Sometimes in conversations, a person will interrupt the discussion by offering a challenging word, prefaced by the phrase “Let me play the devil’s advocate.” It’s a funny phrase (Side note: Since when did the devil need an advocate?) that dates back to the 17th century. The Roman Catholic Church actually created an office popularly known as the advocatus diabolic (devil’s advocate), in which persons would be given the task to scrutinize every report about a holy figure being considered for canonization and make a case against naming them as a new saint. The argument was that only when proposals have been rigorously tested and investigated can anyone be comfortable with ascribing sainthood to men and women of faith.
On the surface, it seems quite reasonable to test the reliability of claims associated with saintly miracles and wonders. But what happens when playing the “devil’s advocate” is simply a way to undermine another person’s idea? What happens when putting forward criticisms, doubts, and skeptical remarks is done simply to derail a colleague’s well-meaning proposal? Must every “point” be met with a “counterpoint”?
Generally speaking, being open to diverse opinions is a good thing. However, not every opinion is worthy of equal time or receiving equal weighting in deliberations. A presentation about valuing what is good does not have to share the podium with a speaker intent on a message of hate that demeans others. To be proud of one’s country of origin, whether that is the United States or some other nation, does not mean it is necessary to invite into the discussion a person who shows disdain for other nations, ethnicities, or cultures. Explicit statements that are racist, homophobic, misogynist, and anti-Semitic may have a level of protection under our Constitution’s First Amendment, but that does not guarantee them a place of equivalence in public discussions nor exempt them from the legal limits and possible hate crime penalties present in our legal code.
“Devil’s advocates” are not always welcome voices in conversations related to faith, since both scripture and the example of Christ have modeled for us a “one-sided” bias toward the needs of the poor, the outcast, the wounded, forgotten, and maligned. That is part of the power of the season of Advent with its focus on faith themes such as peace, love, hope, and joy. We light a candle each week in Advent, knowing that it is not necessary to also celebrate war when we have been given the higher calling to follow the Prince of Peace. We light candles in worship, knowing there is no value in inviting a “devil’s advocate” to promote hate, despair or sadness during our December worship services since the microphone has intentionally been reserved for words focused on love, hope,
and joy.
In fact, the gift of Advent is that it refutes any false equivalence this world may place on positions of hatred, injustice, nationalism and racism by loudly proclaiming the gospel “good news” of the virtues incarnate in Christ Jesus—love, hope, peace, and joy. Panelists and media talk shows can pursue their goals of being “fair and balanced”; for us, we serve as “angel advocates” sharing our one-sided, good news of great joy for all the world.
—Randy Bush