Yesterday I explored Charles Spurgeon’s concept of maintaining a deaf ear and a blind eye to ornery dissensions, gossip, hearsay, polarized-political complaining, and general malcontentedness among people who have more invested in keeping animosity alive than actually solving anything.
These temperamental types are, as I quoted Spurgeon previously, best to “have nothing to do with” or there will be “no end to the strife.”
But what about discussions involving two or more perspectives on an issue, carried on in the motivation of constructively explaining, expounding, educating, or relating experientially?
When the motivation is to solve, or begin to solve, or to elicit cooperation so that possible avenues towards betterment can be considered and perhaps adopted, what is our attitude then?
Would we say that we are open to, essentially, open dialogue?
Or do we find ourselves automatically becoming defensive, alert for offense, or just plain fatalistic that anything can ever change (especially if we are forced to work with, instead of against, so-and-so or such and such group which we thus far have not wanted to)?
This would beg the question:
Have we ever stopped to think how much we operate out of preconceived conclusions, and then seek, or listen to, only the sources that support them? Is our priority to maintain our assumptions and opinions, respect for others be damned?
When exposed to alternative viewpoints, do we hear with ears shut, or do we listen with ears open in order to understand, even though we may not agree?
And if we do discover that we now agree—essentially changing our mind—are we confident and wise enough to admit and publicly acknowledge it?
Do we comprehend that a sincere seeking of a fair and balanced worldview is the necessary first step towards peace among people who claim to be of good will?
And is that, ultimately and sincerely, what we honestly want?
And if not, why not?
Copyright Barb Harwood
No comments:
Post a Comment