Graduate 59: Embracing Gravity, Interlude: BIAS!

This is not the official "part two" of my series on the musical, "Wicked." But I decided that it was necessary to insert this entry before continuing with the worldview analysis.

In part one, I mentioned that "When I first began drafting this blog, I came on very strong (perhaps even condemnatory). The tone has been, I think, decidedly softened since I discussed my views with a close friend and revised this entry." I have continued to think about that discussion and others that I've since had. The end result of these conversations has been the recognition, on my part, of a deep-seated bias that has colored my thinking about this musical and in general.

The result of this recognition (actually two distinct "recognitions") is that part two will be substantially revised. But rather than pretend that the final draft of "part two" that you read reflects the way I have always thought, I have decided to incorporate into that entry pertinent material related to the revising process. More specifically, that entry will deal with the "second recognition."

And, in this entry, I have decided to write a bit about bias and the "first recognition."

--

I was first confronted with my bias (not for the first time in my life, but for the first time related to the material being discussed) after a Sunday-morning sermon. I saw Wicked on a Tuesday and, as I hinted earlier, was initially quite upset by it. The Sunday immediately following, I visited a new church with some friends, including one friend to whom I had described my concerns about Wicked. The sermon, that morning, was about "God's intention for the family," and, unfortunately, it was not very good. The topic, itself, is highly controversial in our contemporary day and age, when gender roles, marriage laws, and the very definition of family are all being hotly contested. In addition, the pastor's treatment of these issues was not very thorough and not very "sensitive." He was very dismissive, even "glib," in his handling of what are, for many, deeply personal matters. I could see these problems, but was not deeply-affected by them, a point that disquieted my friend. And so she asked me later, "How is it that you could be so upset by Wicked and yet not phased at all by that sermon?"

I was thoroughly caught off guard by the question and found myself scrambling for excuses--some of which have legitimacy and will be discussed below, but none of which could negate the ultimate conclusion that I was forced to face: I was biased.

Now bias is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. Bias just reflects a preference or predisposition in favor of one thing over another. Biases are a natural part of navigating life, making decisions, etc. They are formed by what we see and hear, as well as by the choices that we make. In fact, there is no such thing as an "unbiased person," as far as I'm concerned, and that's okay. Where the danger arises is when a person is unreflectively biased, when she holds certain views or opinions without knowing how or why.

Did I betray "unreflective bias" in this instance? Why was I not "phased" by the sermon? Well, actually I was phased. I was troubled by the material and presentation. But a number of factors restrained me from commenting on it in the same way that I commented on Wicked.

(1) I suspect that more people (especially in my peer group) are going to listen for and recognize problems with sermons than problems with musicals. Thus, in pointing out one and not the other, I am attempting to correct or compensate for an imbalance (a bias) that exists in the minds of many young people. [Or I it may simply be that I do not feel the need to goad them on in a direction they are already moving.]

(2) I want to be as charitable as I possibly can be toward a pastor who is making a sincere effort to lead his flock. And as a visitor, insofar as I am ignorant of the many distinctives that characterize his congregation, I am not in an optimal position to judge how effective his message is at communicating solid truth to his audience.

(3) My position is made still more awkward by the fact that, though I may object to the pastor's presentation, I am actually in agreement with the basic positions that he is articulating. It is notoriously difficult to criticize the messenger without (at least, sounding like I am) criticizing the message.

Now the three reasons that I have just listed will probably strike readers differently. One man's "charitable allowance" is another man's "culpable compromise." And, frankly, a genuine problem is a genuine problem and should be treated as such regardless of circumstances. As I thought about it, it occurred to me that when I have children, I want them to be able to think critically about musicals as well as sermons. The church should hold itself to a high standard of excellence and integrity. And maybe I am guilty of making allowances, especially in areas that are familiar or comfortable to me, in order to not "make waves" around those who are closest to me.

Actually, I should cut out the "And maybe" from that last sentence. I am guilty of making those allowances and avoiding those conflicts. But how should I change? I think that it is not at all easy to formulate a comprehensive method for dealing with instances of objectionable material. Is confrontation always necessary or appropriate? Under what circumstances should confrontation take place? In whose company? How do gentleness, charity, and respect fit into how we deal with people with whom we disagree? There simply is no hard, fast rule to which we can appeal.

I've confessed to an unrealized bias in this instance. There was a problem and I failed to treat it appropriately. I've intentionally left out the details of what was said and done because (1) I don't want the reader to evaluate my assessment of this particular case too closely inasmuch as (2) I don't want the details to distract from the fundamental question of bias and how to treat it.

So I'm leaving this one kind of open-ended. Bias is a natural part of life. Bias can predispose us in favor of or against someone or something. Recognizing biases is important, but there are no easy formulas for how to deal with them.

Maybe I'm still trying to justify myself. Maybe I'm judging myself much too harshly. (I haven't given you enough material to be able to make a decision on that point.) Straying too far in either direction could be dangerous. I'll just have to do my best to keep my eyes wide open as I walk through this world.

--

God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.

--

[Post-script: Gosh, what a weird blog entry. At least, I felt like it was. I just feel the need to caution the reader against taking anything in there too seriously, by which I mean that I don't want anyone to carry the ambiguity too far. I am not, metaphorically, throwing up my hands and giving up all hope of ever "being in the right" when it comes to treating controversial issues. But finding that balance, when it comes to interacting with people, is simply way more nuanced than I am able to articulate in such a short space or even in a very long space.

In that respect, I think this blog entry gets closer to actually representing me, myself. While all the issues I write about are very closely connected to me, they are usually dealt with on a more abstract, intellectual level. The conclusions are my conclusions and reflect my beliefs, but they don't usually convey as much of the "context" (for lack of a better word) that surrounds them, which is something that this entry seems to attempt to do.

So I can't convey all of who I am through my words; I would be foolish to think that I could (or to want that). That's just one of the limitations of blogging. If you really want to know me, you have to talk to me. My goodness, but this entry has covered a lot of strange ground.]