Yesterday I had a great conversation with two of my close friends before work. Mike, who is currently a seminary student, had written a paper for a class focused on homosexuality and the church. So Mike, Kevin, and myself took some time to discuss his thoughts. I'm not going to get into the whole discussion, but afterwards I was talking with Kevin and he brought up something I had never thought about...the difference between discussion and dialogue. He gave his definition of the two words...
Discussion - I tell you what I believe so I can convince you I am right and vice versa.
Dialogue - You tell me what you believe so I can understand you better and vice versa.
See the difference? The agenda of discussion is to prove I'm right while the agenda for dialogue is to better understand where you're coming from. As I see it, Christians many times have no problem engaging in discussion, but dialogue takes a different attitude. It's hard for us to make this shift because for so long we've all been convinced that we are right. I'm not denying that there is truth, but what happens if we don't fully have that truth figured out? What if the truth that we think we have figured out appears to have holes? Shouldn't we listen to others' experiences and at least give them time to share where they are at rather than just dismiss them?
I'm reminded of a term I learned while reading Scot McKnight's 5 Streams of the Emerging Church. McKnight uses the term "chastened epistemology," which he defines on his blog - "the Subject (you and I when we are attempting to “know”) is always involved to one degree or another in knowing the Object (what you and I are trying to “know”). Humans are limited and fallible — every last one of us. Therefore, everything we know and everything we articulate is to one degree or another limited and influenced by who we are and what we think and what we want to be true." In other words, because God is fully unknowable and we are fallen individuals, no matter how convinced we are that we are right, there is still the possibility that we are wrong.
This is the attitude I believe we should have as we enter into dialogue with others.
Discussion - I tell you what I believe so I can convince you I am right and vice versa.Dialogue - You tell me what you believe so I can understand you better and vice versa.
See the difference? The agenda of discussion is to prove I'm right while the agenda for dialogue is to better understand where you're coming from. As I see it, Christians many times have no problem engaging in discussion, but dialogue takes a different attitude. It's hard for us to make this shift because for so long we've all been convinced that we are right. I'm not denying that there is truth, but what happens if we don't fully have that truth figured out? What if the truth that we think we have figured out appears to have holes? Shouldn't we listen to others' experiences and at least give them time to share where they are at rather than just dismiss them?
I'm reminded of a term I learned while reading Scot McKnight's 5 Streams of the Emerging Church. McKnight uses the term "chastened epistemology," which he defines on his blog - "the Subject (you and I when we are attempting to “know”) is always involved to one degree or another in knowing the Object (what you and I are trying to “know”). Humans are limited and fallible — every last one of us. Therefore, everything we know and everything we articulate is to one degree or another limited and influenced by who we are and what we think and what we want to be true." In other words, because God is fully unknowable and we are fallen individuals, no matter how convinced we are that we are right, there is still the possibility that we are wrong.
This is the attitude I believe we should have as we enter into dialogue with others.
2 comments:
i wrote a similar blog post about a year or so ago... just used "debate" instead of "discussion."
so how did this come up? was i accused of discussion? :)
much love,
tuf
My problem with "dialogue" is that it is often used as an excuse not to act -"Oh, we need more dialogue". So we go week after week, month after month, year after year, never making decisions. The reality is that many who want to dialogue already have their minds made up and really don't want to listen or understand anyway. So then we end up in a mode of discussion, just a more courteous discussion.
That's been my experience. P.R.
Post a Comment