Feb 24, 2010
How We Frame a Discussion Determines Whether We Can Have a Discussion…
While driving home from Vermont this past Saturday, I listened to Guy Raz of NPR interview Kathryn Lopez of the National Review. They were discussing this conservative manifesto of sorts called The Mount Vernon Statement, and Raz asked her to define what a conservative is. Have a look at what she said and how Raz responded:
Ms. LOPEZ: A conservative is somebody who respects the Constitution. He wants to support policies that advance freedom. A conservative is someone who believes that we don’t need to reinvent the wheel and that the founding fathers knew what they were talking about. They established a republic based on moral principles, and these are things that we dont want to get away from.
RAZ: I guess what’s not clear to me is what specifically does this document say a conservative is? And if a conservative is simply those things youre saying they are, I dont think I’ve ever met anybody who’s not a conservative.
If you work on the subtle implications of what Ms. Lopez said, you could almost say that those who disagree with her do not respect the Constitution, reinvent the wheel, distrust the founding fathers, and don’t follow moral principles. It’s an implication that Ms. Lopez could deny ever making, but the undertones are coming through loud and clear, as evidenced by Raz’s reply.
Interesting though politics may be, this is a theology blog, so I’d like to use this as an example of what we don’t want to do when discussing theology with others. It’s easy to frame ourselves as heroes, defenders of the truth, seekers of unbiased answers, and members of the true faithful.
While it’s understandable to be partial to one’s religious perspective, we lose our ability to have meaningful dialogue and discussion with those from opposing views when we forget that those who disagree with our perspectives can have just as much integrity and the same commitment to finding the truth. By defending a point of view by saying, “I’m committed to asking honest questions” or “I take the Bible seriously,” we imply that our opponents aren’t committed to asking honest questions or taking the Bible seriously.
What we mean to say is that we have weighed roughly the same evidence and come out with a different conclusion. Perhaps certain parties in our debates over theology have some short-comings in their ability to ask good questions or to give the Bible the serious consideration it is due, but we won’t have many discussions if we begin with accusations.
Whether we debate theology or politics, the core difference often isn’t integrity or honesty. There are good people on both sides believing what they think is best. The core difference is our conclusions, not necessarily the process of arriving at them. When we can see our “opponents” as fellow truth seekers who have arrived at different conclusions, there will be room for honest discussion and greater compassion. Perhaps some minds may even be changed in the process.
It almost sounds like what you are saying is that we need to be far less arrogant when stating the conclusions that we come to. In our arrogance we immediately assume that anyone who comes to a different conclusion has to be looking at things from an inferior perspective.
I love how you put this, and couldn’t agree more:
“When we can see our ‘opponents’ as fellow truth seekers who have arrived at different conclusions, there will be room for honest discussion and greater compassion.”
I also love the timing of this post—it’s a topic I’ve been thinking about quite a bit lately. I’m working on a book that I want to be true to what I believe about God without shutting out an audience who has arrived at different conclusions. The world (perhaps the publishing world in particular?) seems to have been set up to make these open, respectful dialogues nearly impossible. But we need to keep working at it, anyway.
A reader of my blog, who is an atheist, recently left this comment, which I think demonstrates what’s possible:
“That is one concern I have with religious communities – there’s a lot more intra- and inter-faith dialog nowadays but very little extra-faith communication, and thus the viewpoints get polarized. Partly I participate in your blog community to ameliorate that – I’m the outsider here but the discussion is respectful so I can participate.”
Thanks Matt and Kristin. Words like “arrogance” and “respectful” seem to sum up this issue really well. I’d say more, but my rabbits are bumping my leg right now because it’s time for their dinner… Thanks so much for adding to the discussion!
Well said! Had similar thoughts the other evening and had not found time to write them out.
I heard someonevfrom the pulpit say: “every serious minded Christian I know has been prompted by the spirit to give”
he may not have been saying what I heard, but I heard was: if you haven’t the experiences I say a serious minded Christian should have than you are at best not serious about your faith and at worse not a Christian at all…
Excellent points, and I appreciate your thoughts deeply.
I thought I might just inject some insights from linguistics, particularly about the short discourse you reported from NPR. You describe the meaning that comes through as ‘undertones’ and ‘subtle implications’, but from a linguistic perspective, these aren’t subtle at all, they are exactly the whole point of the response. Linguistic theory states that discourse is governed by norms, one of which is “Be relevant”. Whenever somebody speaks in a conversation, we assume it is relevant, and understand their meaning through that assumption. The only way it is relevant to say that a conservative is someone who “respects the constitution” in response to being asked to define a conservative is if that description distinguishes a conservative from non-conservatives.
In the political illustration, this is exactly the sort of discourse that has arisen in the last year or two: “Real America” (as if the rest is fake), or the members of the Tea Party’s claim that they are “patriots” (as if liberals are not). Liberals do this as well, of course, painting themselves as “compassionate” (as if conservatives aren’t).
In our conversations about our faith it is even more crucial. People’s spiritual beliefs (or lack of spiritual beliefs) often integrally shape their conception of themselves. To outright belittle a belief is to belittle the person. I suppose it is human nature to form social ‘ingroups’ and ‘outgroups’, and to want to hold a high moral opinion of the ‘ingroup’.
Christian discourse takes on this element all the time, as playful mockery turns into disdain for people who disagree with us, and we let our high moral opinion of ourselves begin to be associated with the fact that we hold particular beliefs (forgetting that we would have had a high moral opinion of ourselves, no matter who we were or what we believed). This leads us to frame discussion in simplistic and polemical terms akin to “good guys” and “bad guys”. And why would I let someone talk to me if they assume I’m a bad guy? I have a high moral opinion of myself too. You know, because I believe the right thing.
I appreciate the term “epistemic humility” in this regard. We say we believe in salvation by faith – it cannot be scientifically demonstrated, it must only be believed – but then we balk at the notion that perhaps we might be wrong. Epistemic humility requires that I acknowledge that I might in fact be wrong. I don’t believe that I am, but I might be. I don’t have incontrovertible proof otherwise. And I’m not supposed to – I’m saved by faith. Being in this place, though, I find that people are more willing to listen to what you have to say.
Just some thoughts. Thanks for getting me thinking.
Christi, It certainly is an easy mistake to make. Hopefully he didn’t mean for it to come out quite like that, but it sure sounds a bit polarizing…
Mike! Good to see you and thanks for stopping by. Dr. Franke at Biblical Seminary got into epistemic humility quite a bit and it made an impression on me, though I can’t elaborate on it quite the way you did. Thanks for fleshing all of that out a bit more.
I read that comment and thought to myself, that guy needs a blog to share this stuff, but then I saw you’re a PhD candidate, so you probably have your hands full!