During my last visit to Old Home, I attend Stations of the Cross with Uisdean Ruadh.
He, of course, is Catholic; I am a Protestant of varying vintages. That said, he constantly invites me to such things and I am happy to attend when I am able. There is something to be said for a universal Christian brotherhood, even if we do not agree on everything (and I do not know that we to on every single thing).
After dinner and at our usual post-walk yogurt, he asked me what I thought about the service. To my Protestant eyes, there was very little different from other "higher church" services I had attended (except the genuflecting, of course). I asked him if the attendance there - perhaps 30-40 people -was indicative of the usual.
This spun off into a question of faith and the purpose of church and encounters with God - a worthy discussion which I should probably separate out into its own discussion, as this is not the point of today's missive.
At one point in the conversation, when we were discussing why membership is dropping at many churches (not just the Catholic), we got into a sensitive area of discussion about the recent history of the Catholic church (Author's note: Do not, do not, do definitely not put some sort of silly Catholic bashing in the comments. It will not make through). It was somewhat tense for a moment as he and I have different perspectives on the issue in terms of how people see something from the inside versus the outside.
Yet strangely enough, we got through the conversation.
We got through the conversation because we both have respect for each other as people (and friends) first.
Respect can be exercised in such conversations in a number of ways. In this case, rather than press into the recent past for the Catholics, I pressed into the recent history of a prominent evangelical who after death was revealed to have quite a different life than what he portrayed. Suddenly the conversation was not about "this" or "that"; it was about principles. And in turn when I had a comment about a practice that I do not find as engaging as others, he in turn was able to discuss the very differing opinions and uses of the Rosary.
It was, to quote a commenter yesterday, a "lively discussion" but it was a discussion that both of us were able to learn from (I did, hopefully he did too), walk away from without rancor - and then finish another mile loop talking away.
It strikes me that this sort of respect for each other is precisely a major underlying component for a great many reasons why we find ourselves where we are today. Without an underlying respect, things simply become weapons and large missiles we hurl (hopefully only verbally) at each other. Intrinsically or extrinsically, at some level we have no belief that we are going to "convince" the other side of anything; we have to bludgeon them into submission.
And there may be submission. But it will be of the slimmest sort, ready to fracture under the first sign of strain. And more tellingly, we will find over time that other parts of the relationship - be it personal, professional, religious, or a group association such as a nation-state - will weaken as well. Because people are very cognizant of when their thoughts or opinions become unimportant, and they will simply keep them to themselves.
I risk in writing this dissolving the conversation (yet again) into a discussion of issues about which we do not talk about here. And that is not my intent. My intent is really aimed at myself in all of this: am I practicing the sort of respect that would engender even "lively discussions" that might move an issue along in a way that I would like to see it moved? Am I, as Gandhi said, "Being the change that I want to see in the world"?
I can never control anyone else; I can only control myself. But I can certainly be that example of what respect for others - even when I may disagree with their opinions or decisions - looks like.
One of the reasons I like reading 19th century fiction is the conversations (Jane Austin and Charles Dickens are favorites). At one time, conversation was both a skill and form of entertainment. The thing I always marvel at is that they could (in the books, at least) carry on conversations with differences of opinion and even disagreements without personal offence. I think respect of others was part of it, but also that people had self-confidence in themselves and in their beliefs/opinions. Nowadays, so many people are quick to take offense and become aggressive about it. Perhaps the difference is that once it was socially acceptable (even interesting!) to have different opinions, today it is not.
ReplyDeleteLeigh, I had never thought of that before, but that is exactly true (for what it is worth, Dostoevsky was into conversations a lot. Part of that was simply the times of course: given a relative lack of any form of entertainment other than people or events associated with people, one had to converse and I imagine ill conversationalist were isolated and alone a lot.
DeleteI think you have the right of it - it was respect, it was self-confidence - and it was also a society that through the unwritten rules of social code enforced that these sorts of disagreements, politely handled of course.
We have changed in that society now believes that difference in opinions - at least on most things society considers important, but this certainly seems to be parring down well -are unacceptable and society and the individual have the right and duty to respond quickly and overwhelmingly to such differences.
It is not a hopeful trend.
"I an anonymous and approve of this message" . :^) We gain more knowledge when respect is shown on both sides because both feel comfortable expressing more evidence of why they feel that way. When attacked, people tend to shut down or leave well enough alone.
ReplyDeleteMost people converse to pass the time pleasantly, not prove to others who is more 'righter'.
Thank you Anonymous. You have expressed in a paragraph what it took me a whole post to try to get to.
DeleteIndeed, most of us converse to pass the time and share information, not enjoy epic battles of "rightness".
We have become so polarized that we have forgotten how to listen with respect. Sometimes it is okay to agree to disagree without rancor. My daughter recommended a great book called "I Think You're Wrong, But I'm Listening". Well worth reading.
ReplyDeleteMaryP - That is an excellent point as well - not only have we lost the ability to speak with respect, we have lost the ability to listen with the same - the very classic "I am not paying attention to what you are saying because I am already formulating a response."
DeleteThank you for the recommendation. Certainly sounds like something I could benefit from.
There is a concept that I'd not heard before 2020: being possessed by an idea or ideology. You can predict what will be said and what will be attacked if you are familiar with the position. I think that has really taken hold all around. And instead of conversation between two people, it has become dueling recordings. I've noticed that especially with "health care" recommendations in the last few years. Most folks don't seem to progress much beyond regurgitating what they favorite persona espouses.
ReplyDeleteSchools don't teach critical thinking, or devote much to real study anymore. I didn't get very much of that either, and had to learn it on my own time.
School has become indoctrination. I visit with my niece when I pick her up from school, and her interactions with her teachers leaves me speechless. They are no less petty than the teen-angsters they teach.
As far as your working through the foibles of spiritual leaders, it is a pity there appears no viable way to recover from that. Your example has been removed from memory almost. Did the truth he professed become lies? I don't think so. But he has been excised from the stele like an old Pharoah. In your friend's church, I don't know how to reconcile the protection of wrongdoers versus protection of the flock. Each side has it's own way of dealing with things, neither seems to be wholly correct in my imperfect understanding.
With power comes responsibility. If we don't cultivate accountability, then we are prone to fall into error. Maybe that's what real conversation is.... a type of accountability. A testing of thoughts to see if they ring true. Hmmmm.....
STxAR - I had not heard of being possessed by an idea or ideology but that makes sense to me: from the Christian point of view of course, if you will not fill your heart with God it will be filled with something. And certainly many of the "arguments" of today feel and sound like repeats of the same discussion, over and over and over.
DeleteMy perception is the same as yours, that we are not teaching critical thinking as we should. For most, they are left to discover it on their own or have a helpful mentor guide them.
Sadly, there is no way to recover from the fall of spiritual leaders. The reality is that while their names - all around - may be excised, the harm the did will last a lifetime. My fear is that the same is going on today for the "modern" church although as it is much more pleasing to societal ears, it is surreptitiously ignored. That is a pity: God is not mocked, and in turn their day will come, harming the church more.
We are no longer a culture of accountability, or really only accountability in specific situations. The powerful are almost never accountable until they are suddenly no longer powerful; the non-powerful are almost always accountable even for that they are not accountable for. I would argue at some point accountability will have to re-establish itself, if for no other reason than it will be required for society to survive. That process, though, will not be pleasant.
Historically, women made up about 60%-to-80% of the people in the pews.
ReplyDeleteI have a friend who is a Lutheran minister and he admitted it was the same in his congregation. His belief is because men have a much harder time admitting that we need help of any kind.
It is like the joke of changing the voice for the GPS to a male voice and suddenly all of the directions become "I know it is around here some where. Keep driving. You will know it when you see it."
One plausible reason for plummeting attendance at church is that women are being socialized to be "men".
And then there is the relentless, vicious attacks by the mainstream media. Every observation is warped and distorted and projected through a lens with a bilious tint.
Religions of various flavors are ubiquitous to human existence. One must deduce that they serve some function or offer some utility to the people who attend them. Those needs may ebb-and-flow based on the economy, the weather or the corruption in the government but they never totally go away.
ERJ - I wonder if the statistic is a sign of the times or historically active. Of old, the great missionaries and founders of religious movements were men - partially societal of course, but I wonder if partially they understood their relationship to God to be much different than we understand it today.
DeleteI wonder as well if the transactional nature of what seems to pass for much of religion now - I "go" and am somehow "churchified" does not seem like much of a motivator. This was actually a large portion of the discussion for both of us: What is really the purpose of going to church (this has now come up twice in the post; probably worthy of its own discussion). And as we both noted, so many churches are so much like the rest of the world we live in, in terms of belief and "feel", why do the same work twice?
Surely the media's interpretation of religion (mostly Christianity; they do not seem to have quite the animosity for other religious faiths except those that do not meet current societal "standards") is not helpful. I long ago gave up any sense that I would find any sort of positively portrayed Christian figure in modern entertainment with except, perhaps, of British television shows based on older books.
I can only speak authoritatively about Christianity as that is my own experience, but it certainly feels like it is not only declining, but is rather far from what was intended originally. Instead of a daily encounter with the Living God (the early church, monks, and mystics all write of this), it too often seems like just another version of a self-help society.
Part of conversation is understanding the other person's views and how they came to be. Thus as a Catholic, I completely understand the lack luster view someone may have of our church based upon recent history. I myself think it was poorly handled. But I have faith thanks to the current pope that things can change, even if they aren't as fast as some of us would like, to correct these issues.
ReplyDeleteI would have loved to be a fly on the wall of the yogurt shop.
Ed, one of the interesting points that Uisdean Ruadh brought up - and I agree with - is that "I object to because of this " at some point can simply become an excuse to not do the hard work of actually evaluating progress and correction. The Catholic Church has some pretty rough history lately, but they are also taking steps to address it. I think often how much we are willing to reconsider such an organization depends largely how charitable we feel towards it, not necessarily how much it has actually accomplished.
DeleteI suspect you would fit in well at our conversations.
Respect is not taught so much any more, I think. Look at the parents who raise "buddies". Lack of respect for personal property and people is everywhere.
ReplyDeleteNo less so another's opinion.
I am glad you and your friend had a fulfilling discussion, TB.
You all be safe and God bless.
I think you are right Linda - but I also suspect we have become a society where we give individuals the right to decide what they respect, not based on principles or history. People who espouse this will not be happy when it is pushed back into their faces.
DeleteAs always, thank you Linda!
Somewhere along the way, the idea has taken hold that the person with whom you disagree is your enemy. To be sure, this is an extreme concept, but in many cases, the extremes now control the narrative (because they talk the loudest). When I hear any political candidate or advocate say something like, "we need to take this country (or state, or municipality, or school system) back," I am immediately put off. Neither side owns anything, and their desire to "take it back" only demonstrates their narrow-mindedness and selfishness. The fact you and your friend can have a "lively discussion" while remaining friends greatly encourages me. Listening and learning can still happen.
ReplyDeleteBob, in some ways I think people have evolved to this idea that those who do not believe as we do are our enemy because that is how those that set the tone for such things actually see people. I would argue on both sides at the top of "Name the movement or organization", people are simply seen as means to an end and anyone that is in the way of that - typically defined as "progress" is effectively acting against the greater good.
DeleteI would be more encourage were individuals on every side of the spectrum to call out their leadership far more than they call out the other side. Sadly, I doubt that will occur in my lifetime.
Off topic. You commented at Claire Wolfe about flammenwerfers. See Big Country Expat about a year or so ago for a nifty how-to. Alternatively Palmetto had one in sale recently for $600. The latter is hobbyist/novelty (short range) BCE's looks like it will approximate a U.S. M2
ReplyDeleteBoat Guy
Boat Guy - Thanks for the redirect! I went and looked at the Palmetto model. That looks like a lot of fun!
DeleteSadly, given my history with things fire and "flamey", I suspect it will be a hard "no" from The Ravishing Mrs. TB. Not that there are stories, but there are stories...
While I loved all the stages of raising my children, when my boys were small, I looked forward to when they were older and we could engage in conversations that were deep and challenging. Now that they are adults I find I sometimes don't recognize these young men we raised. They're mostly agreeable, but sometimes the conversations become uncomfortable. Sometimes I grieve that we are so very far apart on social issues and politics, and sometimes religion. And then they go and say something that challenges me (in a needed) way to consider, if not my long-held beliefs, at least how I'm living out those beliefs. And just about as soon as I wonder how this happened, I realize this is what I wanted! Conversations that are deep and challenging. It's tempting to think it would be a good thing if my sons all believed as I do, voted the same in presidential elections, stood on the same side of political and social issues, but at the end of the day those things really don't matter if we speak to each other respectfully and show a little humility in having things to learn from each other. I like to think we're doing a little bit to counter the idea (that Bob mentions above) that people with whom we disagree are our enemies. They are not. Sometimes they people we love more than life itself.
ReplyDeleteBecki, my own children certainly have many different ways of looking at the world than I do. That is not all bad of course; at the same time it can reflect a certain level of understanding about the world that we that are older hold differently - I am sure my parents felt the same way about me spouting off on things I had intellectual knowledge of but no actual understanding.
DeleteFor me what will be interesting is as they venture into the world, how those views change. Will they confront the differences and come to a different conclusion, will they simple act as if those issues are no longer relevant (although they are), or will they synthesize their beliefs into something different?