it would involve such shocking behaviours as understanding exactly what our opponents are saying, listening to their reasons for saying it, remembering that their motives are probably at least as good as ours, then and checking that we have understood them, before finally being prepared to have our own opinions, reasons, and even motives examined too. With a bit of humility, we might find that loving our enemies isn’t so hard after all. If the opponents also start to argue graciously too, peace might starting breaking out.
And what a dreadful prospect that would be.