“You are going to feel like hell if you never write the stuff that is tugging on the sleeves of your heart — your stories, visions, memories, visions and songs. Your truth, your version of things, your own voice. That is really all you have to offer us. And that’s also why you were born.”
Anne Lamott
“You are going to feel like hell if you never write the stuff that is tugging on the sleeves of your heart — your stories, visions, memories, visions and songs. Your truth, your version of things, your own voice. That is really all you have to offer us. And that’s also why you were born.”
Anne Lamott
I immediately recognized him. Sitting on the edge of the children’s group called to the front for their special time before the congregation.
Bight and happy, the children were eagerly anticipating an opportunity to express themselves. The congregation joyfully anticipates unexpected and precious wisdom of little children.
A visitor, I was unacquainted with Jason, but I know him. Somewhat larger than the other children, he was enthusiastic and anxious to be acknowledged. Almost before the children’s pastor could offer a welcome and invite their participation, Jason’s arm was raised high.
Cheerfully the children’s pastor thanked God for each of them and invited all to share what they were thankful for. Further energized by her request, Jason became more insistent that he had something to share. Waving his arm urgently, he raised himself higher to gain some advantage.
Numerous children were waving the arms and excitedly sharing their thanks. Although, the children’s pastor did not look Jason’s way, she was acutely aware of his persistence. Finally, after calling on several children, she turned to Jason, saying, “Just wait, Jason, I’ll get to you in a minute.”
Jason retreated, dismayed that he was put off but cautiously optimistic. As I watched, his face betrayed the truth that he was once again destined to he unheard.
As children’s time concluded, Jason dutifully returned to his family.
I think a lot about culture and its impact on faith and ethics. Of particular interest, are social media and media in general. It seems to me that media’s objective is to create a alternative reality that fuels our imaginations. Social media enables me to create and shape an identity that, may, or may not, have any relationship to who I really am. Media, in general, as exemplified in advertising, rarely portrays reality, but appeals to the imagination. This a powerful force that appeals to my self-deception. When is the last time you watched a commercial depicting reality? Essentially reality becomes a social construct.
My musings attracted me to Fr. Stephen Freeman’s latest post related to the idea of reality as a social construct. A pertinent excerpt follows with a link to the entire post.
The further we move away from the hard reality of the material world, the more deeply we press into delusion and fantasy. Part of the brutality of our modern age is bound up with our drive to force hard material reality to conform to our imagination. We find the undeniable humanity and personhood of a child in the womb to be an inconvenient obstacle to our lifestyle. Our fantasy and delusion turn to murder.
The goodness of God, however, abides in the very materiality of the world (and of our own selves). No matter how we might distort the thoughts of our minds, material reality remains unchanged. At most, we can only urge and coerce others to agree with false configurations of what actually is. Such efforts can only be maintained through some form of violence (and coercion) for they have no reality of their own to argue their case. Left alone, reality has an eloquence of its own. Gravity speaks with a clear voice as we fall from the heights.
Curious things start to happen to people when they listen generously. At the most superficial level, one hears things that he or she might not like. But one also hears the sincerity of people’s convictions, the authenticity of their experiences, and the nuance of their narratives. Being open is transformative because, almost inevitably, one finds that the stories they’ve been told about what people believe oversimplify reality.
I continue to be intrigued and troubled by the political, ideological And theological divisions that prevail in our culture. The referenced article presents some challenging thoughts about how we can move toward a a more civil and productive society.
Finding the idea of “Generous Listening” attractive, I initially thought I would just share the quote. Then I realized that would be nothing more than a meme, a cute, but pithy fleeting glimpse. The idea deserves more than a glimpse. The subject of division is too important to be dealt with memes and 140/280 character tweets. It is the character of our media saturated society to inform ourselves, shape our beliefs and influence others with annotations.
I perceive that condition is a product, at least in part, of our desire for utility and efficiency; driven by ever increasing demands on our lives. The issues that face us as a society and the church, et al , are far too deep and complex to be addressed so casually. Compromise, reconciliation and peace do not come cheap.
The attendant article provides opportunity gain insight into the challenges, as well as, possibilities for progress.
Pohl challenged my notions about hospitality and I thought these excerpts worthy of a re-post as we approach Thanksgiving.
A shared meal is the activity most closely tied to the reality of God’s Kingdom, just as it is the most basic expression of hospitality.
Seeing Jesus in every guest … reduces the inclination to try to calculate the importance of one guest over another.
“The tasks aren’t what hospitality is about, hospitality is giving of yourself.” If hospitality involves sharing your life and sharing the life of others, guests/strangers are not first defined by their need.
(Meal time) is the time when hospitality looks least like social services.
Simple acts of respect and appreciation, presence and friendship are indispensable parts of the affirmation of human personhood.
“… the pinnacle of lovelessness is not our unwillingness to be a neighbor to someone, but our unwillingness to allow them to be a neighbor to us.”
In the midst of deep division, political, religious and cultural chaos, is it possible that we are experiencing a dearth of dissent? On its face, such a suggestion seems absurd. Dissent dominates. Success is presumed to be achieved by the loudest voice.
Recently reading , “Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior “ by Ori & Rom Brahman , Chapter 8 “Dissenting Justice” , I was provoked to conclude the following:
A disturbing reality in our divisive, contentiousness culture is the paradox of a dearth of dissent in an ocean of dissension.
In our current culture, dissent, is largely defined protest or rebellion, characterized by inflammatory language and with a bent to violence. In an ironic twist, reasoned voices of dissent are met with dissent to their dissent as they are shouted down and driven from podiums. No matter which ideology is represented, groups resist and drive out opposition. Group conformity is incredibly strong, and it depends on unanimity for its power. Inherently, dissent is a threat to unanimity. My “free speech” is protected while the voice of a dissenter is fair game for censure-ship. What results is a self-destructive maelstrom.
“…homogeneous communities march toward the extremes…Like-minded groups create a kind of self-propelled, self-reinforcing loop.
Dissent is persona non grata.
I am hard pressed to identify any segment of our society which has not made dissent, to some extent, unwelcome. Politics, religion, science, technology, the 4th estate, social media, even academia, supposedly the bastion of free thinking, are not exempt.
Reading, “The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior” , Chapter 8 “Dissenting Justice”, there appears to be, at least, one notable exception to the dearth of dissent, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Although, I had a vague idea of dissent as it relates to SCOTUS, I did not realize the how essential it is to the process of justice at SCOTUS.
Breyer explained how the role of the blocker [dissenter] serves a necessary function in the Supreme Court: “If somebody is going to write a dissent… they have a point, they have some kind of point they’re trying to make. Quite often the opinion [of the majority] is changed somewhat in response to comments and opinions [of the dissenters]. Occasionally—maybe once or twice a year—the whole Court shifts.” Even when dissenters don’t have enough votes to change the Court’s opinion, they still affect the process. “It makes the other person take account of the point. They have to answer it or they have to take it into account,” Breyer said.
It’s easy to understand the desire to present a unified front. But as Breyer pointed out, the end result—in this case, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion—is actually improved by dissent. “The thing about writing a dissent,” Breyer reflected, “is it’s actually a pain in the neck for the person who is writing the [majority] opinion… and suddenly [has] to deal with this dissent.” The majority has to revise its opinion in response to points raised by the dissenters, then the dissenters rebut, and on and on it goes.Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior
Even if the [dissenter’s] opinion is wrong, at least it adds a perspective to the debate—giving others an opportunity to look at things in a different light.
As I come to better understanding of the role of dissent in the judicial process of SCOTUS, the prospect of SCOTUS being “stacked” by either party is a fearful prospect. Eliminating minority opinion opens the door to disastrous consequences.
Once the process of group polarization begins gaining momentum within a community the minority group begins to withdraw from public life and discourse. As the voices around the minority group grow more extreme, shrill and radicalized they opt for silence over getting into fights. And this withdrawal fuels more sorting migration. The minority leaves and the majority group, with nary a dissenting voice to be heard, radicalizes ever further.
Could it be possible that a passage to a more well-reasoned and sensible society can be found through embracing dissent.?
“Mixed company moderates; like-minded company polarizes. Heterogeneous communities restrain group excesses; homogeneous communities march toward the extremes…Like-minded groups create a kind of self-propelled, self-reinforcing loop.”
…it’s important to note that the presence of a dissenter—any dissenter, no matter how incompetent—still made it possible for a large segment of participants to deviate from the majority and give the right answer.
…blockers [dissenters] question the merit or wisdom of new decisions. Instead of merrily going along for the ride, they raise points about the potential harmful consequences that might follow.
The example of SCOTUS, initially stimulated a formulation of another of my simplistic and naive “we just need to” solutions. In this case, embrace dissent. After a bit of pondering, the folly of “let’s all get along and embrace dissent” became increasingly apparent. Not withstanding the idea that dissent is an essential ingredient in healthy communities, dissent can be and is is often a negative. Paradoxically, the benefits of negative dissent outweigh the risk of its absence. Therefore, my concern about the SCOTUS and other federal courts becoming devoid of dissent. MY concern is not limited to SCOTUS but extends to all segments of our society, particularly political parties.
Who in their right mind would wish to eliminate their conscience, that small voice in our heads which restrains us when we veer off center? It appears that is the objective of both sides. The absence of conscience is the definition of a psychopath. These are two irreconcilable realities. On one one hand, healthy conversation and community, require dissent; on the other, dissent is disruptive and produces polarization. Perhaps it is not an either or proposition. Context and quality of dissent are important factors. The structured context and legal venue of SCOTUS permits dissent to function positively. In our current society where tribalism prevails, dissent is a threat to our respective tribe and is rejected.
I am of the opinion that the path to change and resolution runs through smaller groups in community. In that context relationships can be developed and dissenting voices can be heard. Only when trust prevails and fear is overcome will society will become more healthy and flourish.
Dissent is like fertilizer, over application destroys, but the proper amount, applied correctly produces abundance.
I often wonder where I would be without dissent in my life
