A quick post before I run off to an all-church-all-day at All Saints Church!
Posted below are two comments on titusonenine which I think in some ways exemplify the "two sides" operating in the church today ... and explains, at least to me, why those of us who increasingly feel that we are being painted into a corner ARE -- and why we end up with recommendations in ultimatums' clothing from the Primates.
=====================
MJD_NV Says: March 18th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Get a reappraiser into a theological corner and they will either:
a) Stop the conversation (and if they continue to “dialogue”, it’s all about “feelings”),
b) Break out into personal attack mode, or
c) Smugly explain that they simply do not believe some basic Christian tenet, that somehow, they reserve the right to stand Scriptural & Apostolic witness on its head for their own purposes & still claim to be part of the Christian community.
But, of course we “fundamentalists” can argue theology better, for apparently, being a “fundamentalist” means you care more about Scripture, Tradition, Reason more than you care about yourself. (Paraphrase - Bp. N T Wright)
Susan Russell Says: March 18th, 2007 at 10:52 am
MJD … I’m wondering if a contributing factor to your frustration at finding worthy conversationalists from the other side of the theological aisle isn’t revealed in this part of your second sentence: “… get a reappraiser into a theological corner …”
When one enters a conversation with the goal of backing the other party into a corner one should not be surprised when those efforts are met with respsonses that are experienced as defensive. That presumes, of course, that one is actually seeking conversation in order to better understand another’s perspective rather than capitulation to one’s own.
If the former is the case, I believe I can point you to some folks who would count it a privilege to be in conversation across the theological divide toward the goal of building bridges of genuine reconciliation. If its the latter then do carry on — but do so understanding that the context you have set for the conversation predetermines its failure.
2 comments:
Your post provokes several thoughts in me:
Yes, there are "two sides" operating in the church today. MJD-NV was speaking from that paradigm and, we often see it in conversations, especially if we label ourselves reapparisers or fundamentalists. However real, it strikes me as a rather narrow either-or perspective, so it may be helpful to allow for those differences.
I wonder if the conversations MJD-NV finds himself in with reappraisers tend to be debates, rather than dialogues. Because in a debate (the root of the term means to "beat down"), one takes a stand and attempts to overcome others with his views. Debates will produce theological corners, defensiveness and other conversational violence, but little new knowledge. In his next conversation, MJD may want to share his perception of the corner, but the person "in" it. It can help to think that we each have world view with horizons. A conversation can thus be a “fusion of horizons.” (From Hans George Gadamer’s writings on hermeneutics and conversations).
MJD uses “dialogue” in quotes which I take to mean there is some definition he knows of, but is not sharing in the comment string. MJD may differ, but dialogue is a very useful alternative to debate.
In a wonderful book titled, "Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together," (1999) William Isaacs defines dialogue as "a conversation with a center, not sides...a way of taking the energy of our differences and channeling it toward something that has never been created before. It lifts us out of polarization and into a greater common sense..." (p19).
MJD also sees three categories that a reapparaiser go into, all of which limit the dialogue. Again, that says more to be about particular opinions and conversations than it does about reappraisers (in particular or in general). I wonder if the categories are that hard and fast. For example, "all about feelings" strikes me as hyberbole. Conversations have elements of meaning, identity, feeling, power as well as learning. It can help to identify what language(s) you and your conversational partner using.
BTW, Isaacs explores the roots of the word dialogue. In Greek, "dia" means "through" and logos translates to "word," or "meaning.":
"In the most ancient meaning of the word, logos meant 'to gather together,' and suggested an intimate awareness of the relationships among things in the natural world. ... The Book of John in the New Testament...could now (be) heard as "In the beginning was the Relationship."
I'm not expert, but it seems this could have theological implications suggesting horizons, partnering and connecting not cornering and dividing.
Your post provokes several thoughts in me:
Yes, there are "two sides" operating in the church today. MJD-NV was speaking from that paradigm and, we often see it in conversations, especially if we label ourselves reapparisers or fundamentalists. However real, it strikes me as a rather narrow either-or perspective, so it may be helpful to allow for those differences.
I wonder if the conversations MJD-NV finds himself in with reappraisers tend to be debates, rather than dialogues. Because in a debate (the root of the term means to "beat down"), one takes a stand and attempts to overcome others with his views. Debates will produce theological corners, defensiveness and other conversational violence, but little new knowledge. In his next conversation, MJD may want to share his perception of the corner, but the person "in" it. It can help to think that we each have world view with horizons. A conversation can thus be a “fusion of horizons.” (From Hans George Gadamer’s writings on hermeneutics and conversations).
MJD uses “dialogue” in quotes which I take to mean there is some definition he knows of, but is not sharing in the comment string. MJD may differ, but dialogue is a very useful alternative to debate.
In a wonderful book titled, "Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together," (1999) William Isaacs defines dialogue as "a conversation with a center, not sides...a way of taking the energy of our differences and channeling it toward something that has never been created before. It lifts us out of polarization and into a greater common sense..." (p19).
MJD also sees three categories that a reapparaiser go into, all of which limit the dialogue. Again, that says more to be about particular opinions and conversations than it does about reappraisers (in particular or in general). I wonder if the categories are that hard and fast. For example, "all about feelings" strikes me as hyberbole. Conversations have elements of meaning, identity, feeling, power as well as learning. It can help to identify what language(s) you and your conversational partner using.
BTW, Isaacs explores the roots of the word dialogue. In Greek, "dia" means "through" and logos translates to "word," or "meaning.":
"In the most ancient meaning of the word, logos meant 'to gather together,' and suggested an intimate awareness of the relationships among things in the natural world. ... The Book of John in the New Testament...could now (be) heard as "In the beginning was the Relationship."
I'm not expert, but it seems this could have theological implications suggesting horizons, partnering and connecting not cornering and dividing.
Post a Comment