What Would Mr. Rogers Do?

“Idiot.”

While riding my bicycle recently, a pickup truck passed by and the driver very clearly articulated his opinion of me through his open window.  I didn’t and couldn’t argue that a cyclist has as much right to be on the road as a driver.  I have learned that one can’t argue with three tons of sheet metal from the saddle of an eighteen pound carbon bicycle.  Giving the driver the benefit of the doubt, I suspect he is not a hateful person but simply gave in to a stereotypical response of frustration at how cyclists temporarily hamper vehicle traffic.  

I didn’t take his jibe personally, but it did set me to musing on the ways I have spoken the same word, “idiot,” to refer to certain politicians, or other newsworthy persons, who seem to have acted rashly, unthinkingly or, to put it bluntly, stupidly.  I have found myself in recent years using the “i” word more frequently than I remember in the past.  Are there more ignorant people about these days, or have I become less tolerant and charitable?

All this musing on idiocy has included thoughts on Fred Rogers, of children’s TV, who I believe is one of the greatest individuals in modern history.  While I never watched Mr. Rogers in childhood, and I discounted him as boring while my own children were growing up, I have since paid more attention to who he was and what he sought to accomplish.  I have come to love and respect him, and have sought to emulate him in my own actions, particularly the way in which he gave unfeigned attention to each individual with whom he came into contact.  He demonstrated a depth of empathy that is rare in human relationships.  And while it was popular for a while for Christians to ask, “What would Jesus do?”  I have found myself asking, “What would Mr. Rogers do?”

I suspect he would not call anyone an idiot.  He would understand the childhood trauma, or neglect, that leads to gaps in personal growth.  He would comprehend that bad behavior is often the result of a failure in the nurture of an individual.  My insight into this gracious approach to persons came many years ago in relation to a member of my church who seemed to take a special interest in making my life hell.  He criticized my sermons, my decisions, my vision for the church.  I hated to see him coming into my office because I knew I would have to deal with another gripe session.  He struck me as an angry, hateful man.  In the course of my pastoral work in that church, I eventually learned that his son had died while only in his 20’s, and I began to believe that this father’s anger was directed at God, and not at me.  I began to pray for him, and to see him, not as someone possessed by some demonic force, but stricken with grief and pain.  From that insight forward, I was no longer plagued by my encounters with him. I was able to love him and be a pastor to him, even though his behavior toward me never changed.  I never liked him.  But I could love him.

I have tried this approach with those who I have a tendency to label as idiots.  To try to empathize with the ignorant is not for the faint of heart.  Nor is it easily done.  I lapse.  I try to picture the bully politician as a child who was not well-loved.  I ask, “What would Mr. Rogers do?”  Here I am, sixty-three years old, and I’m still trying to be a decent human being.

On Stupidity

I used to think that ignorance, or stupidity, was a social ill that could be addressed and corrected by education, information, facts, etc.  I have since been convinced that so much ignorance is actually an act of will - a willful refusal to accept what is true.  As such an act of willfulness, ignorance is a sin, with the consequent damage sin brings with it.

Bonhoeffer's observation offers no solution.  I'm not sure there is one.  I suggested in my last blog that the Christian response to the ignorant is grace and mercy, but to offer grace is a sacrifice.  To offer grace to the willfully ignorant is a gift given, expecting nothing in return.  Indeed, the ignorant person will not consider it a gift but his due.  The ignorant person feels entitled, deserving, to whatever good comes her way.  This is why the Christian cannot offer grace with a transactional mindset.  We cannot expect that the offer of grace will necessarily lead to a change in the willfully ignorant.  No, the offer of grace is a sacrifice.  We offer grace not because we expect results.  We offer grace because this is the nature of God.  This is Christlikeness, and this is the only thing that matters.

Of course, grace is to govern our relationship and response to the willfully ignorant.  However, this does not mean we are choosing to be ignorant ourselves.  We can continue to act rationally and ethically in opposition to the ignorant.  They vote.  We vote.  They run for office.  We run for office.  There must be alternatives to ignorance.  We must act in spite of, and in opposition to, ignorance.  We must continue to allow facts to guide our actions in contradiction to the uninformed biases and rants of the ignorant.  

I am uncomfortable with this line of thinking, however.  I realize I am creating a false “us” versus “them” dichotomy, as if I am the arbiter of who qualifies as rational . . . as if I am not ignorant, myself.  In the past I have tried to avoid this kind of dualistic thinking because I see the danger in this kind of judgment.  Jesus warned us about seeing the speck in our neighbor’s eye while refusing to remove the log in our own eye.  So, one must be aware of and accept one’s own ignorance.  To judge another as ignorant can be a serious mistake.  But . . . how can we live without making judgments?  Is it not also a serious mistake to allow ignorance to have its way in the world?  

I take some comfort that Bonhoeffer and I are in agreement.  If I have erred in my judgments, I am in good company.  Ignorance cannot be left unconfronted.  Otherwise, it will be the death of all of us.  

Ignorance Is No Excuse

In my ministry I have attempted to be a pastor to all, whether a member of my church, or a member of the community.  Whether they were agreeable or disagreeable.  Whether their opinions were mine or not.  Whether they were rich or poor.  In other words, I tried to offer grace and respect to everyone.  The theology of pastoral work is the recognition that each person is formed in the image of God.  Or, coming at this from a different angle, each individual is someone for whom Christ died.  As an ordained minister, or as a lay person, we are to acknowledge the reflection of God in each person.  As one popular folk song put it, “The Christ in me greets the Christ in thee.”

To be honest, this has been hard work.  But fruitful.  To love someone who is ornery, or whose opinions are repulsive, is difficult.  But in seeking to understand, or empathize, with someone has helped me to come at issues from different perspectives.  I have learned that someone’s present anger and hostility might be rooted in some past pain and grievance that has never been resolved.  I have discovered that a bully may have not been loved as a child.  Typically, the reason someone may be a difficult character in the present is because they have endured some kind of suffering in the past.  Through my experiences I have learned to be tolerant of others, to sympathize with their weaknesses, and to attempt to love them into wholeness - not always successfully, but worth the effort.

But one of the hardest obstacles to my capacity to love another has been their ignorance.  I used to think that ignorance was something that people couldn’t help - that it was a failure in their education, in their upbringing - a sociological problem.  And though it is anecdotal, my experience has taught me that ignorance is in many ways more intractable, like sin itself.  How else can one explain that ignorance exists not only in the poorly educated, but also in the Ivy League graduate?  Why else would otherwise rational individuals hold opinions that are counter to their own interests?  As one example, who in their right mind would deny the historic efficacy of vaccination in public health, and yet scores of educated people refuse to have their children vaccinated.  Another example, glaciers are retreating at unprecedented rates and polar regions are becoming navigable, yet supposedly intelligent politicians and lobbyists refuse to acknowledge that this might be a problem.

In the criminal justice system, ignorance of the law has never been an excuse leading to acquittal.  Yet in civic affairs, in the running of government, in every day human interaction, ignorance is a constant source of conflict and dispute.  Don’t confuse us with the facts.  Opinions rule the day.  People cut off their noses to spite their faces.  As Bruce Hornsby once sang, “Hey, old man, how can you stand to think that way?”  

As a pastor I have tried to offer grace to the ignorant.  My model for this is Jesus, of course.  As he was being crucified, Jesus extended grace to his killers, “Father, forgive them, because they don’t know what they’re doing.”  To forgive is a recognition that a sin has been committed.  In other words, ignorance is a sin.  A sin that can only be redeemed by grace.  What sticks in my craw, however, is that ignorance leads to suffering for others.  Jesus suffered because of ignorance.  People continue to suffer because of ignorance.  To me, this fact is appalling.  Even infuriating.  But no amount of education or reasoned argument is able to correct ignorance, it seems.  Only grace.  Only forgiveness.  

May God grant me mercy in the presence of ignorance that I may respond with grace.  And may I, unaware of my own ignorance, be more like the repentant Pharisee, asking, “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.”           

Self-Restraint

But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 1 Corinthians 8:9

The apostle Paul was a cheerleader for Christian freedom (Galatians 5:1).  He often made the case in his letters that Christ’s atoning work set us free from the stringencies of the law.  But the freedom that Paul describes is not freedom from responsibility.  Indeed, there is an expectation that Christian freedom leads to direct responsibility for relationships with others.  The defining parameter for Christian freedom is found in the scriptural command, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  (Galatians 5:14)

Thus, love of neighbor provides the guiding principle for our freedom.  We are free to do whatever leads to the good for our neighbor.  John Wesley’s first two General Rules underscore this guiding principle - Do no harm, and do good.  Certainly, Christian freedom guards against self-interest at the expense of the community.  

Our present pandemic crisis serves as an illustration of two juxtaposing expressions of freedom.  There are those who are interpreting their freedom as a license to do as they please regardless of what is best for the community.  Protesters armed with weapons enter a government building in Michigan in order to demonstrate their freedom.  On the other hand, medical professionals from different states voluntarily offer their services to hospitals in New York City to aid their efforts to help patients suffering from COVID-19.  If those two examples express the extremes of a freedom continuum, which of the two appears to be the best example of Christian freedom?  Duh.

Clearly, there are two values that are at war with each other at the present time - the value of health and wellness versus the value of financial well-being.  There are also two kinds of suffering that result if either of those values are sacrificed.  There is no unanimity of opinion on which of these values should have priority, though the majority of Americans have agreed that public health requires the present financial sacrifice.  There are those who disagree quietly.  And there are those who disagree belligerently.    

The apostle Paul’s guidance on our use of freedom is instructive.  We are free, he says, but not if our freedom causes another to stumble (Romans 14:13).  The Christian use of freedom, therefore, is not arrogant.  “It does not insist on its own way . . .” (1 Corinthians 13:5).  Christian freedom is most incarnate when it is expressed for the good of relationships, when it builds up community, when it shows love of the neighbor.  

I am eager for the lifting of restrictions on commerce and the easing of social distancing requirements.  I empathize with those who are suffering the loss of income and jobs and I can not imagine their bewilderment and anxiety.  I do not wish to minimize their worry and pain.  But people are dying from this disease.  More people have died in two months in the U.S. from the coronavirus than died in the many years of the Vietnam War.  At this time how can we use our freedom to do any less than what love requires?