Come Let Us Reason Together
I have just returned to the States to do my annual stint of Young Life new staff training in Colorado. I flew into the environment of the aftermath of the Tucson shooting. The call for a more civil form of political engagement has dominated what I have seen since returning.
I have just returned to the States to do my annual stint of Young Life new staff training in Colorado. I flew into the environment of the aftermath of the Tucson shooting. The call for a more civil form of political engagement has dominated what I have seen since returning.
I think there is a point here. In my academic circle we often have disagreements with others, but in many cases that discussion takes place in a context of mutual respect and a staying on the issues versus attempts to label someone or vilify them. We need to appreciate that our rhetoric tears at our community. Yes, there are important differences in the views, but there are healthier ways to engage someone than suggesting even figuratively that they should be eliminated. I am reminded that Jesus taught believers to love their enemies and to bless them, as well as pray for them. Surely we can do better. I saw this done during my three years of study in Scotland, because the British often engage without making accusations about the character of another. So let's engage on the issues and reason together better, even when we disagree.
7 Comments
Eric Gorsuch
Dr. Bock: Thank you for this
Dr. Bock: Thank you for this post, and especially sharing the point from your study in Scotland. I, too, agree that we should keep those ideas of Jesus in mind when we have our disagreements, discussions, and arguments with our family in Christ. I believe we should also keep it in mind when we are talking/debating with those who are outside of our theological circle. 1 Peter 3:15 says that we ought to defend out faith with gentleness and respect. Colossians 4:6 says for our speach to be gracious, seasoned with salt, as we walk in wisdom with those on the outside (of our beliefs) so that we may know how we ought to answer them. As we are ambassadors of Christ and His Kingdom we ought to think about how we are representing our Lord and Savior.
I also believe that, generally speaking of course, that while we have those in our midst who are very harsh and hateful at times in the public square, we are ones getting attacked for speaking the truth. I have generally found that the most hateful rhetoric is coming from the outside towards us. It is the stumbling block that they object to, the light of truth shown upon them, that they want silenced. Not just to try and defeat in an honest debate, but to discredit and destroy. This week following the awful event in Tuscon has proved it as the charges of "hate speech" from the right as the motivator for that crime has been shown to be false. The opposite has actually been show to be the acurate state of affairs.
We ought to always remember that the truth has no agenda so we ought not be afraid of holding it. We ought never be afraid to proclaim it, to engage in debate, to seek the truth in all that we do, and to stand firm. We also should always remember who we are representing whenever we engage, whether it is our family in Christ or those on the outside of our theological circle. We do not want to add more offense to the Gospel.
Stuart Dauermann
An Honest Assessment of Conservative Rhetoric
I am now 66, and voted for Obama, the first time I voted Democrat in my entire life. One of the main reasons I did so was in reaction to the conspiratorial and nasty heated rhetoric from Conservative Christian friends which filled my mailbox. It was superstitious, nasty and overheated. I was not only offended: I also observe that these critiques were characterized by more heat than light. But I am afraid that poilitically and/or theologically conservative Christians are often lacking in any capacity for the kind of self-awareness that leads to being healthfully self-critical. To me this is self evident, and certainly so in media circles, with some glaring exceptions which are in the minority.
Listen some time to the emotional tone of politically Conservative talk radio and Conservative religious commentary and see how unrelievedly angry and strident it is. While I am sure there are some who will object that there is something to be angry about, nobody healthy is angry ALL the time, but tune in any time any day and you will hear that not only the hosts, but also the guests, are revved up on indignation and anger. I wonder if these people are addicted to their own adrenaline?
It does no good to be convinced that one has the truth when the manner in which one delivers and represents that truth is offensive, strident, smug, nasty, and hostile.
Perhaps it is time for Conservative Christians to ask, "Lord? Is it I?
Ginger Zagnoli
Polemics
I just finished reading a very good article on just this topic,
Polemic Theology:
How to Deal with Those Who Differ from Us
By Dr. Roger Nicole
ttp://www.founders.org/journal/fj33/article3.html
It should be a must read for all.
Darrell L. Bock
Polemics and Nicole
Ginger:
Thank you for this. It is well said.
DLB
Michael07
Connection?
I am not sure why there is this "call for civility" when the tragedy at AZ had nothing to do with the political environment. The shooter has mental issues. That's it. There was nothing, in the left or right, that caused him to think a certain way and take the actions he did. It was not the rhetoric of Limbaugh, Beck, Olbermann, or gals on "The View" that cause him to think a certain way and lead to his horrible acts.
So why is there a connection made when there is no connection?
I think the only reason there is a connection is because conservatives are doing a lot of the talking. For an example, when the shootings at VT took place in 2007, there was NO talk of toning the political rhetoric down. That was because George W Bush was President. There was a book and movie "Death of a President" depicting the assassination of him, people spewed forth hate toward the man, and even at the inauguration of Obama they BOOOOed when Mr. Bush came out. There was anything but "civil discourse."
Yet now, a crazed young man who believed in "nothingness" takes a gun and acts out a sick and twisted drama and we are now told to "tone down the rhetoric" as if that has had something to do with it, when in fact it played no factor in it at all.
A call for civility is a good thing. And I agree more civility and respect is needed. But it should be born out of true connections not out of apparent ones, like Rep. Cohen comparing the GOP to Nazi's on the House floor the other night. Let's be civil, but let our reasons be brought about by the truth not knee jerk emotional reactions to mad men.
Darrell L. Bock
Connection?
The problem is on both sides. One can speak of Rep. Cohen or of Palin and crosshairs. What we need is less of both. In part, a connection was made because Giffords had feared such an event given what was said about her being in the crosshairs. It may be sheer coincidence, but it is still something that should be pondered.
pvariel
Come Let Us Reason Together
Thanks Bock for the Post. Good thoughts, but was an abrupt end, of course your said it in nutshell but need to put little more in. Anyways thanks, Yes let us reason together.
Yes though it is a bit difficult thing to do if we imitate our Lord its possible too,
Let us emulate our Savior in this,
Keep inform
Keep sharing
God Bless
Best
Philip