The Myth of Open-Mindedness: Part II

"For a seminary, you are awful closed-minded."--Man trying to sell space in a business phone-book's yellow pages.

I had to laugh out loud
I was stunned when a man called today to sell space in a business directory's yellow pages, and when I said I didn't want it, he kept on talking . . . "I don't want it; thank you anyway" was not enough for this guy. He insisted that he needed certain vital information from me, name, phone number, address . . . "Excuse me! I don't want to purchase space with you!" Still he persisted, so, rude as it was, I simply hung up the phone. He was still talking.

Not more than 10 seconds, and the phone rang again . . . same guy! He must have speed dial! This time he said, "Well, to cancel your account with us, we need some information from you, name, phone number, address."

This is slick! The person on the other end of the phone wants to get rid of the salesman, and he says, "I'll leave you alone just as soon as you give me this information so I can cancel your account with us."

Only thing is, I have no account with them. If I did, they would know my name, phone number, and address.

So, I told him, "Look. We don't have an account with you, and so there is nothing to close. Now stop calling me," and I hung up again. Within 10 seconds the phone rang again (this is not a story; this happened today, for real). So, I decided to let the answering machine pick it up . . . sure enough, it was the same salesman, and the message he left on the answering machine? "For a seminary, you are awful closed-minded." (Read as, "Oh, I didn't know you were sophisticated enough to know our tactics.")

I just had to laugh out loud. I was both absolutely amazed at the lengths to which this guy would go to force his product, and amazed at what he considered being "close-minded." But then it dawned on me . . . he wasn't any different than most people. The point is this . . . if you don't agree with them, then you are closed-minded. To a salesman, if you don't listen to his entire spiel, then you are closed-minded.

This incident was the impetus for me to do a follow-up to my last CT on the issue of The Myth of Open-Mindedness . . .

Few CTs have generated as much response as that one did, and some of those responses are worth mentioning for a part two.

What's the Punch Line?
The first thing that I want to do is solidly explain why Open-Mindedness is a myth . . . apparently, for a few readers, I was not clear on this point. Apparently, I didn't give the "punch line" that was necessary. Have you ever heard a person tell a joke and forget the punch line? I have, and it's both annoying and frustrating. So, for those who felt like I didn't give the punch line in the last CT, here goes . . .

Open-Mindedness is a myth . . . because . . .

(1) To be Open-Minded one must be open to and accepting of all views and perspectives

Yet,

(2) Many views and perspectives are contradictory and mutually exclusive

Thus,

(3) One cannot be open to and accepting of logically contradictory and mutually exclusive views

Conclusion: Open-Mindedness is a myth . . . it is a logical impossibility to be Open-Minded.

The Misadventures of Mr. DoNo Ennybedder
Example: Let's say there is a fella named Mr. DoNo Ennybedder. And, DoNo is truly "open-minded."

Thus, when I tell DoNo that Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven, he responds and says, "Okay. I am open and accepting of that."

Then, Mrs. Bee High says, "There are many ways to heaven, and Jesus is just one of the ways," DoNo responds, "Okay. I am open and accepting of that."

Then, I say to DoNo, "Well, then, DoNo, do you still believe that Jesus is the ONLY way since you also believe that He is just one of many ways?" And, DoNo says, "Yes, I believe that Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven."

Then, Mrs. Bee High asks, "But DoNo, do you still believe that there are many ways to heaven, and Jesus is just one of the many ways?" And, sad, sorry, DoNo says, "Yes, I still believe that there are many ways to heaven, and Jesus is just one of the many ways."

So, you see, it would take someone as daft as DoNo to be truly "open-minded" . . . in other words, it is logically impossible to be "open-minded."

At some point, on some things, all people (except, perhaps, those at DoNo's IQ level) will accept some things and reject others.

And, the moment that you reject a perspective which is held by someone else, you have no right to call yourself "open-minded." At that point, you are closed-minded.

Now, there is a relative-open-mindedness. All this means, however, is that some people are more accepting of some things than other people are about those same things.

Example: Joe Cosmopolitan might be accepting of homosexuality, and though he is not homosexual, he may see it as simply an alternative lifestyle with no negative moral implications. Thus, Joe may say of himself, I am "open-minded" about homosexuality as being an alternative lifestyle. But, these qualifiers must be a part of his so-called open-mindedness. Because, for Joe Cosmopolitan to be accepting of homosexuality as being an alternative lifestyle, he must by logic then reject the notion by others that homosexuality is not an alternative lifestyle, but is, rather, sin. So, in reality, Joe is not open-minded at all . . . he has simply accepted one idea at the exclusion of another.

So, when Joe Cosmopolitan says, "Those small-town red-necks are narrow-minded bigots," what he is really saying is that he himself is close-minded toward their conservative lifestyle . . . and, thus, Mr. Joe Cosmopolitan is not really Open-Minded at all.

Now, I would like to shift a bit and employ some of the comments by others about the former CT, "The Myth of Open-Mindedness."

Intentional Equivocation
Tyler Ramey (my long-time friend and an able philosopher) pointed out that I had equivocated on the term "closed-minded" in my last CT. He pointed out that in some early parts in the CT, I used the phrase closed-minded as a negative term attributed to others by the "sophistaucrats." Then, later in the CT, I used the term in a positive sense, saying that it was, in fact, a good thing.

I did do this: I did this in much the same way that that the term Christian was first applied to followers of Christ by those antagonistic to them. It was meant to be a term of derision, but the followers of Christ happily accepted the term as a badge of honor. Certainly the term "close-minded" does NOT have such a grand position as the term Christian . . . I only mean to say that what others have called me, i.e., closed-minded, I have turned around and used it in a positive sense.

Remember, Open-Mindedness is a myth, a logical impossibility . . . and only someone as feeble-minded as DoNo Ennybedder could actually be truly "open-minded."

However, anyone with a firm grasp on the logical principle of the Law of Non-contradiction will happily (and astutely) admit that he/she is closed-minded. After all, no one but a moron (like DoNo Ennybedder) can be truly open-minded.

So, yes, I am closed-minded . . . and I am neither afraid nor shy of that title . . . what I do protest, however, are some of the connotations that go along with that phrase as employed by the "sophistaucrats."

Framing the Issue
Then, Jennifer writes of how liberals "control the words" and they "use titles as a way of pushing their agenda." She goes on to say, "Who wants to be called 'narrow-minded' or a 'hate-monger?' Yet that is exactly what people like you and I are labeled automatically."

Jennifer is correct. What she has identified is what is called " Framing the Issue ," and no one does it better than liberals.

I know that it is unusual in my CT's to quote someone else at length, but her words are so apropos, powerful, and correct that I just must share them with you.

I liked this Coffee Talk a lot too. I was struck by how the liberal thinkers use titles as a way of pushing their agenda. By labeling themselves as "open-minded" or "broad-minded" they, at once shine a bright light on themselves (because the labels have a positive connotation) and also cast a shadow upon anyone who isn't worthy of that same title (i.e., conservatives). By controlling the words, they exert a lot of influence. Who wants to be called "narrow-minded" or a "hate-monger?" Yet that is exactly what people like you and I are labeled automatically.

The liberals control much of the media and so can attach these labels and affect the mood of a certain society as a result. It's like the "Pro-choice," or "feminist" labels. It reminds me of the experiment in elementary school where everyone was given a bracelet randomly, either red or blue. We were given no explanation as to why we were given the bracelet and no instruction what to do with them. Invariably, at the first recess, we got into two groups, the red in one group, blue in another. We then started attacking each other and calling names and exerting power or superiority over each other.

This is similar. If we can pigeon-hole people, we can control them. And by labeling themselves as "open-minded," they lift themselves above pigeon-holing (because they are accepting of everything) and then try to push "narrow-minded" people down, build up the straw-man argument against them to demonstrate to the ignorant public that the "narrow-minded" are uneducated and illogical, and then sell the whole package in an effort to, I guess, humiliate and/or eliminate us.

By educating ourselves about our own point-of-view (as that one study showed, most Christians don't even know what Christians believe) and the other side, we equip ourselves with an arsenal that allows us to wage spiritual warfare. If we remain silent, they win, at least for now . . . and the take how many untold numbers of people with them.

I'm glad I'm narrow-minded because it shows that I'm discerning and particular about which truths I choose to accept and reject. By accepting everything, all they show is that they use no standard by which to review information. They just accept everything without using any intellectual discipline.

Understanding how the so-called open-minded "use titles as a way of pushing their agenda," i.e., Frame the Issue, can help you see through their smoke screens and bigotry; however, most people watching the evening news haven't got a clue as to what "Framing the Issue" is, nor that they are being hoodwinked by such contradictory labels as "Pro-choice" and "Open-Minded."

What About Toleration?
One of our Bachelor's graduates, Rich, made some very good points in regard to my CT, The Myth of Open-Mindedness .Rich pointed out that while we may disagree with the so-called "liberal open-minded person," we should still tolerate them and treat them as we would want to be treated. He said that though he agreed with my CT, there was more that could, or should, be said. Here is my response to him:

Dear Rich,

I agree with all of what you say, actually. Yes. I have friends and family that are "open-minded." And, I too have gained knowledge from them. But, as with any short article, one cannot say it all at one time.

I remember once that I preached a sermon on a topic and a women in the church told me she was leaving the church because of what I had preached.

So, I asked her what she disagreed with in my sermon, and she said, "Oh, nothing. I agreed with everything you said, but I am upset because there was so much more you could have said."

So, I said, "Well, then, stick around and listen to me preach for about a year . . . after all, I can't say it all in just one sermon."

A Logical Fallacy Identified
One of the logical fallacies, however, that "open-minded" (free-thinkers) have, and you state it, is this . . .

"I have also encountered many free-thinkers who were open and accepting of other's thoughts even while disagreeing with them."

Rich, a person who disagrees with me cannot accept what I am saying, or else he no longer disagrees with me. He cannot be "accepting" of my thoughts and disagree with my thoughts at the same time. This is absurd.

He may be kind to me as a person, accepting of my right to have my own thoughts which disagree with his, but he cannot be accepting of my thoughts and disagree with my thoughts.

That was one of my points in the article.

The person who is truly "open-minded" could not disagree with anything I said otherwise he is not being "open-minded." But, the Catch-22 for him is this, if he accepts what I say as true, then he accepts that limitations are good and right (e.g., not accepting homosexuality), and once he does this, he is no longer open-minded.

You see, that is exactly why the concept of "open-mindedness" is a myth . . . it is a logical absurdity.

That is not to say that one cannot be "tolerant" of others.

For example, I can think that homosexuality is wrong, and still love and show human dignity and respect to a person who is a homosexual. When we are together, I should treat him like I would want to be treated: like any human would want to be treated. And, he, thinking himself an "open-minded" person may think that my "narrow-mindedness" is wrong . . . which limits his "free-thinking" exactly at that point which makes him no more a free-thinker (or open-minded) than I am!

Again, that's why it is a "myth."

Speaking of Toleration (which was not the point of my article)
Too many people think that "toleration" is the same as "accepting the lifestyle." It's not.

I think, as humans, we all need to show GENUINE human dignity and respect for one another, but that does not have to translate into "agreeing" with each others' belief systems.

Rich responds: Tolerance would be a great subject--people seem to have confused thoughts on it. To many Christians, the idea of "hate the sin but lover the sinner" is just that, "an idea" with no real-world application in their lives.

My response: Well, I absolutely agree with you here as well. In fact, it is often even worse . . . I have known Christians who SAY that they hate sin but love the sinner, but when I tell them something that would be similar to what I told you earlier about treating a homosexual with dignity and respect, they see that as accepting the homosexual lifestyle. Apparently, to many people, one cannot genuinely love the sinner, nor treat them with respect because then you are "accepting" their sin. Thus, what they really mean by hate the sin and love the sinner is hate the sin and do not actually kill the sinner, but don't show true love or respect to them.

Do you remember that "troubling" verse in which Jesus says, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Jesus is not here speaking of sinless perfection. In the context of this passage, it is simply this: love your enemies. Be "perfected" in love . . . Note the context:

Matt. 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
Matt. 5:44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Matt. 5:45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
Matt. 5:46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
Matt. 5:47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
Matt. 5:48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

And, Rick Luiten, Board Member of CES sent me this interesting tidbit

I once had a conversation with a lady who had a bumper sticker that read, "The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open."

After a bit of discussion, I mentioned that from what I know about parachutes there are a few more rules to proper operation than just opening it.

First, it will never function correctly if it is packed incorrectly.

Second, if it is opened too soon, it will kill you.

Third, if it is opened too late, it will kill you.

Last, one would not run around all over the airport or on a plane with the parachute open as it would get tangled up in everything around it, and you could go no where.

These are just a few, with a bit of thought many more can be be seen.

Rick L.

And, finally, a balanced-statement of Openness -- the Caveat

Carmen (CES M.Div. Student) writes:

While open-mindedness is a myth, and Christian ought to be appropriately dogmatic about matters of first importance, the idea of being "open" to further revelation is not a myth. As you know, I come from a background where the people assume that they have every theological "t" crossed and every "i" dotted. If God had not allowed me to be "open" to new discoveries, I'd still be where I was. As Grant Osborne discusses, there is a hermeneutical spiral to consider. I know the truth and accept it as such. But I also acknowledge that this discovery of truth is a journey, a process. Therefore, I am open to future disclosures (e.g., those related to spiritual gifts (:-) ).

As a result, I will probably (hopefully) learn to sharpen the truths I already know, and I may even have to abandon certain ideas that I currently hold. This, it seems to me, builds both humility and excitement. The humility comes from realizing that I don't have it all figured out (and will never figure out our great God totally). The excitement results from understanding that God defies my highest apprehension of Him and is truly worthy of worship. Likewise, the matter of prayerful study never ends, for there is so much more to know about God and His world.

My point here, Rick, is not to deny what you have clearly and accurately stated. But I do think it matters that we go about our theologizing, etc., with a kind of openness, that is, an openness to what God might still teach us. In fact I believe that the best churches in this post modern age will be those who are indeed open to change of some sort. It's not that they will abandon the major tenets of the faith. But they will have to adapt to their environment and learn to better reach this generation. Thus, for instance, they will come to realize that many of today's people are more "relational" than "rational" in their way of perceiving life. It's not that reason can or should ever be denied; that would be absurd! But many young people are open to a relationship with God ("I want to know Him") long before they logically make sense of it all. I say all this, Rick, to point out how important it truly is to be "open," in some sense, to future discovery. I guess I am saying that we all ought to be teachable, which means that we have an attitude of openness to what God has said.

Again, I am right there with you (your CT was great), and in agreement with what you say. At the same time, though, I wouldn't want anyone to think that I had put up a barrier of sorts that prohibits me from growing, either intellectually or morally.

Carmen

Ric's Response: Amen.
--When I use the term Open-Minded in the negative way that I do, I do not mean "openness" to things I don't already know, as if I have all truth and there is nothing more to learn. (As a life-long student, and a professor, this sort of closed-mindedness is an anathema to me.) I use the term Open-Minded in the sense that many liberals use it in that they claim to be free-wheeling, and open to, and accepting of everything that comes their way.
--Likewise, when I say that being Closed-Minded is good, I do not mean that we should not be open to learning and growing, and changing our perspectives on things when those things are right, true, just, and good. I mean only that our minds are logically closed systems and they cannot accept logically contradictory premises and ideas.
--Then, of course, the whole point of these two CTs is that I am really trouncing on the old saw of the liberals that they are "Open-Minded" when in fact they are not.