“DIG!”
“Dig!” John’s voice echoed off the nearby cliffs. We all reached in – determined to steer the raft through the roaring rapids. Each wave crested above our heads; challenging our grip with each forceful blow. “We’re digging. We’re digging.” We muttered. Disgruntled looks shot across the small boat. We were tired. We were frustrated. We were indignant. The gray barricade stood like Goliath – taunting us and drawing us in despite our disorganized effort. We all shouted out our various solutions, until the raft erupted in nonsensical bickering. The wall drew closer, and we all turned towards our captain – we waited direction – we waited his cue – we waited for unity of thought. “Dig.” Each man and woman crouched down; lowering themselves to the water’s edge – digging through the rapid waters – each heave pulling us closer to safety.
Critical thinking is much like white water rafting. It requires one to question, doubt, engage in conversation, consider opposing views and forgo ego-centric concern. It requires one to look out and survey the landscape. It requires one to see the whole picture, before executing the right procedure. One must weigh the options and be led by intelligent conviction. We are challenged to think of ALL, yet not be swayed by ANY. Paul and Elder suggest that reasoning requires us to be purposed and utilize research and data to draw factual deductions. They dare us to delve into the topic and leave personal bias out of the equation. “We naturally think from our own perspective, from a point of view which tends to privilege our position. Fairness implies the treating of all relevant viewpoints alike without reference to one’s own feelings or interest.”[1] Fairminded thinking requires us to engage in various views, while respecting opposing viewpoints. It does not suggest apathetic submissiveness or silence. It simply advocates fairness – a choice that seeks to bring forth a conversation that leaves others enriched. A choice that leaves one held accountable to the same standards imposed on others.
Reason requires us to delve into the possible outcomes and conjure up a statement that’s backed up with integrity of character. “We naturally believe in our intuitive perceptions – however inaccurate. Instead of using intellectual standards in thinking, we often use self-centered psychological standards to determine what to believe and what to reject.”[2] The authors are not negating the inclusion of emotions when addressing a subject; they’re simply stating that personal opinion must take a backseat to logical exploration. Intuition must be supported with evidential reasoning.
I recently came across an article that went viral on social media. The author spoke with authority – he swayed the reader through emotive stories and sought to gain their allegiance through tantalizing tales of assumptions. Sadly, many fell for the bait and the article grew Facebook attention and media frenzy. The author of the blog post, insinuated that the “millennial culture” should stop berating the church and be silenced. My qualm is not with the article itself (everyone is entitled to an opinion), but it’s the reaction that ensued without critical analysis. Thousands re-posted this piece without question to the author’s validity, opposing opinions, statistical data or even presenting millennials with the opportunity to interact and rebuff the author’s claims. Paul and Elder stated, “Sociocentric thinking is a hallmark of an uncritical society. It can be diminished only when replaced by cross-cultural, fairminded thinking – critical thinking in the strong sense.”[3] For many, this article was simply a form of hushing a generation who dared to think critically. It was posted in hopes to intimidate a culture who asked the church to look like Christ. Millennials were labeled indignant; when in fact, they’re inquisitive – a generation who seeks to be critical thinkers. It’s a natural reaction to protect the church – however when does it become detrimental? When does our unyielding support, get in the way of God cleaning house? When does our defense keep us from critical thinking? Reid’s article was a perfect opportunity for the church as a whole to give answers – yet thousands echoed the author’s stance without thought to his argument.
I have seen many Facebook conversations quickly become an emotional hub of insults and backstabbing, simply because people respond without knowledge of the subject matter. They feel threatened by a differing point of view, and instead of engaging in intellectual conversation, they litter threads with emotional reactions that are based on personal opinion – not logical conclusions. They quickly lambast and critique posts, but speak from a place of indoctrination, without logical conviction. Paul and Elder stated, “Intellectual humility depends on recognizing that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the lack of intellectual pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit, combined with insight into the logical foundation, or lack of such a foundation, of one’s beliefs.”[4] Logic is the conclusive foundation that one can stand upon, once they’ve considered all viewpoints and given each argument an unbiased attempt. Paul and Elder challenge us to be men and women of integrity. They ask us to “dig” through the variables, weigh the alternative voices and conclude with a sound argument. They ask us to think critically – which is “…self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking.”[5] They are challenging us to think of ALL, yet not be swayed by ANY.
As we approached the jutted rocks that day on the thunderous rapids, we had a choice – we had the choice to survive using logic or surrender to emotion. Paul and Elder declare, “Shoddy thinking is costly…”[6] Poor thinking is like getting caught on the boulders – you must rock back-and-forth to break free. Critical thinking requires one to enter into dialogue and question, doubt and gather information for the goal of a solution. Critical thinking is willingness to rock the boat.
[1] Richard Paul and Linda Elder, Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools, Thinker’s Guide Library (Tomales, Calif.: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2014), 116.
[2] Richard Paul and Linda Elder, Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools, Thinker’s Guide Library (Tomales, Calif.: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2014), 251.
[3] Richard Paul and Linda Elder, Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools, Thinker’s Guide Library (Tomales, Calif.: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2014), 276.
[4] Richard Paul and Linda Elder, Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools, Thinker’s Guide Library (Tomales, Calif.: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2014), 170.
[5] Pg. Richard Paul and Linda Elder, Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools, Thinker’s Guide Library (Tomales, Calif.: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2014), 39.
[6] Richard Paul and Linda Elder, Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools, Thinker’s Guide Library (Tomales, Calif.: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2014), 29.
About the Author
Colleen Batchelder
I speak at conferences, churches, companies and colleges on intergenerational communication, marketing, branding your vision and living authentically in a ‘filtered’ world. My talks are customized to venue needs and audience interests. My passion is to speak with organizations and bridge the intergenerational gap. I consult with companies, individuals, churches and nonprofit organizations and help them create teams that function from a place of communication that bridges the generational gap. I’m also the Founder and President of LOUD Summit – a young adult organization that presents workshops, seminars and summits that encourage, empower and equip millennials to live out their destiny and walk in their purpose. When I’m not studying for my DMin in Leadership and Global Perspectives at Portland Seminary, you can find me enjoying a nice Chai Latte, exploring NYC or traveling to a new and exotic destination.6 responses to ““DIG!””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Colleen:
Great analogy of white water rafting. You captured it with the following statement, “As we approached the jutted rocks that day on the thunderous rapids, we had a choice – we had the choice to survive using logic or surrender to emotion. Paul and Elder declare, “Shoddy thinking is costly…”[6] Poor thinking is like getting caught on the boulders – you must rock back-and-forth to break free.”
The lack of critical thinking has caused many to subjugate people to their own bias, which is a reflection of their shallow thinking, not critical. The imagery (ethnography) of rocking back and forth to break free was insightful. The idea of getting caught on the boulders is not an issue until you are there. Critical thinking allows you to anticipate potentials by asking and evaluating.
Enjoyed the read.
Phil
Thank you, Phil!
What a true assessment. Many contemporaries within ministry have surrendered to the pressures of expectation, ministerial needs and congregational demands. It’s difficult to take time out to think through various voices and come forth with a logical conclusion. Sometimes, ministry directs our steps and infiltrates our critical thought. Hong Kong, and other forms of retreat offer leaders the opportunity to see the whole picture and weigh options. I wonder if we face problems within North America, because we fail to give pastors and leaders time to reflect. What are your thoughts?
Sometimes the pressure of ministry is performance NOW! I find myself “processing” more than ever before. Ministry in North America is under scrutiny because we are navigating and paddling (using your analogy) in areas we have never been before.
Critical thinking and possible reform in ministry to allow for that may be something to be addressed.
Phil
Being involved in the ministry I believe is like white water rafting. And unfortunately there was the invention of Facebook to help the rafters go over the waterfall! You have used very creative writing and imagery in describing this platform.
Using critical thinking, would help so many people not to just jump on board with the latest thought or idea that is propelled at us as truth. Taking the time to rationally think through and then critically think through the content of someone’s rant or “statement” is of great importance in this day of social access.
Did you survive the rapids with much screaming or silent prayer?
Kevin
Thank you, Kevin!
Yes. Exactly. Great point. You stated, “…unfortunately there was the invention of Facebook to help the rafters go over the waterfall.” Social media is a curse and a blessing. The worst part of Facebook is the lack of concern that’s exhibited throughout a thread. You become a number. Nothing more than a nuisance to retort with rhetoric and stinging remarks. I love posting controversial topics and watching the interaction of my peers. Many comment their allegiance boldly – agreeing fully with the author’s stance without even perusing through the first paragraph. They’ve made up their mind and their fingers type their unyielding commitment. I’d much rather interact with an opposing view that’s seeped in logic, than a wishy-washy spout of agreement.
I survived and became addicted to the sport! I absolutely loved the thrill of concurring the rapids and full speed. Next year, I plan to try white water kayaking.
Colleen – good picture: if each of you in the raft was not wiling to consider someone else’s idea of the best way/place to paddle, you could have all tried to head in different directions and ended up, who knows where?
Sometimes facebook can be like the editorial page in the newspaper: the greatest collection of ignorance and arrogance imaginable. The old saying is that sometimes arguments generate more heat than light. If only we could exert the energy to really hear other people’s thinking we’d gain more light and less heat.