To Question or Not to Question? . . . . . . . . . That is the Question.

As a teacher, I have been endeavoring over the past four months here at Handong both to encourage and to challenge my students to ask questions.  My approach, though, runs contrary to the inclination not to question that most Asian students have had instilled within them from their culture (or at least, that's the explanation that is most often offered to me for their hesitation, and in some cases, out-right resistance to raising questions).

Many view questioning not as a positive expression of desire for deeper understanding of an idea, but rather as a negative attack that seeks to undermine the "authority" of the teacher as well as create divisions and doubt.  From this perspective, listening quietly is expected of students, rather than questioning openly.  There are, though, some questions that are not aimed at understanding. In my reading, I recently encountered Paul's admonition to avoid "foolish and undisciplined speculations [questions], understanding that they only give rise to quarrels" (2 Timothy 2:23).

So, if there are some questions that are either motivated by or are aimed at creating quarrels, for the sake of quarreling, then we would have to acknowledge that not all questions are of equal value.  Not every question should be entertained. Not every question should even be aired.  Some questions are constructive.  They lead toward building understanding and strengthening learning relationships.  But other questions, may be corrupting. These sorts of questions are intended to foster greater misunderstanding and confusion.

The problem is, however, that any given question on its face may not reveal its true character; or, should I say, the question itself may not disclose the true character and intentions of the one who poses the question.  Since we are all humans who are engaged in the endeavor of education, I must ever be on guard that the questions I put to others be questions truly seeking understanding and not be questions meant to divide, harm others, corrupt the pursuit of truth for the sake of self-justification.

All of these thoughts came to bear upon me yesterday, when I pondered whether I should raise a question in response to a guest speaker's presentation that was, as I pondered, being delivered to our faculty.  The presenter was a former Egyptian Muslim imam who had converted to Christianity.  He now gives presentations to governmental organizations as well as educational institutions and private groups around the world.  He had, in fact, just before arriving in Korea been in Switzerland where he consulted with several members of the government there.

In his presentation, the speaker set forth twenty-two of the thirty articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the member countries of the United Nations in 1948 and compared various selections from the Islamic Scriptures to each of these articles in his effort to demonstrate that the teachings and practices of the Muslim religion violate the UN Declaration.  He then argued that action against the spread of Islam should be taken by those nations that recognize the Declaration as a standard for human rights.

He gave as his one and only example of the type of action for which he was calling the recent adoption by the Swiss people of a ban on the construction of minarets at mosques within Switzerland.  (read more)  What the speaker, however, failed to acknowledge in his presentation was that the Swiss action banning the construction of minarets was in and of itself a violation of the provision of the UN Declaration which expressly acknowledges that: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance" (emphasis added).

As I sat and listened to the speaker's presentation, I began to formulate several questions to pose to our guest should the audience be given that opportunity.  My questions were: "Do you believe that the UN Declaration is a standard for human rights that all countries should follow?  If so (and I assumed that the speaker would say yes to my first question) have you considered whether the Swiss ban on minarets is an action that itself violates the UN Declaration?" 

I must readily admit that I wished to expose the evident inconsistency in the speaker's presentation with much more directness and force.  No public Q&A time was offered, though, and when I went up to talk with the speaker personally his limited time was occupied by many who were approving of his comments.  I did, however, raise my concerns with a few fellow faculty members who were also waiting to talk with our guest speaker.  So, I didn't put my questions to the speaker. 

This morning I found an interesting article by Dr. Albert Mohler commenting on the Swiss banning of minarets.  I emailed this article out to all of my fellow faculty members here at Handong and promptly received several replies that indicated I was not the only one who was raising questions about what we had heard.  One colleague wrote: "read [Mohler's article] with interest. Thanks much. Certainly consistent with what you were suggesting yesterday."   While I must be on guard not to use questions improperly, it is better to question than not to question. All ideas, all opinions, all things need to be examined by questions.