I keep seeing these advertisements around Roanoke which promote open-mindedness.
There was a bumper sticker which read "A mind is like a parachute. It only works when opened." Cute. Dumb, but cute.
Even worse are those billboards posted by the United Methodist Church in Roanoke that read "If you can wish, you can believe. Open minds. Open hearts. Open doors."
Ayiyi. What a bunch of mularky.
Is it really virtuous to be open-minded?
Here is the deal. Being open-minded or close-minded, in and of itself, is morally neutral. It is kind of like faith. Having faith, for the sake of having faith, means nothing. The question is, what is the object of your faith? Likewise, what are you open-minded or close-minded about?
I would argue, for example, that is not a virtuous thing to be open-minded about pedophilia. True, you won’t find any verses written in red about what Jesus said about pedophilia. Does that mean we should be open-minded about it? Heaven forbid! The corpus of scripture clearly teaches God’s design, context and purpose for sex. Pedophilia is so far out of bounds that we don’t even need to waste time looking for that ball. We should be close-minded about that issue. God has spoken, why in the world should we remain open-minded on this issue?
Another thing. Promoting open-mindedness as a virtue, in and of itself, is self-refuting. Why? Because open-mindedness is very close-minded about close-mindedness, is it not? It is an argument that commits suicide.
That is the funny thing about truth. It is quite exclusive. When we discover truth, we would be well advised to close our minds against that which opposes it.
The next time someone preaches to you about the virtue of being open-minded, ask them what “open-minded about what?” If they are asking you to be open-minded about something which God clearly opposes, then tell them your mind is already full when it comes that subject. Sorry - closed. Full.
We are exhorted to love truth and embrace the one who embodies truth. Let’s fill our minds with truth and our hearts with love, and close our minds around that.
If you fill your mind and heart with love and "close your mind around that" would that not mean opening your heart to love as Christ loved? Christ loved(es) the beggar, the homosexual, the single mom...all of which the church has a deplorable record of reaching out to.
I agree that taken to the far end of the spectrum open mindedness is not very open to close mindedness. It is like saying you are homosexual and conservative in the same sentence. You can not be a conservative gay apparently.
The United Methodist Church is trying to reach out to those who have felt judged and maligned from the get go. I know that the church has the job of reaching out and showing these people the error of their ways, but let's get the plank out of our own eye first shall we?
Posted by: Carl Holmes | June 13, 2006 at 07:56
G.K. Chesterton said: "The purpose of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to eventually shut it on something solid"
Posted by: John M. | June 13, 2006 at 08:53
John,
Great Chesterton quote!
Carl,
"If you fill your mind and heart with love and "close your mind around that" would that not mean opening your heart to love as Christ loved"
Better yet, fill your heart with Christ ... back to that union life concept, right?
Yes, we need to love as Christ loved ... the only way possible to do that is to be united with Christ spiritually, in his death and his resurrection. We need to be close minded about that.
"all of which the church has a deplorable record of reaching out to."
I try to be careful in not painting with too broad a brush ... I know of those in the body of Christ who have done a wonderful job of reaching out to the marginalized in our society.
You are right though ... many (including moi) who call themselves Christians fail to follow Phil 1:27 consistently ...
"Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ"
The problems with UMC's billboard ads are the hokey misrepresentation of faith as wishing, and the silliness about having open minds. Neither of those things are biblical. The part about open hearts and open doors is fine ... I like that part of the message.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | June 13, 2006 at 09:42
Jeff:
Promoting open-mindedness as a virtue, in and of itself, is self-refuting. Why? Because open-mindedness is very close-minded about close-mindedness, is it not?
Nice try, but no. Open-mindedness only requires that you give due consideration to other points of view, not that you accept them. Open-mindedness is the very essence of humility -- it is the recognition that the possibility always exists that I could be wrong. Whereas closed-minded thinking is the very definition of arrogance -- it rejects the mere possibility that your point of view or worldview could be flawed.
When we discover truth, we would be well advised to close our minds against that which opposes it.
Well, assuming you can be absolutely certain that your understanding of truth actually is truth. Given that human understanding is imperfect, and that humans are quite easily corrupted, how can one know that what one has come to accept as truth actually is?
I think your problem is that you're conflating certitude with closed-mindedness. Two very different things. I have a great deal of certitude concerning the fact of biological evolution; yet I remain open to being convinced otherwise, if sufficient evidence arises to change my view. Certitude (in the loose sense) and open-mindedness are not mutually exclusive.
And guess what: if your understanding of truth is solid, open-mindedness is in no way a threat. You'll give consideration to the new information / new perspective / whatever, and come to the realization that your existing paradigm still works or is better. That's not the same thing as closed-mindedness, which is arrogantly dismissing a different point of view without even weighing its merits.
Posted by: tgirsch | June 13, 2006 at 16:29
I try not to paint to broad also. I apologize. But still, on the whole, it is a bad rap for the church. Proverbs warns us to neglect the poor at our own peril.. James tells us to visit the widow and the orphan in their distress and so on. People are uncomfortable with that (in general)
I work for a large ministry in Colorado Springs (use your imagination) that sometimes paints with a big brush and it can be painful. I do not mean to denude the ones who are doing God's work of the value of the work.
The outreach might be a little bit hoaky, but the fact still remains that we must unify as a church around the gospel of Jesus and do our best to be caught doing the will of God and sharing the gospel when Jesus comes. Would allowing a homosexual to feel judged by the bride of Christ, even though he has never been in a church, be O.K. to God? Me thinkst not.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | June 13, 2006 at 23:28
I don't entirely disagree with your characterization of open-mindendness as being neutral. But the problem remains as to how and when we decide that the problem at hand is not one we can be open-minded about. That seems to be a critical issue that needs to be addressed before we can say being open-minded or closed-minded is good.
And we can't escape merely by saying that the Bible says something about some subject. History shows clearly that persons have built many convictions out of Scripture that missed the mark entirely. We must be very careful...
Although some of the problems here are just semantics (we haven't defined what "open-mindedness" is, exactly), I think tgirsch may be heading in the right direction there. I have some reservations about that view too, but I am inclined to think it's harder to err in the direction of asking too many questions than asking too few. I for one would not like to be zealous without knowledge...
Posted by: Ben Martin | June 14, 2006 at 02:50
T,
You promote open-mindedness, but I don't see any evidence that you are really demonstrating much open mindedness toward my view.
Carl,
First, your critique of Christians failing to always act like Christians stands ...
Second, are you suggesting that the followers of Christ should be open mindeded about whether or not homosexuality is wrong or right in God's eyes? Or, are you suggesting that the church is being mean to homosexuals (calling them crude names etc.)? Please clarify your statement about the homosexuals feeling judged. Thanks.
Ben,
I agree that we ought not be dogmatic about those things which Scripture does not address clearly. You make a good point there.
But what about where God speaks clearly? Ought we not close our minds around that?
I also think you make a good point about semantics. My contention is that open mindedness is not necessarily a virtuous thing. Being open minded about torturing and eating children, or beating my wife, or engaging in sex trafficking, or embezzling etc. is not virtuous.
The openness and closedness is neutral -- what is in question, is what we are open and closed about :)
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | June 14, 2006 at 07:25
Absolutely that the homosexuals feel judged by us and that, as a whole, we call them names, we deny them basic rights etcetera.
I can not remember his name, but he is a "reverend" (About as much as Jessie Jackson is) in Kansas and he is running around to soldiers funerals and saying they died because America accepts homosexuality. And he is not even the worst of them. Ben was right on the mark when he said "And we can't escape merely by saying that the Bible says something about some subject. History shows clearly that persons have built many convictions out of Scripture that missed the mark entirely. We must be very careful..."
I know it is worldview 101 for the most of us reading this that we all work from a basic worldview that defines are lifes paradigm. Some of us have pulled parts of the gospel out that support our view, our suppositions, and used them to build a theological basis from. Jesus said he came so that we may have life and life more abundantly, not so that we could pick parts of his ministry to support our thoughts and actions. The Bible should be defining us, not us defining the Bible. This is why I get annoyed with people saying I am a Baptist, I am a Lutheran etcetera. But that is a big can of worms for later thought.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | June 14, 2006 at 10:42
Thanks Carl. I know who you are talking about (the reverend).
In other words, it would be wrong to be open minded about bigotry and hatred (as demonstrated by that guy who parades as a Christian).
Right?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | June 14, 2006 at 10:48
yes. He is the extreme. Unfortunately, we think in extremes as people. When a homosexual thinks of Christians they likely think of this guy, or someone like him thumping a Bible and telling them they are dirt.
Most homosexuals I know, including the one I am having coffee with right now, have a huge father wound. They lack an authority in childhood that shows them masculinity. Then they grow up and the church seems a pretty safe place to get a mentor, a friend. Then they get thumped there and what do they do? They band together and lobby congress and make heterosexuals feel like the bad guys. We need to extend grace, in massive proportions, to our homosexual friends. I know I am painting with a broad brush again, but to get more detailed is a longer and more boring conversation.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | June 14, 2006 at 13:08
Jeff:
I don't see any evidence that you are really demonstrating much open mindedness toward my view.
I don't think that's the slightest bit fair. If I were simply dismissing your view without discussion, or encouraging others to not even consider your view, then you might have a point. But I've done no such thing. I've considered your view, and I've given detailed explanations as to why I think it misses the mark. How is this not open-minded? You seem to think "open-mindedness" is some sort of "anything goes" free-for-all, when it's not that at all. You can have convictions and still be open-minded. The two are not mutually exclusive by any stretch.
Posted by: tgirsch | June 14, 2006 at 14:52
Oh, and the "reverend" in question is Fred Phelps. And as many problems as I have with Jesse Jackson, the two aren't in anywhere near the same ballpark, and shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath together.
Posted by: tgirsch | June 14, 2006 at 14:55
I mean it in the sense of practicing Christianity. I do not see either of them truly doing what a reverend should do, preach the good news that Jesus saves and we can live in eternity with him. Jesse Jackson uses the name reverend to give more reverence for his name only. I have never heard a sermon preached by him. I have also been told that he never finished school. I reserve the name Reverend for those I revere (thus the word Reverend) and unfortunately, I do not revere Jesse Jackson. Nor do I revere Fred Phelps. He may have the schooling, but he is twisting it into what it is not...a buch of crap for sure.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | June 14, 2006 at 17:12
Carl:
When limited to that extremely narrow sense, I can see what you're getting at. But we must be careful when we make such comparisons, because it's human nature to read what I did into what you said. :)
Posted by: tgirsch | June 15, 2006 at 17:51
Greetings from Ireland! I agree with Ben -- this is all semantics. One of the primary things I try to do as an educator is to open minds. My students probably won't remember much of the substance of what I've taught them, but hopefully they'll remember how to think critically. So, I think "closed mindedness" stinks and "open mindedness" is good, if by "open minded" we mean "able to hear another viewpoint respectully, think about it critically, and change one's own viewpoint if another perspective is closer to the truth."
I suspect, though, that the sign-makers in your area use "open minded" to mean something more like "have no particular views about truth or politics (other than the view I hold)...." But I don't view that as "open minded," I view that as "propaganda."
Now, to head off into the town of Galway with an open mind and heart, and maybe learn a bit more about Irish culture...!
Posted by: dopderbeck | June 21, 2006 at 09:52