Do We Even Want To Have Dialogue?by Gary D. Collier Originally published in Dialogue 1:4 (1994) 49-50 |
||
Outline:IntroductionIn a day when attention is increasingly being drawn to diversity among various Churches of Christ, do we really think an effort to have "dialogue" is worthwhile? Do people of various viewpoints even want to talk to each other?I would like to believe that there is a growing spirit of interchange and care among our church leaders. Indeed, I do believe this is true at least in some places and at least with some people. Such efforts are to be commended. Even so, I am afraid that on many other levels our desire to truly talk to each other is not very evident. In fact, it seems to me that unless we decide to make some major changes in our approaches to each other, the future for us is very bleak indeed. Back to Outline A Bleak PictureThough there are certainly exceptions, on the whole I do not find a burning desire across our fellowship to be empathetic, careful, and patient with each other. Oh, of course, we are extremely empathetic if we already agree with each other in our separate little groups: love, grace, mercy, patience, giving the benefit of the doubt—these are abundant among comrades. But overall, across our fellowship, various factions seem content both to stay fractured and to disavow the others. Especially among Christian leaders (and by this I mean preachers, elders, college professors, editors, and authors): we have a serious attitude problem about each other. Regardless of how you want to categorize this amorphous group—whether by age, sex, education, or doctrinal ideology—the various factions are quite intolerant of each other. This is not, of course, a new problem, but it is, nevertheless, serious and very sad. The situation is quite ironic: we claim to be followers of the suffering Messiah, but often we are more like gang members. Instead of restraint for the purpose of peace and instead of being willing to go the second mile with our brother whose statements we do not understand (or perhaps do not agree with) or who we believe has sinned against us in some fashion, we too often simply write him off or close off all avenues of discussion. We shut the door. This kind of approach does not derive from the Spirit of Christ. Again, while there are many individual exceptions to this, it is too often that we (and I include myself here) are not willing to make an honest and prolonged attempt to listen to and carefully evaluate another viewpoint with patience, love, and concern. On all sides of our questions, too many of us are willing to act the part of a prima donna who has decided that we are God's "right hand man" to settle all the issues and to decide what "autonomous" congregations must believe. At the risk of overkill, and to be clear, I am not talking about any single person or group of people: I am talking about an attitude that seems to have infected every segment of our fellowship: liberal or conservative, male or female, old or young. We tend to be a feisty bunch, ready to fight at the drop of a hat—or at least to write each other off. Two things, I think, hurt us badly. The first is an arrogant mentality which fosters the delusion that we can read each other's minds and hearts. "I know what you say, but I also know what you really mean!" The second is an overriding belief that we have already arrived at "the truth" and that we cannot be wrong about it. Whether "the truth" for us has come through the KJV or the Greek New Testament, there is plenty of snootiness to go around for all of us. Neither of these traits—arrogance or self-righteousness—derives from the Spirit of God. Regardless of how we classify ourselves doctrinally or otherwise, these attitudes will sabotage any attempt at genuine and useful dialogue in a search for truth. For when someone knows what you really mean (despite what you really say), and when someone has "the truth" and cannot be wrong about it, dialogue is not only unnecessary, it is truly threatening. Back to Outline In Search of DialogueAs a follower of the Lord Jesus, I would like to make an impassioned plea: let us put down our tribal spears (and our big egos), and talk to each other; let us be open to critical evaluation and a possible change of mind or heart; and let us pursue God together through dialogue. Is that really asking too much? What is dialogue, anyway? Webster defines it as "a free interchange of different points of view." It is a discussion, an exchange of ideas, an exercise in listening. It is a genuine effort to understand the views of another and to discover why some others disagree—or agree—with us. An attempt at dialogue is not an effort to find out where people stand so that we can decide whether or not they are Christians. If that is our concern, we will have no dialogue, only an inquisition. Dialogue is not a debate to see who wins, or a grilling, or an argument. A dialogue is an effort to understand and to find common ground. Isn't this worth concerted effort? Back to Outline Our Goal of DialogueEven though Brandon and I have received some rather severe criticisms from a few people about our "real motives" in starting this journal, we wish to state again our deepest desire for this effort: Our purpose is to pursue God, his will, and Christian community through authentic dialogue. We are completely serious about this. And we believe that it is entirely possible to have authentic dialogue even though we may have disagreements. We believe that of the many traits that would be helpful in advancing healthy interchanges, the following are among the most important:
When we refuse to engage in honest, open, careful, and patient dialogue—not even to give it a chance—we send a very loud message: namely, we're not very serious about truth and Christian unity. Is that the message we intend to send? Surely not. Let us pursue God together through real dialogue.
|
||
|
Return to |