Friday
Nov212003
Disagreeing intelligently
Friday, November 21, 2003 at 7:57PM
The gender issue rages on every time I bring it up. That's okay. I appreciate the challenge, and many (not all) contribute something worthwhile. Some comments don't, but I expect that as well. (I thought about deleting one, but it speaks for itself - I'll leave it there.) It seems to me that there are going to be lots of issues that come up, and we had better find a way to talk about them intelligently rather than yell the other side down. Coming issues include mode of baptism (do we accept those who were baptized as believers by other modes?), baptism and membership, the inclusive language debate, ordination, and issues surrounding the emerging church (new forms of church life). One of the biggest issues is how much diversity we will allow on these and other issues. Will we be defined by our center (Jesus) or around any number of boundary issues? My main problem with the Fellowship's direction hasn't been its proposed position. I disagree with it, but I'm okay with not getting my way. My main problem is that we don't seem to know how to engage the issue openly without assuming that our position is right. Shouting down the other side is not a smart plan of action. We can't afford to let the shrill voices dictate the terms of the debate. I read about the grace shown at the Evangelical Theological Society on a much tougher issue and thought, "I'd like some of that." I grew up somehow believing that if you were right, nothing else mattered. The love chapter - 1 Corinthians 13 - should clear up that belief. I've been thinking about how we could do better. My ideas mostly center around dialogue - hearing the other side, critiquing one another, and - this is important - finding common ground. It seems to me, for instance, that there is much common ground to be found in this whole gender issue with a bit of work. That way we could be very clear on the points of disagreement rather than just slamming the other side. This is a no-brainer for me, since I respect both sides and think that the sane voices - which seem to be outnumbered, I'm afraid - are convincing on both sides. Could we not work together to try to learn from one another? Why are we afraid to do this? Most of all, I despair for how political we make this. We talk about votes, and when we don't get our way, trying again next year. A vote creates winners and losers, and that's never a good thing. There's got to be a better way. I'm saddened, not because I'm being called narrow-minded or unfair. I'll sleep well tonight despite that. I'm saddened because we haven't yet shown that we're even willing to listen to one another. If and when we ever do listen to one another, offering and accepting critique and finding common ground, it will be a lot easier to accept the outcome. I'll have at least felt that we were known as his followers by the love that we've shown.
Reader Comments (6)
Not name calling here but the following comment troubles me. "Will we be defined by our center (Jesus) or around any number of boundary issues?" This phrase has been the liberal's mantra for decades. I watched the debate where the Anglicans voted to allow homosexuals be pastors and heared variations of this 3 times. Every Liberal "Christian" will say they follow Jesus (often while denying His Deity). This is a very simplistic approach and is NOT guarding ones doctrine closely.
I'm open to your ideas, Jacob, because the boundary approach hasn't been working so well either.
In my opinion addressing new theological movements as early as possible is important. This issue should have been dealt with 20 years ago. Just like Open Theism and Annhilationalsim should be dealt with now.
There's no amount of dealing with an issue that will settle the debate once and for all. Even if the gender issue had been resolved twenty years ago, we would still be discussing it today. Have you ever taken a look at the old Fellowship resolutions? They're good for a laugh these days, but not much more.
"Every Liberal "Christian" will say they follow Jesus (often while denying His Deity)." That's the problem, as I see it. We can only unite in the name of Jesus if we both serve the same Jesus.
And, frankly, as long as people are involved in the process, we'll never get it right. One day, God will restore things to the way He meant them to be and these problems will go away. Until then, we have to make our decisions about what is required or optional. Likewise, we have to decide which relationships to fight for and which ones to leave alone. When you extend that olive branch, if the other guy doesn't want it, you can't make him take it.