Tips on Engaging in Honest Theological Dialogue

Well said, Lisa.

Warren Wiersbe once said, “If we start using the sickles on each other, we will miss the harvest!”

Can you post this on Theologica as well? I’d like to feature it and link to it on the About Page.

Even though I understand all these to be true….darn!! I still fall into the same practice time after time!

I thought it was Augustine as well. (LOL) …

Lisa:

I am more than sure that this will down as a classic!

Great post.

One thing I like about this blog is that it exhibits a broad spirit of acceptance of those with divergent views.

Since you’ve asked I would perhaps add one more:

Know when to quit a discussion so it does not become terminally tedious. You don’t have to be right all the time and win every argument. Some folk are like a dog with a bone, they just don’t let go. If it’s spirituality you want others to recognize, you come across more carnal than you think. Bowing out graciously is not a sign of weakness but strength.

The question I have (for which I don’t have an answer yet) is ‘why is theology so addictive?’ On some forums you see the ugly (really ugly) side of arguing about theological positions that brings out the worst in people.

“Know when to quit a discussion so it does not become terminally tedious. You don’t have to be right all the time and win every argument. Some folk are like a dog with a bone, they just don’t let go.”

Now who here has done THAT successfully, including myself? Me thinks there is addiction in the terminally tedious 😉

Good set of rules to read before hitting the submit/post comment button… 🙂

why is theology so addictive?

I don’t know… but I am hooked!

-MikeB

“Don’t assume that you know everything and are right about everything.”

Oh but I do…however, I’ll fake like I don’t just to get along.

“Don’t assume you know exactly what a person believes unless they tell you. There is a thing called prejudice.”

Assume? My dear sister, the Spirit reveals all to me, I don’t have to assume.

“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.’

But it DOES have all the answers. Really, no really. It does…I’m serious.

“Don’t mock the other person for holding to a position you think is ridiculous”

Jesus mocked. ‘Nuff said.

“Don’t wield your convictions as THE sword of truth. That is reserved for the bible.”

My convictions ARE from the bible! Oh yea, I bet that cut.

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials liberty and in all things charity”

If you only know what all is essential!

Okay, so I jest…

Alex, so you DO have a sense of humor? Who knew 😀

Where do you guys obtain this wisdom? Honestly, Good article but how do you come to these conclusions? I am only asking because I want this ability to think in this realm.

If I may offer a couple of practical additions:

Limit, or eliminate, the use of personal pronouns. It’s difficult to go on an effective personal attack without the use of the word ‘you’.

Limit the use of absolutes (only/always/etc). They are rarely warranted and tend to make statements seem unduly final.

And this wasn’t applied to the Rob Bell fiasco because…..?

Rick, interesting point. I think we all draw our line in the sand at some point. It wasn’t Rob Bell’s debate for me.

Does any one else find themselves pondering if EVERYONE would include a photo . I am almost always surprised when my conjured up image does not match the actual one posted. … Only (2) on this particular post have pictures……. does having a picture affect your analysis of their comments… regrettably it has with me in the past( JOhn and Leslie not case in point) That’s maybe why I don’t include a picture.

Jim, I think that’s a great idea. If fact, I had wanted to put my pic in but couldn’t figure out how.

But you do point to one of the weaknesses of on-line interactions, which is the one-dimensional aspect of it. We can’t really measure a person’s tone or facial expressions that would create a greater sensitivity in how to respond. Also, as we all know, the internet creates little men behind the curtain (Wizard of Oz) that feel freer to take controls behind the scenes.

[…] a word is caught in the tension. ‘Evangelical’ is just one of those words.” Tips for Engaging in Honest Theological Dialogue — Words are important, and how we use them can build others up or tear them down. “As […]

Jim….Leslie turned out to be a he, huh(!?) He’s our dear brother in India! Hi Leslie 😉

Susan

Exactly !! Isn’t it strange how before a dialogue we get caught in preconceptions. I think Lisa is correct in it’s one dimensional but in the end maybe that’s a plus. I think if we are completely honest , age, sex, and other traits would influence us more than we would care to let on. I would love (probably too strong a word) to see Hodge photo, then again maybe not! For everyone that blogs on this space you congur up images that 9/10 times would be untrue. Leslie was a perfect example for me. The question is does it influence his contribution in my eyes with this new information? I thinking NOT, but must admit to some bias on some other bloggers from past comments.

this is excellent and convicting. we are so self
important and condescending! i am grateful
for your wisdom and humility.

i try to walk a fine line at my blog. it is not a
religious one or a teaching one. i like to think
of it as ‘salt’ and have many faithful followers
who are not believers.

my prayer is that the tiny seeds i sow will draw
them to the precious Lord, i love.

thank you!

Lisa,

I think we need to be careful imposing our Western values of dialogue on Christian ones. I’m not sure if Jesus, the prophets, the apostles, those down through church history, etc. would be able to fit the “good” character that this list assumes. I do think a few of them are in line with Christian ethics, but as a whole, seem to stem, again, from our adoption of certain presuppositions that are antithetical to the idea that all must come to a knowledge of the one truth or be exposed to the evil that rejection of that one truth brings. In other words, it’s nice, but is it loving? It gains respect from our culture, both religious and non, because it does not wield any authority over them, but rather lets them wield their own. It demands no faith, but only seeks to reason with what is perhaps a spiritual problem more than any other.

Jim,
Give me your address and I’ll send you an autographed copy of my best photo. 🙂

Hodge,

Can you point out which ones you think suggest that we should compromise truth? The thrust of these recommendations is how we engage with the content, not how we adjust to the content.

Lisa wants one of those photos too, Hodge.
(Lisa….put away the darts!)

JK!

Thanks Hodge, but I’ll pass……I like the mystery in our relationship. (Would insert happy face if I knew how) I sort of get what your implying with your comment about everyone welding their own truth. For me I have some difficulty pointing out others errors of truth in others while knowning my sinful nature. Obviously someone’s truth is wrong……I’m just humble enough to admit it may be mine. So I try to be gracious when dealing with bibical concerns but there are some essentials which I stand firm. I think Lisa is suggesting our conversation about the subject be proper not our conclusions.

Thanks Lisa.

Forgive the grammactical errors above …knowing not knowning……etc. Must be the thought of Hodge sending me his photo (LOL) On the other hand let’s do a vote for those who wish for Hodge to become clearer to us by sight ….certainly he becomes quite clear by word., it’s a gift I wish I had.

Lisa,

I didn’t say that any of them compromise truth. My point is that the manner in which we approach truth conveys a certain idea of that truth. For example, if I approach truth from the standpoint of postmodern “humility,” I’m going to see my understanding of truth as stemming from my personal reasoning rather than from God. In other words, it’s an exercise of unbelief. If I believe that the truth I hold comes from God, and is not based on my personal understanding of it, then I’m going to approach the conversation much differently–from a position of authority rather than one of confusion or personal opinion. I see biblical teachings presented in the former manner, not the latter. The former also assumes all sorts of things about God’s ability to convey revelation accurately and sufficiently to His people, and the latter conveys all sorts of things about His inability to do those things in light of our sinful and finite nature. But we are called to belief not rational…

certainty. Could we be wrong if we just believe in such a way that we exclude all other options? Of course, but we’re all in that boat anyway. The issue here is whether we ought to view our being in that boat as leading to a view of truth’s apprehension in terms of God’s inability to communicate it. We risk everything when we believe, and perhaps, that is why so many don’t want to believe, but to continue in a perpetual conversation where reason allows us to have all of the control. When someone comes along and takes that control by demanding obedience to what he believes is the truth, we are defiant, not because he merely conflicts with our truth, but because he believes he really holds it. This, to me, undermines the faith more than any one doctrine in particular because it does not assume absolute faith, but doubt as our modus operandi.

Hodge: “I think we need to be careful imposing our Western values of dialogue on Christian ones. I’m not sure if Jesus, the prophets, the apostles, those down through church history, etc. would be able to fit the “good” character that this list assumes.”

It would be an interesting exercise to see whether and “if Jesus, the prophets, the apostles, those down through church history, etc. would be able to fit the “good” character that this list assumes.

Would “the list” have to altered or modified or “nuanced” or qualified?

Hodge –

When I first read this post, by the second paragraph it became obvious to me that it was addressing the behavioral aspect of dialogue not the content, the how not the what.

How can we read Col 4:6 and 1 Peter 3:15 as ‘Western value’ or ‘postmodern humility’ statements when they were written in the imperative by 1st century Christian Jews? Words like “gentleness and respect” (Gk. ‘fear’) and “gracious, seasoned with salt” would indicate that our attitude and manner are ‘Christian’ matters and having been included in the text would mean they transcend time and culture.

The best I can ascertain from your comments is that you are connecting meekness and humility in interaction with a position of weakness? (correct me if I misunderstood). You also opine that speaking from a position of authority would indicate that the truth you hold comes from God and is not based on your personal understanding of it?

(Cont…)

You can speak with all the authority and confidence you want and still be wrong. Confidence does not insulate anyone from error. You also said that you “see biblical teachings presented in the former manner, not the latter” I assume you are referring to biblical authors under the direct guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Should we be game enough to put ourselves on par with the cherry-picked bunch whom God chose to communicate revelation?

Finally, I will openly confess that I’m no stellar exegete, but James’s “for we all stumble in many ways” would provoke me to seriously consider a healthy level of epistemic humility as a biblical concept.

John,

I don’t believe either of the verses you quoted are teaching what you think they are. The phrase “seasoned with salt” has to do with speech that is pleasing to God, as a sacrifice is sprinkled with salt, not as to how it sounds to people. The second phrase “with gentleness and respect” is in the context of speaking to those in authority over believers, not anyone and everyone; and the term refers to nonviolence and fear of authority, not approaching truth with an assumption that we could be wrong.

“The best I can ascertain from your comments is that you are connecting meekness and humility in interaction with a position of weakness? (correct me if I misunderstood).”

No, I’m saying that biblical teaching demands faith. It speaks with authority to do this. When we turn it into something we are suggesting to others, the authority is gone, and we are assuming something about the apprehension of the truth that is unbiblical.

“You also opine that speaking from a position of authority would indicate that the truth you hold comes from God and is not based on your personal understanding of it?”

No, it does no such thing. My point is that the truth of God ought to be delivered in an authoritative manner because it is the truth of God. If someone is wrong about that, reason and dialogue is not going to fix it. A submissive faith to adopt truth will.

I don’t believe either of the verses you quoted are teaching what you think they are. The phrase “seasoned with salt” has to do with speech that is pleasing to God, as a sacrifice is sprinkled with salt, not as to how it sounds to people.

The preceding verse begins with “Walk in wisdom toward outsiders” the 6th verse ends with “so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” The phrase “seasoned with salt” is wedged between the two, and yet you insist it has nothing to do with how it sounds to people. Ok then!

The second phrase “with gentleness and respect” is in the context of speaking to those in authority over believers, not anyone and everyone;

Where exactly is that hidden in the text? The command is to speak with gentleness and respect toward those who “ask you for a reason for the hope that is in you”. If you are correct about the context, then the simplest reading of this verse would be something like; “if a pastor / asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you [why would your pastor ask you that anyway] you must be prepared to defend yourself with gentleness and respect” Sounds like a non sequitur.

Also, is God expecting us to only address those in authority over believers with gentleness and respect and the rest with harshness and disrespect? Surely it’s not what you’re suggesting.

and the term refers to nonviolence and fear of authority, not approaching truth with an assumption that we could be wrong. You misunderstood my point, but that’s fine.

Hodge,

You believe God’s Word should be delivered with authority. Fine and good. But what happens if you discover your understanding of God’s Word happens to be wrong?

There are a lot of conflicting opinions on many things here on P and P. Everyone likely believes that the understanding they have on the subject is the way the Bible truly teaches it or they wouldn’t believe it.

That being the case, we could sure have a whole lot of opposing opinions spoken here authoritively as the absolute truth of God’s Word, couldn’t we??

The Roman Catholic church certainly in the past has spoken with absolute authority but along came a bunch of reformers and…….well you know the rest of the story!

My confidence is in my redeemer not my ability to interpret bibical correctness. As I have mentioned before there are certain core essentials which I have my feet firmly planted in but there are some issues which I am just not sure of…I form an opinion but certainly could be wrong. The church has been divided throughout history on some doctrine derived from God’s word.

It’s unfortunate when we complicate a simple subject. I read this post to simply mean ‘whatever you discuss about the faith do it properly’.

Exhorting one another to behave & be nice doesn’t mean to agree with the disagreeable & talk about our faith in a wimpy, sissy, mealy-mouthed sort of a way. I for one couldn’t do that if you chained me down. You can be confident about the subject matter you’re discussing & still respect your opponent. Paul was confident with the idolatrous Athenians & yet he did not antagonize them, mock them or talk down to them.

If simple verses like the ones discussed above don’t mean what they appear to mean & have some encrypted meaning, we are in deep trouble. The Bible is then no longer intellectually accessible to anyone that doesn’t hold a Master of Divinity degree. How did 1st century Christians who heard Paul’s words for the 1st time understood them, without having access to Dan Wallace’s articles & Wayne Grudem’s commentaries?

John,

Neither you nor Jim have interacted with the idea that if you hold to this list, and the interpretations of the verses you espouse teach your position, you condemn Jesus, the prophets, the apostles, and those throughout church history. The idea that Jesus didn’t speak appropriately because He didn’t fulfill the ideals of this list is modern hubris par excellence.
The context of 1 Peter is telling Christians how to handle their faith under oppressive and/or secular authority figures. Read the epistle and see if your interpretation is not seeking to stretch the meaning beyond its context.
I said nothing concerning the phrase “seasoned with salt” as something that doesn’t talk about how we communicate to humans. I said that the phrase refers to what is pleasing to God. Our speech to others should be pleasing to God. There is no conflict between us speaking to humans and having it pleasing to God; but the context is about our speaking the gospel.

“My confidence is in my redeemer not my ability to interpret bibical correctness.”

Is your confidence in your redeemer to redeem you with His Words? Is your confidence in Him to communicate to you through His revelation through His ministers? This was my entire point. By placing our “humility” in our understanding, we come to a place of confusion and opinion without authority. To place our confidence in Christ and His Spirit, we come to a place of truth with authority to demand change. They are worlds apart.

“If simple verses like the ones discussed above don’t mean what they appear to mean & have some encrypted meaning, we are in deep trouble.”

John,

Are you seriously suggesting that your traditional reading, one that imposes modern definitions upon the ancient text, is the plain reading, and the one that I am suggesting that takes the historical and immediate context into consideration, is a cryptic meaning? I don’t think I would argue this way.

“You believe God’s Word should be delivered with authority. Fine and good. But what happens if you discover your understanding of God’s Word happens to be wrong?”

Cheryl,

That’s the risk of belief. But we’re all doomed to that fate, no matter what. And disagreement does not equal the validity of multiple opinions, nor does it diminish the right of God to have His ministers proclaim His truth with authority rather than a suggested opinion among other humanly reasoned opinions.

Hodge,

I didn’t say all opinions are equal. What I did say was that in a forum like this one on P and P we may have umpteen people with umpteem different understandings of an issue all believing that they have the correct one. They are not all going to be proclaiming His truth with authority even if they think they are.

“They are not all going to be proclaiming His truth with authority even if they think they are.”

Cheryl,

I’m not sure what you’re arguing here. Who cares if everyone isn’t proclaiming God’s truth? Do you think that if you were on a blog site with a Muslim, a Hindu, and a Buddhist who were all proclaiming their beliefs with authority, and all really believed them to be of God, that this means we, who believe we have God’s truth, should not proclaim it with authority? I’m not sure your point?

Hodge,

I thought Lisa’s article was about dialog on such places as this blog.

But several times now you have brought up the idea that God speaks authoritatively through His ministers. My point is very simple: on a blog like this we are all speaking our understanding of the Word to the best of our ability. All of us can’t be right when opinions differ greatly.

So how is it that we are to know who these people are that are speaking with God’s authoritiy here? Several people may think that they are doing so and be saying totally conflicting things. So how does anyone know the one that is actually speaking for God and has the right to “demand change”? We are just to take a person’s word for it because they say so? Or what? Who establishes that any person has this authority here? Or is this whole concept foreign to a forum like this?

I thought Lisa’s article was about dialog on such places as this blog.

Cheryl, yes I am clearly referring to dialogue as the title suggests. I would also apply it towards investigation as indicated in the first sentence. I would expect that ministering God’s word, from a pastoral or teaching perspective, would be done with authority and power, although that done graciously also.

Hodge –

By “those in authority over believers” I thought you were referring to church leadership. Mea culpa that one. Civil authorities makes perfect sense as demonstrated both by Jesus and the apostles when they addressed them with gentleness and respect during their trials.

In relation to the other points raised, I remain somewhat confused. I’m not sure if we’re talking apples & oranges. We all agree that public ministry and proclamation of the gospel ought to be delivered with boldness and deeply embedded conviction. One of my favorite verses of all time has been Acts 4:13. No one here is advocating MacLarenesque parlance laced with evasive euphemisms, opaque jargon and Hegelian dialectics.

(Cont…)

What we are talking about is Christians who engage in dialogue in blogs such as this, will often contradict each other as they read the same thing and arrive at different conclusions. Forcing your understanding of a particular truth on others (not talking about the essentials here either) and being rigor mortis in your opinions, makes you neither more credible nor does it command more respect from others to listen.

Here’s a good word from John Stott:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/03/11/why-christians-need-to-debate/

Guess I am wondering how a good post on common courtesy in interacting among human beings, especially among Christians, got to be confused with speaking the Word with authority. No one disputes that. Only folks who have a superiority complex would take this post any other way but how it was meant: to be about speaking the truth of Christ in Spirit and in Truth, and in love as the Bible defines it.

mbaker,

you just broke a bunch of the rules above. You neither understand what I am saying nor have you engaged with my argument. I don’t believe the dichotomy between how I treat truth on Sunday and how I treat it in a conversation on a daily basis is helpful or even responsible. God’s truth must be spoken with authority because it reflects the source of the truth and the nature by which humans must be transformed by it (i.e., in submission to the command via faith rather than having to have truth submitted to them and their personal rationalizing consent). That’s true on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, etc. This idea that only a pastor from the pulpit ought to speak with authority and treat the truth he believes as something to be suggested among a host of other opinions has taken its toll in evangelicalsm. Your “common courtesy” only serves to beg the question and pretends that your comment is the superior truth about the post. Love speaks the truth to the exclusion of lies that…