I was talking to my friend Chris the other day about conversations with people wherein we discover that what seems to be one reason for a certain line of questioning or behavior actually turns out to be another and how that can be rather offensive and manipulative. It seems that in those situations, the issue is not so much that the person had a secret agenda behind their questions and behavior, but that it was a secret agenda.
There's a lot of fuss today made over people who have agendas behind their words and actions in everything from personal relationships to politics, philosophy, and religion. Of course nobody likes to be manipulated, and it seems that since Nietzche people have turned their glaring skeptical eyes on those who speak from those podiums of politics, religion, and philosophy, especially the first two. It seems that I always hear in critiques of political or religious leaders something to the effect of "Well, he's just trying to control this or that commodity or population" or "She's just saying that because she is really a ... (fundamentalist or liberal or witch or some other pejorative label) and is trying to push her agenda in order to control everyone else's."
Well, all of these critiques may or may not be true, but it seems that when it comes down to it, like I said above, the issue is not that someone is pushing an agenda, but that their pushing a secret agenda. I mean, the reality is that everyone has an agenda in what they say or do. Even people who decry those who push an agenda are at that moment pushing the agenda that others should not push their agenda. (It's kinda like the nonsense of the statement that "there is no absolute truth except for the statement that there is no absolute truth".)
The real trouble comes when people are dishonest or misleading or not forthcoming with their presuppositions and agendas that they speak from in everything from personal relationships to politics, religion, and philosophy. I mean, if you come to me and ask me leading questions and try to pin me in corner so that I come out agreeing with something yet uncommunicated in your head, then I may come out of that corner agreeing in word, but it may only be just to get out of that corner, and I will neither like you nor your idea as a result. But, on the other hand, if you think I'm wrong about something or doing something I shouldn't be, then just tell me. I mean, give me the benefit of the doubt and all, but just tell me, and we'll talk about why you think that. Sure, your agenda is to correct me. That's fine. I may need correcting, or I may not. But I can deal with that. Just don't act like there's nothing behind your words or questions. Nobody likes that.
So, when these things go cosmic, like I said, everyone has an agenda. There's no need to get all worked up about that. What needs to happen, especially in religion and politics, is people need to be honest with themselves and with others about their agenda-driven words and actions. Then, and only then, can we actually deal with the issue at hand. Then, and only then, can we talk about why this or that is being said or done in an intelligent and respectful way. Then, and only then, do we really connect on a fundamental level, even an intimate level, with what really matters in these conversations, people and their agendas, or really, the story they live by, their worldview. And that's when real sparks start to fly and people are changed, very much unlike the premature polarizing, hot-air name-calling that we hear on the news and participate in ourselves.
May God give us grace and mercy to be honest and forthcoming, not fearful or manipulative, in displaying integrity in our relationships, our politics, and our religion.
The bush we beat around has had quite enough, thank you very much. :)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
So, here's what I'm thinking...
Daily Prayer provided by the official Church of England web site, © The Archbishops' Council of the Church of England, 2002-2004.
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/worship/dailyprayer/
2 comments:
I guess the opposite of hidden agenda would be candid agenda. Over the past few years it has been brought to my attention that I am very candid. I not only wear my heart on my sleeve, but I also wear a sandwich-board that says exactly what I think at the very time I think it.
I have, in my opinion, honest, and thought out, grounded and wise thoughts on many topics, of which I lend them chance affords; but in my case it's a breath's pause in any conversation.
And that's what gets me into trouble.
I've argued truth because I was angry with or hurt by someone. I've pushed arguments for grace and love because I wanted to put someone in their place. Candidness is a desirable but also dangerous trait.
Perhaps candidness can only be useful when coupled with humility.
I've benefited from learning to be quiet. Learning to listen and waiting to be asked. Secret Agendas are offensive, but so is the pushing of them.
There is honor in quiet observation. There is dignity in requisitioned council. And the fool who opens his mouth often removes all doubt; he often hurts the ones he loves as well.
But in the end, when discussing something, I think kerbo hit it right on. Two honest parties coming to the table in search of truth often wind up friends, regardless their agendas.
To add to this highly academic conversation, I would say that we desire to wade out of and sift through the bullshit. From there, as Kerby said, we can get down to a fundamental level that spurs authentic dialogue.
I know for me personally, I find it hard to have purity in my comments...even as I type this response. I want to sound intelligent, have you all like me, be famous with the profoundness of my words and in turn, cause you to read my brilliant, genius-level blog.
Could you even ponder what our society would look like if we operated in authenticity?!? It would be so radical in how people connect within community. Organizations full of sin-prone people would look dynamically different. I just think about the many Pastors that have ruined and split congregations by lacking transparency. Instead there is a secret agenda. Oh, the integrity!!!
Just think about Iraq. I think the majority of the public were sold the war under false pretense...that is what many were pissed about. Just be candid with us, tell us you want to make a statement in a region where the United States has large interests. Tell us that it is a global paradigm statement that you want to make..."oh, and we'll remove a nasty dictator while we're at it." <--I'm all about that.
Can you imagine what campaigning would look like? From ad's you would hear, "vote for me because John Q is a bastard and I'm not." While I am sure it would be a lot more detailed, it would certainly not be secret as to what their intentions were.
However, as Chris pointed out, a level of discernment needs to accompany our candidness. I am finding this out in dating relationships. While it is honest and authentic to share doubts about the relationship, doing that on an every other day basis is probably not the healthiest of things. But, as we all know, real life is messy and to shy away from it is to shy away from life.
Kerby, I think another reason we like Patty Griffin is because, though melancholic, it is purposed. Unlike that whiny Confessional dude, she depicts life that is bare-naked. While the line "death comes to the local fag" sounds horrible, it's out in plain sight. She is lacking a secret agenda, which is why I smile so much when she sings.
I like the post Kerby. It communicates the need for authenticity in how we communicate with others, especially the Gospel. If authenticity is greatly needed when communicating in politics, all the more in sharing the most important subject matter ever...the gospel of the glory of Jesus Christ.
Post a Comment