L&T Publisher Earl Watt
I’m a political nerd, I know. I read multiple opinion columns on a daily basis and on occasion I agree with one or two.
But I read them, anyway.
We have gotten to the point in society where we don’t believe we have to listen to anything that does not fit our own narrative.
One person even told me they were not going to “put this in my spirit” as a response to some friendly concerns.
As a person of faith, I understand not seeking out material I know to be unacceptable to my personal beliefs. It’s totally something else when one believer refuses to listen to the concerns of another.
So who has the high ground?
Each person believes they are taking the high road, that the problem lies with the other person or group.
Social media puts a magnifying glass on this. We surround ourselves with only those who support us and lose something very necessary — someone who cares enough to tell us when we have made a mistake.
The new movie “Inside Out 2” takes a fun look at how we see ourselves, and how we cannot avoid how we are shaped by our experiences and memories, both good and bad.
If we try to simply suppress all the bad memories, we fail to learn from them.
If we attempt to avoid any criticism of any kind, we fail to learn.
What’s worse is we believe we are somehow on a higher moral ground because we only regurgitate the positive and reject the negative.
This used to be an unavoidable lesson in the media when each publication and news outlet had to be judged by those in their market. You had to listen to your critics because the town wasn’t big enough to simply reach only one side.
But with national media, it is. You can appeal to half the country and convince them they can do no wrong.
In addition, you can also tell that half that the other half is the enemy.
Those who control the microphone can control the narrative, especially when they one side it.
For example, sites like CNN and MSNBC spout off opinions, but they don’t allow comments.
They know that would be an avenue to allow alternative viewpoints contrary to their own, and they simply do not believe other ideas are worthy.
Say what you want about FOX News, but at least they allow comments.
When someone won’t even hear the views of another person, it usually comes back to the belief they are more devout, more moral or have divine authority.
Even pastors control the microphone, but if they aren’t willing to listen to other believers, or even if they refer to those with different views as attacking “the church” as if they speak for the whole, that is equally a perversion of the equality of the gift of salvation.
With a media that no longer requires the art of compromise in its message, it is no wonder the population is buying into the concept in their faith and politics.
Does any one political party exercise a higher moral authority than another?
Of course not. Both parties believe their policies will lead to a greater good. It’s even quite possible that both could be right given the circumstances. Either road may lead to a better future.
But when one side believes that the only way forward is their way and their way alone, that’s when morality is tested.
When a believer says they won’t even listen to a concern because they believe themselves to be somehow above it, that’s when churches are tested.
When a party believes they have to win an election at all costs, it is justified, in their minds, to use lawfare. It is justified to degrade half of the country as evil, because under their rule, the blind will finally see the light of their wisdom and commitment to freedom and liberty even if freedom and liberty must be sacrificed for them to win.
The problem with claiming to have the high moral ground means you are no longer willing to engage in a meaningful way, nor do you care to do so.
And when we all claim to have it, and we all quite possibly may be right, then we will justify anything to protect it.
I have no problem with people challenging the concept of freedom, and I don’t subvert their counter arguments by silencing them.
To the contrary, only through open discussion and robust debate do we really expand who we are as a people and a nation, or even a church.
When we no longer want to consider the views of the other side and instead seek to silence them, that’s when we know we aren’t dealing with someone committed to equality or freedom.
Whenever anyone attempts to forbid discussing issues with anyone other than them, they do not believe themselves to be your equal. They believe they are superior.
In Michael Kruger’s book, “The Bully Pulpit,” he writes, “While most pastors are gentle, kind, and patient, others have a proverbial knee on the neck of their sheep. They’ve been doing it for years with little or no consequences. And despite the pleas of the people, other pastors and elders sometimes stand by and let it happen. They may even defend the bully pastor. In sum, the problem is not just the abuse. It’s also the larger context that allows it to continue unchallenged.”
The only way to stop the one-sided happenings in our churches and our politics is to recognize the abuse of claiming higher morality and attempts to silence and suppress and demonize other views. We don’t have to agree, but we have to have mutual respect.
