Had an email conversation with a friend on battling intellectual pride recently...
Dear Brother,
I do struggle with that a lot... perhaps less so now than before, thank God, but I do remember feeling so frustrated that a small group i used to attend spend week in week out talking about "small things" (will i pass exams? will i get a raise?) when there are so many serious, burning issues out there in the world (like, how shall the church respond to X-ism?)
And I can only imagine how much worse you have it on your side... here i am only dealing with anti-intellectual fideists, not all-out relativists...
Many times, I think our intention is pure (though pride is a subtle enemy, and we need always be vigilant) but i often find that my approach was not as wise as i'd like it to be. Especially when people get angry at me... or they are just plain irritated...
And i realised that i need to 'compensate' for my inclination for truth by consciously making an effort to make sure tat i've built up a 'credit' of good will on the relationship department... (emotional bank account, in the 7 habits parlance?)
For example, as far as possible, i need to work more at earning trust, building a relationship first before I try to correct someone of their errors.
That i find is not only more palatable to more people, it makes one's case even more powerful it seems... and if we are friends, we get the chance to talk again on the topic since the conversation doesn't stop there and then.
This is especially true when talking abt religion or politics... these are taboo 'sensitive' topics at the dinner table becos of the tendency to generate more heat than light.
Just having a civil discussion in itself is a mini-victory for me ... I'd be happy if only I could make a case for my views and learn from the others in a non-quarrelsome manner.
I realise tat people (myself included) dun like smart alecs with an attitude... and tat when two heavyweights debate, the whole discussion can become a personality "you against me" contest which leaves the fence sitters bored or put off...
And i wanna reach the fence sitters more than scoring against the 'opponent'... so we have to pay as much attention to our approach gotta be as good as our content
How should one argue with people with gentleness and respect and love?
Dun think i can offer more than the standard suggestions here... but i find them really helpful and practical though
I actually DO like to say things like, "I could be wrong but this is how I see it..." or "Correct me if I am wrong but i think..."
It's not dishonest to say those things even if I'm 'absolutely' 100% convinced that I'm right here. Because no matter how overwhelming the arguments, evidences and logic weigh on my side, there is still always a remote, minute, perhaps slight possibility that I may be wrong.
Recognizing that is just another way of saying that I'm not omniscient... I'm not God!
Although that seems like a trivial point to make, I sense that it makes a whole world of difference in some people who have seen just too many Christians who wield their apologetics like a hammer. I have seen people being taken aback like they have been electric-shocked when I make a simple, candid remark that I could be wrong.
This is not a trick to bluff people though... I really do believe that others could correct my mistakes. And normally I dun see my own flaws and need someone else to point that out.
I also try to learn to use less 'dogmatic' language... "It seems to me" replaces "it is certain"... "Apparently" replaces "obviously"... That doesn't mean i dun use words like 'heresy' or 'damning error' anymore, hehehe... Jesus spoke about hell more than any other person in the Bible and the proophets/apostles warned us of false teachers all over the place. So must we!
But I choose to use these words very, very carefully on only highly selective issues (like denial of Christ as divine and human, justification by faith in Christ alone) so that the words would carry weight when the time does come to warrant such words.
People would sit up and pay attention because they know you are not someone who uses such language carelessly that when you do use them, they suspect that you may actually have a point there.
Of course, good humor is so essential... sometimes i measure success of a talk i give by the chuckles 'earned' hehee... It's bad, yes i agree... and if done carelessly, it may appear frivolous or sarcastic (avoid that at all costs!)
But laughter often does indicate that we are connecting and letting down defences... enjoy the topic of conversation (when it's a normally 'dry' theological topic, that's a great achievement in itself!)...
I agree with Barth that theology oughta be delightful, not drab and boring.
A final suggestion is this: It's something Plato or Aristotle once said that teaching is not giving to others what they dun have... Actually they already 'know' it. A teacher's job is like that of a midwife, helping him to 'give birth' to the knowledge already latent... ehehee...
That doesn't necessarily mean i'm a platonist or rationalist.
In practical terms, it just means if one does his teaching job well, one helps others discover on his own the truth rather than spoonfeeding it. When a discussion takes on a 'debate' mode, it's hard to agree. But when it is a joint venture to discover something together, people are more open to change their mind.
To do that, ask questions that open up assumptions, clarify one's thinking, gathers information really help... A well-placed question, as you know, can help the 'opponent' dig his own grave also..
OK that's all i could think of now... nothing magical, nothing secret about these things... maybe even cliche-ish... but it seems to me that they really do work sometimes!
Dear Brother,
I do struggle with that a lot... perhaps less so now than before, thank God, but I do remember feeling so frustrated that a small group i used to attend spend week in week out talking about "small things" (will i pass exams? will i get a raise?) when there are so many serious, burning issues out there in the world (like, how shall the church respond to X-ism?)
And I can only imagine how much worse you have it on your side... here i am only dealing with anti-intellectual fideists, not all-out relativists...
Many times, I think our intention is pure (though pride is a subtle enemy, and we need always be vigilant) but i often find that my approach was not as wise as i'd like it to be. Especially when people get angry at me... or they are just plain irritated...
And i realised that i need to 'compensate' for my inclination for truth by consciously making an effort to make sure tat i've built up a 'credit' of good will on the relationship department... (emotional bank account, in the 7 habits parlance?) For example, as far as possible, i need to work more at earning trust, building a relationship first before I try to correct someone of their errors.
That i find is not only more palatable to more people, it makes one's case even more powerful it seems... and if we are friends, we get the chance to talk again on the topic since the conversation doesn't stop there and then.
This is especially true when talking abt religion or politics... these are taboo 'sensitive' topics at the dinner table becos of the tendency to generate more heat than light.
Just having a civil discussion in itself is a mini-victory for me ... I'd be happy if only I could make a case for my views and learn from the others in a non-quarrelsome manner.
I realise tat people (myself included) dun like smart alecs with an attitude... and tat when two heavyweights debate, the whole discussion can become a personality "you against me" contest which leaves the fence sitters bored or put off...
And i wanna reach the fence sitters more than scoring against the 'opponent'... so we have to pay as much attention to our approach gotta be as good as our content
How should one argue with people with gentleness and respect and love?
Dun think i can offer more than the standard suggestions here... but i find them really helpful and practical though
I actually DO like to say things like, "I could be wrong but this is how I see it..." or "Correct me if I am wrong but i think..."
It's not dishonest to say those things even if I'm 'absolutely' 100% convinced that I'm right here. Because no matter how overwhelming the arguments, evidences and logic weigh on my side, there is still always a remote, minute, perhaps slight possibility that I may be wrong.
Recognizing that is just another way of saying that I'm not omniscient... I'm not God!
Although that seems like a trivial point to make, I sense that it makes a whole world of difference in some people who have seen just too many Christians who wield their apologetics like a hammer. I have seen people being taken aback like they have been electric-shocked when I make a simple, candid remark that I could be wrong.
This is not a trick to bluff people though... I really do believe that others could correct my mistakes. And normally I dun see my own flaws and need someone else to point that out.
I also try to learn to use less 'dogmatic' language... "It seems to me" replaces "it is certain"... "Apparently" replaces "obviously"... That doesn't mean i dun use words like 'heresy' or 'damning error' anymore, hehehe... Jesus spoke about hell more than any other person in the Bible and the proophets/apostles warned us of false teachers all over the place. So must we!
But I choose to use these words very, very carefully on only highly selective issues (like denial of Christ as divine and human, justification by faith in Christ alone) so that the words would carry weight when the time does come to warrant such words.
People would sit up and pay attention because they know you are not someone who uses such language carelessly that when you do use them, they suspect that you may actually have a point there.
Of course, good humor is so essential... sometimes i measure success of a talk i give by the chuckles 'earned' hehee... It's bad, yes i agree... and if done carelessly, it may appear frivolous or sarcastic (avoid that at all costs!)
But laughter often does indicate that we are connecting and letting down defences... enjoy the topic of conversation (when it's a normally 'dry' theological topic, that's a great achievement in itself!)...
I agree with Barth that theology oughta be delightful, not drab and boring.
A final suggestion is this: It's something Plato or Aristotle once said that teaching is not giving to others what they dun have... Actually they already 'know' it. A teacher's job is like that of a midwife, helping him to 'give birth' to the knowledge already latent... ehehee...
That doesn't necessarily mean i'm a platonist or rationalist.
In practical terms, it just means if one does his teaching job well, one helps others discover on his own the truth rather than spoonfeeding it. When a discussion takes on a 'debate' mode, it's hard to agree. But when it is a joint venture to discover something together, people are more open to change their mind.
To do that, ask questions that open up assumptions, clarify one's thinking, gathers information really help... A well-placed question, as you know, can help the 'opponent' dig his own grave also..
OK that's all i could think of now... nothing magical, nothing secret about these things... maybe even cliche-ish... but it seems to me that they really do work sometimes!
Comments
It's interesting how one's mind works coupled with the emotions and a few other intangible aspects and you get an unpredictable outcome.
The point i think you might want to look at is the end in itself.
Debates are usually between the group of debators and unless you can get the fence sitters to participate the'd probably gain next to nothing out of it. Because knowledge without action rarely leads to anything other than inaction. It's a funny thing how knowledge an intellect is so revered around the world but without the capacity to empathise, feel and at least grasp how the other person is responding it would and will be entirely futile and useless.
Perhaps when we can see and feel the end in mind can we achieve God's purposes within us. =)
Human beings are complex creatures, and ya, bring in the asian culture, we need to be more aware of stuffs like respect, 'face', honor etc
Brian McLaren once put it nicely in his earlier works:
We dun want our friends to look at the christian faith and say "Ya it makes a whole lot of sense but i dun feel like i want it"
Neither do we want them to say "These christians are awefully loving and nice and sensitive people, but how cud they believe such a load of nonsense?"
We need to engage mind, emotion, will and provide an avenue for people to respond in action :)
Different people are at different stages... some need more info, some need more pep talk, some need to see it modelled, others wanna jump in the bandwagon if u can just let them catch a vision as compelling as, say, the AGora's :D