Monday, February 28, 2011

The Spirit of Dialogue: How Should We Act In Light of Theological Differences?

In our interactions with others, whether they be Christian or otherwise, we need to set boundaries. With this in mind, I submit the following exercise of setting my own personal boundaries implicitly based in biblical foundations, as I prayerfully understand them, for others to glean what they will. We must keep in mind that the theological liberties (in an authorized, not inherent, sense) that are afforded us, specifically those that allow us to hold to our differences concerning the faith, are given, not as an inerrant right, but as an allowance of grace. The Lord is very aware of our inadequacies and, more to the point, our stubbornness.

Since it is not a right that we disagree, but an opportunity (for one or both sides to be incorrect without being subject to complete consequence) given to us as a concession for our deficiencies, we must not be content or complacent in our disagreement, for proper/right understanding is at stake (See note: The Importance of Right Doctrine). Instead, we should work diligently with each other through study, prayer, and healthy dialogue to try to bridge the gaps and to try to establish more faithful perceptions of truth that can be agreed upon if enough patience and explanation take place within healthy dialogue.

All involved must remember that if we are to truly consider ourselves brothers and sisters in the faith, then it is our duty, an obligation we owe to each other in the name of love, to treat each other as such. If we are children of God, adopted by grace through faith in Christ, then we all (Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Wesleyan-Arminians, to name a few) must be concerned for the well being of each other, wanting God to be exalted in proper understanding of His divine truth. We are not each other’s enemies. It is important that we keep an openness, realizing that each side potentially has something to offer.

Often times, our theological differences are a matter of semantic over-emphasis as a matter of protecting our own position. In other words, one might choose to use a term (e.g. prevenient grace for the Wesleyan and common grace for the Calvinist), simply because it leans toward one camp over another, but the same person might hold a very nuanced definition of the term that other's might never realize if they do not ask. Just as we should never pigeonhole a person based on their affiliation to a particular political movement (e.g. calling all who are concerned with social and/or environmental justice “liberals”), we should never assume we know all there is to know about a person’s beliefs because he or she considers himself or herself a Calvinist or Wesleyan (or anything else for that matter). Moreover, if time is taken to fully listen and attempt to understand others' positions, instead of wasting time coming up with a counter argument that might be gratuitous, missing all that the person is saying in the first place, then one might (in many, but certainly not all cases) come to realize that the other person’s views are not so different after all, and might not differ in the least, except for emphasis and terminology.

On the one hand, one should not presume to know the extent of another's theological understandings until that person has thoroughly exhausted all the resources that the person in question has provided. Keep in mind, there does come times when there is a need to argue for one's own side in light of another's statement, even when one has not read all that the person whose position is in question has provided. In those instances it is important to note that the position that one is arguing against is an assumed position, unless the person has provided concrete evidence on the particular topic, even if more is stated elsewhere. In other words, all theological dialogue (at least those conversations that do not include a heretical voice) should be participated in with a sense of humility by all those involved. However, because right understanding is at stake, this is not to say that dialogue should not be done passionately. It should. It should be done with a passion to discover truth.

On the other hand, as for the individual making the initial argument, it should be his or her duty in the first place to explain terms to the fullest extent that the individual is capable, especially for those terms that are central to the arguments. Remaining vague in order to maintain use of loopholes and to avoid entanglement is not respectful of the argument or the person one is trying to persuade. In fact, it might be deception. One should be willing to take his or her argument out its logical conclusion to test the strength of one’s case. To do anything less is to risk misleading others by an esoteric rant on tradition. This is not to suggest that one must be fully studied on any matter he or she wishes to discuss, only that they should have a humility in their words (even acknowledging gaps when they are apparent) if it is the case that there remains more to be gleaned, and is this not the case the majority of the time?

Often times, we hide behind the concession of grace that allows us to disagree, not wanting others to pop our theological bubble. We often agree to disagree before any discussion has ever happened, wanting to avoid all conflict. However, if one detects such a weakness in his or her own understanding, then the best thing for that person might be to learn from others, even those that do not align with his or her own tradition. This can be a painful process (I've been there), but through pain comes growth (I would rather betray tradition than betray/ignore truth).

Keep in mind to test the spirit of others who wish to dialogue with you concerning theology. Some are out there to cause dissension and not unity. Others are not spiritually mature enough to discuss disagreement without resorting to anger and/or ad hominem attacks. However, once you do decide to enter into dialogue, be sure to listen intently, not assuming you know precisely what the other is going to say before they say it, and always allow the other to have the chance to qualify any ambiguous statements.

As a final statement, I must recognize the fact that sometimes the only resolution will be to maintain disagreement. This is not the preferred outcome, but, at least until a later point in time when both/all companies involved have had a chance to reflect, some level of disagreement must be tolerated for the sake of brotherhood, and the greater good is being unified as the one body whose concern is not self promotion, but others, especially the lost, who benefit little from our internal bickering and much from our unified efforts. In other words, never allow the perfect to be the enemy of the greatest possible good. Sometimes, the perfect scenario is inhibited by influences outside our control, and, in those cases, we should not resort to an extreme in which those involved are stifled from any further dialogue or common work together.

No comments:

Post a Comment