In light of some discussions that are
ongoing in my local church community on a controversial issue of women's role, I felt it necessary
to remind myself and hopefully instruct and/or remind others, of the need to be
life-long learners which, of necessity, requires engaging in humble,
honest and yet respectful dialogue.
***************
"But these were more open-minded than
those in Thessalonica. They were ones who received the word with all eagerness,
examining the Scriptures every day [to see] if these things might hold thus"
(Acts 17:11, my translation).
As I was trying to write Part 2 on being a
life-long learner I found myself struggling to clearly explain my thoughts on
what it takes to be "open-minded,” which is for me the key
to being a life-long learner. I wrote a few paragraphs, but it just wasn't
coming together so I decided to save it and try the next day. Honestly, no
sooner had I closed my blog than I received an email from academia.edu with
a link to a soon-to-be published chapter by Cynthia R. Nielsen in a book,
titled The Philosophy of (Im)politeness. The chapter is titled
"The Hermeneutics of (Im)politeness: A Gadamerian Perspective." This
article owes its inspiration and some of its contents to Dr. Nielsen, and is
not as academic as her title sounds. However, if you don’t like what follows, please
feel free to blame Dr. Nielsen!
So, what does being open-minded mean and/or
require of us, and how does open-mindedness contribute to being life-long
learners? The Berean Jews were, according to Luke, “more open-minded than those
in Thessalonica” and thus they set an example we should strive to imitate.
1. Being "open-minded" means being willing to engage in respectful dialogue.
I won’t frustrate you with a lot of quotes from Nielsen’s chapter but someone who reviewed my initial article said that I must keep this one in (so blame Liz St. Rose).
Nielsen writes, "Gadamer...takes
up the notion of openness to the other and develops it into what one might call
a key hermeneutic virtue. In other words, in order to hear the other’s
claim—whether issuing from a work of art, text, or human other—one must be open
to what the other has to say, to the other’s address and claim."
The Jews in Berea (Acts 17:11) clearly demonstrated their open-mindedness in that they received Paul's message with "all eagerness." They made a determined decision to really hear what Paul had to say. That decision was the result of humility (that is, they didn't think they had arrived or didn't need to be taught anything), curiosity (that is, they wanted to understand the what and the why of Paul's message), and respect (that is, they truly listened, respecting his right to his opinions and perspective). Another biblical example that comes to mind is the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. He was open-minded to learning, even if from a complete stranger. When asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" he replied, "How can I unless someone explains it to me," whereupon he invited Philip to share with him who the prophet Isaiah was talking about (in Isaiah 53).
How open-minded am I really, right now? I’ve
often considered myself to be open-minded when, in actuality, I am riding on
examples from my past. I decided to self-identify as an atheist for about five
years as finished out high school and went off to university. I was a very vocal
atheist, who was always looking for “evidence” to support my choice. However, as
I pursued that goal, I actually came to the opposite conclusion, so that I
chose to embrace the Gospel writers’ claims that Jesus was, and is, the Son of
God. Soon after, I made that decision, I decided to travel thousands of kilometers
from Vancouver, Canada to the distant land of Louisiana for two years of
intensive biblical studies. I, obviously, was quite open-minded in 1977, but
does that mean I’m open-minded in 2019?
Question: Are you willing, right now, to humbly
entertain foreign and strange perspectives, even those that are in opposition
to what you believe?
2. Being "open-minded" does not require agreement, but it does require thoughtful consideration.
Too often we back away from dialogue, especially when it involves someone with whom we think or know we’ll disagree. We mistakenly believe that if we respectfully hear that person we are communicating agreement. Yet, it is possible, and even necessary, that we learn how to listen to an opposing position without necessarily having to share it. Here’s a trivial example that still makes the point: a couple of my friends are Yankees’ fan. I am not, in any way, shape or form. Shing Chan and Kamoh Malcolm love to rub it in when the Yankees are winning (which is far too often). Yet, despite my opposition, I can still hear their rationale and even honestly console him when the Yankees lose (which isn’t often enough for my liking), and yet I remain true to my Blue Jays.
The Jews in Berea, in being "more
open-minded" did not unthinkingly agree with or accept Paul's message.
Instead, they remained curious without being naive so "they
examined the Scriptures every day to see if these things might be so." Obviously,
this text implies that their dialogue continued for several days. I'm sure
after examining the Scriptures every day they came back to Paul with their
questions, concerns and even disagreements, and thus energized the learning
experience. The words which Luke used to explain Paul’s methodology in
Thessalonica are indicative that his approach was dialogue, especially “…he
reasoned with them…”
"Paul went to the Jews in the
synagogue, as he customarily did, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with
them from the scriptures, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to
suffer and to rise from the dead, saying, 'This Jesus I am proclaiming to you
is the Christ.'" (Acts 17:2–3).
Sadly, most of the Jews in Thessalonica
were not nearly as open-minded as the Jews in Berea, as the results indicated. If
the Thessalonians did examine the Scriptures between Sabbaths, perhaps they
came back with their questions and/or concerns, not in order to learn, but in
order to defend their own understanding.. The challenge is to hold to our
convictions while at the same time remaining open to those with
whom we are in dialogue. In order to effectively hear another person's
perspective, we must be consciously aware of our own perspective, so we can
respectfully and thoughtfully compare and/or contrast ours and theirs, rather
than emotionally react and become aggressively or passively defensive.
Defensiveness always blocks learning!
For years, the only scholars and commentators
I would seriously consults and considers were those who were mostly in
agreement with my already held convictions. I read those who held contrary positions
only to be able to intellectually attack or undermine their rationale or
evidence. However, after many years of defensiveness, I began to be
disillusioned with some of my convictions and suspicious of the logic of my
rationale. So, I chose to further my education by attending a secular university
to pursue a B.A. in Classics (Greek and Latin) and then a M.A. in Religious
Studies. At both levels I took classes that challenged some of my long-held
convictions. I struggled to be as open-minded as possible, which wasn’t always
easy or fun. Yet, in the process, I have learned so much and have come to value
(and even long for) the dialogue I can have with any whose conclusions and
convictions are opposed to my own.
Question: Are you willing to engage in a
dialogue where you will carefully consider the other person’s perspective and
rationale?
[Part 2, will be posted in a couple of days.]
No comments:
Post a Comment