Gentleness and Respect in Debate and Discussion

 Gentleness and Respect in Debate and Discussion- Introduction

As a defender of the Christian worldview, I get involved in many discussions with skeptics. These discussions often not only touch on the existence of God, but on the problem of evil, the nature of man, and ethics, which all overlap into politics during certain years. As many have experienced first hand, these discussions often get heated. There is a temptation that is difficult to avoid in these situations, but it must be resisted.

The Temptation

The temptation to become defensive in our attitude (especially when the other person already is) is not easy to avoid. Sometimes we permit ourselves some freedom in our rhetorical force combined with our aggressive posture, and before we know it, those freedoms have produced sarcasm, disrespect, belligerence, or dismissiveness. Many times justified as "passion."

While there is nothing wrong about being passionate about the truth and justifying its belief, we must always be careful that we articulate our points "with gentleness and respect." Christians are urged in scripture to do so (1 Peter 3:15b). But this is not merely an arbitrary command, it has real-world negative effects. 

If we do not present the truth in love, then people are less likely to accept it. And if we present the truth in a snide or condescending way, then people are likely to project that condescension onto the truth and be repulsed by it.  

There are two parties negatively affected by the uncontrolled rhetoric and posture: the defender and the skeptic. The defender is demonstrating the evidences that justify belief in Jesus Christ, yet he does so in a very unloving and unChrist-like way. This creates a contradiction in the defender's life: his actions do not seem to match what he professes. This walking contradiction causes the defender to lose credibility.

Hypocrisy in the Church is one of the big stumbling blocks to skeptics. When skeptics see a contradiction in a worldview, they know intuitively that they must question its truthfulness. And if the contradiction includes poor attitudes (as this particular one does), it makes that worldview appear less deserving of consideration and a commitment even if it is true.

Been There, Done That

So what can we do about this? For anyone who is constantly on the lookout for opportunities to share and defend the truth of the Gospel and the whole of the Christian worldview (that should be all of us), we always need to be in prayer that we will remain conscious of our level of rhetoric and postures. When we engage, we need to focus on the concerns of the person asking the questions. This will allow us to address the issue with truth but do so in a way that connects personally with the person. If (when) we find that we have crossed the line of passion into belligerence, we must backtrack- ask the person's forgiveness and permission to start over, reminding ourselves of something. I like the way that Greg Koukl puts it in his book "Tactics: A Gameplan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions":

"Being defensive and belligerent always looks weak. Instead, stay focused on the issues, not on the attitude."

Conclusion

Love, gentleness, humility, and respect in our discussions will go a long way. Whether we are discussing the truth of the Christian worldview with a skeptic, discussing theology, debating politics, or whatever, if these are not present we have no reason to expect our message to be persuasive. We can compromise neither truth nor character. We claim that Christ can transform lives; we need to allow Him to transform ours so we can be His hands and feet that people can see, hear, and touch in this physical world.

Norman Geisler: There Is Some Truth In False Views

Introduction

In the process of defending views (whether they are worldview, political, or others) we will always come across people who hold to other views. Usually people hold to a particular view because they believe the view accurately reflects reality. However, since no two contradicting views can both be correct, one or both must be incorrect. But why would someone believe a false view? Norman Geisler provides insight into this in his book "Christian Ethics: Options and Issues":

"Few positions are totally without any merit. There is usually enough truth in any false view to make it hold water."

Distinguishing the True and False Parts

It is often difficult to persuade someone of the truth of your view if they believe that their view is accurate. The fact that their view may be able to explain certain parts of reality is what is the foundation for their holding their view. If their view did not have portions of it that were correct, they would not believe it. It is important to recognize these true parts as areas of agreement between the two different views. This will usually establish some trust between the two parties and allow for intellectual (rather than emotive and rhetorical) discussion about the false areas of their opposing view. We can then challenge the false views and show how our view not only explains the true views we've already agreed upon but better explains the areas of reality that the other view cannot.

Could WE Have The False View?

It is important that we also recognize the fact that none of us is omniscient. It is very possible that we would be the one with the incorrect view and are holding to that view because it explains enough (has enough truth) to appear accurate. The difficulty in persuading someone thatbelieve our view is correct could be founded in the fact that our view is actually false. We need to be willing to not only challenge other views but allow our views to be challenged. If our views are the false views, we must change them.

Conclusion

All views that people hold to explain reality contain some portion of truth that allows them a logical reason to believe the view. However, if the true parts are the only part they focus on, they can be blinded to the falsehood of their overall view. It is important that we recognize the true parts of their view to establish unity, but we do that in order to show them where they have gone wrong. If we expect others to recognize that their views may be false and need changing, we must be willing to examine our own views and change them when the evidence and logic is against our view.

To Investigate More, I Recommend:

• Reasons In And Out of a Worldview
• 3 Good Reasons to Question What You Believe
• Is Your View Falsifiable? 
• Book Review: Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussion Your Christian Convictions

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

  

John Oswalt: Progress Requires God

Introduction

Nobody likes to think that they are holding back progress. The idea of progress is used in many areas of political and moral debate as a weapon against those who tend to hold to "traditional" values. "Progressives" argue against the objective truth of Judeo-Christian morality in an effort to legalize their particular desires. In an effort to do so, though, "progressives' are trying to eliminate the only foundation for judging what can be rightly called "progress" and what can rightly be called "regress." In his book The Bible Among The Myths, John N. Oswalt uses philosophy of history to show the necessity of the Creator for progress to even be possible:

"The idea of progress is dependent on the idea that our Creator has a goal for us, outside of ourselves, toward which we humans were made to progress and against which our progress can be measured. Give up that truth, and 'progress' becomes a chimera."

The Foundation Removed

Without an objective goal set, there is no way to determine what truly is progressive and what is not. If an event or action moves a group closer to the realization of the goal, then progress has taken place. If an event or action moves a group away from the realization of the goal, then progress has not taken place. Without a goal, this cannot be judged. In their efforts to eliminate objective morality from public life, "progressives" must argue against God's existence in order to show that morality is relative. But in doing so, they have also forfeited the right to call themselves "progressives."

Conclusion

Interestingly enough, if a "progressive" skeptic wishes to assert and be committed to the idea that progress can objectively be made (by judging those who stand against their views as "regressive"), they implicitly assume that an objective purpose exists outside themselves and outside humanity as a whole. It is up to them to ground such an obligation without God. The reality that progress can be judged against an ideal purpose is evidence that an ideal purpose exists, and that ideal purpose must have a Purposer. If "progress" is possible, God exists.

The Bible Among The Myths contains several nuggets regarding the existence of God, like this one. If you have not taken the time to read this book, you will not be disappointed.

For further investigation into moral relativism, ethics, politics, and purpose, I highly recommend checking out these books:

• Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted In Mid-Air
• Christian Ethics: Issues and Options
• Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible
• The Grand Weaver: How God Shapes Us Through the Events of Our Lives