My bullshit alarm went off last month. As usual, it forced me to rethink an opinion Iâ€™d always just assumed.
The big surprise was who set it off: Al Sharpton.
Hereâ€™s what happened. In the wake of the senseless deaths of two NYPD officers, one news item in particular caught my attention: Al Sharpton condemned the shootings.
I have never paid a great deal of attention to Sharpton. What little I had absorbed was overwhelmingly negative: he was an opportunist, a craven showman, an inciter of violence and hatred. So when a conservative friend or relative condemned the reverend, I would simply nod my head and point out that no, not all black people were like Al Sharpton, not all progressives were like Al Sharpton, he was an extreme example.
And when I heard that Sharpton condemned the murders of officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, it struck me as remarkable news. I figured someone in the public square would remark on it. But no: many conservative pundits continued their ongoing assault on Sharpton without missing a beatâ€”without even acknowledging his statement.
Thatâ€™s when my bullshit alarm went off. It posed this question: â€œWho exactly informed your opinion of Al Sharpton?â€
After a bit of thought, I realized that my opinions came largely from in-laws and friends and media types. Specifically, conservative in-laws and friends and media types.
Thereâ€™s nothing wrong with reflecting on sources like these. But I try hard not to get all my input from one viewpoint, so a bit of investigation was in order to restore the balance. I spent the better part of an afternoon reading about Sharpton: not what opinionators said about him, but what he said and did, going back at least to the 1990s. (For example: Sharptonâ€™s eulogy at Michael Brownâ€™s funeral and his account of his role in the Crown Heights unrest.)
To summarize: I could not find a single instance of Al Sharptonâ€™s inciting violence. He is vocal and assertive about racial injustice, but he also takes elements of the African-American community to task (as in the Michael Brown eulogy). He has done some divisive and incendiary things, particularly in his early days (the Tawana Brawley affair comes immediately to mind). Perhaps he is opportunistic. Many of his calls for justice sound similar to what I recall hearing in the 1960s. Iâ€™m hardly the first person to notice all this: media outlets like Politico and Newsweek have chronicled Sharptonâ€™s evolution.
As I read, a different image of Sharpton began to form in my mind: a particularly colorful mix of virtues and vices (like most of us), who appears to have evolved over time (like most of us). It is hardly a description of the devil incarnate.
So. What are the lessons here?
- People can and do change. We need to give them grace to do so. We owe it to them to see and honor their evolving selves and reshape our opinions of them accordingly. This approach, unfortunately, is in short supply, as anyone whoâ€™s attended a family reunionâ€”and was treated like she was still 10â€”can tell you.
- Thereâ€™s no end to our blind spots: instances in which weâ€™ve semi-consciously glommed onto an opinion without even realizing we havenâ€™t thought it through. Openness and humility can help here: humility keeps us attentive to how much we donâ€™t know, while openness motivates us to hearâ€”even more, to seek outâ€”opinions that differ from our own, no matter how â€œsettledâ€ the issue might be for us.
- Assume good intent. This is particularly important for people of faith, since most if not all faith traditions require us to extend welcome and compassion to all. Does that mean we trust blindly? No. The gospel admonition to be â€œshrewd as snakes and innocent as dovesâ€ (Matthew 10:16) applies here. Skepticism can be healthy. Cynicism born of hostility, not so much.
Have you had to revise an opinion of someone you were absolutely certain about? How did that work for you? Feel free to tell your stories here.