Sunday, February 26, 2006

Control Thyself


Moira is learning about the Civil Rights Movement in school. She came downstairs the other day and said "Did you know that Martin Luther King Jr. and E.D. Nixon weren't sure that the bus boycott would really happen?" My first thought was "E.D. who?" My second thought was "Oh, of course, E.D. Nixon, the head of the Montgomery branch of the NAACP at the time of Rosa Parks' arrest." Okay, I lied, but like you knew that either.

Anyway, one of the books she's reading is called Oh, Freedom! and it's a collection of children's interviews with people who experienced segregation and/or the events of the Civil Rights Movement. One woman, Ruth Jackson, talks about a kind of youth protest school she attended. They practiced protesting while others in their group pretended to be the white people harrassing, threatening and actually spitting on them. If you reacted at all, cried, fought back or anything, you weren't allowed to march. And you had to be neat and well dressed. All this so that when they did march they were absolutely above reproach. Nothing about their own behavior or dress could distract from their message. And all their white attackers could do was demonstrate their own bad behavior and vicious hate. (By the way, Ruth Jackson was only in the eighth grade at the time. Unbelievable!)

I've talked before about my respect for non-violence and the courage of people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and countless others throughout history who have put this difficult teaching of Jesus' into practice. But as I read this woman's story a different application for non-violence came to mind. It can be summed up in Gandhi's statement: "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."

Basically what has become a burden on my heart is that those of us who want to reform the Church, or have rightly criticized the Church for their harsh treatment, and lack of understanding have the extra responsibility of actually not being harsh back to them. We can't criticize them for their closed minds and harsh words if all we do is return fire. We must turn the other cheek to their agression and move forward boldly above reproach. The higher the standard of respect and dialogue that we reflect in our lives will only serve to expose the lack of respect and dialogue in their lives. The result being that those who we truly wish to change (the everyday people of the world and Church) will see our good works and praise our Father in Heaven.

This high road often sucks, it might mean getting slandered, verbally abused and attacked, but that is the example of Jesus. As we seek to criticize those who hold the Church in their power, we must be careful not to move from healthy critical dialogue to overly harsh attacks. Trying to keep tax collectors, whores and just general sinners as friends, we must choose our battles wisely and take the high road as often as possible.

Did Jesus rebuke people? Sure, usually the leaders of the Pharisees for not obeying their own commandments. They were the ones in control, the ones giving people the heavy burdens while they raked in the cash and the social and political power.

Based on Jesus' example, I think there is a place for harsh criticism of those doing damage. But we need to save our "attacks" for the global leaders that hold sway, the people that line their pockets with money and power while sending the Church in damaging directions. We shouldn't be judgmental of local pastors, worship leaders and congregations who are being swayed by global leaders. Rather we should be working with them, encouraging and persuading in respectful dialogue.

I don't think anything can change without dialogue. Very few people in today's culture are going to be won over by a ranting monologue. Everyone wants to be listened to. Being yelled at or verbally smacked across the face doesn't feel good. Christianity is about healthy relationships (with God and other people) and good relationships are give and take. No one wants to be involved in a relationship where they are never listened to, let alone consistently mocked and belittled.

Sarcasm and insults don't win people over--it only cements their point of view. And who can blame them?

3 comments:

Unknown said...

I guess I should then appologize for the whole Pat Robertson remark on the Gandhi post...sorry.

Anonymous said...

Are you referring to "High-Profile-Pseudo-Christian-Man" Pat Robertson?

(And I know you are just testing me, but I have to say it--1 p, there's only one p! Don't worry about responding to that for I have already anticipated your response--"Yeah, whatever" and have already mentally responded in my similarly predictable way.)

Anonymous said...

Always having to 'rant' and force ones opinion on others speaks to a bit of insecurity on that persons part I believe.

Where is the need to rant if one is secure in their belief? Mature dialogue comes only from mature people.

When I am in open dialogue and not attacking someone else’s belief, I find they are open with me...as of yet I have not had any out and out conflict in a mature dialogue (but then I am also very comfortable with heated debate, and don't consider that to be 'conflict')