Manifesto
Soundtrack[CLICK HERE]
Back in my Christian days, that song by LSU (Mike Knott with an interchangeable backup band) was a favourite of mine. It reiterated how Evangelical Christians gain what they perceive to be some sort of freedom from the shackles of sin, some sort of liberation into God’s grace, only to sacrifice it in order to look good for other Christians. Instead of talking about their faults, their struggles, and their doubts, they hide them away, ashamed and embarrassed by them. Those who don’t hide them are often ostracized.
I preached on this once. I remember doing a sermon on the role of the “watch” from Ezekiel. It was the watch’s responsibility to blow his horn if he saw the enemies coming, so the Israelites could prepare for battle. If he didn’t blow his horn and the camp was slaughtered, the blood was on his head. If he did blow his horn and people ignored it (why would you do that?) then it was their won fault. In the Bible, this is likened to the role of the Prophet, to whom God gives a special vision of the future consequences of certain actions. I likened it to Christians, who I thought had a similar responsibility to spread the good news of atonement to all who had ears to hear.
But it didn’t leave it as a simple “if you don’t tell your friend about Jesus they’ll go to Hell and it will be your fault” message. I admitted how hard it was to share, and how awkward it was. The solution, I thought was for Christians to be honest about their experiences with God. This is extremely hard, so to practice, we should start in the church, where there should be a strong supportive environment.
To illustrate, I took my brothers trumpet and blew. Out came a horrible, awful sound. I didn’t know anything about playing the trumpet, after all. Then my brother played something, and it sounded much better because he had practiced.
As I have explained elsewhere, the entire foundation of my Christianity has deteriorated, leaving me with little to build on. I have the notion that expressing Love to each other, a respectful, empathetic sort of Love, is important. But that feels sort of vague.
I am prepared to reattach another piece, with a few modifications.
I hereby state that I believe open, honest discussion about feelings and experiences are an important part of expressing and receiving the kind of Love. Furthermore, any attempt to shroud or hide this, especially behind a guise of objectivity, damages that expression.
This came up in a debate I was having with Minako recently. I was talking about how I thought news anchors should be free to express their opinion and experiences about whatever new story they were covering, and that to abstain from clearly expressing said opinion/experience is simply expressing it an a more subtle and deceptive way. Minako feels that this is entirely unethical, and that objectivity should be strived for in journalism. As so often happens in debates with Minako, things continued to spiral away from the original topic (Why didn’t the two fictional anchors on Sports Night name the players who they speculated had been traded by the Dodgers in the fictional deadline deal?) and ended with how can I say these things if I don’t follow the news and don’t do anything to back up or support those who agree with me. I was, of course, perturbed by this on many different levels, but it lead me to this addition to my personal manifesto.
First, I firmly believe that it is damn near impossible to escape our subjectivity when talking about a topic. Even if we state something that is a clear, agreed upon, and verifiable fact, the way we state it, the tone of voice, the words we choose, and the order we place the ideas, betray something about how we fell about the fact. Or even worse, is an attempt to fool the other person into believing that you feel a certain way about something when you don’t feel that way at all. Objectivity is the worst impression, in my mind, because it is so razor thin that no one can really achieve it. The laugh of a news anchor, the tone of voice in which he/she reads the intro, the placement of the story in the lineup, even the particular adjective he/she chooses to use, all paint the facts with a certain tint. And if the general masses believe that tint to be Objectivity, then they believe something entirely false.
But beyond news anchors, what responsibility do the rest of us have to tell each other what we honestly think or feel? I mean, is it any of their business anyway? What right do they have to my inner thoughts and feelings about things?
Well, none of course. Which brings me to the clause that I have added to the whole honesty thing: honest acceptance of your failings. You could also word it as “lowered expectations.”
We live in a society where people don’t trust each other, where people too often view each other as enemies, threats, or a means to an end. If someone suddenly spoke in an unrestrained honest manner about everything he/she thought and felt it would be the equivalent of martyrdom. They would be crucified for poor manners, inconsistencies, and anti-socialism. We live in a society that can’t handle the truth about each other.
Brave people can shrug this off and lead a live in which they are completely and brutally honest with everyone they meet. I am not that brave. I am not even half that brave. I suspect most of you aren’t either. But rather than beat myself, and you, up about that, I try to be as honest as I can in every situation I think of it. I try as often as possible to reflect on questions that people ask me and give honest answers when I think they are appropriate. I need to work on phrasing things more accurately, and in taking more time to reflect, but I am working on it. There are also many, many times when I don’t answer honestly, when I say something to gain an advantage over someone, or protect myself, regardless of whether it is an accurate reflection of my own thoughts and feelings. And I am learning to accept that as part of my faults.
I am also writing this blog. I try my hardest to express as clearly and honestly and as possible the things I am thinking and feeling here in this blog, even if it is gross, unpopular, or compromising.
I strongly believe that, as people strive for more honest interactions, we will see each other as human beings, worthy of Love, and able to give Love in return. I may not being saving people from Hell with my brother’s trumpet, or giving editorials about the election results and the state of Canadian politics, but I believe each time I try to punch through the masks with something honest, I make it a little easier for people to Love each other, for me to Love you, and you to Love me.
Back in my Christian days, that song by LSU (Mike Knott with an interchangeable backup band) was a favourite of mine. It reiterated how Evangelical Christians gain what they perceive to be some sort of freedom from the shackles of sin, some sort of liberation into God’s grace, only to sacrifice it in order to look good for other Christians. Instead of talking about their faults, their struggles, and their doubts, they hide them away, ashamed and embarrassed by them. Those who don’t hide them are often ostracized.
I preached on this once. I remember doing a sermon on the role of the “watch” from Ezekiel. It was the watch’s responsibility to blow his horn if he saw the enemies coming, so the Israelites could prepare for battle. If he didn’t blow his horn and the camp was slaughtered, the blood was on his head. If he did blow his horn and people ignored it (why would you do that?) then it was their won fault. In the Bible, this is likened to the role of the Prophet, to whom God gives a special vision of the future consequences of certain actions. I likened it to Christians, who I thought had a similar responsibility to spread the good news of atonement to all who had ears to hear.
But it didn’t leave it as a simple “if you don’t tell your friend about Jesus they’ll go to Hell and it will be your fault” message. I admitted how hard it was to share, and how awkward it was. The solution, I thought was for Christians to be honest about their experiences with God. This is extremely hard, so to practice, we should start in the church, where there should be a strong supportive environment.
To illustrate, I took my brothers trumpet and blew. Out came a horrible, awful sound. I didn’t know anything about playing the trumpet, after all. Then my brother played something, and it sounded much better because he had practiced.
As I have explained elsewhere, the entire foundation of my Christianity has deteriorated, leaving me with little to build on. I have the notion that expressing Love to each other, a respectful, empathetic sort of Love, is important. But that feels sort of vague.
I am prepared to reattach another piece, with a few modifications.
I hereby state that I believe open, honest discussion about feelings and experiences are an important part of expressing and receiving the kind of Love. Furthermore, any attempt to shroud or hide this, especially behind a guise of objectivity, damages that expression.
This came up in a debate I was having with Minako recently. I was talking about how I thought news anchors should be free to express their opinion and experiences about whatever new story they were covering, and that to abstain from clearly expressing said opinion/experience is simply expressing it an a more subtle and deceptive way. Minako feels that this is entirely unethical, and that objectivity should be strived for in journalism. As so often happens in debates with Minako, things continued to spiral away from the original topic (Why didn’t the two fictional anchors on Sports Night name the players who they speculated had been traded by the Dodgers in the fictional deadline deal?) and ended with how can I say these things if I don’t follow the news and don’t do anything to back up or support those who agree with me. I was, of course, perturbed by this on many different levels, but it lead me to this addition to my personal manifesto.
First, I firmly believe that it is damn near impossible to escape our subjectivity when talking about a topic. Even if we state something that is a clear, agreed upon, and verifiable fact, the way we state it, the tone of voice, the words we choose, and the order we place the ideas, betray something about how we fell about the fact. Or even worse, is an attempt to fool the other person into believing that you feel a certain way about something when you don’t feel that way at all. Objectivity is the worst impression, in my mind, because it is so razor thin that no one can really achieve it. The laugh of a news anchor, the tone of voice in which he/she reads the intro, the placement of the story in the lineup, even the particular adjective he/she chooses to use, all paint the facts with a certain tint. And if the general masses believe that tint to be Objectivity, then they believe something entirely false.
But beyond news anchors, what responsibility do the rest of us have to tell each other what we honestly think or feel? I mean, is it any of their business anyway? What right do they have to my inner thoughts and feelings about things?
Well, none of course. Which brings me to the clause that I have added to the whole honesty thing: honest acceptance of your failings. You could also word it as “lowered expectations.”
We live in a society where people don’t trust each other, where people too often view each other as enemies, threats, or a means to an end. If someone suddenly spoke in an unrestrained honest manner about everything he/she thought and felt it would be the equivalent of martyrdom. They would be crucified for poor manners, inconsistencies, and anti-socialism. We live in a society that can’t handle the truth about each other.
Brave people can shrug this off and lead a live in which they are completely and brutally honest with everyone they meet. I am not that brave. I am not even half that brave. I suspect most of you aren’t either. But rather than beat myself, and you, up about that, I try to be as honest as I can in every situation I think of it. I try as often as possible to reflect on questions that people ask me and give honest answers when I think they are appropriate. I need to work on phrasing things more accurately, and in taking more time to reflect, but I am working on it. There are also many, many times when I don’t answer honestly, when I say something to gain an advantage over someone, or protect myself, regardless of whether it is an accurate reflection of my own thoughts and feelings. And I am learning to accept that as part of my faults.
I am also writing this blog. I try my hardest to express as clearly and honestly and as possible the things I am thinking and feeling here in this blog, even if it is gross, unpopular, or compromising.
I strongly believe that, as people strive for more honest interactions, we will see each other as human beings, worthy of Love, and able to give Love in return. I may not being saving people from Hell with my brother’s trumpet, or giving editorials about the election results and the state of Canadian politics, but I believe each time I try to punch through the masks with something honest, I make it a little easier for people to Love each other, for me to Love you, and you to Love me.
posted by deadwriter at 10:00 p.m.
5 Comments:
Until the disaster of the Hindenburg, radio news was read in complete monotone because a) they thought it sounded better because they didn't think emotion would carry on air; and b) it helped reduced inference by the broadcaster.
Do think it's better or worse now that buddy's voice cracked when 35 people burst into flames 69 years ago?
I haven't listened to many broadcasts from before the Hindenburg, so I can't really compare. From the little I could find on the internet, it sounds like "buddy's" emotion was clearly conveyed through the radio waves.
I can also imagine how the expression of emotion by radio broadcasters, and inflection in tone is better than monotone. While I'm sure the motivation to be objective by speaking monotone is pure and good natured, I still think it fails horribly.
Now broadcasters use the inflection and tone of voice, but still hide behind objectivity, which I think is still terrible. Only in a few unguarded moments does an anchor let his/her true feelings and opinions about a subject be known in no uncertain terms. I suppose without buddy, anchor's wouldn't even have those. So, based on what I know right now, I'd have to say it's better.
deadwriter
Okay, I consider myself to be a pretty honest person. I identify to a certain degree with the sort of honesty that leads to martyrdom. (Only to some degree though). I have noticed that I don't get much thanks for it, but I do get a lot of negative feedback. I think being honest about good things increases Love, sure. I think honestly complaining is less helpful. Also, I'm not sure what honesty about general opinions does for anyone. What difference does it make if I contribute my opinion about objectivity in journalism, for example? None of us are journalists. Our opinion is not relevant to our daily lives in any way. I don't think that there is objectivity in journalism, and pretending that there is only helps to fool the naive. This is an idle opinion. It is not a feeling or an experience, so it doesn't really bring anyone closer to me for knowing it. If I had chosen not to share it to avoid a pointless disagreement, I am not shrouding myself in objectivity. I am not preventing expression and reception of Love. I am simply not engaging in a pointless conversation.
The tone of this comment isn't very warm, is it? I sound harsh, but I'm just being honest. Perhaps this is an example of when my honesty would be better unexpressed. If so, it only reinforces my opinion.
It's less abotu having a specific opinion about every issue, and more about honestly stating your feelings or opinions at the time.
For example, in the context of a conversation, you might say "I don't want to talk about this."
News anchors, on the other hand, are already talking about things, and hide the opinion they have about those subjects.
This is more about being as transparent as possible in interactions with people without making yourself a martyr. In real life, it is a difficult balance.
Some people, as I said, can be honest all the tiem without making themselves a martyr, but I only know OF those people (I can't really verify the honesy thing as a result) and they are usually some kind of monk or something who has all kind of support at the end of the day. If everyone were like that, I'm sure it would be a lot easier to live with each other, and people would be less ofended by the thigns other people say.
But as it is, you are right, honesty doesn't always work in every situation of contemporary life. Most times though, when you are forced, or feel compelled to lie to someone, it doesn't bring you closer. It makes you feel more alienated from that person. You don't lie so that people will Love you. You lie to survive, or gain an advantage, or control the situation, or because you think it's in the other person's best interest. While some of those sentiments might come from some sort of love for the other pserson, they don't often foster a closer relationship.
Yeah, I would agree that a lie or an omission of truth will not bring people closer. I just think that there are times when honesty won't either, or when it would bring people closer, but with harsh consequences. I look forward to reading more about honesty as you figure it out.
Post a Comment
<< Home