The Public Rebuke

I don't know if you've noticed, but it seems to me that in the realm of public dialog about ideas ... it is rarely about ideas. Have you noticed? It seems as if we (human beings) lack the capacity to discuss the quality of ideas without resorting to abusing the idea-holders. And I'm not speaking of those of you who disagree with my views. I'm speaking about the vast majority, regardless of viewpoints.

Let me give a prime example. Christians in America really like Rosie O'Donnell as a target. Why? Because she is an outspoken enemy of Christianity. She has a public forum from which to loudly state her opinions, and they are often against what Christians believe. So she becomes a target. Unfortunately, she is not merely the target of rational Christians who are taking the ideas she offers to task. More often she is the target of irate Christians who castigate and insult her. She's a lesbian; how can her ideas be of any value? She's loud and ugly; why should we listen to her? And the ideas that she spouts don't actually get addressed because the person has been dismissed.

Now, as in the case of O'Donnell, there are two factors to be considered. First, if ideas are stated publicly, they become "public property", so to speak. That is, if they are offered in public, the public has the right and even responsibility to discuss, review, and, if necessary, refute the ideas publicly. Second, if a person presents himself or herself as an expert, the listener has the right to question their credentials. So, in the case of Rosie O'Donnell, she comes across as an expert, and she does it publicly. Therefore, it is right that her credentials as an expert be questioned and her ideas be examined, discussed, and refuted as needed in the public arena. However, that doesn't give the public the right to be mean ... even if the ideas offered are offered unkindly. We can examine and respond to ideas, but unkindness is not me with unkindness.

I often try to discuss ideas. I try to make it a point to discuss ideas without intending to insult or demean the idea-givers. I generally fail. Sometimes I fail because I myself slip into this very problem. It's easy, when you feel an idea is stupid, to portray the idea-giver as stupid. It's easy, but it's not right. Sometimes I fail not because I did something wrong, but because, as is often the case, when the idea is confronted, the idea-giver feels insulted. And that seems unavoidable. But I dream of a place where ideas can be engaged without being forced to engage the idea-giver. I dream of a place where ideas can be picked up, turned over, pulled apart, even refuted without a sense that the person holding them has been insulted or intended to be insulted. I dream of a place where we can dialog about ideas without insulting people. It's a dream, I know, because it requires the lack of people who are notorious for feeling insulted when their pet idea is taken to task and the responses, now personal, escalate. But I can dream.

To all of those who feel or think that I have attacked them when I have commented on their ideas, I apologize without mitigation. Some might feel like I attacked them when I didn't intend to, and I should have been more careful. Others might feel like I attacked them ... because I did. I'm not perfect, and sometimes, like everyone else, I get too passionate about ideas and let it spill over into the personal. So to all of you who feel that way, whether I intended to attack you or not, I apologize.

Let me offer a few thoughts on proceeding which should be of benefit to me and may assist anyone else who takes on ideas and people. I have often heard it said in defense of the attack (that's an odd phrase, isn't it?), "Well, Jesus did it. Paul did it. Why can't we?" There are two things we need to consider when looking at these examples. First, we have one overarching rule as Christians. The hallmark of a Christian is love. That is the first and foremost rule. Second, while it is indeed true that Jesus spoke quite harshly to the Pharisees and Paul spoke quite harshly to Peter, note that in both cases they spoke quite harshly ... to their intended audiences. We never read of Jesus going off with His disciples in a private room where He castigated the Pharisees. Instead, He did it to their faces. That is, out of love, Jesus told the Pharisees things like "woe to you" and "you are of your father, the devil." Paul told Peter that he was being hypocritical. If we wish to correct someone (a person), we must do it to the person. Most of the time we do it "sideways". We do it off to the side, not actually addressing the person. We do it in public places without actually addressing the person. Now, sometimes love dictates a sharp response, but it is to the person because it is for the person. So if we are going to address people, we need to address people. If we are going to address ideas, we can address ideas. Let's not mix the two. Love is not properly served when we rebuke people publicly without actually addressing the people we are addressing.

Now, if we (including me) can just keep this in mind, maybe dialog can occur in places that animosity has blocked it in the past. I know ... I'm dreaming, but it doesn't stop me from trying.