What Can We All Learn From Clarence Thomas?

Photo Credit: U.S. Government

Depending upon your political leanings, the title of this post may either intrigue or repulse you. For many political conservatives, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Clarence Thomas serves as an example of a man who has lived out the American Dream.  An African American man who was born before the Civil Rights movement and grew up in the South, Justice Thomas has risen to the heights of the legal profession as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

For many political liberals, though, especially for some in the black community, Thomas is a reminder of a black man who has turned his back on African Americans by stating his opposition to affirmative action programs that many believe he benefited from in order to advance to where he is today.

My purpose of this post is not to comment on my personal feelings on the political persuasions of Justice Thomas, but rather to reflect on the reason that he made the news this past week. It has now been over five years since Clarence Thomas has asked a question of a lawyer that has been presenting a case before the Supreme Court.

Five years! That's a long time. To give some perspective, the Detroit Lions have won a whopping 18 games since the last time Clarence Thomas asked a question in a case before him.  Wait...that's probably not the best example but you catch my drift.

I'm not a lawyer nor do I have much experience with the U.S. justice system (thankfully), but I'm guessing that it might be good for members of the Supreme Court to ask a clarifying question every now and again. But Justice Thomas has not. Not for over five years.

For those that are not supporters of his, this is evidence of his unfitness for the Court. But I do wonder if there is something else going on here that we can all learn from. What are his reasons for his silence, you ask? This is what Thomas has had to say when asked about this:

"I had grown up speaking a kind of dialect," Thomas, who was born in Pin Point, Ga., and raised by his grandparents in nearby Savannah, told a group of students in 2000. Classmates "used to make fun of us. ... I just started developing the habit of listening. ... I didn't ask questions in college or law school. I could learn better just listening."

More recently, Thomas said he thought lawyers should be able to do more of the talking during the hour-long sessions, to better explain their legal positions.

"I think there are far too many questions," he said in a 2009 interview with C-SPAN. "Some members of the court like that interaction. ... I prefer to listen and think it through more quietly."

Referring implicitly to how active his eight colleagues are in their questioning, Thomas said, "I think you should allow people to complete their answers and their thought and to continue their conversation. I find that coherence that you get from a conversation far more helpful than the rapid-fire questions. I don't see how you can learn a whole lot when there are 50 questions in an hour."

Perhaps there is something that we can learn from Clarence Thomas when it comes to listening to others. In fact, it may even be a biblical concept. James 1:19 says, "My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry." I wonder how our relationships with others could be transformed if we decided to refrain from providing answers for everyone and listened more to their thoughts? What if we sought the opinions of others more freely and held back from expressing our own?

Perhaps if we talked less and listened more, others would listen more attentively when we did have something to say. I'm sure that if Clarence Thomas ever does ask another question during a case that it will be given its full attention. There are probably some ways that I wouldn't want to emulate Clarence Thomas but becoming a better listener is one way I'd want to follow his example.

The Supreme Court, Campus Ministry and Discrimination (Part 2)

A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court could have far reaching ramifications for campus-based Christian ministries throughout the country. The high court found in favor of the Hastings College of Law, which had been sued by the Christian Legal Society, and upheld the legality of its requirement that school approved organizations could not discriminate against acceptance of members when it came to matters of religious belief and sexual practice.

I've already written on this matter here, so if you have not already read that post, please take a moment to do so before returning here. From my perspective, what is at issue here is whether religious groups have the freedom to select leadership among those that hold the beliefs of the organization and still remain eligible to receive the same privileges as other recognized student organizations.

Although the court's ruling only applies to Hastings College and its narrowly defined rules for student organizations, the court's decision could open the door for other institutions of higher learning to adopt similar policies. While recognizing the apparent slant against groups of a religious nature, Alec Hill, the president of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, offers a hopeful and biblical perspective in an article on Christianity Today.com:

"The church has always had a touch-and-go relationship with civic authorities. Paul's experiences in court were clearly mixed. James and Peter did not fare well with judges either (not to mention Joseph and Daniel). During the first three centuries of the church's existence—as the new faith grew rapidly—public opposition was strong.

As the people of God, we believe in a sovereign God. His purposes will be accomplished whatever obstacles present themselves. While Scripture encourages us to pray for our governing officials, we are reminded that this world is not our home. Christ, not Caesar, is our Lord, our hope, and our salvation.

If—in the worst case scenario—several Christian chapters were to be de-recognized as a result of this ruling, God's mission on campus would continue. If access to newly arriving freshman were lost, if campus communication channels were closed or if access to university facilities were denied, the gospel would continue to be presented through small groups, Bible studies and off-campus large groups. Though limiting campus access would no doubt make ministry more difficult, God's purposes will not be thwarted."

To read the rest of Alec Hill's thoughts on this case, please click here.

I hope to write further updates on this case as further developments take place.