The instructor was giving an illustration about communicating with employees. A manager wanted the supply cabinet cleaned out. She wanted her employee to get rid of stuff they didn't need, straighten things up, rearrange, that kind of stuff. She told her worker, "Clean out the supply cabinet." Her worker emptied everything out, cleaned all the shelves, wiped everything down. Cleaned it out, you know? What we have here is a failure to communicate.
As the story peaked, one of the ladies in the class said, "That worker was a husband, wasn't it." (No, it wasn't a question.) I thought (but didn't say, of course), "That's a response from a wife." You see, in this situation, "a husband" was defined as "an idiot who couldn't figure out what she wanted and did all the wrong things." My response was "a wife is defined as a woman who requires her husband to read her mind and then shoot him down for failing (which he certainly will)."
Just an example. Have you ever noticed that we have a tendency to define things by their failures rather than their meaning? "Men" are in particularly poor repute these days because some (not all by far) men are lousy people. But women aren't saying, "That is an example of a bad man as opposed to the good men I know." "Christians" are defined as "hateful" not because they are hateful but because a small number of really poor examples have stereotyped Christians, examples like the Westboro folks, pinched-nosed nuns, and those pharisaical folks who have decided that "mixed swimming is a sin" (just as illustrations) without biblical backing. What is not being said is "Christians are not defined by those who abuse it."
Why do we tend to do that? We know the abuses of a particular role or office, but we don't merely condemn the abuses -- we condemn the role or office. Brethren, these things ought not be. Of course, we do the reverse as well. James warns "My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism" (James 2:1). What is he talking about? It's the tendency to show preference for rich over poor, for well-dressed over shabby, for haves over have-nots. We tend, in other words, to define "well off" as "good" simply because it's "well off", not because it's good. James goes on to remind his readers, "Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court?" (James 2:6). Oh, yeah! We forgot!
So, it turns out we have a tendency to be really poor at definitions. We will define "rich" as good overlooking the standard failures of being rich while defining others such as "men", "husbands", or "fathers" as evil overlooking the fact that all roles in God's design are good and their abuse is not a definition. Remember, we all suffer from a shared malady. "The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked." Be on the lookout for that ... especially in yourself.
5 comments:
I think the word "judgment" is a prime example of that of which I'm speaking. The term means to make critical distinctions or to form an opinion, but the abuse of the term by those who have done so harshly or unwisely or incorrectly has made the term mean something evil on its own. I believe that was the problem with the medical students in yesterday's post.
I have often had to tell people that WBC does not define what Christians are, and in fact they are a cult. Then I get asked why they are a cult and the church I attend isn't!! I was told this week that by saying WBC is not a Christian church (not even by doctrinal standards), I am guilty of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. There's just no discussion with those kind of people.
When I visited my mom in October, she went off on a litany of horrible things Christians have done. I explained to her that not all who call themselves Christians really are, and that you also can't blame a belief system for violations of said system by people proclaiming to be part of said system. I told her Christianity is not defined by people who abuse it. She actually accepted that I could be right!
In a conversation with someone years ago where he assured me that Christianity was evil because of the Crusades, I gave an illustration. "Imagine," I said, "that I walk in here and pull out a gun and point it at you. 'Hey, what are you doing?', you'd ask. I tell you, 'I'm going to shoot you.' 'Why?' 'Well, your wife told me to.' What would you say?"
He told me, "I'd tell you you were wrong because my wife loves me and she wouldn't do that."
"Exactly," I said. "So why is it that when people who claim to be Christians do things that violate Christ's words make the claim 'I did it because I'm a Christian', you believe them?"
He understood.
I have a beef with people who bash politicians and lawyers as though ALL people in those professions obviously are certainly not to be trusted. Make a joke about one of them and everyone (or almost everyone) laughs because they agree. But how rude is that, when surely there are people who truly want to try to make a difference and do what is right and honorable who chose to go into these professions? If people spent even a quarter as much time praying for politicians and lawyers as they do bashing them, that'd sure be nice.
I took a stand-up comedy class a few years ago (yeah, go ahead and laugh) and we had to go around the room and tell our names and what we did during the day. One very nice-seeming, young man said he was going to law school. And that's all it took! From that point on there were lawyer jokes and not a single one of them was at all nice. I suppose he has to get toughened up and used to that if he's going to be a lawyer. But I thought it really stunk that what he'd been devoting massive amounts of his time, energy, and money to was so frequently and harshly ridiculed. If I were his parent or sibling, I'd probably be proud of him! But apparently it's "okay" for everyone else to lay into him, his fellow students, and professional lawyers. Very sad how "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch" sometimes, isn't it? I mean, I know we have many more than just one bad apple among us but it's awful how badly they spoil the reputation of masses.
There ya go ... two perfect examples. Politicians and lawyers are typically defined by the abuses of those roles, aren't they?
Post a Comment