I had a chance this weekend to listen, not once, but three times to a fascinating speaker at our church. His name is Miroslav Volf, a professor of theology at Yale Divinity School and the founder and director of the Yale Center for Faith and Culture.
Volf’s message was a difficult one to swallow for many in this age of vengeance and retribution. Simply put, it is forgiveness. He said forgiveness is not just an act by those wronged. It is also the acknowledgment by the “perpetrator” that wrong was done. Moreover, Volf says the forgiver must reach a level of reconciliation with the “forgiv-ee” and then a forgetting of what was done. As was written in our bulletin, without forgiveness, reconciliation and forgetting, Dr. Wolf maintains, memories of evils done to us can consume and define our lives.
We must remember that, as Christians, the fulcrum of our faith is that Christ died for our sins; that’s all of our sins, from the beginning of time to the end. Think of the billions of sins committed, the atrocities, the suffering endured in the past 2,000 years. Well, God has forgiven us all those sins through His son.
Volf -- who has written several books including “The End of Memory: Remembering Rightly in a Violent World” and “Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace” – says that Christianity calls on us to forgive, forgo revenge and even love evil-doers. Again, according to the flyer in our church bulletin, Volf also says that the common emphasis on “never forgetting” wrongs should be replaced with efforts toward a special kind of forgetting, a “not coming to mind.”
Powerful stuff, huh? I’ve been fortunate in my life in that I don’t remember ever “being wronged.” Have I wronged people? Unfortunately, the answer is yes, and I’ve tried to make amends, seek their forgiveness. It’s amazing what can happen when you seek out the “wronged:” a softness can come over people, an acknowledgment that forgiveness is in their hearts.
The bigger conundrum for all of us is what about the “bigger” wrongs, the ones that nations or groups do against others? Volf addresses that too, saying it is a different kettle of fish. Speaking of an act such as 9/11, he said that punishment is within the purview of nations, of course, but ultimately, in the long view, forgiveness is still the ultimate goal for Christians.
I believe that if we can begin to forgive others, seek forgiveness and forgo revenge in each of our lives, then perhaps our leaders will take that message to heart. Perhaps the love that God wishes for each of us can, eventually, lead to a world led by light.
(You can connect here, http://www.yale.edu/faith/ to learn more about Dr. Volf.)
Monday, September 21, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Civility and listening: Where art thou?
Being a child of the 1960s and 1970s, I grew up believing, and practicing, the creed that if you have disagreements with someone, there always should be a civil tone, a respect for someone else’s opinion.
While I have firmly held that belief, American society, specifically the media, began to veer in the 1970s, at first incrementally. Remember the old Point/Counter Point segment on “60 Minutes” with James J. Kilpatrick and Shana Alexander? There was a bit of nastiness that began to creep into that exchange. Then it was parodied on “Saturday Night Live” by Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin (“Jane, you ignorant slut …”).
Remember the “Tomorrow” show with Tom Snyder? There was one occasion in the show’s later years when Snyder had a “liberal” and a “conservative” guest talking about some long-forgotten topic. The conservative started to rebut the liberal argument by saying, “Madam, you wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you in the butt.” I was taken aback by that, as was Snyder, the liberal and the audience. How rude, I thought.
How quaint that reaction seems now. With the proliferation of modern media, somehow that air of civility, that feeling of respectful disagreement is as foreign to our society as grits are to New Englanders.
It’s begun to infect that formerly august body, the United States Congress. President George W. Bush was booed by Democrats during his State of the Union Speech in 2005. And everyone remembers how Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted “It’s a lie,” at President Obama in his recent health care speech before a joint session of Congress.
Listening is a lost art, I’m afraid. There is a disturbing single-mindedness to most matters of public policy these days. Most of the time we can agree that there is a problem of some sort, but that’s where civility is lost and the namecalling begins. When these cable news shows trot out the obligatory “liberal” and “conservative” viewpoints, I’m reminded of kids arguing about the rules of a schoolyard pickup game. They want the game played their way, and the other side is a big, fat boogerhead if they don’t do it their way. Meanwhile, the clock ticks and recess is soon over.
Reasoned opinion used to rule the media landscape. Publications such as The National Review, The New Republic, the Los Angeles Times or the New York Times carried the weight they once did because they were the only sounding boards. Unfortunately, the game has changed. The writers and editors still engage in the logic and reason to formulate what they have to say and how they say it, but their influence is a mere echo from years past.
Their reason and logic is drowned out by instant analysis from all angles, reducing opinion to quantitative, not qualitative, terms. Reasoned thought is only that now, a thought, choked out by the mindless prattle of talk radio, talk TV, chat rooms, Twitter and the blogsphere (yes, I see the irony).
The result is a stratified society: Each side sees the other as the absolute villain. What’s lost are opportunities to overcome our problems. If we can weave solutions from all sides, doesn’t that strengthen the fabric of our lives? Doesn’t it draw us closer together? Doesn’t it fulfill what our Founders wished for us?
While I have firmly held that belief, American society, specifically the media, began to veer in the 1970s, at first incrementally. Remember the old Point/Counter Point segment on “60 Minutes” with James J. Kilpatrick and Shana Alexander? There was a bit of nastiness that began to creep into that exchange. Then it was parodied on “Saturday Night Live” by Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin (“Jane, you ignorant slut …”).
Remember the “Tomorrow” show with Tom Snyder? There was one occasion in the show’s later years when Snyder had a “liberal” and a “conservative” guest talking about some long-forgotten topic. The conservative started to rebut the liberal argument by saying, “Madam, you wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you in the butt.” I was taken aback by that, as was Snyder, the liberal and the audience. How rude, I thought.
How quaint that reaction seems now. With the proliferation of modern media, somehow that air of civility, that feeling of respectful disagreement is as foreign to our society as grits are to New Englanders.
It’s begun to infect that formerly august body, the United States Congress. President George W. Bush was booed by Democrats during his State of the Union Speech in 2005. And everyone remembers how Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted “It’s a lie,” at President Obama in his recent health care speech before a joint session of Congress.
Listening is a lost art, I’m afraid. There is a disturbing single-mindedness to most matters of public policy these days. Most of the time we can agree that there is a problem of some sort, but that’s where civility is lost and the namecalling begins. When these cable news shows trot out the obligatory “liberal” and “conservative” viewpoints, I’m reminded of kids arguing about the rules of a schoolyard pickup game. They want the game played their way, and the other side is a big, fat boogerhead if they don’t do it their way. Meanwhile, the clock ticks and recess is soon over.
Reasoned opinion used to rule the media landscape. Publications such as The National Review, The New Republic, the Los Angeles Times or the New York Times carried the weight they once did because they were the only sounding boards. Unfortunately, the game has changed. The writers and editors still engage in the logic and reason to formulate what they have to say and how they say it, but their influence is a mere echo from years past.
Their reason and logic is drowned out by instant analysis from all angles, reducing opinion to quantitative, not qualitative, terms. Reasoned thought is only that now, a thought, choked out by the mindless prattle of talk radio, talk TV, chat rooms, Twitter and the blogsphere (yes, I see the irony).
The result is a stratified society: Each side sees the other as the absolute villain. What’s lost are opportunities to overcome our problems. If we can weave solutions from all sides, doesn’t that strengthen the fabric of our lives? Doesn’t it draw us closer together? Doesn’t it fulfill what our Founders wished for us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)