Bronze, Silver and Golden Rules (pt. 1)

The “Golden Rule” is something of a universal in all religions and philosophies. It comes in a variety of presentations. The way the Golden Rule was presented to me was: "Treat others the way you would have them treat you." Not a bad rule indeed; however many times when I follow it I get into trouble.

I am a person who really appreciates having a fierce conversation with someone because I think that the conflict that comes from such conversation is creative and useful. Others are not a fan of such intense conversation or conflict. So when I engage in a conversation with someone and follow the golden rule that I was taught, I can get into trouble. While I want to be treated in conversation as a “sparring partner”, many others in my life do not desire this. While I am treating them the way I wish to be treated, they think that I am being a jerk.

There are countless examples where I am treating someone the way I wish to be treated only to discover that the other person perceives me as less than compassionate.

This is where I would say that the golden rule taught to me may be more of a silver rule. Not a bad rule, but it clearly has shortcomings – I might even submit there is a “bronze rule”: Do not treat others the way you would not have them treat you.

This “bronze rule” is the “silver rule” in the negative. So sticking with the example, I do not desire to be disrespected in conversation. So at the very least I need to not disrespect the other person. This “bronze rule” is helpful to guide us to do “no harm” but, like all other probations, it does not guide us to “do good”. Thus the “silver rule” (Treat others the way you would have them treat you) is helpful to guide us to action.

However, both the “bronze” and “silver” rules are egocentric. That is to say, it puts my needs above your needs. I want conflictual conversation. I do not want to be disrespected. These are not “bad”, but they put the self at the center of the action.

The next post will attempt to share an alternate presentation of the Golden Rule that steps away from egocentrism and into a more compassionate posture of living.

Preachers sometimes don't tell the truth on purpose

Preaching is less a public speaking teaching opportunity and more an act of worship. This means that sometimes, preachers don't tell the truth on purpose. That does not mean that preachers lie, only that preaching as an at of worship is trying to communicate a deeper and transcendent reality than the truth can express. Which is why the old preacher joke ("are you telling the truth or are you preaching?") is funny. Preaching does not always share the truth. 

Before we freak out, let me be clear, there is a difference in telling the truth and telling Truth. The story of the "Giving Tree" is not a story about the truth but it is full of Truth. Most children's books I have experienced do not tell the truth on purpose either, but that is to be expected by the reader. I would submit that when we began to see the preaching moment as primarily a "teaching moment" we reduced preaching to teaching the truth and that means many times preacher are not able to express with deep wonder and beauty Truth of the Gospel. Yes, you can make a children's book about how much a mother loves her son and it will be True, but it has not captured the imagination as the story of a tree that loves a boy (which is not the truth but very True).

Many preachers often don't tell the truth on purpose because preachers are not trying to share the truth but they are trying to express Truth - just like Jesus.

The parables of Jesus are not the truth, but they are True. There was not a woman who searched her house for the missing coin or a man who had two sons or a man who sold all they had for treasure in a field or a Good Samaritan or...

If something has to be the truth in order for you to accept any Truth in it, then you are missing a lot of beauty and joy. Don't let the lack of truth keep you from seeing Truth in this world.

"Think with your eyes and feel with your ears"

Malcolm Gladwell was on "Late Show" with Stephen Colbert not long ago. Colbert asked Gladwell why he was making a podcast when he is more than able to sell books and is quite popular in the world of popular writing. In response, Gladwell cited his friend Charles (I cannot catch the last name) who said, "you think with eyes and feel with your ears." 

There is a little back and forth here between the two while Gladwell attempts to make his overall point but here is the interview in full to consider:

While Colbert has a point that there are times that we "feel" deeply when we read a book or a poem. I would argue that the times we are emotionally moved by a text is when we allow it to "speak" to us and we "hear it" in our souls. However, Gladwell's point is getting at there is so much conveyed in sound that is lost on a page. You don't catch the nuances that come though when someone is speaking about something that is at their core. Sure you can read a sermon, but it is much different to hear a sermon.

For instance, this is the video clip of the moment that Gladwell mentions that will forever be remembered from Colbert's previous interview: 

Notice Munoz's voice and pauses and pacing and tone. There is an emotion and a feeling that one cannot get by just reading the transcripts. 

At risk of sounding like a technology curmudgeon, when we prefer to use text over voice as a primary communication then we need to understand what we are loosing. The gains in productivity we may get in "texting" another are perhaps by way of sacrificing the emotional connection we build when we talk to one another. 

I am not sure how one would go about tracking if the rise of text communication is inversely related to the decline of empathy but there are interesting studies that explore the decline of empathy.

We may be getting smarter but we may also getting "the feels" less often.