(by Lisa Robinson)
Actually, I think this list is also applicable to investigation as well. It is based on observations over time on various blogs, discussions boards, personal interaction and concerning various topics (Lest anyone think I am singling them out).
Don’t assume that the other person is ignorant of what God has revealed through scripture or does not understand what scripture is communicating simply because they don’t agree with you.
Don’t attack the other person personally or suggest their lack of understanding must be due to some character flaw.
Don’t assume you know exactly what a person believes unless they tell you. There is a thing called prejudice.
Don’t assume that you understand everything there is to know about the doctrinal or theological system that you have rejected. What is taught at the popular or preaching level may or may not be honest to what is actually espoused or provides a fair treatment to variations of that position.
Don’t project your experiences as being explanatory of the whole or what is normative. What you experienced may or may not be representative of a particular doctrinal or theological system or church tradition.
Don’t continually use the platform of your tradition, doctrinal bent or theological conclusions as the cure all answer for whatever is being discussed, unless the conversation warrants it. Continual interjections distracts from the discussion.
Don’t assume that your tradition or system has ALL the answers to what God has revealed. There is something to be said for epistemological humility.
Don’t throw out an entire system of thought because of diagreements with a portion of it. There is something to be gleaned from anyone willing to understand what is being communicated in scripture.
Don’t assume that you know everything and are right about everything.
Don’t mock the other person for holding to a position you think is ridiculous
Don’t wield your convictions as THE sword of truth. That is reserved for the bible.
Don’t take a caustic tone, when someone does not agree with you.
Do set the tone of gracious discussion
Do understand that we will always sift our findings through the colandar of experience, church tradition and personality bent.
Do be respectful and understanding that others will have their colandars too.
Do listen to what the other person has to say about why they believe what they believe it.
Do use your experience to share how it is that you have come to certain conclusions.
Do understand that we do not all use the same theological method, particular across the three Christian traditions.
Do understand that there will be certain tensions in scripture that cannot be easily explained away, no matter how many have tried.
Do ask the person you disagree with to support what they are saying by scripture and how they understand it
Do readily admit ignorance, especially when demonstrated that you may not have all the answers.
Do share results of honest and thorough investigation of competing positions and why you gravitate towards one over the other. Emphasis on the word thorough, which is also objective and fair born of extensive research based on what advocates have actually espoused. Strawmen don’t count.
Do try to decipher what is worth fighting for and what is not, what is more central to Christian orthodoxy and what is not.
Are there any others you can think of?
“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials liberty and in all things charity” – Augustine
70 replies to "Tips on Engaging in Honest Theological Dialogue"
Hodge,
My, my, interesting that you thought i was speaking about you specifically, when like Lisa I was talking about simple human courtesy in engaging anyone in conversation,especially the biblical admonishment for us Christians to speak the truth in love. Yet you seem to make it an either or thing between truth and common courtesy. Did my comment prick your conscience perhaps instead?
destroy. It does not present itself as one of the many possibilities among lies. It presents itself as the only possibility in contrast to lies. This is not acceptable to us because of our radical rebellion toward authority and truth. We want people to act as though all of our truths are but different perspectives of the same ultimate truth, or that truths are not important enough to lose the respect of another person, group, etc. We discuss it like good natured politics: i.e., what I believe may be true, but it’s not so important as to vehemently reject the opinion or person who espouses what contradicts or undermines it. I, again, am of the same culture, I have the same reaction toward those who demand faith in what they believe to be true; but in the end, I must admit, if I am honest with the Scripture, that it presents truth in contradiction to many of the points above; and that ought to humble my unbiblical opinions concerning dialogue.
mbaker,
Please. You said anyone who would make the POST about authority issues. I’m the only one here doing that. Give me a break.
“Yet you seem to make it an either or thing between truth and common courtesy.”
And you seem to be confusing common courtesy with the love to which the Bible refers. Did Jesus give Peter common courtesy when He called him “Satan”? Did Paul give common courtesy to the Judaizers by telling them to go castrate themselves? How many times a biblical author use the phrase, “well, it seems to me,” or “it may be the case,” or “let me suggest to you my take on this”? I see a whole lot of “these people are dogs'” “these people are void of the Spirit,” “they are deceived,” “unreasoning animals,” etc. who teach what is “false,” “of the devil,” “according to the lusts of the world,” etc. Doesn’t sound like many of the items above would consider that sort of dialogue appropriate Christian behavior; but the Spirit considers it speaking the truth in love.
Hodge,
May say I’ve noticed say it’s rare that you do the same with anyone on P and P when you disagree with them? I have been the victim of your venom more than once, even though I and many of the rest of us here have been more than gracious to you on more than one occasion.
I think Lisa has made some good points here. I’m not looking for anything else but agreeing with her on how we should conduct ourselves. If you’ve got another agenda you’ll have to deal with that. I seriously do not think it’s an either or thing between speaking the word with authority and between speaking the truth in love. I think it is a matter of both.
Rebuke is always venom to those who don’t take it. I accept that. Jesus wasn’t seen as a nice guy by those he rebuked, unless they actually humbled themselves to it. He was crucified for a reason. If you read my comments, I don’t disagree that speaking the word with authority and speaking the truth in love is an either/or thing. I believe our modern definitions of love, and its confusion with approaching truth claims in a non-confrontational, egalitarian manner, do not accord with the biblical definition of love, as it has as its primary goal the exaltation of God’s Word over human words and the salvation of those to whom it goes out rather than seeking community and the general good-will feeling that are modern dialogues pursue. I believe the latter subjugates the biblical goal to our modern one. If the love, however, that violently grabs a child from running into oncoming traffic is venom, then may God fill me with more of it than a Taipan.
“Jesus wasn’t seen as a nice guy by those he rebuked, unless they actually humbled themselves to it.”
When we will ever see YOU humble, Hodge? 🙂
Hodge –
Your ability to provoke is second to none and it’s either your way or the highway! Are you ever wrong?
Rebuking opposition to sound doctrine is biblical (Titus 1:9), but if a shepherd is meant to do it with ‘complete patience & teaching’ to his own sheep (2 Tim 4:2), what gives the rest of us on this blog the right to be mercilessly cracking our theological whip? None of us have a monopoly on truth and all the secondary/non-essentials are obviously not that clear to all and sundry which is why we can’t all see what you see.
What you often refer to as ‘truth’ is no more than your interpretation of it, and presenting it forcefully and bullying other readers into agreement does nothing to validate the veracity of your claims.
As a closing comment (so we are not lopsided), I often learn from your comments and thank God for you.
Guys, please interact with the OP and not turn on each other
Hodge,
Your zeal for truth is appreciated. No one here is claiming that we should sacrifice truth on the altar of nicety. But certainly you cannot honestly believe that given the divergent views of particular doctrinal issues within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy itself, that you are absolutely right about everything and see everything clearly with respect to Biblical interpretion None of us can make that claim. That does not negate conviction born of fruitful study and understandings of what are non-negotiables.
Nonetheless, the post is about how we interact. While you may not agree with all the points, the tenor of your comments not only illustrate some of the violations I’ve cited but also border on violation of blog rules regarding disrespect towards the people you are engaging with. Kindly note the blog rules, including #4 which says to not spam one comment after the other. Thank you for your…
compliance.
“Nonetheless, the post is about how we interact. While you may not agree with all the points, the tenor of your comments not only illustrate some of the violations I’ve cited but also border on violation of blog rules regarding disrespect towards the people you are engaging with.”
I, of course, haven’t even come near the rhetoric of the biblical authors and characters; but I think your comment here illustrates why it’s so dangerous to make up a list of appropriate Christian conduct that condemns Jesus Himself. I believe it disrespects people to not love them with the truth. My zeal is not for the truth, but for God and people. The truth is just that which restores and guides the relationship between them. What you have posited here, Lisa, is a list that has some biblical truth with a whole lot of error that will ultimately undermine the authority of the truth in a person’s life. I’ve seen it time and time again. Read Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism and you can see a…
connection between many items on this list and the liberal view of truth (“liberal” because of the way truth is handled as opinion, not because the content of truth is rejected).
I, of course, don’t believe that we should always be harsh, always be direct, etc. I think the Bible presents to us that we ought to approach each person differently. Are we going to slip up and sin by being too harsh when we shouldn’t? Yes, I’ve probably done it many times. But are we also going to sin by slipping up and being too timid when we ought to be bold? Yes, I’ve also done that many times. The key is to not force everyone by some culturally contrived list to speak truth to everyone in the same way, or be accused of disrespecting people and behaving in a non-Christ-like manner.
But I do think that it’s interesting that I was called a bully and someone who must have a superiority complex, but only I was called out for disrespecting others when I called no names and have only sought to…
exalt Jesus over that which would falsely accuse Him of wrongdoing.
BTW, I am working on getting the multiple posts down, but it’s hard to answer multiple posts by other people to which I’m responding in a single post. I wasn’t really sure if that fit the spam method of certain posters who try to post a book in the blog comments. From now on, I’ll try to condense it even more. BTW, the irony that it took you two posts to condemn my multiple posts was not lost on me, and I hope it wasn’t on you. 😉
“I believe it disrespects people to not love them with the truth. My zeal is not for the truth, but for God and people. The truth is just that which restores and guides the relationship between them.”
Nobody is debating this. I think we all can agree on this point.
“What you have posited here, Lisa, is a list that has some biblical truth with a whole lot of error that will ultimately undermine the authority of the truth in a person’s life.”
How can such a claim be made without a proper context? Not one reference has been made to any doctrinal or biblical truth that would warrant your claim as valid.
But you know, you seem bent on believing what you want to believe. You think I’m liberal and disregard truth? Touche. Thanks for commenting.
“but I think your comment here illustrates why it’s so dangerous to make up a list of appropriate Christian conduct that condemns Jesus Himself.”
Hodge, that is a pretty harsh claim. If you think Lisa’s points on Christian conduct while debating violate scripture in this manner, please by all means provide some scripture to show point by point how they ‘condemn’ Jesus Himself.
mbaker,
I’ve already provided it. Jesus would be in violation of the list above in pretty much every conversation He had. If we say, That’s OK, since He’s God, we still haven’t explained why both He and His ministers speak this way in private, not always public, discussions, where there are multiple views present.
Lisa,
I didn’t say you were liberal. I said that some of the elements of your list assume a stance on truth that is liberal. That’s a big difference. Please note that I regard the point about not assuming what your opponent is saying, or jumping to conclusions about it as a biblical point. Please then observe it. We all have the tendency toward liberalizing truth. It’s in our culture, not just secular but sacred. But it’s apparent that I can’t break the essential orthodoxy of postmodern Christianity without being slandered in some way, so I’ll discontinue my pursuit of this question here and take it up in a book where I can elaborate more clearly.
Hodge, read the blog rules. If you don’t agree with them, then don’t comment. It is pretty simple. There are lots of blogs that facilitate a more harsh tone. This is not one of them. Lisa’s OP is how we seek to do things here, with gentleness and respect. Neither you or I are apostles (that I know of). Those people here are not your congregation. I know that disagreements can cause emotions to heighten, but this is where we all have to try to yield to the power of the Spirit. I understand when it is too hard. But silence is better than belligerence (at least here).
No problem, Michael. I understand the postmodern goals of community; but are they not up for discussion? I cannot, in good conscience, condemn the Lord or His apostles and prophets (I frankly think that saying we’re not them is a cop-out. If we’re not them, then why appeal to them as models of conduct?). I’ve enjoyed the interaction I’ve had here over the past year or so, and wish you well; but it’s clear that we don’t agree on what I think is sinking the church and the individual Christian’s faith in the truth today, so I cannot comply if the blog rules are applied to speech so rigidly. Hence, I must say goodbye. I, for one, will not reject a soft or harsh tone, as God will likely place what He wishes to say in the voice of the one I reject. It’s a shame my words aren’t perceived as love; but that’s the nature of the postmodern beast. We are at war (2 Cor 10). May God grant us all frankness of speech in speaking God’s Word by the Spirit in this war (Acts 4:31). Take care.
[…] Lisa Robinson with tips on engaging in honest theological dialogue […]
[…] Tips on Engaging in Honest Theological Dialogue […]