
The feeling of offendedness is invigorating. It might even be an effective way to bend a population toward a tyrant's will. But we must never settle for it. We must not confuse an accelerated pulse rate for the presence of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. We must interrogate our offendedness, hold it open for question. Complaining about Harry Potter or getting worked up over
The Golden Compass (Philip Pullman's literary response to the damage done to people's imaginations in the name of religion) or pitting ticket sales of the Narnia films against
Brokeback Mountain is a much less complicated call than that whole business about loving neighbors, to say nothing about loving enemies. If we're more opposed, for instance, to what we take to be "bad language" and nude scenes and films about gay people than we are to people being blown up, starved to death, deprived of life-saving medicine, or tortured, our offendedness is out of whack. We have yet to understand the nature of real perversion. We aren't as deeply acquainted with our religion we might think.
To keep it all simple and safe, we often become selective fundamentalists. We know where to go to have our prejudices explained as just and sensible, our convictions strengthened, our group or political party reaffirmed. We process whatever already fits the grid that is hardwired (or
re-hardwired) in our heads. It's difficult for anything else to get through. We're easily offended. Maybe we're
looking to feel offended, which can make us feel better about ourselves. Feeling offended summons a sense of being in the right, a certain strength, a kind of power, an espresso shot of righteous indignation. And if the image of God hardwired into our nervous system is easily offended and put off by certain people and their offensive behavior, there's a feeling of being that much closer to the winning side, that much more likely to be numbered among the elect, the saved, the documented.
We can live, if we choose to, with a kind of Styrofoam casing around our imaginations, an informational echo chamber. We can and do surround ourselves with people who think the same thing we think, people who won't challenge us, and people who've learned to avoid certain topics while in our presence. It's a natural, understandable, deeply human need to have our thoughts and opinions mirrored to us in verbal exchanges. We all need positive reinforcement.
But if we feel deep affection only for people who tell us we're right and only give high fives to the like-minded, all we've done is joined a club. We risk becoming incapable of the give-and-take of genuine conversation. If all our friends and news sources require of us is a "Ditto" and "I think what you think," we might be in danger of becoming impenetrable to wisdom, immunized against the sensation of sympathy, resistant to the pleasure of being amused by our own ignorance, and closed to the joy of being wrong.
We seek out and even pay for our own hypnosis. Via television, radio, the Internet, and print, we receive our news product, fashioned and delivered by people who tidy up reality for us. If it isn't sufficiently tidied up, prepackaged and shrink-wrapped to fit our fearfulness, if our minds don't click into place quickly enough to satisfy our stunted attention spans, we change the channel or move to another site. We move swiftly from scenes that might call into question our exclusively saved, right-thinking status.
Jesus' gospel is never at our command, under our copyright, or contained within an -ism, an ideology, or any well-intentioned human construct. The question is always whether Jesus' rare ethos has gotten hold of us in any discernible way. To answer the question we must stop defining ourselves by all the things we're against. We might also ask what, other than getting saved in the shallowest sense, we actually stand
for.
~ David Dark,
The Sacredness of Questioning Everything
Clarity Prevails.