The Method Does Matter

I was watching a video message on a controversial social issue, and it stated: "If This Video Makes You Uncomfortable, Then You Make Me Uncomfortable," and it had a thought-provoking message, but I disagreed with its method. I have seen messages from conservatives and liberals alike attempting to convince or argue their points to the opposition with an antagonistic tone and attitude and it accomplished nothing, except maybe to perpetuate stereotypes the other side already holds against its opposition, and to entrench the opposition more stubbornly into its position. This especially stands true on touchy topics like homosexuality and abortion. When one has a constructive goal in mind, this is counterproductive.

 If someone makes you feel wrong or immoral because of a difference of conviction or opinion, do you listen with an open mind, or do you run the other way? Christ always approached sinners in a spirit, not of opposition--but of love and acceptance--even when he disagreed with their life choices, and their responses to him were miraculous. He changed lives. Take when Jesus talks to the woman at the well: 

 When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” ⁸ (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)

⁹ The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.^[a])

¹⁰ Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

¹¹ “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? ¹² Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?”

¹³ Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, ¹⁴ but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

¹⁵ The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”

¹⁶ He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”

¹⁷ “I have no husband,” she replied.

Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. ¹⁸ The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”

¹⁹ “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. ²⁰ Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”

²¹ “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. ²² You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. ²³ Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. ²⁴ God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth" (New International Version, John 4: 9-21).

When he tells the woman she has five husbands, he is not judging her, but simply telling her what he knows about her. He is Jesus, therefore without sin. No one else can claim that. And the fact is, he does not care what his disciples or the Pharisees think of him speaking to a Samaritan woman because it is his responsibility to love her as one created by God. She is from a people the Jews "despised," but this makes no difference to Jesus. Jesus cared about her lifestyle choices, but never once did he condemn or judge her, even while being truthful about those choices. Jesus seems more concerned her spirit's well being and telling people the good news. It is not that he tolerated sin, but he seems to prefer helping the very ones others despised:  tax collectors, adulterers, prostitutes, Samaritans, poor people, and lepers, just to name a few.

If someone wants to promote love and acceptance, then they cannot do it by antagonizing the very person they intend to convince. If they want someone to be open and accepting, they must be the same way. It is a two way street, regardless. If one uses condemnation, judgment and guilt, one is perpetuating the opposite of the very values they claim to uphold. Cycles of hatred and discrimination cannot be ended with the same.

They must be begun with peace, love, and understanding, even to those whom one means to change. Change only comes from within, when the individual makes a free will choice to do so. All the more reason the method does matter. Often, one may even agree with the message, but a judgmental method does not add credibility the argument. I know I've been guilty of this getting caught up in my own thoughts and feelings about an issue, but regardless of how emotional an argument, or even how "right" a side is, mutual respect is essential if any meaningful dialogue or progress is to be made on important issues in our culture.