Volf's 'Double Vision'

I've been thinking a lot lately about the need for what Miroslav Volf calls "double vision;" partly because of the research work I've been doing at Lipscomb, and partly because of various conversations I've had with fellow Christians.

It bothers me when I hear Christians make generalizations about Muslims, assuming all Muslims to be violent "extremists." Yasmin Mogahed offered a very important insight about religion and violence in her article titled, "Does the Hutaree Militia Represent Christianity: A Muslim Knows Better." In fact Mogahed's article presents an example of, as well as an invitation to, practice "double vision."

"Double vision," according to Volf, is trying to see the other not only "from here" but also "from there" (250-251). By this, Volf means that we should pay attention to our own understandings from our own location (i.e., from here), but we should also place ourselves in the place of the other and try to understand as they understand (i.e., from there). Volf observes that hearing "from here" is easy but claims that hearing "from there" is much more difficult. He offers four steps for seeing "from the perspective of others:"

1. "We step outside ourselves" (251).
2. "We cross a social boundary and move into the world of the other to inhabit it temporarily."
3. "We take the other into our own world."
4. " We repeat the process" (252).

So by stepping outside of ourselves, we first note that behind our understandings of others may be "many ugly prejudices, bitter fruits of our imaginary fears or our sinister desires to dominate or exclude. We also observe our own images of ourselves, willing to detect layers of self-deceit that tell us exalted stories about ourselves and our history" (251-252). This initial move then allows us to "open our ears to hear how others perceive themselves as well as how they perceive us" (252). Next, after putting "oneself into their skin" (252), we move back into "our world," comparing and contrasting "the view 'from there' and the view 'from here'" (252). This third step allows us to make judgments about the validity of our own ideas and the ideas of others. We may reject or accept one or both sets of ideas, but we will (hopefully) be able to judge between the two in a fair way. Finally, we repeat the process because "no judgment should be final, bringing the process to a halt. We can never presume that we have freed ourselves completely from distortions of others and deceptions about ourselves" (253).

Thus, Mogahed offers a plea for Christians to understand that in the same way the Hutaree militia does not represent orthodox Christianity, "Muslim terrorists" do not represent orthodox Islam. She rightly identifies the double standard that exists in Western culture, saying Westerners believe that violent Christians are violent in spite of their peaceful religion while violent Muslims are violent because of their religion. But Mogahed rightly defends Islam as a peaceful religion and, by citing Philip Jenkin's recent article that claims the Christian Bible has more violence in it than the Quran, she reminds Christian readers that Christian Scripture uses violent images in a similar way to Muslim Scriptures. In the end, what Mogahed's article represents is a plea for Christians to overcome double standards and to see Muslims with "double vision" instead.

And "double vision" will also help us avoid stupid, non-Christian statements such as the one made by Bryan Fischer earlier this week.