Unapologetic attempt to address the attitude that ails us

I think a better title would've been "Embrace people with differing points of view" but I still see the value in my editor's choice of wording.  It's hard to get people to open up to our ideas when we closed to their ideas and closed to them.  Before I share the text of the column, below, I think many people feel subjugated and experience too much suppression when it comes to talking, which is an unsuccessful way for us as a society to bridge our differences, and if we continue to alienate ourselves from those we disagree with our results will remain unsatisfactory if we ever want to grow and mature.  Enough of the rant, here is today's religion column original published in the Kingsport Times News:  

Our contemporary quandary about discussing anything remotely controversial without difficulty isn’t healthy, but it obviously isn’t new either.   As Einstein observed, “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.”

Consider how C.S. Lewis saw this dilemma, “When the whole world is running towards a cliff, he who is running in the opposite direction appears to have lost his mind.”  Contemplate George Orwell’s similar insight, “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.”  Perhaps Thomas Paine put it best, “He who dares not offend cannot be honest.”

Circumstances may have changed since those great thinkers were around, but sadly today Trump, Fauci, Covid vaccines & Big Pharma, transgenderism, wars in Israel and Ukraine, money, the climate & energy, and a host of other interesting & worthwhile topics are suddenly off limits because they seemingly separate us from those we care about.  Without even being forcefully censored, many of us feel coerced to remain silent for fear of rejection or retaliation.  

I’ve been in echochamber churches before and I’ve experienced shallow friendships where it’s okay to take your ball and go home when things don’t go your way.  Their unwritten creed dictated complete agreement of every doctrine, theological stance, opinion, and divergent views were intolerable, yet I’ve come to appreciate the fact that spiritually mature people go beyond simply tolerating opposing views, they invite people not to acquiesce but to think for themselves and to actually express their views openly.  How else can we grow?

Where am I coming up with these radical ideas?  This extremist position on exchanging ideas with the goal of overall personal improvement comes from Scripture:

Prov 12:15, “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,

    but a wise man listens to advice.”

Prov 18:2, “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding,

    but only in expressing his opinion.”

Prov 27:6, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend;

    profuse are the kisses of an enemy.

Prov 27:17, “Iron sharpens iron,

    and one man sharpens another.”

Somehow we have corrupted the quality of our relationships by characterizing anyone who contradicts us as combative.  Hogwash.  True friends are vital because they care enough to disagree -- confident people refuse to allow their differences to dissolve their bonds of community.  

Shutting down and devaluing differing points of view lacks integrity, lowers the standard of authentic friendships, corrodes community, and it weakens us intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually.  Biblical relationships value debate and dialogue -- just because someone disagrees with you it doesn't mean they have attacked or victimized you nor are they inherently evil.  We gain little by prohibiting differences of opinions and surrounding ourselves with people who only reinforce every opinion we have.  

Courageous relationships are risky -- sharing your thoughts requires vulnerability but mature people know how to disagree with others without feeling the need to demonize them.  It is okay to disagree with or dislike the content of what someone says but it is immature to dislike & distance yourself from them just for what they think. 

Before you use this common phrase think again

  

I've seen several friends all across the spectrum of conservative-liberal/spiritual-secular post the above phrase, and after giving it much thought, I want to share my opinion about the deeper meaning I think I see in this phrase without offending the folks who have shared the phrase.  Just because I don't like this phrase doesn't mean I don't like you.  

A popular, rather cute & clever saying parading about under the guise of being the bigger person, is actually, in my opinion, one of the most condescending, judgmental, critical statements floating around the internet these days, again in my opinion.  Basically what the statement (pictured above) is asserting, while masked in politeness, is that you are above the other person, you are far superior to them, they are really just a mouth breather, MAGA supporter, right-winger, degenerate, liberal, ignorant, backwards, whatever you disagree with person. 

The main problem I see with this phrase: How arrogant to assume you can assess their ability to engage in an argument before you have heard them out?  The statement asserts you know their mind better than they do, before you even try to resolve an issue you get the privilege of determining if they are "mature" enough to grapple with your point of view.  .  

The self-righteous statement is completely disingenuous, you get to pretend that your debate opponent is unworthy of your time because they are simply not as smart as you, they do not represent the same views that rebound and resound throughout your echo-chamber.  I cannot imagine anyone who is confident in their convictions, relying on such a phrase as this.

This cute catchphrase becomes an excuse to discontinue dialogue because you have already devalued the other person's opinion. Obviously, if they were a mature person, they would already believe what you have believed and would repeat what you say and agreed with you, but now thanks to this clever phrase, you no longer have to give them the dignity or validate their opinion. 

It is an easy out, commonly a cowardly excuse to disengage from a discussion from which you are not able to actually defend your own weak position. You pretend to have a position of superiority and pretend that the other person simply is not mature enough to accept or able to comprehend your lofty ideals. 

It is a stance that reeks of the stench of smugness, to me.  This immature phrase has the illusion of maturity, but really once you dig down deep and unpack the sentiment of this phrase, it becomes clear that it is no more than an excuse to avoid dialogue with people who strongly disagree with your perspective.

It is actually very degrading to the other person. To use this phrase is like having the monopoly game get out of jail free card, and you simply look at the other person who is beneath you and say "oh I can’t have this discussion with you because you have strong opinions, which, by the way are offensive."  This petty phase simply illustrates the fact that you are just not ready to have difficult conversations. 

This phrase works well because as an ace in the hole-trumps all phrase, if they shared your perspectives after all, there would be no disagreement or discussion. Therefore, since they do not share your perspective, the question of are they mature enough to have the conversation goes straight out the window. 

Actually, the fact is before you ask questions about other people's depth of maturity and capacity to dialogue civilly, before entering into the discussion, you need to ask questions about your own self, some deep questions. Namely, are you able to entertain the idea that you might be wrong about the topic, or, are you open to changing your own opinion, or are you flexible? If you are not willing to change what you think and believe, it is hypocritical to enter into a conversation that attempts to persuade someone else to change their view and expect them to move into an alignment with your own ideas or with your own views.

So yes, I'm tired of the way people have used/misused this phrase, it may have been well intentioned by the one who coined it and even by some of the people who have shared it, but I have seen it misused more often than not.  A better phrase which might be less euphonic is: Look first at your own motivations and agendas before you question someone else's ability to have a tough conversation.  

Can we debate issues without misusing the Bible?

Chances are, you’ve recently had a disagreement with someone over the border/immigration situation. My guess is, both of you were passionate about whichever stance either of you took. It’s good to have firm convictions, but can you share your convictions without condemnation? And more importantly, can we debate issues without misusing the Bible in the process?

You see, I’m not so much interested in your stance or even in sharing my position here regarding the border, as much as I am in a greater principle which is at stake: How most of us attempt to use the Bible to backup our views. Do you find it interesting how nearly everyone who is commenting on both sides of the border crisis, whether is about the families who were separated or how we should treat refugees, they are all referencing the Bible to convince others of their stance?

You might be asking, “But shouldn’t we backup our perspectives with the Bible?” It might sound heretical, but maybe not -- at least not in the way most people mean. For example, the question, “How do we know when the Bible actually supports what we think?” is more than likely the wrong question, and it’s that type of thinking that gets us in trouble. Instead, we need to ask, “Are our thoughts in line with the Scriptures?” not the other way around as in “Does the Bible support my stance...?”

Why is it tricky to “use” the Bible, for example, to backup our position on the border? For starters, as far as governments and nations go, the Bible was written in a different context and cultural situation than ours. Namely, the ancient world of Bible-times was governed by Theocratic governments and dictatorial empires. Those forms of government were very dissimilar to our modern day democracies, and lest we forget, America is a Republic.

So, if you say the Bible instructs us to obey our government, we are all in trouble in America since we rebelled against Great Britain during the Revolutionary War... And if you say, the Bible commands us to treat refugees a certain way since the children of God were wanders, that’s tough to support too since not many of us can trace our lineage to those who wandered through the desert for forty years.

It is extremely difficult to “use” the Bible to defend a political position on most of our current events. It’s nothing new for people to twist the Bible to say whatever they think is the most accurate point of view. The fact is, in America during our Civil War we had preachers on both sides of the Mason-Dixon who were guilty of cherry-picking passages of Scripture to support their views on slavery.

It requires humility to submit to God’s word, not a hostile heart that is aggressively trying the be the champion of truth. Please don’t misunderstand me, I believe in absolute truth, and I think relativism has done more harm than any other ideology, but most of the people who think they have a monopoly on the Truth are usually the most judgmental and mean-spirited people I’ve ever met.

To interpret the Bible and to apply it to our everyday life is a prayerful enterprise. We need to ask questions based on which genre we are reading because the Bible has many styles of literature: Narrative, Law, poetry, wisdom, apocalyptic, Gospels/parables, epistles. We need to also ask questions about the author and the audience, asking what did a passage mean to the original audience comes before asking what does it mean for us.

It’s healthy to acknowledge we could be mistaken about many of our opinions on a host of subjects. It’s healthier still to immerse ourselves in the Scriptures and study the Bible in such a way that it guides our thoughts, not the other way around. If you are opening up the Bible to find a verse that supports what you already believe, close your Bible and open your heart to the Spirit.

Sadly, our nation is presently divided and polarized into extreme ideological camps, both on the “Right” and “Left” over a multitude of issues; the border issue is merely the latest debate du jour. It may be unfortunate that these days we can’t even have a civil dialogue about our views with the “opposing” side, but actually, the real tragedy happens whenever we recklessly wield our Bibles like a hammer.

Antisocial media

Certainly we are not the first generation of people to disagree with each other.  I'm sure we are not the first to have strong opinions, and we are not the first to stoop down to name-calling with those who hold different views.  But it does seem with the advent of social media, the ease in which we condescendingly attack other people and the aggressive way we attack them personally, not just their ideas/views, has exploded. 

What doesn't make sense to me, lately, is how we jump to character assassination these days.  The force of the vitriolic and bombastic language across social media between people who are basically the same in most ways, save their views on certain topics, is deeply disturbing. 

Sadly, Social media has become an Antisocial outlet for mean-spirited and hateful people. 

Basically, what we're becoming is a culture of super-critical people who hide behind our keyboards or smartphone screens, practicing emotional drive-by-shootings.  I have no idea what people think they are accomplishing when they slam other people so harshly on social media? 

If you disagree strongly with someone on politics, religion, or what-have you, insulting them and attempting to degrade them on social media doesn't actually address the subject you disagree on.  Instead, it makes you look insecure, highly negative, less credible, and rather immature.  Trying to get your point across doesn't have to be a competition of who whines & cries the loudest, or who has the best put-downs. 

I have no problem with dialog or debate, and I'm not even proposing that people can't voice disagreements on social media, I'm not the Facebook Police...  The only way we become certain of what we believe and the best way to learn, is to compare and contrast our ideas.  I can get along with people who hold different views and I try hard not to base my friendships or my civility on the opinions of other people.  We don't have to see everything the same or agree on everything, but we should learn to agree to disagree with a little less mudslinging and a lot more honor and integrity.