 |
|
|
"A space alien captured at a UFO landing site in eastern Missouri cracked under interrogation by the CIA and admitted that an extraterrestrial army will attack Earth on November 27 with the express purpose of stripping our planet of every natural resource they can find a use for -- and making slaves of every man, woman and child in the world!"
-- The Sacerdotal Knights of National Security
|
|
| |
Exclusive: Avoiding and Resolving Conflict in Religious Discussion
Posted on Friday, April 28 @ 12:10:08 PDT by Jared Coleman |
|
by Jared Coleman
Here at Planet Preterist we talk alot about those two things that people who want to remain on good terms are not supposed to talk about: politics and religion. It's not surprising, therefore, that we have our fair share of 'fights' on this website, and even the administrators are not immune from this temptation. (By 'fights' I don't mean criticism or logical argument, but situations where hurt or angry people say or do things that they should not - especially while trying to follow Christ.) This results in a heavy irony: through our intensely rational discussions we are a testament to the fact that man has been created as the eikon of God, but through our bickering we also show the crackedness of the eikon.
I can't help but laugh at this irony, but then I think about all of the negative affects of the fighting, particularly on our fellowship and our witness, and my laughter quickly turns into frustration, anger and disappointment. I hope that there are others here on Planet Preterist who know what I mean. Now, please don't think that I'm writing this in order to distance myself from the problem. I'm not; I am willing to take my share of the blame for things that I should have said or left unsaid, done or left undone. I am writing this piece simply to place before all of us, myself included, some Biblical principles which I think should govern our discussions, but which sometimes do not. I'll also make a few practical suggestions. I believe that following these principles and suggestions will enrich and enliven our discussions, and make them much more enjoyable as well. I hope you'll agree.
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (TNIV)
Everyone here, of course, agrees that love should permeate everything that we do, including the discussions that we have with each other. In my view the problem is fourfold: 1) it's easier said than done (especially when you feel like you already been wronged - perhaps numerous times), 2) we have different ideas about what it means to be loving, 3) we sometimes lack the tools necessary to put this into practice, and 4) sometimes we are just plain forgetful. I don't intend to deal with these problems comprehensively, but I do want to make some observations as to how this passage should shape the way we interact here, and I think that these will intersect each of the problems at some level.
Innocence and Non-innocence
Fights don't break out without the perception of a wrong by at least one of the parties. When it comes to online discussions these wrongs (perceived correctly or misperceived) frequently come in the form of: insults, false accusations, quotations taken out of context and thereby twisted, other misrepresentations, obfuscation, or a refusal to respond meaningfully (certainly more could be added to this list). In any discussion-based conflict one or more of these is very likely to be in play (again, perceived correctly or not). Since at least one party will feel victimized in some way and will probably make accusations against the other, we must analyze this problem through the lense of innocence and non-innocence.
The well-known "love passage" quoted above speaks to both the potential perpetrator and the eventual victim. To the first it says, "Do not harm, but rather seek the good of the other." To the second it says, "Do not respond in kind, but rather seek the good of the other, and find freedom by not remembering." I believe that this is not only the simplest, but also the most important lesson of the passage (and so you see my basic conception of 'love'), and although we are going to move on to certain complexities, I hope that in doing so we will not forget this basic message. I understand that forgetting a person's past wrongs is challenging, and perhaps impossible if 'forgetting' is taken very narrowly; many would even say that it should not happen until after the perpetrator has repented. However one understands exactly what this kind of love calls us to, it is a difficult path indeed.
We have to be careful here when we talk about the potential perpetrator and the eventual victim, because so far we are merely dealing with the hypothetical. Real conflicts which are already progressing cannot always (some might even say can only rarely, or perhaps never) be reduced to a complex of actions from actors who fit purely into either role. In other words, we like to talk about 'good guys' and 'bad guys', but it's likely that none of the parties involved can claim the ground of complete innocence in relation to the conflict (though a single action may be innocent enough). In any conflict all are probably non-innocents, especially in prolonged conflicts. If this is true of those actors that are directly involved in the drama of conflict, is it perhaps also true of those who are onlookers and refuse to do anything to stop it? Is a refusal to become involved a tacit approval of the violence? Is it delighting in evil? Perhaps our passage speaks to observers as well, but even if we answer 'yes' to all of these questions and urge the watching world to intervene we will not have helped matters if those now entering the fray do not have the tools needed to obtain a peaceful resolution. Inept peacekeepers will get slaughtered and the conflict will continue.
Why do I say all of this, and bore you with my musings? How is this relevant to our discussions here on Planet Preterist? Here's how:
- I suggest that if we feel wronged as we converse and even argue with another, we reject the urge to cast the other as villian and ourselves as victim. At the end of the day it may end up being true that we have been victimized, but we may be able to avoid escalation into conflict if we suspend such judgment for the time being and simply offer or ask for clarification. We may need to do this multiple times... love is patient. (And at the end of the day we may find that we are all villians!)
- We should always look first for our own culpability. Did we say something incorrect, ambiguous, or perhaps inflammatory? What about in past interactions with this individual that may be shaping his or her current actions? Why are we even having the discussion in the first place? Is it for mutual benefit, or to benefit ourselves at the expense of the other? Are we willing to admit it when we are wrong and when the other is right (or perhaps more right)? Self-seeking or prideful discussion is not loving discussion.
- Those of us who are onlookers will have to ask ourselves whether our current inaction "delights in evil", and if we choose to act we should be wary of assigning blame to only one party. This is especially true if we have closer ties to one party than to others. We may have to condemn actions by everyone involved.
- This being said, the fact that none may be innocent does not mean that everyone is equally guilty. If I insult you and you retaliate by murdering me, then we are both guilty, though you have committed a much greater crime. We need to be careful in assigning blame because to assign it unjustly is to heap violence upon violence. There is a delicate balance to maintain if we desire to respond in a way that rejoices in the truth, and does not artificially even out the distribution of blame.
Love and Listening
I would also like to briefly explore the relationship between the love described in 1 Corinthians 13 and the skill of listening. Obviously, I'm using 'listening' in a broad sense which includes reading things that others have written. The importance of listening cannot be overstated. The old proverb is so true: "Seek first to understand, and then to be understood." Many conversations are unfruitful and even harmful because of the refusal of one or both parties to actually listen to what the other has to say.
Almost as important as whether or not we listen is the way that we listen. I don't think that we emphasize this point enough, and I believe this is quite unfortunate. In religious discussion it is not enough to simply respond in love... I believe we have to start by listening in love. What does it mean to listen in love? It means to listen for areas of agreement and not just disagreement. It means believing the best about the other and what they have to say. It means putting the best possible spin on things, at least until clarification can be given. It means hoping to learn something from the other. It means having a sense of humor. These are the types of things that characterize the listening of someone who listens in love. I sometimes call the outcome of this a generous reading or a generous interpretation.
I think that listening in love is made difficult (in part) by our preconceived notions about a person's character. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have preconceptions at all - we can't start each discussion with a completely blank slate. These already-held ideas about a person function much like paradigms do in science (to draw from Kuhn) or other areas. They are stories that we tell ourselves so that we can function within them by asking the right questions and making sense of the answers, and in that regard they are quite helpful. But like paradigms, they are also quite sticky. Once we picture someone as contentious, proud, boring or foolish (etc.) we are very likely to try to fit every other interaction with them within this controlling story, rejecting the story only as a last resort when we can no longer deny that it doesn't fit the new interaction, and then only with great difficulty. I don't really think there's a way around this, but perhaps being aware of it will cause us to try to move toward more generous stories about others. In this way listening in love involves hoping the best about another in spite of previous interactions.
Like I said a moment ago, I think that before you can respond in love, you must listen in love.
Conclusion
I'm sure that I haven't actually said anything that is new to most or all of you, and in that case I appreciate your generosity in reading this to the end. :) Again, I'm not trying to claim superiority in this matter, those who've interacted with me on my blog can tell you that I'm far from perfect (and sometimes downright bad) at this. We all get frustrated. We all get angry. We all respond poorly at one time or another. That's why any good treatment of this topic must mention forgiveness. Forgiveness will help us tear up our lists of the wrongs that others have done to us. I ask your forgiveness for any way that I've interacted poorly with you in the past, and I ask it in advance for the mistakes I know I'll make in the future. I hope that we can all do this together, as appropriate, and work to make our interaction on Planet Preterist even more profitable - by seeking the good of the other. I'll leave you with this proverb:
"A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." Proverbs 15:1 (TNIV)
------
Jared Coleman is a columnist for PlanetPreterist.com.
View Jared Coleman archives
Note: Opinions presented on PlanetPreterist.com or by PlanetPreterist.com columnists may not necessarily reflect the position of PlanetPreterist.com, or reflect the beliefs, doctrine or theological position of all other preterists. We encourage all readers to first and foremost carefully analyze all articles in the light of God's Word.
|
| |
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: Avoiding and Resolving Conflict in Religious Discussion (Score: 1)
 by Sam on Friday, April 28 @ 12:35:23 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Jared,
Well said, often not followed. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by jaredcoleman on Friday, April 28 @ 12:50:16 PDT
Re: Avoiding and Resolving Conflict in Religious Discussion (Score: 1)
 by Flakinde on Friday, April 28 @ 12:50:33 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Jared, this is an excellent follow-up to Sam's recent writing, and you basically brought things into a practical perspective.
For example, Kyle mentioned in the comments something about "keeping each other accountable"; you have shown here precisely how it should be done.
This line of yours is golden:
I suggest that if we feel wronged as we converse and even argue with another, we reject the urge to cast the other as villian and ourselves as victim.
Abba Yahweh, help me remember this every waking hour. Amen.
Blessed,
Alexander Rodríguez |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by jaredcoleman on Friday, April 28 @ 13:44:23 PDT
- by Flakinde on Friday, April 28 @ 13:53:01 PDT
- by jaredcoleman on Friday, April 28 @ 13:56:08 PDT
Re: Avoiding and Resolving Conflict in Religious Discussion (Score: 1)
 by Randude on Saturday, April 29 @ 21:59:50 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | | Amen! |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
| 
|
