While "peacebuilding" is generally a good thing, I'm not sure that it's always the best frame in dealing with our highly conflicted environment in which a large swath of people deal in bad faith. I prefer compassion for those who are afflicted, particularly those afflicted by the powerful as a starting point. Someone pointed me to a (buddhist derived) three-fold character of compassion--1) tender 2) mischievous 3) fierce. 1 being what we usually think of-comforting people in pain, etc, 2) is most often a way to point out the way someone's behavior/speech contradicts their good values--i.e. gentle ribbing, or ironic observation. This is most often in relatively friendly contexts--though I sometimes use it about our wider church, even if some of the targets don't like me. 3) is fierce on behalf of someone else who is suffering and might not be felt by the target of the fierceness as compassionate at all.
I point this out, because sometimes shaming is what's called for--provided that the target is capable of feeling shame and responding to it. And certainly stupidity needs to be called out--stupidty is not a cognitive lack, but a choice to leave out important, wise considerations, for selfish reasons. The world is filled with plenty of stupidity, so we have to choose our battles--what's important enough and what can my speaking have a positive influence about, at least in some small measure?
Thing is, I think of compassion as not being about feeling (I avoid using the word "love" most of the time because it's too easily associated with the personal flow of desire, pleasure, etc). If I'm doing something serious, it's important to see whose benefit it's for--and if it's mostly just me and my party I shouldn't do something that will cause pain, upset or humiliation. And even if I do something for clear reasons, I have to be particularly aware of the danger of sanctimony--my reading of Jesus is that he confronted sanctimony as much as he did demons. The people who defeat peacebuilding more than anyone else, are those who are sanctimonious about their own actions--or against those of others.
Dude, this is such a wonderful comment, and I kind of grieve that I didn't spell out the stakes of "sanctimony" like you have here. A conversation with my dad last night got me really wrestling in that direction and this just cinches my need to make more deliberate space for it here. Thank you. (Also that's such an awesome casting of "compassion"; it's not new to me, but this is the first time it's stuck so hard.)
I've been thinking about this stuff a lot. Just finished drafting the 7th of 9 chapters of a book I'm working on. Working title: How do you Baptize a Whale?: an encouragement to compassion
I'm looking forward to seeing more of it. Would love to talk more, too, over in our mutual Discord or wherever. Feels like a lot of nuance needs excavating here.
While "peacebuilding" is generally a good thing, I'm not sure that it's always the best frame in dealing with our highly conflicted environment in which a large swath of people deal in bad faith. I prefer compassion for those who are afflicted, particularly those afflicted by the powerful as a starting point. Someone pointed me to a (buddhist derived) three-fold character of compassion--1) tender 2) mischievous 3) fierce. 1 being what we usually think of-comforting people in pain, etc, 2) is most often a way to point out the way someone's behavior/speech contradicts their good values--i.e. gentle ribbing, or ironic observation. This is most often in relatively friendly contexts--though I sometimes use it about our wider church, even if some of the targets don't like me. 3) is fierce on behalf of someone else who is suffering and might not be felt by the target of the fierceness as compassionate at all.
I point this out, because sometimes shaming is what's called for--provided that the target is capable of feeling shame and responding to it. And certainly stupidity needs to be called out--stupidty is not a cognitive lack, but a choice to leave out important, wise considerations, for selfish reasons. The world is filled with plenty of stupidity, so we have to choose our battles--what's important enough and what can my speaking have a positive influence about, at least in some small measure?
Thing is, I think of compassion as not being about feeling (I avoid using the word "love" most of the time because it's too easily associated with the personal flow of desire, pleasure, etc). If I'm doing something serious, it's important to see whose benefit it's for--and if it's mostly just me and my party I shouldn't do something that will cause pain, upset or humiliation. And even if I do something for clear reasons, I have to be particularly aware of the danger of sanctimony--my reading of Jesus is that he confronted sanctimony as much as he did demons. The people who defeat peacebuilding more than anyone else, are those who are sanctimonious about their own actions--or against those of others.
Dude, this is such a wonderful comment, and I kind of grieve that I didn't spell out the stakes of "sanctimony" like you have here. A conversation with my dad last night got me really wrestling in that direction and this just cinches my need to make more deliberate space for it here. Thank you. (Also that's such an awesome casting of "compassion"; it's not new to me, but this is the first time it's stuck so hard.)
I've been thinking about this stuff a lot. Just finished drafting the 7th of 9 chapters of a book I'm working on. Working title: How do you Baptize a Whale?: an encouragement to compassion
I'm looking forward to seeing more of it. Would love to talk more, too, over in our mutual Discord or wherever. Feels like a lot of nuance needs excavating here.