Celebrities may not be your friends!

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!

Thou Shalt Not Speak with Imprecision!

Did you know that Jesus instructs us to cultivate speaking and listening skills in the Sermon on the Mount? Okay, so he never explicitly says, “Thou shalt not speak with imprecision!” But he nevertheless teaches us that this must be the case, if we are to develop genuine friendships. The Sermon on the Mount is a discourse on friendship: friendship with God and friendship among men. The startling feature about this theme is the way in which Jesus approaches it. He begins by addressing the problem of hatred, which is the destructive force that undermines friendship, and name-calling. He states that “you have heard that it has been said long ago, ‘do not murder’ and whoever murders is subject to judgment, but I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother is guilty of murder. Whoever calls his brother a fool is guilty before the Sanhedrin and whoever calls his brother a moron is in danger of the fire of Gehenna!” (Matt 5:21-22, my translation).

The principal here has two dimensions. Negatively – hatred is part of the prohibition of murder – this is a destructive force to friendship. In addition, abusive language is an extension of hatred and thereby a further violation of the prohibition to murder. This much is prominent and readily accessible in the text. Positively – love is the fulfillment of the law – this is the edifying force for friendship. Love between brothers is what constitutes true community. In addition, non-hostile negotiable language is a further extension or expression of love. Love – that is, an attitude of goodwill that seeks the benefit of one's neighbor – is a necessary condition of the heart that is fully expressed in the words we choose to use with our friends. Jesus affirms this principle when he addresses the problem of dealing with those who may be angry at you. He states, "Even when you are offering a gift on the altar and then and there remember that your brother has something against you, then go, leave your gift on the altar, and be reconciled to your brother," (Matt 5:23, my translation).

The verb "to be reconciled" means to come to terms with your brother. From this it can be inferred that reconciliation involves a skillful use of nonhostile, simple, and unambiguous language. Nonhostile – means that you are not using fighting words or name-calling. Simple – means that you're using ordinary language. Unambiguous – means that you must use language that is not attempting to hide, deceive, or subvert.

The Sermon on the Mount is a discourse on friendship. To be sure, all human friendship must first be grounded in friendship with God (Matt 5:8 – 10). This being established, this friendship extends into human to human relationships. Friendship between brothers is constituted with love (5:21). Love is expressed with a skillful use of language (Matt 5:22). This means that the fulfilling the law does not mean merely avoiding hatred among men but also speaking simply, peaceably, and unambiguously to men. In other words, do your friends a favor by cultivating your ability to speak clearly, truly, and peaceably.