Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: dialog

  • My Personal Stand on Freedom of Speech

    My Personal Stand on Freedom of Speech

    Please note the word “personal” in the title. Often when I discuss freedom of speech, people respond with comments on what the law says about freedom of speech. The responses sometimes differ based on the country. These are my beliefs about how I should support freedom of speech personally. They represent my own contributions, not something mandated by law.

    Background

    Early in life, even before my teens, I was quite combative and always ready to argue about what I believed. One of my formative experiences as a teenager was arguing international politics with people in Guyana. Generally, foreigners shouldn’t comment on politics in a country where they are guests. However, as a teenager, I got by with it. More importantly, I learned something important about perspective that has stuck with me.

    People with different backgrounds, in different countries will have a different perspective. This perspective is not inferior to my own. Rather it is just different. Guyana had recently gained its independence after a long colonial period. The country also had to deal with a world largely richer and more powerful militarily. Guyana provided a different perspective.

    I don’t believe that truth is ultimately relative. But as finite people with limited perspective we can only reach for that objective reality. It’s very valuable for us to take the time to actually comprehend someone else’s perspective. Comprehending doesn’t require agreement. What it requires is that one can take in some of that perspective. I had the pleasure of learning from my Guyanese elders about a different perspective on imperialism, the middle east, China/Taiwan, and other such issues.

    The Requirement for Free Speech

    My experience brought new perspective, but I continued to regard debate as central. How did one test ideas? Debate. Go at it hammer and tongs and you’ll be able to test the boundaries and the inner structure of your knowledge and ideas.

    Free speech is an absolute necessity to carry out such an enterprise. If certain ideas are considered out of bounds, it’s impossible to get a complete and fair combined expression.

    Note that this process, as I saw it, was not one of equally informing one another. I had a number of people with whom I had such dialog. But I was perfectly willing to debate vigorously with someone I knew would dismiss every idea. I expressed those ideas because I had the challenge of expressing them. It also gave me the opportunity to see how they landed in someone else’s world.

    I will note that I was also very political. I registered to vote as soon as I was able to do so and immediately signed up as a precinct captain. I was a captain with nobody but myself to command, but I got involved and active. I spent my time on election day debating with others at the polls.

    In my experience, however, I can’t recall actually changing anyone’s mind through debate. This doesn’t lead me to the conclusion that debate is worthless. Rather, it wasn’t accomplishing what I hoped it would accomplish. There was also the question of time. If you have an opinion on pretty much everything (which I did), and you are anxious to debate, it will take time. As the online opportunities grew, so did the consumption of my time.

    I was online before it was a major thing. I ran a computer Bulletin Board System (BBS) in the late 80s that was rather popular for its time. I got in political debates there. I was on Compuserve when we accessed it by phone, and I got into plenty of debates there.

    Some Restrictions

    I learned quite quickly that while free speech was good, there was more to it than just allowing expression. There were times and places. Online that meant various discussion boards. For these boards we had rules. Often these rules were simply subject matter. What is the purpose of this discussion group? If you want to talk about something else, go somewhere else. A good rule of freedom of expression is that if it’s your space, you rule the expression.

    Then there’s time. For someone with as many opinions as I had (and have), I needed a way to restrict the time spent. I began to tell some people who challenged me that I would have to give them the last word as I didn’t have time to pursue the issue. Many people find it difficult to let a discussion or debate go online. It can often become a time-consuming black hole. You need to learn to thicken your skin. Just ignore it when the other party declares victory and does a cyber-dance on your virtual grave.

    Energion Publications

    This brings me to my founding of Energion Publications. I founded this company to have a common publisher for a broad range of ideas within the Christian community. My previous experiences had led me to believe that while it had its purposes, debate was not going to accomplish what I wanted to accomplish. The idea was listening and testing one’s ideas in relation to other ideas. I don’t recall that “echo chamber” was that common of an expression at the time, but avoiding an echo chamber was my intent.

    Over the years I have greatly reduced my debating time, and also limited my commentary to a much smaller range of issues. I do this because I want to do as well as I can with what I can share. By publishing the works of others, I can help ensure that a variety of viewpoints are represented.

    Still Free Speech

    My key point, and main reason for writing this is that I continue to believe the same things about free speech as I did back in college and before, including the additional lessons about spaces. Not every space has to have all speech, but there is value in keeping the walls as far away as possible.

    A number of people wonder how I can publish material I disagree with. Since I include a variety of viewpoints, it’s clear that some of the material will represent viewpoints other than my own. I wouldn’t be carrying out the mission I established for my company or my own goals in life if I did not.

    I do not find this difficult at all. I enjoy hearing various ideas. I enjoy helping people present them as well as possible. I enjoy being part of the process of presenting those ideas so that others can test their own ideas against them and learn. If I look like I’m enjoying a discussion in which an author is saying something you know I don’t believe, that is precisely what I’m doing. And while I may ask clarifying questions, I won’t start debating that person. That’s not what I’m here for.

    From a strictly secular point of view I call this respecting other people and their own abilities. When I decide to protect others from hearing “bad” points of view, I don’t respect them for their ability to reject those points of view. From a spiritual standpoint, I believe in the ability of the Spirit of Truth to do better at influencing people than I could.

    To those who will point out all the evidence of people failing in either of those, I would first point out that your judgment is fallible as is mine, but also the substantial failure of control mechanisms to actually control the human heart and soul.

    Respect

    Ultimately, I think this is about respect. I respect another’s individuality and right to an opinion, even one that might annoy me. Especially one that might annoy me. I respect the spaces that others set up.

    I make my own discussion spaces as open as I possibly can and still carry on the discussion.

    (Featured image generated by Jetpack AI. I incorporated several AI suggestions in the text, but rejected a number of others.)

  • Recommending a New Blog: Dr. Dolly’s Musings …

    Recommending a New Blog: Dr. Dolly’s Musings …

    There’s a new blog, Dr. Dolly’s Musings … and I want to recommend it highly. Dr. Dolly Berthelot is an author with Energion Expand (an imprint of my company) with titles PERFECTY SQUARE and Scars to Stars. She has also been a friend and partner in various diversity and dialogue programs over the years. I consider PERFECTLY SQUARE to be one of the best approaches to understanding and managing the value of diversity.

    My company, Energion Publications and all its imprints were founded with a key value and mission of publishing diverse voices and helping to generate more dialogue between very different voices. This value and mission remains.

    I believe you will learn a great deal from Dr. Dolly’s Musings …. But don’t think this will be dry facts. Dolly is one of the most versatile users of words and imagery that I have every encountered. Just when you think she’s found the limits of her imagination, she’ll surprise you.

    We differ in background and some beliefs, but we share the desire to see people learn to work together and produce great value for all of us, not just economic value, but community as well, which is a value beyond price.

    You can read her introductory post here.

  • The Demand for Opinions

    The Demand for Opinions

    There has always been a tendency for crowds to call for others to support them. If you do not, you are contributing to the other side, however they define that.

    Social media has multiplied that demand and given the demanders a megaphone. If you do not express an opinion–the right opinion according to them–on this or that issue, you are letting other people by with something.

    This attitude spans the political spectrum. There will be those who will think I’m talking about them, and those who think I’m talking about their enemies. Both are correct. I’m talking about the way we talk about just about everything.

    Don’t imagine I’m talking about politics alone or even primarily. I first encountered this sort of attitude over religious viewpoints. If you weren’t arguing for a particular viewpoint, then you were obviously arguing for the opposite, variously defined.

    In particular, I saw this in denominational authority. I was a student at the Seventh-day Adventist seminary at Andrews University. If you were not defending the authority of the SDA General Conference, you were obviously a rebel. You couldn’t just go on about your business. Note, however, that while my experience was with the SDA church, this is by no means exclusively an issue in the SDA church.

    Social media simply magnifies the call. I see posts every day that demand that someone speak out about this or that. And there is a point to speaking out. Speaking out can be a good thing. In addition, we have those who claim that if we don’t post something about their favorite cause we are heartless. We don’t care.

    I believe we have a different problem. We are trying to generate good results starting from a mob mentality. We have an effort to create a mob of people without serious knowledge of an issue who will say yes, click ‘Like’ or Share. When this is done, we can feel that we are truly fighting evil. I’d say “as defined by,” but really, we have undefined opposition to undefined evil in the pursuit of undefined good.

    Now there are a number of voices out there who are well-informed. I do not condemn pastors for preaching their understanding of Jesus and applying that to the moral actions of their congregations. I don’t condemn an informed politician (may their tribe multiply) in advocating a position.

    What I do is choose myself not to play this game. I choose a small number of issues, largely in the realm of spirituality and community, and I advocate for those. I understand them fairly well. I can speak of them to some effect, though I am not extremely optimistic. I was chastened by overhearing someone in the hall of the church admin building telling someone else what a beautiful answer “Henry” had to their question. I did not recognize, nor would I have endorsed the answer attributed to me. They didn’t know I overheard.

    What I suggest is choosing what you will spend your time on and ignoring the calls for proclamations on other things. Be prepared to defend what you say and make your presentation most effective.

    I could say that the times call for genuine dialogue and grace to our enemies, but that has always been true. Firm opinions, carefully researched, and presented with conviction will go a long way. There is a place here for negatives, for calling evil “evil” no matter who is carrying it out.

    But the need for clearly presented information is much greater than the need for opinions.

    That’s my opinion!

  • On Listening to One Another

    On Listening to One Another

    On the various Energion Publications web sites, we have been emphasizing listening in commemoration of Pentecost. This Sunday is Pentecost Sunday, but we’re going to continue the topic for a few weeks into what’s called “ordinary time” in the church calendar. It’s precisely in ordinary time that you need to remember the lessons of receiving and listening to the Spirit.

    We need to continue listening even when we can’t see the flames of fire or hear God’s voice, or detect other signs of God speaking. God speaks in many ways, sometimes yes with thunder and lightning, but at other times God speaks through those who are around us.

    Hearing God in Others

    One element of listening that we often neglect is listening as the Spirit speaks to us through other people.

    This was a lesson I started to learn in Guyana, South America, where I lived as a teenager. My parents went there as missionaries with my father assigned as Medical Director of Davis Memorial Hospital in Georgetown. Thus I spent a good portion of my teen years among people of a different culture.

    I would often get rides to various places with the hospital’s driver, Brother Carr. (Note that when I was growing up as a Seventh-day Adventist, I was taught to address my elders as “brother.” That was so ingrained that I can’t actually remember his first name.) There was another gentleman who worked security and also some other functions around the hospital, and was occasionally a backup driver.

    I recall discussing world events with these two men. Different country, different race, different culture, different perspective on just about everything. Those conversations have stuck with me. One day one of these men took me to the seawall which keeps the Atlantic Ocean from flooding Georgetown. After explaining the history, starting with settlement by the Dutch, we turned to current events, which at the time involved Mainland China replacing Taiwan in holding China’s permanent seat on the security council of the United Nations. Elements of that conversation have stuck with me.

    Why do I bring up all of this now?

    Very simply, there are good reasons to not only read books, watch videos, and listen to sermons/lectures on a variety of subjects. It’s important to learn about these things from more than one perspective. This can involve expanding your circle of friends. Intentionally expanding your circle so that you meet more people who are not exactly like you.

    Difference can include:

    1. Differences of faith, including those with a secular or humanist view as well as those of other religious groups
    2. Differences of race, even beyond those we talk about most
    3. Differences of nationality, to include people from countries that are less like our own
    4. Differences of theology within our own faith tradition, such as Reformed, Wesleyan, or Open/relational or progressive, moderate, and conservative
    5. Differences in levels of wealth and privilege (While some object to the term “privilege,” I openly confess to being privileged. It was a foregone conclusion I would go to college and if I wanted, to graduate school. I have never feared starvation. My life is filled with reasons for thanksgiving!)
    6. Differences in geography, such as living in an urban, suburban, or rural area

    There are certainly many more, but these are some of the many things that I think many of us don’t interact with enough. For example, I sometimes give money to someone who is homeless, but it’s much harder to get me to say hello. (I publish two books, The Vicar of Tent Town and The Fringe, both of which challenge stereotypes of what it means to be homeless.)

    Some Books

    And now for a short commercial … well, not really. Some thoughts!

    I was thinking about four books that I publish, all by African-American authors. I’m writing about them here, rather than on my company blog because these thoughts are my own, apart from any marketing plan. (No, I don’t deny wanting to sell the books, but if I was writing marketing text, I’d do it in “company” space!)

    I want to recommend these four books for specific things in which they can give you a different perspective. In the case of three of the books, the reason I’m listing them here is not the central reason the author wrote the book, nor the reason I published it.

    Let’s start first with Dr. Terrell Carter’s book I Have to Live with Them?: Understanding How Black and Brown Christians Navigate Their Relationships with White Christians in the American Church. This is the one book of the four that is precisely intended to help readers understand the dynamic of race relations in the church. It’s written by an African-American pastor who pastors a predominantly white congregation. This one is in the Energion Publications Topical Line Drives series, which means it’s short and to the point. It’s not meant to break major new ground. It’s meant to get you to the starting gate. Dr. Carter has two other titles with Energion as well, which you can find on his author page.

    The second book in this list is not written to address any of the issues I’m discussing here, but it does. It’s The Seven: Taking a Closer Look at What It Means to Be a Deacon by Dr. Lonnie Davis Wesley, III. This is, unsurprisingly, a book about the ministry of deacons in the church, and it’s written by someone who pastors a large Baptist church in Pensacola, Florida, Greater Little Rock Baptist Church. As an aside, if you live in the Pensacola area, visit this church. I strongly commend it.

    The reaons I’m talking about the book here, however, is because of the background it gives you about the black church in America. It will teach you things about deacons in the church. It will develop your understanding of the early church and what led to their being deacons. If you’re dealing with problems of church polity, you will find scriptural ideas in here that just might help. But it will also help you look at all these things with new vision.

    The third is Grant Me Justice: A Mother’s Journey from Murder and Mourning to Mercy and Dancing. This book deals with grief, anger, and the search for justice, but it also tells an important story, the story of a mother and what gave her perspective on what was happening. It’s a story also of grace. And it’s a story that will help many see things from a very different perspective.

    An important lesson to learn in reading this book is that hearing the stories of others can provide so much help to each of us in understanding our own journey of faith. God’s grace is high and wide, and its sufficient. God doesn’t have a perspective problem. Stepping into the shoes of a grieving parent as you peruse the pages of this book can change you in many wonderful ways.

    Last, but not least (these books are in no order of precedence), I have a children’s book. The book is What Color Am I? It’s the 8th book in the Kamden Faith Journey series. This entire series is about a grandmother helping her grandson in his faith journey. It provides an opportunity for parents to read with the children and discuss important topics with them. In this book Kamden sees a Black Lives Matter protest and asks his Nana for an explanation. What are they doing? Why are they angry?

    The response is gentle, faithful, and powerful. I wonder if you, reader, have looked at these various issues from the perspective in this book. It brought tears to my eyes as I created the book layout.

    Conclusion

    Whether it’s with these books or others and whatever the subject or your situation, try to find an opportunity to listen to someone whose perspective differs greatly from your own. It may benefit them, but it will definitely benefit you.

    Note: Featured image for this post was generated using Jetpack AI as a test.

  • The Importance of Being Questioned

    The Importance of Being Questioned

    When I’m having a discussion of something about which I have some expertise, say biblical languages, it’s quite easy to get impressed with myself. After all, unlike the “average person” (actually, I don’t believe in average people, hence, the quotes, but that’s another subject*), If I am in doubt of a translation in scripture, or simply hear another person talk about a Greek or Hebrew word, I can actually go check. I may even know of various places that word is used.

    *(I hate excessively long parenthetical remarks, don’t you?)

    Fortunately for my swollen head, there is a remedy to this. I can go to a seminary campus, or join a group dedicated to biblical languages, where one often finds people who earn their living teaching or researching, and I’ll be put in my place fairly quickly. How? Because in that atmosphere people question my conclusions. I may not change them, but I have to think about them and about alternatives.

    As salutary as reducing the size of my head might be, that is not the most important benefit. (Your mileage may vary.) The most important benefit is that it helps me not to get stuck on pet conclusions. I hear about potential difficulties with my conclusions from people who think differently, who know facts I may have missed, or who may just have ordered and prioritized data differently.

    My think is challenged.

    By responding positively to such a challenge, I may be able to improve my thinking, and (gasp) change my mind!

    But here are some things to avoid:

    1. Getting offended. There is such a thing as offensive speech, but much of what is called offensive is simply something presented from a different perspective, which I’d rather not hear. Offense blocks learning.
    2. Doubling down. When presented with a contrary opinion, I need to examine the evidence and the logic and see if I need to change my mind. If not, no problem. Doubling down is a technique to emphasize my superior rightness over someone else.
    3. Dismissing. It doesn’t hurt to think about what someone else has said. It doesn’t hurt to tell the other person you’ll think about it. I don’t know about you, but I don’t have time for every argument. What I can do is listen and then keep the ideas in mind over time.
    4. Equalizing. There are many things on which opinions are just fine, and it’s OK to say, “To each his or her own.” But on many topics, the different viewpoints are in no way equal.
    5. Despising. It’s easy to dismiss the other person because you already despised them. It’s also easy to despise them because of their opinion. Despising let’s you out of considering the opinions of such a worthless person. You are the only one to lose.
    6. Labeling. It’s easy to call someone a name, or group them with people you already reject. In politics we can call the other guy “just a Democrat” or “just a Republican” or whatever party labels apply in your country. We can also call someone a socialist or a capitalist (whichever is negative in our mind) in order to dismiss a particular idea. It’s not that labels are bad. Rather, all of language involves labeling in some way. The thing is that labeling needs to be accurate, and not dismissive.

    I think the goal should be to be able to have strong opinions without despising the people who disagree. That’s not easy. The tendency is to either have strong opinions on something and dismiss your opponents, or to try to equalize all opinions. Either one can deprive you of valuable, constructive, necessary dialog.

  • Link: Our Radicalized Republic

    It’s definitely worth reading Our Radicalized Republic from FiveThirtyEight.com. Lots of data to consider even if you disagree with some of the analysis.

  • As Everyone Trades Scripts – Again

    Immediately after the last election I wrote this. Please read it before you read this.

    I want to reiterate it today. I have meant it sincerely following every election in which I have been a voter, and I registered to vote at the first opportunity.

    Speaking with respect is not agreement. It is a way to maximize the range of dialog. I believe deeply in the value of dialog, even with people who I may believe have not earned respect. Those in the military learn how to show respect to someone they may not respect because of that person’s rank and position. That could be a valuable lesson.

    Especially with people who have not earned respect.

  • Courtesy Is not just for the Other Person

    Courtesy Is not just for the Other Person

    Credit: Openclipart.org.
    Credit: Openclipart.org.

    Probably as the result of the political correctness debate—well, perhaps not debate; more brouhaha—I hear or read frequent complaints about an expectation of courteous speech as though it’s an imposition. In order to cater to someone’s excessively fragile sensibilities, the argument goes, one is expected to deny the truth in favor of “political correctness.” In this case, political correctness is in quotes, because it tends to refer to even the mere suggestion that one might change one’s approach to presenting a viewpoint.

    I do believe there is such a thing as political correctness. You identify it by taking note of the term political. It’s an officially imposed form of courtesy, carried out by policies such as speech codes. I’m vigorously opposed to speech codes in any sort of public institution. I think they are generally problematic in private institutions, though privately owned organizations should be able to make their own policies. As a publisher, I certainly maintain standards for what I will publish.

    But the term “political correctness” has come to be applied to any expectation of courtesy, not just a code enforced by law or authority. Having hundreds or thousands of people disapprove of your speech does not censor you or deny you free speech. It merely means that those hundreds or thousands of people will disapprove of what you say. Which is their right.

    Here’s an illustration of how to distinguish these ideas. Reasonably shortly after I turned 21 I realized that my driver’s license, by proving my birthday and thus my age, gave me the power to go see an X-rated movie. So, lacking good taste at the time, and apparently having money to waste, I found an “adult” cinema, showed my license, bought my ticket, and headed it to enjoy this privilege of age. Within five minutes I left again, never to return. I’m not totally prudish. I’ve watched some pretty hard “R” movies. I just insist on a story. One that the writers received more than pocket change to produce.

    In that way I exercised an appropriate form of censorship on pornographic movies. I never again provided them with my hard-earned cash.

    The alternative would be to go on a crusade to ban their product. I know many people who would do precisely that. I don’t plan to debate that issue in this post. What I want you to see is the difference.

    An expectation of courtesy is not the same thing as a requirement that you be courteous. When a public university says that you must use certain terms in discussion, then that becomes a legal requirement. I call that political correctness. Why do I specify public? Because the university is taxpayer supported. I generally oppose speech codes in private schools as well, but in that case it is a matter of my support for genuine dialog, which requires genuine expression of a participant’s uncensored views, rather than an opposition to a public policy.

    So what does this have to do with courtesy being for the other person?

    Well, remember those hundreds, thousands, and I might add millions of people who may demand courtesy of you? The question for you is whether you prefer to just annoy them, or if you would like to get a hearing for your ideas. If you wish simply to annoy them, go ahead. Be my guest. You probably won’t be welcome as theirs. But if you have ideas that are important to you, ones you want to express truthfully and with vigor, you will need to consider your goal. If you want to get a hearing, you’ll need to combine “vigor” with “courtesy” or they will exercise their freedom and ignore you. Or, as often happens, abandon courtesy and treat you with the same contempt you show for them.

    This applies to any discussion, including both religion and politics. Frequently I hear things that are claimed to be arguments for Christianity against atheism or some other viewpoint that are actually simply ways to make Christians feel better about themselves. Taunting atheists with “The fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God’” (Psalm 14:1) is a good, simple example. To you it is “truth” and you are just exercising your human freedom and “telling it like it is.” You can then slap the back of laughing fellow-Christians or fist-bump, or whatever you want, congratulating yourself on the point you’ve made by telling the truth.

    But you have likely simply made it harder for the next Christian who would like to engage that atheist in actual dialog about matters of faith.

    “But I’m just quoting the Bible,” you say.

    “Out of context,” I reply. Nowhere does the Bible tell you to taunt unbelievers by calling them fools.  In fact, it says something quite different (Matthew 5:22).

    We taunt fellow-Christians in similar ways. I remember a class I led some years back. Some of the participants had been spoken of in a negative way by other members of their church. They went around the group talking about the unfairness and how inappropriate it was to treat them this way. I couldn’t resist asking this: “Have you treated any non-believers as you have been treated by fellow church members?” Many admitted that they had.

    I hardly need to provide examples of how we taunt people who disagree with us politically. Then quite frequently we taunt them again if they don’t want to stay around and listen to us taunt them.

    If you want to isolate your ideas and grow your contituency only by raising new members from infants (and beware of them leaving!), then by all means, treat courtesy as an imposition. Regard it as something that keeps you from letting people know how things really are.

    But if you’d like your ideas to spread, learn how to express the truth in a courteous manner.

    Oh, and a note to all. Disagreeing with you or thinking you’re wrong isn’t discourteous. It’s a matter of the way things are expressed.

  • On Roman Catholics and Scholarship

    One of the great benefits of owning a publishing company is that there are always a number of smart people who will answer my e-mails. Thus, when I saw the brouhaha about Michael Patton’s post calling ‘Roman Catholic scholarship’ an oxymoron, I remembered immediately that I have just contracted Dr. Robert LaRochelle to write a book on—guess what?—dialog between Catholics and Protestants. (The book is Crossing the Street, to be released in May, 2012).

    So I asked Bob if he’d write a response, and he graciously agreed. This morning, I published that response over at Energion.net. I’m linking it from here for two reasons. First, Energion.net is a site I’m developing, and I have more traffic here on my personal blog. Second, I want to call attention to one paragraph in particular, which relates to dialog in general.

    One of the things I tell my authors is that Energion Publications is not interested in homogenized material. We want material that is in conversation with other viewpoints, but still expresses a strong and robust viewpoint of its own. Bob said it well:

    So, in summary, as one whose movement into Protestantism and practice of my faith has been deeply enriched and enhanced by bold and exciting Catholic scholarship, I find Mr. Patton’s argument unconvincing. I do admire, however, his strong advocacy of the importance of theology within the Christian community of faith. It is my firm belief that true ecumenical dialogue between Protestants and Catholics really suffers when theological ‘indifferentism’ is seen as the norm. The idea that ‘it makes no difference’ and that all belief systems are ‘really the same’ is both inaccurate and does no justice to the cause of deeper understanding and shared contribution to both Christ’s church and to God’s world.

    ‘Indifferentism’! What an excellent name for a not-so-good thing!