Today's reading: Job 18-19; Romans 16
Reading Job and his friends' conversation keeps making me think of how every contentious conversation seems to go these days...
Like we talked about at the beginning of this book, Job and his friends are coming at this conversation with some base assumptions about how the world does/doesn't work. Mainly, they believe that the world operates according to a strict principle of just retribution, where each person necessarily gets what they deserve. If it is going well with someone, it's because they have done well, and if things go poorly for someone, it's because they have lived unrighteously. Because they believe this, Job's friends look at his horrendous situation and have no choice but conclude that Job has committed some heinous sin to warrant what he is experiencing. On the flip side, while Job also shares this view of the world, he also knows he has not done anything to deserve his circumstances, so he is increasingly frustrated by his friends' accusations, and increasingly wanting answers from God.
The reason I say this keeps making me think of how contentious conversations seem to always go today is because, in whatever issue, people today, at least in America, seem to be largely unable to consider a base assumption or perspective other than their own, which generally means no productive conversation could possibly happen. One of the more glaring issues in the center of public conversation right now is the abortion debate. The two major sides of the debate are starting from different base assumptions, but instead of starting the conversation from those differences, mud is slung back and forth based on the outworking of those non-shared base assumptions. One side believes life starts at conception, and therefore sees abortion as murder. So while there may be some willingness to discuss edge-cases of medical issues, danger to the mother, etc., largely abortion is simply wrong because we wouldn't allow the same killing of a child after birth. The other side of the debate though generally holds that life starts at birth, which means the primary consideration for abortion is not the life of the baby (since they don't have one yet), but the life, and quality thereof, of the mother. The result is one side considering the other murderers, and one side considering the others oppressors, trying to take undue control over a woman's body. The problem is that neither argument will ever ring true to the opposition because the differing base assumptions mean a completely different consideration of the results.
And this is what's going on with Job and his friends. If their worldview is correct, then there is no way in which such things happen to Job without him committing serious wrong doing, so they are approaching Job, calling on him to be honest about what it was he did, so that he can repent and be healed. They are doing what they believe to be the best thing for Job, to get him to be forthright. But for Job's part, knowing his innocence, his friends are simply thoughtless accusers, and "friends" who don't actually trust him. The result is that no progress is ever made in the conversation, things only get increasingly heated and alienated.
But imagine if Job's friends had been willing to actually consider Job's words and work through his confusion with him? How differently might that conversation have gone, for all of them, if they had been willing to consider that maybe there was something off about their base assumptions? Or even if they had just been willing to suspend their base assumptions for a few moments for the sake of the conversation. Job would have been a very different book...
We need to learn to see the humanity in the people we disagree with and be more willing to consider that they very likely come to their differing viewpoint honestly. We need to develop a curiosity that will lead more to dialog than to vitriol, even if base assumptions never change in the process.
No comments:
Post a Comment