I don’t think listening to groups is much the key to human
misery. Listening to individuals can do
a lot. I wish I were better at that, as
I think it is an important declaration that you value them. Christian groups
are prime candidates for confusing the two.
We correctly believe that listening is important, and leap to the
conclusion that all types of listening are important. It gets even trickier when it is an
individual who is purporting to speak for a group. Helper-types sometimes think of themselves in
that way, that they are expressing the needs of many others, and that to reject
listening to them is to reject
listening to all the folks they claim to represent. We see it now with racial and ethnic groups,
made especially poignant when it is Christians speaking to Christians on behalf
of Christians. Everyone means well, but
that doesn’t mean useful information is being exchanged or real comfort is
being given.
Women’s opinions and experiences in the church are too
diverse for anyone to pretend to be speaking for more than a minority of them
on any issue. I am especially suspicious of this particular advocacy at
present, not because people don’t mean well and don’t try hard, but because I
don’t see useful information being exchanged or real comfort being given.
I have long seen this in mental health. Advocacy groups have done good things, and
sometimes will be useful simply because they do not grow weary when other throw
in the towel. But advocates for the
mentally ill are very likely to assume that their stories or those of their
friends are strongly representative of most other people with a mental health
issue. It just isn’t so. There is too much diversity of experience and
opinion, and too much of people wrapping their own issues – or their family
member’s – into the general questions.
Xavier Amador, researcher and speaker, does a very good job of using his
brother’s illness as an example for families without bleeding over into a claim
that this is universal.
What are we to do about injustice? First, second, and third,
we do something, and the usual first something is prayer. I am all for book
sales and conferences, but in justice issues there is a lot of focus on making
sure people are “informed” about it. Just doing something might be the better
spiritual response. A young woman on Facebook passed along a humorous
description of what all of the characters of Anne of Green Gables might do in the CoVid crisis. One of the entries for Anne was “Writes a
book about helping people rather than actually helping people.” The word people perpetuate their culture just
fine, and their solution is always to read more of each other’s writing. This is not absent in the Christian world. They mean well. I think we provide more help if we do
something, do any little thing. The hive is already well abuzz, we need more
bees out looking for nectar.
An immediate worry shows up in Evangelical (and other)
circles, pearl-clutching and saying “But we don’t want people to think that works is the way to salvation!” True, we
don’t. I’m not seeing that as much of a
danger these days, frankly. We all have
that danger in us as a tendency to steer away from, but I’m not thinking of any
people I’ve identified personally who are falling out that side of the boat. We
could use more of people doing their bit, I’m thinking.
It will be worth more to their spiritual growth than to the
cause itself, eventually. We start by
praying. Actual praying with intent and
clarity, not wishing. It is a weakness
of mine that many of my prayers, when I look at them very hard, are just
wishing in God’s presence. Then we do a little something. Then we see what comes next.
Sometimes I write to clarify my thoughts, but generally when I write about what _ought_ to happen I'm writing about what other people should do. (I notice a very limited supply of gratitude for the direction.)
ReplyDeleteRelatedly, I'm very good at Bible study, but exceptionally mediocre at "Bible practice."
Yeah, I was writing for myself, but I knew you'd be reading and I thought you'd take my point.
ReplyDeleteIt is much easier for institutions to deal with other institutions...or with groups...than with large numbers of individuals. This is probably one reason why Wal-Marts and Targets remained open when small businesses were closed.
ReplyDeleteRose Wilder Lane on government and categorization:
"Nobody can plan the actions of even a thousand living persons, separately. Anyone attempting to control millions must divide them into classes, and make a plan applying to these classes. But these classes do not exist. No two persons are alike. No two are in the same circumstances; no two have the same abilities; beyond getting the barest necessities of life, no two have the same desires.Therefore the men who try to enforce, in real life, a planned economy that is their theory, come up against the infinite diversity of human beings. The most slavish multitude of men that was ever called “demos” or “labor” or “capital” or”agriculture” or “the masses,” actually are men; they are not sheep. Naturally, by their human nature, they escape in all directions from regulations applying to non-existent classes. It is necessary to increase the number of men who supervise their actions. Then (for officials are human, too) it is necessary that more men supervise the supervisors."