I’ve found that there are ways to end a discussion before it even begins. It’s easy: you set the terms of the discussion so that if you disagree with me, then it’s clearly because you have a problem, so it’s no use even continuing. It’s not really fair, but it allows me to pretend that I have the moral high ground while it effectively silences you, if you let it that is.
When I watched a video about Brian McLaren’s new book, I wondered if that was happening. If I disagreed with McLaren, would I be one of those brittle, scared people resorting to ad hominem arguments out of my desire to maintain the status quo? It’s an awful way to start a discussion if those are the terms!
I thought of this again last week as I read Mike Wittmer:
I read the introductory three chapters of A New Kind of Christianity, and so far it’s an updated version of the Brian we’ve seen before. He claims to be “a mild-mannered guy” who is only looking for a new way to be a Christian that will boost the declining numbers in our churches, and he can’t understand why his critics respond with “fear,” “clenched teeth,” and “suspicion and accusation.” Brian’s really good at winning sympathy, and soon I was loathing myself for ever politely disagreeing with such a nice man.
But then I remembered that this debate about the Christian faith–which he and his friends started–is not a personality contest. You can’t dismiss what Christians have always believed and then expect a free pass because you’re likable. And just below the surface of Brian’s humble, can’t-we-all-just-get-along vibe is an accusatory tone that repeatedly compares his critics to a religious Gestapo whose leaders defend their conservative beliefs because they don’t want to lose their jobs.
At the end of McLaren’s book, the writes:
You can either criticize my responses from a distance…or you can come to the table, join the conversation, and make your own contribution. Be assured, if you come in that spirit of collegial contribution and creative collaboration, many of us will be eager to hear what you have to offer as we journey forward together…Wherever that willingness to rethink has been squelched, wherever that sense of quest has been buried under convention and complacency, the Christian faith in all its forms is in trouble.
Here’s what I want to flag: I’m not sure I like these terms. There’s a subtle (or not so subtle) implication that we can pull up to the table with smiles and pose our own questions, and tweak McLaren’s proposals and join the fun. But if we say that we have concerns, it’s implied that we have a problem and we’re trying to shut things down. This makes it hard to review a book, never mind deal with the kinds of issues raised in a book like this.
So I’m coming to the table, and I promise not to call anyone names. I’m hoping I’m allowed to stay for a bit even if I disagree with what you say. Those are the best kind of tables I’ve sat at. But if I can’t disagree without being called one of those people, who’s squelching the discussion?
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Good night! If you “come to the table” with McLaren and say that some of the old things are right and good, he doesn’t want you there. If you’re willing to come and toss it all, you’re welcomed. He’s already boxed us in to his way or the highway. But he does it with a warm smile and good sounding intentions. Man.
Why walk on egg shells? Let the Bible set the terms of your criticism in both its manner and content. Boldly go where God would go and say what’s wrong and right. McLaren isn’t worth listening to anymore.
This is an excellent post.
McClaren aside (and that is not that difficult) the point you make about setting the terms of a discussion is an excellent one. It’s a reminder to me that I can do this. If I despise it in McClaren, I need to remember that I can do it too. Even when my view is more orthodox, it does not make it less obnoxious. We all need to learn how to vociferously defend the truth without the obnoxio; without implying that the reason I hold to my position is because I am less depraved than my opponent and without determining all the rules of the game before anyone else shows up tp play.
Thanks for this.
What I have trouble with is the implied ownership of the table. Rather than demanding that people come to our table on our terms, I would rather see an attitude of meeting others at their table.
Linda … I guess that’s quite *missional* of you, but apparently not so *emerging* for you. I resonate with what you’re saying.
In the bigger picture of things, maybe the framing on Mr. McLaren’s book and invitation helps clarify some differences between the two “conversations” and “movements” known as emerging and missional. And that does seem to be the way this decade is rolling itself out, though perhaps through nothing more than providential conspiracy?
Darryl,
Good post.
Linda’s point reminds me of Jesus instructions to the disciples in Luke 10, where they are told to receive hospitality (or not) at the tables of those they encounter. They are not told to decide who gets to be invited to their table.
And I think Brad draws an accurate distinction between emergent and missional (rather than emerging, as such).
Ken, you are one of the more gracious Toronto pastors I know. Thank you for the wisdom.
I find this discussion “technique” prevalent in too many areas these days:
If you disagree with gay marriage, you must be homophobic.
If you disagree with a black-only school, you must be racist.
If you disagree with the death penalty, you must be anti-Law and Order.
If you don’t think burqas should be worn in public, you must be anti-Islamic.
If you disagree with me you are closed-minded.
Whatever happened to open discussion and tolerance?
You may be interested to know that Brian McLaren has responded to exactly the kind of concerns you raise here. As I suspected, his intent was rather different than what you assumed he was implying.
I guess these sorts of miscommunications are inevitable when one side is insufficiently clear in their writing and the other side is insufficiently charitable in their reading. It’s too bad.
Sorry, I forgot to include the link. You can find Brian’s response here: http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/a-new-kind-of-christianity-contd.html
Thanks, Mike. I was glad to see that he clarified his intentions.
I’m still not a fan of the book, but I don’t think McLaren was trying to shut down honest critiques of his book, and I appreciate that.