Continuing with this thought on ecumenism. If we suppose that any Christian who charitably interacts with Christians from other traditions will naturally appreciate the logic and the beauty of Jesus starting the Catholic church. That is going to change the way I interact with protestants. The goal of arguing with a protestant is not to win. In fact, winning might be counter-productive. The goal is to help each other understand that there are multiple reasonable positions one could hold. The message is not that I am right but just that I am reasonable. That I have not made a major error in arriving at my positions. The message is not that you are wrong but just that other conclusions are plausible as well. One can see how that allows arguments to be much more charitable.
This is how it worked for me. I was moved to listen to the catholic position more charitably by two things. First, I met Catholic who were good Christians. Secondly, I read Catholic thinkers who sounded reasonable. I avoided arguments because I knew if I fought for one position that would become entrenched in my mind. I was not ready to do that. I let other protestants do the arguing and I just read quietly. When you keep reading and the person keeps making sense then your prejudices slowly get worn down.
What is important is to talk about a broad range of topics. Both those where they agree with the Catholic position and those where they don't. There are two extremes. You can always look to affirm and avoid conflict. That makes for nice interaction but goes nowhere. The other side is to always pick fights and forget you agree on so many things. Given those two things it is hard to find people on the internet to dialogue with. Most are tending towards one of those two extremes. I tend to err on the side of too much conflict and not enough affirmation. I shall endeavor to change that.
Very true, Randy. All of this applies to me as well.
ReplyDeleteRandy writes, "The message is not that I am right but just that I am reasonable. That I have not made a major error in arriving at my positions. The message is not that you are wrong but just that other conclusions are plausible as well. One can see how that allows arguments to be much more charitable."
ReplyDeleteI agree.
I might be losing you on the part where you say we should try to affirm as well as disagree in our conversations. I mean of course, if the other person says something right you should acknowledge it. But I find from experience that once you have agreed on something there is not much more to say about it than "I agree".
Yes, that is the challenge to keep the feeling of brotherhood going when the more interesting discussions are about what we differ on. We need to keep in mind that that is a small percentage of the total faith.
ReplyDeleteOne way to do that is to work together. On pro-life matters or ministry to the poor you can agree on things but you don't just move on. You have a job to do that flows from your agreement. Then you can get a coffee and talk about justification.