I just entered a comment on Brent Sleaseman's guest article on the eNews.
It was, as you'd expect from Brent, a thoughtful, well-written, article.
However, as I read and re-read it, and Lance's introduction, the premise seems to be that, as a body, we are people of shouters, with short fuses, who care too much about truth to be able to engage others in meaningful conversation.
That's not my experience.
My experience is that we care too little about truth to have meaningful conversation.
My experience is that people (conservative Christians in this case) are mostly committed to what they believe is true, not to the pursuit of truth itself. So when someone says something that doesn't fit into their paradigm, they assume it's wrong and not worthy of consideration and discussion. This is a weak position. We should be willing to consider anything, holding it up for consideration. Even if the idea or thought is ultimately rejected, the person in conversation with is honored and engaged. And often more likely to consider our ideas as well. So, I'd say that we are often passionate about our views (that we believe are true) but not the larger pursuit of truth that may show our current views to be wrong.
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for making the comment publicly.
It's not that I reject the idea that the people of the CGGC should be more inclined to engage in, as Brent says, meaningful conversation. Or, that the people of the CGGC should engage others with respect.
But, Lance talks about the tragedy that what passes for conversation today is two sides talking, or screaming, past each other.
And, while I know that that happens in society these days, I don't see the people of the CGGC doing that.
To use the letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3 as a reference: We are Laodiceans, lukewarm about truth, not Ephesians who have tested the message of others.
I know that I'm not intimately aware of what is taking place among all of the CGGC congregations, and with its leadership, in all of its regions, but I don't see us as a band of radicals, shouting down those who disagree with us.
And, and again I do think that engaging in meaningful conversation in the world would be a good thing for us...
But, I also think that it's useful to remember that, in our dynamic, growing, movement days, we were radicals and we were shouters.
Maybe just a touch of that old fire might be a good thing, compared to what we have become.
I, for the most part, agree with Brent and Lance. I just don't see us having the problem that they're trying to solve.