Concerning Perspectives

Though this blog has only four posts prior to this one, much of the content of those posts has addressed the issue of perspectives: what I perceive to be the value in educating oneself on viewpoints opposing one’s own, giving consideration to them, trying to understand them, et cetera.

As a Christian, I anticipate that my stance on this will probably raise at least two objections from some of my fellow believers. I seek to address them here.

Objection Number One. Aren’t you afraid that by exposing yourself to falsehoods you will undermine your own faith? You can’t fill your mind with lies without it affecting your knowledge of the truth.

I am fully aware that by exposing myself to contrary viewpoints I run the risk of undermining my beliefs – and this includes my beliefs about God and the Bible. This awareness has two results:

Firstly, as I’ve stated elsewhere on this blog, no belief or idea untested is worth holding onto. If my faith in God has never been shaken by doubt, if I have never questioned my beliefs about the Bible, then my faith is weaker for it. If God is real, and if the Bible is true, they will prove themselves so in the face of my doubts and questions. And this is exactly what I have witnessed over the few decades of my life: every time I have doubted God he has revealed more of himself to me. Every question I’ve asked has been answered – not always in the way I expected, but answered nonetheless.

Secondly, each time I read a book or converse with someone whose opinions oppose my own, I ask God for wisdom and discernment. I ask him to help me see through the muddle of clashing viewpoints, the haze of arguments and counter-arguments, and recognize Truth. When I encounter questions to which I have no answers, I ask him to guide my thoughts – and he does. Consistently.

This first objection, however, warns against a very real danger: Paul of Tarsus wrote of those who are like “children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming….” And Albert Einstein said, “Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.” Both men were warning against the human inclination to “follow the herd,” so to speak; to tag along, like ignorant sheep, with whatever ideas have lately entered our heads via friends, books, news reports, scientific studies, or any of a thousand other sources of information. We must always be on our guard, lest we be led astray into false ways of thinking.

Objection Number Two. The way you talk about “different points of view,” it sounds like you think all beliefs have equal merit, or are all equally true. Isn’t this the same as saying “all religions lead to God” – something you, as a Christian, should reject as false?

I’ve never met a person who honestly believes all beliefs have equal merit, unless it’s someone who is convinced that all religions, or all political parties, or all [fill in the blank] are equally worthless.

I myself absolutely reject the notion that all points of view have equal merit. If I was not convinced my own beliefs are correct, I would not hold them! No, what I believe is that all people deserve to have their viewpoints given some consideration. I believe in the value of having respect and understanding for one another – and this often means listening, rather than jumping at every opportunity to shoot down other people’s sincerely held opinions.

I’m afraid many of us completely blow off people of other religious or political persuasions simply because we’ve never had anyone from the other side of the fence take the time to honestly listen to us. For myself, when someone really listens to me, they send the message that they value my opinion – and even more importantly, that they value me.

God only knows how many times I’ve jumped down the throat of someone who vocally disagreed with me. But God also knows I’m trying to do better. God knows we all deserve better.

Derek Webb and the Power of Words

I recently, after some waiting, got my hands on a copy of Derek Webb’s new album Stockholm Syndrome. Derek Webb is an incredible artist, and this album, for the most part, did not fail to exceed my expectations of it. It’s full of Mr. Webb’s typically incisive lyrics, catchy melodies and all-round great songs.

But there’s one song in particular I want to address, the song “What Matters More.” It includes the following lyrics:

‘Cause we can talk and debate until we’re blue in the face
About the language and tradition that he’s comin’ to save
Meanwhile we sit just like we don’t give a s***
About 50,000 people who are dyin’ today
Tell me, brother, what matters more to you?
Tell me, sister, what matters more to you?

This song has generated some controversy among Mr. Webb’s Christian fans, given the fact that he is a Christian, and they expect him to avoid language that to many is offensive.

The lyric, from what I could find after a brief web search, apparently references a speech – which has produced similar controversy, for the same reason – given by Christian author and speaker Tony Campolo, quoted thusly on Wikipedia:

I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a s***. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said s*** than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.

Which brings me, finally, to my point: the issue here is not whether it’s “more important” to be concerned about world hunger and death than it is to be concerned about one man’s vocabulary. The issue isn’t even necessarily their use of profanity (while I do oppose it, I won’t go into why just now).

The issue is that both Mr. Webb and Mr. Campolo are using language to manipulate, rather than communicate. Their usage of profanity was not done to actually say anything to their respective audiences – it was done only to elicit a reaction.

Shame on both of them for so abusing the power of words. As professional communicators – one via written and spoken word, the other via song – they ought to know better, and they ought to have more respect for their crafts and, most importantly, their audiences.

Opponents, Not Enemies

One of the themes of this blog – one of the primary issues I want to address throughout its life – is communication: what we communicate, and how.

I think it’s important to acquaint myself with the opinions of others, especially when those opinions are different from mine. If I consider only opinions that agree (more or less) with my own, and reject all others as being wrong – because, of course, I’m always right – then how can I ever learn anything? How can I grow? I can’t.

No, I must expose myself to differing points of view. As a Christian, I sometimes read books written by atheists. As a creationist, I sometimes read books written by evolutionists. As a political conservative, I often read opinion columns written by liberals.

A friend recently asked me: “Why? How can you stand to read that stuff?” For me, the answer is two-fold.

Firstly, my opinions are worthless if they’ve never been tested. Unless I compare them to differing opinions and critically analyze which better conforms to and/or explains the realities of the world we live in, then my opinions have no real value. I find that by considering opposing points of view, my own understanding is typically deepened, my grasp of the truth strengthened – and sometimes that I’m flat-out wrong, and need to change my stance.

Secondly, and just as importantly, I need to understand where other people are coming from. I need to know not just what they believe, but why they believe it. I want to know what has led them to hold the opinions they do. All this, because I want to understand more of the person. Even if I’ve conclusively determined I’ll never agree with their opinion on the particular issue at hand, I still want to understand them.

Because each individual is uniquely valuable. Because no matter how strongly we may disagree, I don’t want to risk viewing that person as an enemy. We may within a certain context be opponents, but we are never enemies.

Jesus Isn’t a “Liberal”

On bumpers all over my hometown I see stickers that read “Jesus is a Liberal.” I’m not sure what these people have in mind when they apply the word “liberal” to Jesus, but what comes to my mind is this:

Jesus is Jesus. Our people-labels – “liberal,” “conservative” or other – won’t fit, and don’t stick to him. I suggest we stop trying to remake him in our image, and instead study his life and words in order to know him for who he really is – and in the process discover who we can be, who he wants us to be.

“Against Gay Marriage? Then Don’t Get One and Shut the F*** Up.”

This is the name of a group on Facebook, and it came to my attention last week when some of my friends joined.

It certainly catches one’s attention, doesn’t it? But it’s hardly conducive to meaningful discussion of an issue that clearly needs to be talked about. Instead, it does just the opposite – it shuts the conversation down. It says, “I’m right and you’re wrong, so just shut up.”

What’s happening to civility in our culture? Is it just me, or are we increasingly unable to hold a rational conversation in which we may very strongly, but still respectfully, disagree?

This statement is a slap in the face to those of us who oppose gay marriage. It tells us our opinions aren’t worth hearing, that we need to be silenced.

It also implies that each of us is an autonomous moral agent whose choices should not concern anyone else. That is, since I’m not the one getting married, your marriage is none of my business.

I couldn’t disagree more. Firstly, I care about your choices because I care about you. If you engage in behavior that I believe is unhealthy, risky or destructive, then of course I must oppose it. If I do not, then I fail you as a friend. I care about your overall well-being more than I care about your immediate happiness.

When I say I must oppose it, I don’t mean I’m appointing myself to police your life. I only mean that I cannot condone your choices when I believe they are contrary to your best interests – even if you believe they will make you happy. But even when you do things I don’t agree with, I still want to maintain our friendship.

But maybe you don’t want me to care about you. Maybe, if I’m going to oppose you in what you want to do, you don’t want me as your friend. While this saddens me, it is your choice to make. You can exclude me from your life if you wish.

Even so – this is my second point – none of us lives in a vacuum; our choices always affect others. Even if there is no direct personal connection between us, your life helps shape the culture in which we both live, the culture in which our children are growing up. And I don’t want (if I can help it) my children to grow up in a culture in which destructive behavior is not only touted as acceptable, but proclaimed to be on par with healthy behavior. For this reason also I must oppose it.

Now we come down to the crux of our disagreement: where do I come off asserting that homosexual behavior is destructive? What right do I have to say that a core part of someone’s identity – in this case, (homo)sexuality – is morally wrong or bad?

These are thorny questions that I won’t (for now) address at length, but I’ll summarize my answer this way: my beliefs about everything, including sexuality, are based on my understanding of and familiarity with the God who created us all. If he says homosexuality is destructive – which, obviously, I believe he does – well, I can hardly argue with him.

But my main goal here has been to try to bridge a gap between us – a gap that results in statements like the one on Facebook. I hope you understand me a little better now. I in turn deeply want to understand more of your perspective.