DINNER WITH THE REVEREND AL . . . LISTENING AND LEARNING

A few days ago, I had the odd, yet noteworthy, distinction of sharing a dais with the Reverend Al Sharpton. Why should I not confess that I felt a little ookey about it? Al Sharpton . . . routinely denounced by so many white folk and more than a few African Americans as a bellicose headline-grabber, source of the Tawana Brawley travesty, self-anointed spokesman of questionable scruples.

Moreover, the propriety of my presence was second-guessed by friends and strangers alike, some well intentioned, others wishing me ill. The easy way out could have been to say that I agreed to the honor before the Reverend was announced as the keynote speaker, which is technically true. Or, I could have feebly exonerated myself by saying that he would likely be on good behavior now that he is running for president.

That would have been the easy way out, as I say.

So, the evening came. The Reverend Sharpton delivered a message that certainly lifted the spirits and touched the conscience, advocating universal values of self-reliance, education, economic empowerment and the impact of the ballot. He did not shy away from chiding African Americans for complacency and victim mentality, and repeatedly underscored that issues of justice were not race-versus-race, but good-versus-evil.

Understandably, he preached his message like a preacher, and the assembly responded in kind, including yours truly. When all is said, however, Reverend Sharpton's calling is in the streets and the pulpit as a righteously indignant, morally autonomous social/political critic, whom we need more to challenge the status quo than to get sucked into its corrupting intrigues. To the extent that he presses the case of the disenfranchised and paves the way for African American candidates who are more circumspect and less avuncular, Reverend Sharpton is a worthy, even courageous, participant in the public debate.

I deserve no accolades for my attendance. After all, I was an honoree and deeply grateful for that distinction. A couple of thoughts, though, that ran through my head as Reverend Sharpton spoke and I considered the possible value of my presence. Perhaps they will be helpful to others who join in my ambivalence.

First, we spend entirely too much time in the choir, listening with rapt attention, if not crooning Hallelujah, only to agreeable words spoken by preachers with whom we already agree. Despite our hope that human enlightenment would lead us to greater receptiveness to diverse opinions, the situation has gone from bad to worse.

Thus, what might we gain by listening to disagreeable pronouncements from disagreeable people?

Well, we could certainly benefit from a test of our faith and foregone conclusions, given that faith that has withstood scrutiny is richer and more enduring than faith swaddled by isolation. We could likewise moderate our dogmatic assumptions by inviting ideas to cross-pollinate and enrich our assumptive world. My own concept of God became clearer by listening to a “humanistic” rabbi assert that no God existed beyond the random forces of nature. A fundamentalist preacher who spoke of grace’s central role to Christianity immeasurably enhanced my understanding of the role of grace in Judaism. My compassion toward God’s children radically expanded as I saw that spilled Palestinian blood was no less red that that of my Israeli kin. I still believe that we must depose Saddam, but I have learned to tread the line between necessity and bloodlust by listening to the reticence of the protestors, despite my instinctive loathing of their shortsightedness and naiveté.

The other reason to move beyond listening just to agreeable words: Would it not be nice if reconciliation always meant falling into each others embrace and singing Kumbaya? Forget about it. Sometimes the best to which we can aspire is coalescence on a limited number of items that “we” and “they” hold in common. That we can accomplish only through listening and dialogue on shared values.

Clearly, the civil rights movement achieved its full strength through coalition building, not by waiting futilely for full consensus.

Might we bring together folks at odds on the issue of abortion to work on promoting universal prenatal wellness, an item on which both should readily agree?

Not long ago, a Muslim cleric and I coalesced to draft a statement decrying violence and pledging dialogue between our communities. Sadly, the initiative did not move forward, but only because of intermeddling from forces outside (emphasis, outside) our own community. Who said it would always work?

No, I did not eagerly gobble up every word spoken by the Reverend Sharpton. Some of his words even made me angry. Nonetheless, my own convictions were challenged, enhanced and clarified. He awakened my conscience to perspectives that I had yet to contemplate. I identified a glimmer of values that might eventually be woven into a coalition, if not full-blown consensus.

We will not know if we do not try. And, trying means taking our quest to unsuspecting places to listen to preaching that is likely different from our own. Our answer need not be an instantaneous “Amen!’ For now, even “let me think about it” would be a bold step forward.