A friend of mine, Will Hinton, endeavors to live out the ideal of listening to multiple points of view about subjects, particularly difficult subjects. I notice other men and women working at this same ideal, but not many. While my perception may be incorrect, it seems to me that fewer people are doing this.
My ideal: assessing matters rationally, thinking through the implications, and adjusting myself to truth no matter the consequence. If a belief or practice is not in accord with truth, I want to adjust my belief or practice to be in accord with the truth. Adjusting myself to truth "no matter the consequence" has resulted in many painful deprivations over the years. Sometimes there is a real cost to abandoning a false belief or practice. But why would anyone who cares about truth want to hold on to falsehood in belief or practice?
Will Hinton cares about truth. He runs a blog and leads a life that is about seeking out personal relationships with people from different points of view. If you read today's column by New York Times writer Nicholas Kristoff you will see that it's not enough to expose yourself to contrary points of view. For common ground to develop an embodied relationship, preferably occurring in part over a shared meal, is important.
Will does this. He has emailed and called and shared beverages and meals with countless people in Atlanta, New York and elsewhere. He did this with me and does this with me. Will and I agree on some things, disagree on others, he's affected my thinking on somethings (I don't know whether I've affected his thinking, but not because he's closed to my perspectives). What Will initiated with me- a relationship by phone that became an embodied relationship over a meal (now several meals)- is at the core of his theology: treating images of God with the dignity and respect and love that all of God's images deserve.
In a day when many of us apparently no longer cringe at venomous rhetoric and hermeneutics of suspicion, Will works at forging embodied relationships, common ground, and real dialogue. Be it theological, philosophical, racial, political, or economic matters, Will works at building bridges instead of throwing rocks.
Does it make a difference? On a large scale, probably not yet. I say "Not Yet" because I hope what Will and others of his minority stripe are doing will one day become de rigeour for the majority of people. But on a small scale, Will and his friends see their assumptions challenged, their dismissiveness towards other images of God called into question, and see love and respect and dignity for opponents lived out and exalted. Good Will Hinton has been good for us.
----------
See Nicholas Kristoff discuss today's column and the need for embodied relationships on MSNBC's Morning Joe program with Joe Scarborough.
Bookmark/Search this post with
I am humbled my friend. Thank
Thu, 05/28/2009 - 10:18 — Will Hinton (not verified)I am humbled my friend. Thank you for your kind words. And thank you for your friendship.
Glenn, I love this post, and
Thu, 05/28/2009 - 14:35 — Alex Sims (not verified)Glenn, I love this post, and I am deeply and genuinely appreciate your enthusiasm for civil, engaging dialogue. I have been wrestling a lot over the past year with questions about the benefits and limitations of civil dialogue. I see civil dialogue and treating others with respect as mandatory (even when I fail to live up to that standard). I still wrestle with whether civil dialogue is a real solution to some of the issues in our nation’s culture wars. Some issues and practices seem so heinous that I question whether civil dialogue is the fitting response. These are jumbled thoughts for an issue that is jumbled in my mind. On the one hand, you have Paul reasoning with the rulers who held him and you had Jesus calmly responding to his executioners. On the other hand, Jesus didn’t meet the civil dialogue criteria when people were making his house a den of thieves. So I have no clue how that fits together. Anyway, that’s what I’m questioning. Any thoughts are appreciated.
Alex, Good question and maybe
Thu, 05/28/2009 - 17:57 — GL (not verified)Alex,
Good question and maybe Will Hinton has some thoughts on this. While Jesus took violent action in the Temple, and other OT characters won praise for doing violence in defense of the holiness of God, I think we would be wise not to assume we have a God's eye view of such things. When we're commanded to love our enemies, I think we're better off praying hard and working hard to love our enemies, rather than ponder if this is the moment to pull out the whip like Jesus did.
I'm reluctant to believe I have the vision that Jesus had to see people and and situations accurately, so I'm reluctant to think, "Be like Jesus and brandish the whip."
Apart from trying to "do the right thing," I think there is also a pragmatic benefit. Building bridges, pragmatically, often accomplishes things where throwing rocks does not. Civil dialogue is helpful for doing the best we can do to UNDERSTAND other images of God.
But there are also people, implacably intent upon violence, and I don't think we should dialogue with them but rather use force to thwart their violent intentions.
Glenn, Great points, as
Thu, 05/28/2009 - 21:05 — Alex Sims (not verified)Glenn,
Great points, as always. Thanks. The only other concern I have is that sometimes I think that (practically speaking) civil dialogue by default favors whatever perspective is less concerned about an issue at hand. Fo example, it doesn't seem consistent with calm, civil dialogue for someone to say that 1.2 million unborn babies are killed annually, but that's what the pro-lifer really believes. Also, it doesn't seem calm and civil to say that the earth is on a course to cataclysmic destruction, but that's what the global warming advocates really believe. In other words, I'm concerned that civil dialogue, in its practical application, amounts to downplaying the concern of whoever thinks there's a really big problem at hand because it always seems less civil to be pointing out really dramatic things. Again, these are jumbled thoughts. I think your response above was helpful.
I'll chime in with my
Fri, 05/29/2009 - 07:41 — Will Hinton (not verified)I'll chime in with my thoughts on civil dialog. Civil dialog does not always mean that we must moderate our position (though sometimes it may mean that). But I do believe that it means that we moderate our rhetoric. If I am discussing a contentious topic with someone I disagree with, I don't believe it is very helpful for my talk to be sprinkled with inflammatory words, even if I believe the inflammatory words to be true. I am much better off trying to understand the other person's perspective and trying to couch my points in a way that they can best understand. And we need to recognize that we aren't always going to convince the other person and that is okay. First and foremost we are commanded to show love. It is pretty clear in the Bible that we must love others; it is less clear that we must proclaim truth (or what we believe to be truth) to everyone we meet, with the exception of proclaiming the Gospel.
I had an interesting exchange with someone at my church last year regarding a very contentious issue. This person was concerned that I didn't think we should make sure to let our friends in a particular community know where we stand on this issue when we first get to know them. My response to this person was to ask if he felt the need to let it be known where he stands on the issue of gluttony anytime he meets an obese person. The point being - we must treat people as made in the image of God rather than as tools to proclaim our position on the issues.
Showing love to others doesn't mean equivocating our beliefs. But it does mean putting other peoples' feelings before our own.
That gluttony example is
Fri, 05/29/2009 - 10:23 — Mark Upton (not verified)That gluttony example is fabulous.