I had an odd experience the other day. I read my previous blog entry and became irate at the irascible line of reasoning put forth. Basically, I had argued that I would rather grab a cup of coffee with Bill Clinton then with Larry King. I argued that if one could theoretically hang out with a celebrity without that particular celebrity having celebrity status, then one was not starstruck but genuinely attracted to that person. My implicit conclusion was that I could envision hanging out with Bill Clinton.
I can't agree to that line of reasoning. I would love to talk to Bill Clinton precisely because of his fame (or infamy depending on how you interpret the facts). I am fascinated by the fact that he managed to become so politically successful at such a young age. I am enamored by his political skill, which is capable of not only dissembling but magnifying the humanity of his person. I am stupefied by his ability to overcome deep moral intemperance and remain faithful to his wife. In addition, I must say, his life story (as it is told in his autobiography) is rather interesting to listen to. All this to say, I am a little starstruck by his prestidigitation and lack of comportment.
And if that is the case, I probably am not a good person for him to talk to. I would not be addressing his person, but I would be attempting to understand American history or trying to set myself up as someone who is morally superior. So, now, I am stuck. If I can't talk to him merely on the basis of being a political celebrity, then what should I do, if I were given an un-excusable opportunity to grab a cup of coffee?
If I had been on excusable opportunity to talk with Bill Clinton this is what I would do:
1. I would seek to know
a. if he is a good listener – meaning does he said his mind to the task of listening to an individual person who might not otherwise be of any immediate benefit to him?
b. Does he communicate a sense of honor and respect for other people?
c. Does he project a sense of trustworthiness and confidence?
d. Is he witty – that is, does he say appropriate things in ways that are not hackneyed or ambiguous or immoral or with a view towards the truth?
e. Has he ever read the Bible?
f. If so, what does he think that it is about?
2. I would attempt to establish some type of mutually recognized agreement – meaning, I would ultimately seek to try to understand what he had to say, while evaluating the truth of what he had to say in a way that was open and honest – I would make it my aim to try to find a mutual recognition of agreement because truth is the bond of all friendship
So, why this careful delineation? Why have I wanted out so carefully a conversation that will probably never take place? Well, this example of how I would talk to Bill Clinton is really just my blueprint for how I would talk to anyone. I think the goal of any conversation should be one that seeks to establish friendship – the basis and bond of friendship is truth. This means that conversations should be aimed at establishing a mutual recognition of the truth and what is true.
To deny that truth is the basis of friendship, is to make friendship completely arbitrary and one based on mere whim and fancy. This would create a community of mistrust. It would be an obdurate community fueled by everyone's individual passions. What is necessary for every individual to begin to establish a trustworthy community is to begin to think about one's objects of admiration and fascination; to think about celebrities and famous people in terms of love and trustworthiness. This means that one must not indulge oneself into thinking merely about what is fascinating about Clinton, Larry King, Oprah, Tom Cruise, and the like. To think too much in this direction will govern your thinking, affections, and actions in a way that is not trustworthy or friendly. The bottom line, be careful how you think about celebrities because they may not be your friends!
In regards to e.: from what I understand, Clinton has read the Bible and is fairly well versed in it. I listened to an NPR interview once with one of Bill Clinton's speechwriters. He (I forget his name, which is usually the case in regards to speechwriters) stated that he and the team of speechwriters were quite amazed with Bill on a number of occasions in regards specifically to his Bible knowledge. Bill would communicate what sort of speech/discourse he wanted written and then say something like, Find this verse (a few words of it) and write it all out for me.
ReplyDeleteHe assumed that the speechwriters would know exactly where to find it, and they would spend hours flipping through various Bibles trying to find it.
Once they hit a wall and went to see him. He opened the bible, turned directly to that verse, apparently a rather obscure one in one of the prophets, and said, Here it is. They were all flabbergasted.
I know its hearsay, but I always liked that one. It would definetly be interesting to have a cup of coffee with him and find out what he thinks about the Bible.
That's very interesting, I have very little reason to doubt that he has read the Old Testament. I can still remember a snippet from a speech he gave after the Columbine incident. He referred to Paul's phrase "seeing through a mirror darkly" I don't remember really anything else from the speech because I was quite young. But I do remember feeling a certain sense of appropriateness with the way he used the phrase. I couldn't tell you from the hip, whether or not used this phrase in the same way that all intended the phrase, but it certainly speaks to the rhetorical power of the use of Scripture with in an American context. America may be a post Christian nation, but we are not exclude the Bible nation. We are still very fascinated by biblical content and ideas. I have met very few people who are not interested in at least talking about the Bible for a few moments, they may be very hostile to the message of Scripture – i.e. there is a holy God who has authority over them and requires their obedience! – But there is still a year that listening for a world older and truer than Harry Potter or Lord of the rings. Thank you for your feedback – cheers!
ReplyDelete