"So, what I hear you saying is..."

In the past few weeks, the news has been dominated by stories of conflict. Two opposing sides go at each other to battle for supremacy, with what seems to be a "might makes right" mentality determining who is right.

The first story that comes to mind is the Cordoba House, or "Ground Zero Mosque" in New York. Opponents claim that it is insensitive to build a mosque so close to a "sacred site," and supporters asserting free speech rights and religious freedom.

Another story is the illegal immigration debate. Tea Party members are holding rallies at the border saying we should put guards on the Mexican side to keep "them" out, and others not doing enough to point out corporate abuses of illegal immigrants by hiring them and allowing timed federal raids so as not to disturb production.

The third story is the most recent. Dr. Laura Schlessinger said on Larry King Live that she will step down at the end of her radio show contract to "regain her first amendment rights" after she used the "N" word 11 times on her show. A black woman called to ask how to confront her white husband about comments his friends and family make (including use of the "N" word) that she finds offensive. Dr. Laura then criticized the woman for being "hypersensitive" and used "that" word and defending her usage by saying black comedians use it on HBO all the time. The woman said she was offended by Dr. Laura's usage and was told she has "a chip on her shoulder."
Here's the audio. She has since issued an apology. (More on this later, it's wild stuff).

All three of these stories feature a solid example of people's inability to listen to what another person is actually saying. In every story, and on both sides, few people (and usually not the ones with any publicity) are listening. Just yelling.

When Lindsey and I were in premarital counseling, our friend Seth Hankee gave us a pretty basic, but wonder-working tool for situations of conflict. He suggested we use the phrase, "so, wat I hear you saying is..." and then reiterate to the other party what it is exactly that one thinks they are saying. The other party is then given a chance to respond. When either Lindsey or myself asks this, it is usually the beginning of the end of our dispute. We begin to listen.

There's an example in the NY Times article I linked about an opponent of the mosque apologizing to a supporter for the way he spoke to him in a previous encounter. Pretty stellar. Way to set an example sir. Humility is the first step to conflict resolution.

Now let's practice. "What I hear you saying is..."

A Brief Look at the Miseducation of the American Christian.

One of my very favorite books is Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire. A key idea in the book is the discussion and critique of what Freire calls the banking concept of education. The idea is that the teacher deposits (banks) their knowledge into the student, with the implication that the student is completely ignorant and can only receive what is given to them directly. The teachers knows and understands. The student does not. This relationship provides the teacher with power over the student. It is the job of the student receive, file, and store the deposits of the teacher (pg 72).

Where's the issue? Freire points out that the idea of a teacher giving the student the "gift" of their knowledge projects an absolute ignorance of the students and that this is a characteristic of the ideology of oppression (72). No one learns. You get what the teacher has allowed. Education is drenched in presupposition.

I feel like this is how Americans approach our faith. We assume that because our nation is wealthy and powerful that God approves of it and its dealings in itself and around the world. We then read the Bible from this perspective. Rather than faith informing culture, culture informs faith. By doing this we are defending the status quo, which is an historically oppressive act.

This is how we're taught to share our faith. We share our tidbits of salvation* knowledge with the lowly sinners who should feel privileged to hear our words. This is why the word "missionary" often makes people cringe. Missionaries are famous for going somewhere with a hero complex and dismantling peoples ways of life (read Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe).

This is the opposite of what Jesus said and did. He was the very opposite of oppressive. He was and is the liberator. He acted with compassion and respect for other people. He submitted. When asked questions, he often resonded with one of his own. This is the opposite of the banking concept, it is the "problem-posing" concept (pg 80, PotO). He made people think. He also mentioned (read: stated clearly) that the world's definition of wealth and power is different (read: oftentimes opposite) from that of God's kingdom.

In teaching the principles of the kingdom, Jesus used problem-posing (liberating) techniques instead of just telling people how they should live. An example of this is his healings of the sick. Walter Brueggemann points out that by healing lepers ("unclean" people), Jesus was contradicting the societal norms of his day. By doing so he discredited the moral distinctions of the culture and thus discredited the power structures that put them in place (The Prophetic Imagination, pg 107).

When faith in Jesus informs our view of culture, the world is turned upside-down.

* When I first typed out the word "salvation" I mis-typed "slavation." I find this fitting because when we have a hero complex we do not share the freedom of God and his kingdom. Instead we perpetuate oppression.

Minaret Ban.

It's been forever since I posted, and there are things I've been meaning to write about, but this is more important at the moment. It's an article about the recent ban on minarets in Switzerland.

Peace.

Hockey People.

Last night I had a couple from Toronto come through Starbucks. They were on their way home. When I found out they were from Toronto, I got really excited and asked if they were Leafs fans. They were (and probably still are). We chatted for a minute, and shook hands and wished each others' teams well for the season. I smiled a big smile.

About an hour later, a woman came in wearing a Predators jacket and t-shirt. We started chatting and I told her that my lovely wife and I are going to the Blackhawks game on Saturday in Chicago(!!) and that we're really excited and such. I told her about the Toronto folks an hour before and she gave me two big thumbs down. I said, "no, no, it was great. I love talking to hockey people, especially Canadian ones. You gotta' see it kinda' like denominations in Christianity, we root for different teams, but we're following the same sport, we're family." She understood.

I wished them well in their travels and they left. I smiled again. Hockey people are great. You got "family" all over the place. I mean, even if you come in wearing some devils or Penguins jersey, we can talk hockey. And that's what's important. We can connect right off the bat.

I love hockey people.

PS: Youtube some Coaches Corner. It's hilarious, ridiculous, and informative. Don Cherry is a complete madman and watching Ron MacLean react week after week is priceless.

Starbucks Via.

As you may or may not know, Starbucks recently released their version of instant coffee called "Via." In all honesty, it is not terrible. If you go by taste.

Starbucks prides itself on making the best coffee in possibly the whole world. I cannot verify this, as I am a rather inexperienced coffee drinker and also have not had coffee all over the world, but people who's coffee opinions I respect enjoy Starbucks coffee and regard it as high quality. Instant coffee is not revered for its quality. In fact, it is generally regarded as cheap (the bad kind) and pretty much anything EXCEPT high quality. The question must then be raised, "Why make a Starbucks instant coffee?"

The fundamental answer is very simple. Money.

This can't be denied. As we sat in the introductory meeting to this stuff - in which it was shown as this wonderful thing because you can put it in warm milk and make a "Via latte," or "Via whip" cream, perhaps a distraction from the basic idea that it is after all instant coffee - my store manager repeatedly mentioned that the instant coffee market is a $21 billion industry, and Starbucks has only 4% of that (which of course begs the question, if it owns 4% of it, don't they already make instant coffee?).

Towards the end of the meeting, during the questions part, I asked why this was happening. I said, the automobile industry is also a multi-billion dollar industry, so are we going to start making cars (the point being that instant coffee and Starbucks are not same product, if even related at all)? I was met with the same answer: The instant coffee market is a $21 billion industry, we only have a small piece of it. Our regional manager said that I need to look at it differently, that "15 years ago he would have had the same response." He went on saying that it opens so much room for growth and expansion.

He means and meant money. For the people up top. The ones with paid hour-long lunch breaks and sustainable pay. The ones that make the impossible-to-meet standards of keeping a clean store and potentially never had to. They're the ones that benefit.

Starbucks managed to at least try to cover it up for a while. But it caught up with them (rather, we're realizing it). They and Walmart, Nike, and any other corporation with a bad name, are all on the same team.  

Here's the commercial for it. Doesn't look or sound too terrible, does it? Come on. Dunkin Donuts sells pizza and flat-bread sandwiches now. Everybody pushes the envelope to inane degrees that people call "smart business" because it's an additional and "unique" way to make money.

"Fortified cares and modified principles. Convenience is the name of the game. Self-indulgence is the rule."

Ultimately I think it's degrading to both Starbucks and their customers.