Saturday
Nov222003
Posture
Saturday, November 22, 2003 at 7:39AM
The discussion on Stop the Fellowship, I want off has re-confirmed for me that I don't want to be part of a discussion that lines up two positions like British soldiers in red suits and allows people to start firing at one another. When you start with the presupposition that the other side is wrong, of course you don't have to listen and of course you can be rude, because after all, you're right. That attitude troubles me. Posture is so important. I'd like to be a truth seeker, not a truth defender (or a defender of my own position). Someone asked Erwin McManus last week, "All this stuff you're saying is fine, but what do you do if you come from a conservative church?" Erwin replied, "If it were me, I would try to move them from being conservative to being Biblical." Same goes for liberal and all other labels. That's the posture I'm looking for. When I find a discussion on an issue that starts there and not at our own perfect positions which are so obviously better than the other side's, sign me up.
Reader Comments (13)
If tone bothers you so much why do you keep setting up such discussions which inevitably will bring out emotional responses which just skirt the issue? Why not set up a venue where we can have a technical discussion on the issue?
Because it doesn't take a certain type of venue or avoiding volatile issues. It takes a certain type of attitude. We don't always get to pick the forum or the issue. We always get to pick our attitude.
You're just a radical! I know someone else like that. People didn't like him much.
You missed my point. I was saying that you set up bad tone by attacking the character of people on the other side (saying they're not loving, bad attitudes, devisive, splitters, just wanna fight, etc). I'm suggesting that you rise above this pettiness and set up a venue where the Bibilical role women can be discussed theologically. You could even invite reps from the other side to partake. Apparently this is what you've been crying for the last year or so. Why not rise above the pettiness and show some initiative???
Jacob, I've never attacked the other side. I have expressed disappointment at the tone of the discussion and some of the attitudes. I think such a forum should exist, but I'm ill equipped to provide it. I've tried to encourage it at the denominational level, but it's been turned down twice. I'd love to see it happen, but how? Who moderates to keep things on track? In short, I'm all for this type of discussion, but I don't feel particularly called to lead it, and I'd have to see that there is a willingness to engage at a higher level than I've witnessed so far.
The Fellowship magazine seemed to try with its "Let's Talk Theology" forum but nobody posted from the egalitarian side to spur on the debate. It basically came to a stand still after 5 or 6 posts from conservatives. I don't know why the side that wants to talk more didn't latch on to that.
Jacob: As an outsider watching this I have a suggestion. This issue has a theological basis that is discussed by human beings that have emotions wills etc. They bring all themselves to the table. Why not give people that want to discuss this an opportunity to attend communication training? You know, the basics...like you statements...I statements... appropriate clarification, active listening, etc. Someone could have all the PhD's in theology in the world but without appropriate communication skills discussion remains circular. I see Darryl and a few others attempting to use those skills. Don't you? I also see some misunderstanding about what blogging is. Blog on!
I totally agree with Jacob. For quite a time I hear whining and complaining and that's attitude and pettiness. Why be so judgmental to jump to the conclusion that those on the other side are handling it wrong. Dogmatism in itself isn't bad manners.
Hi Kim: According to the Oxford dictionary dogmatism is defined as:(n)(greek) tendency to be dogmatic. dogmatic: of or in the nature of dogma (given to) asserting dogmas or opinions, arrogant, intolerantly authoritative Dogma: principle or tenet or system of these especially as laid down by authority ofa church: arrogant declarations of opinion Thesaurus related: balkiness, bibliolatry, bigotry, blindness, bullheadedness, deafness, determination, doggedness, dogmaticalness, evangelicalism, fanaticism, fixed mind, fundamentalism, hardheadedness, headstrongness, hideboundness, hyperorthodoxy, infallibilism, inflexible will, intolerance, literalism, mulishness, obduracy, obstinacy, obstinateness, opinionatedness, overzealousness, peremptoriness, perseverance, pertinacity, pigheadedness, positiveness, positivism, precisianism, purism, puritanicalness, puritanism, restiveness, Sabbatarianism, sabbatism, scripturalism, self-opinionatedness, self-will, staunchness, stiff neck, stiff-neckedness, straitlacedness, strict interpretation, strictness, strongheadness, stubbornness, sulkiness, sullenness, tenaciousness, tenacity, uncooperativeness, unpersuadableness, unregenerateness, willfulness Did you mean to use that word? :^)
This was kind of a no-brainer post saying that our discussions should be characterized by love, gentleness, and humility. We don't need to compromise our convictions to do so. If you want to use this space to point out my shortcomings or to defend stubbornness and unteachability, then your comments will either be ignored or deleted. You're much better than that. I would love to see some comments that either challenge what I'm saying AND offer a better way, or contribute to how we can have this type of discussion. Others will be pruned.
Bene, no no I wasn't using dogmatism in a negative sense. My dictionary defines it "stating an opinion in a positive or arrogant manner" (Webster's New World Dictionary). I mean it in it's positive sense. Let me use the word "assertiveness." Thanks for the chance to clarify.
Darryl, correct me if I'm wrong but your last entry sounded like a threat..if you want me to bugger off just say it and I'm gone. All I did was turn the tables in love.
Kim, I'm not threatening to delete specific people as much as certain types of comments. Of course you're welcome to post, whether you agree or disagree. It's only if a comment is inappropriate, mainly containing personal attacks, that it will be deleted.