Penetrating Rigidity

One of the many things that lead us to be frustrated is encountering and engaging with people who are rigid in their opinions and views.  They can be views and opinions about political and social issues, religion, and en fin, about life itself, depending on their individual philosophy.  The question then becomes, ¨How can we crack that nut of rigidity?¨  I would pose the question as to whether we should even bother trying to crack the nut.

In Spanish there is the saying ¨Cada loco con su tema (each crazy one with her/his theme).¨  On another level, it means ¨to each her/his own.¨  Should we ¨throw in the towel,¨ give up, and allow each person to draw her/his own conclusions about life and about these issues?  Or should we continue to challenge and respond, even if it comes across as ¨badgering and harassment?¨ One side of me tends to say ¨the hell with it, let each person decide for themselves what is or isn´t true and leave it at that.¨ The other side of me says that we should continue to submit data in the hope that the person´s rigidity will give way to open-mindedness.  That reminded me of a discussion in my family some years back on a given issue. My brother-in-law said to me ¨You know Juan, you get me so angry when we are discussing these types of issues, because after we discuss them, we end up thinking just like you.¨  Of course, I had to chuckle to myself because his statement was that I had an uncanny ability to sway others to my way of thinking.

One of the many problems that we find with this type of scenario is that we encounter rigidity on both sides of the discussion.  One person or one group presents their position, which more often than not, is accompanied by the baggage of certain assumptions and presuppositions.  And then the respondents in turn, bring a similar baggage of assumptions and presuppositions.  Each side believes and claims to have more ¨objectivity¨ than the other.  Each side will claim that their position is based on ¨research and scientific data,¨ and accuse the other side of speaking on the basis of ¨hearsay, market-place rumors, barber-shop talk, etc.etc.  They will even add that the other side is speaking on the basis of ¨emotions and sentimentality.¨ Each side is adept at dismissing the other side´s position without taking into consideration the possibility of a minimum of truth in the opposing view.  An example of this would be one of my favorite sayings ¨If Satan says that two and two is four, then it has to be false just because Satan said it.¨  Another example would be that if Obamacare had Donald Trump´s name on it, Trump´s supporters would be behind it simply because his name was on it, regardless of its flaws and short-comings, real or perceived.

In the Christian community we find so many examples of rigidity in function.  Those who are entrenched in a position based on ¨what the Bible says,¨ and dismiss outright any challenges to their position based on a cultural and historical study of Scripture, and also tend to dismiss any claim based on the sciences.  They will even go as far as believing that these challenges are ¨ Satanically-inspired¨ because they ¨seek to undermine the truth of God´s Word.¨  And then there are those who on the basis of ¨scientific research¨ will bring in their own biases and rigidity, dismissing any claim to truth in the Scriptures, unless the claims ¨jibe¨ with the latest scientific discoveries.

How do we, then address the issue of rigidity?  Do we take the attitude of ¨Let it be, let it be?¨  Do we crack the nut by inviting people to examine their own assumptions and presuppositions? Do we hit people over the head with our set of ¨facts¨ and ¨Alternative Facts?¨

This writer (yours truly) is a stickler for dialogue.  This is not to say that dialogue is a panacea for the illness of rigidity.  But I strongly believe on the basis of experience and observation that dialogue can help us to break down the walls of defense, and subsequently minimize our rigidity.  In the areas of religion and theology, we need, in my humble opinion, to keep issues ¨on the table¨ in order to help us take a more open-minded approach to the issues.  We may never attain a full consensus on the issues themselves, but, at the very least, we can attain a consensus on the willingness to continue having what my wife Ruth calls ¨these hard conversations.¨

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen!

Dr. Juan A. Carmona
Visiting Professor of Theology
Tainan Theological College/Seminary