THEOLOGICAL SOAPBOX

DO WE CARE ENOUGH TO DIALOGUE?

by Arthur Menu, Sidney, BC

    Just about everyone has theological opinions. Sometimes people with differing theological opinions get into discussions that turn into debates or arguments. This can turn out well or badly, depending on how the people manage the discussion. There is a world of difference between someone walking away from the discussion saying, “I’ll never discuss religion with him (or her) again!” and someone saying, “There’s nothing I like better than a good argument and that’s what I just had!”
If two people know what is required to have a “good” argument, they can manage their discussion so that it is both enjoyable and beneficial. In this article I will go over some of the things we should do to make sure that our exchange of theological opinion will be a useful theological dialogue and not a battle that leaves us with a bad taste.
To illustrate my points I will take a simple non-theological example. A husband and wife are having a discussion about the best car for them to buy. John thinks they should buy a Chev and Mary disagrees. Now Mary could disagree because she doesn’t think they should buy a Chev, but doesn’t know what other car they should buy, or she could disagree because she thinks they should buy some other car -- a Ford, say. In any case, if Mary has her way, John cannot have his way, and vice versa.
So now John and Mary are going to have a dialogue in the hope that at the end it will become clear whether to buy a Chev or a Ford.
This brings us to our first rule for the conduct of a dialogue: In a face-to-face encounter, when arguing for your position, give one reason at a time, and after giving a reason, give the other person time to respond to it before giving your next reason. However, if the dialogue is taking place through an exchange of letters or articles, each person may present a number of reasons in one letter.
Following this rule John says, “I think we should buy a Chev because it costs less to buy. What do you think?” Now it’s Mary’s turn to respond.
This brings us to our second rule for the conduct of a dialogue: When responding to someone’s statement of a reason for their position, tell them what you think of their reason before giving a reason for your own position. There are three things you can say about the other person’s reason. You can agree that their reason is both a true statement and does indeed constitute a good reason for their position. Or you can agree that their reason is a true statement but does not constitute a good reason for their position. Or you can deny that their reason is a true statement.
In our story of John and Mary the three ways of responding can be exemplified by the following alternative responses Mary could make. “John, it is true that the Chev is cheaper to buy and that is a good reason for buying it.” “John, it is true that the Chev is cheaper to buy but that is not a good reason for buying it.” “John, the Chev is not cheaper to buy.”
If Mary agrees that John’s reason is a true statement and also a good reason for his position, but still disagrees with him, she should then give her reason for her position that a Ford is a better choice for them. Then it will be John’s turn to respond to her reason.
But if Mary says either that John’s reason is not a good reason or that his reason is not a true statement, she should explain why. She should hold off giving her reason for buying a Ford until John has had a chance to respond to her rejection of his reason for buying a Chev.
This is the third rule for the conduct of a dialogue. If you object to the reason someone gives for their position, state the reason for your objection, and allow them to respond. Continue back and forth until the other person withdraws their reason, or you accept it, or you both agree to disagree about it. Only then present your own reason for your position, or allow the other person to state a new reason for their position.
For example, Mary could say, “John, while I agree that the Chev is cheaper to buy, I don’t think that is a good reason to buy one because you are not taking account of how much the Chev will cost over the life of the car. In addition to purchase price you have to consider how mechanically reliable the car is and how much we will end up paying for repairs and maintenance. The Ford may cost us less when that is taken into account.”
John could respond, “Mary, the cheaper purchase price is a good reason because it would allow us to buy the car without taking out a loan. If you include the interest cost of the Ford in comparing the cost of each car over its life, the Chev is less expensive.”
And so on and so forth they would offer their reasons until they agree that the cheaper purchase price is a good reason or not a good reason, or agree to disagree on the point. Only then will Mary state a new reason for holding that the Ford is a better choice. John will then have the same options for responding to Mary’s reason as Mary had for responding to John’s reason.
Every reason a person gives either initiates or continues a line of discussion within the dialogue. When both people have exhausted all lines of discussion, they will have stated all their reasons for their positions and given their evaluations of the other person’s reasons. If the dialogue is taking place through an exchange of letters or articles, each letter or article can carry on several lines of discussion in parallel.
Is the goal of this dialogue that one person should be proved right and the other wrong? No, the goal is that the truth should become manifest. It often happens that as each person is made aware of the good reasons the other person has for their position, the two people will modify their position to incorporate those reasons. Slowly the two positions will change and become more similar until the two people find they are holding the same position! In our example, it may turn out that John and Mary will decide that best choice for them is to lease, not buy, a Ford, a position neither of them held when they began their dialogue.
The rules for theological dialogue are not difficult to understand. In order to follow them we must be willing to listen to the other person’s reasons, take them seriously, and respond to them until agreement about them is reached or it is clear why agreement cannot be reached.
Dialogue is not two people taking turns telling each other their reasons for their respective positions and ignoring the other person’s reasons. Dialogue is not saying, “Your position reflects your life experience and my position reflects mine. My position is true for me and yours is true for you. So let’s not try to reach an agreement.” Rather, reasoned dialogue provides a structure for the sharing of what we have learned from our life experience. It allows us to discover what we have in common and enables us to reach agreement based on what we have in common.
If we really care for another person, we will be willing to work long and hard at the dialogue that may be required to reach harmony in our theological views.