How All Three Go Together, and How We Are Missing the Lesson
I lived I St. Louis for
six years. In the small private school in which I taught, white
students from Florissant sat next to black students from Ferguson. I
don't recall any difference in the way I felt about them. I loved all
of them, possibly excepting the few who vandalized my car,
plagiarized papers, and intentionally made life difficult. (They
were, by the way, all white kids. Oh, you've got to love high
schoolers. And I do.)
Everyone wants to talk
about Ferguson. Unless they deliberately don't want to talk about it.
I don't want to talk about it, precisely. Instead, I want to talk
about the way we talk about it. Which is to say, badly. I want to
talk about the way Christians should talk about it. Or the way
Christians should just talk. Which is to say, perhaps less.
I've seen the views pour
onto Facebook today. They are not exactly unanimous. My conservative
friends listen to one set of news and form their opinions. My liberal
friends do the same with their preferred sources. Both do what they
know; neither changes their mind. Neither listens to anyone on the
other side. Not really. Neither seems even aware that there is
another option—that they may not have the only facts. Opinions are
largely split on party lines, again.
Nothing has changed at
all. Outrage will continue for a while, and then life will give way
to the next crisis.
Before any verdicts are
read, any evidence presented, any knowledge pursued, our personal
verdicts have been formed. We know the truth. We know what really
happened. How do we know? Because we know what we already believe,
and the news we listen to is whatever conforms to those preformed
beliefs. So our mantra becomes “everyone knows” because, well, we
know, and it seems obvious to us.
I don't know. I have no
idea what really happened. And if I was not present in the community, and if I don't know the
community dynamics intimately, all my information passes through the
filter of what I do know and what I do prefer and what I think about
the world from where I sit in it and where I've come from. The plain facts are, we who were not there don't know. No one is
telling the entire truth. And no one, neither a police officer nor a
young black man, can be convicted based on facts people hundreds of miles away don't know.
But Ferguson is not what I
want to talk about.
I see in this situation a
picture of how to do and how not to do our faith as well. On so many
faith issues, we are sure we're right. Sure enough to kick others off
the farm if they don't conform. But too often, our “facts” are
really opinions formed by what we've heard and know and the refusal
to listen to anything to the contrary. Or possibly the ignorance that
there is a side to the contrary. We believe what we know. There is comfort in that, and often enough there is stability in the midst of a chaotic world. But that doesn't make it right.
I saw this play out just
this week. A friend posted a blog piece, written by a woman who has
researched, studied, and loved Scripture, about submission in
marriage and how it doesn't mean what we think it means. Not
surprisingly (to me), someone commented right away: “I think women
who read the Bible this way just don't want to submit. It's a heart
issue.” No mention of the writer's scholarship. No logical or
biblical evidence that she was not correct. Just a personal attack of
her heart and motivation, based on no more evidence than “I think.”
Plus, she and several others mentioned that the woman with whom the
blogger disagreed, a Hollywood star with no knowledge of the Greek
language or theology, was closer to the truth. Why? Because she said
what they were used to hearing.
While the Bereans were
praised for searching the Scriptures to make sure what they were
being told was true, some American Christians seem content to regurgitate
their party line and act suspiciously, in fact, toward those who do
study Scripture and come away with another interpretation. Something
very un-Acts-like is going on there.
Like Ferguson, we're just
not listening.
Jesus knew how to listen.
When he sat down by the woman at the well (John 4), he could have
told her that everyone knew the Samaritan culture, and her personal
lifestyle, were all wrong. He could have. Instead, he waited and
listened while she explained her beliefs, implied her social status,
and wrestled with his reasons for talking to her. He sat down and
listened to someone with whom he would not agree. The fact that
Jesus, on account of being Jesus and all,
was right (something we
cannot assume for ourselves), does not negate his willingness to
engage her on an honest, loving basis.
He could have done the
same with Jairus (to some extent he did, but it was only to provoke
talking and listening), Matthew, Nicodemus, and, let's not forget,
Judas. If ever there was an example of someone trying to hear and be
heard by someone of a completely different mindset, that surely is
it. Jesus spent three years with Judas. They certainly talked and
shared details of their hearts. Jesus knew how to listen. Even though
he was always right. He still made the effort to listen, because he
knew that was the way to help others understand him and think through
their own ideas out loud. For us, that needs to go both ways. Both
parties must seek to understand the other and clarify, maybe even
change, their thoughts by putting them out there in clear, cold air
to test their hardiness.
Try it. Trying saying to
someone with whom you disagree, “I honestly want to understand
where you're coming from. Can we engage in kind conversation? Can you
tell me why and what and how you reach your conclusions? Can we talk?
Can I listen? If I come at you with a predetermined mindset, will you
call me on it? Can I do the same for you?
I think I can see Jesus
now, doing a little fist pump and saying, “Yes!”