{"id":847,"date":"2008-08-12T23:32:50","date_gmt":"2008-08-13T07:32:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/2008\/08\/12\/another-uncertain-sound\/"},"modified":"2008-08-12T23:32:50","modified_gmt":"2008-08-13T07:32:50","slug":"another-uncertain-sound","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/2008\/08\/12\/another-uncertain-sound\/","title":{"rendered":"another uncertain sound?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kevin Bauder offers a piece entitled “Dialogue?” in his regular series of articles appearing both on Sharper Iron<\/a> and at the Central Seminary<\/a> website as well. You can read the full article at either site to get the full context. <\/p>\n

I was tipped to the article by Jason Button over at Theosource<\/a>, where he posted his initial reaction, then we had a bit of a conversation about it. There is an ongoing discussion<\/a> over at SI which produced some interesting comments. I wonder if anyone commenting really understands what the article is about. It appears that some are disagreeing with it from opposite sides of the fence. [Or maybe I just don’t understand the comments.] <\/p>\n

I think the confusion [perhaps just my confusion] comes because the article itself is vague, barely giving enough details to provide some context and certainly not enough specifics to answer the question, “Now what?” <\/p>\n

With this post, I’d like to point out where I think some of the confusion arises…<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

With his first line, Kevin gets the ball rolling:<\/p>\n

\n

Fundamentalists are notorious for their refusal to dialogue with other points of view.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Well… certainly designed to catch the eye of the SI groupie, no? It would be one thing for someone who is ‘on the edge’ to make a statement like this, but why is it that some men who are in prominent leadership positions in fundamentalist circles seem to have to throw these kinds of statements out there? Is it mere pandering to young fundamentalist ‘angst’? Is it satirical? Is it what Kevin really thinks of fundamentalism? It really isn’t clear.<\/p>\n

And I question whether it is appropriate at all, satirical or no. We do have a problem with young people thinking fundamentalism is a curse word, why would a leader of fundamentalism use a term that could further that notion?<\/p>\n

The second point of confusion is the term dialogue itself. Kevin knows it is problematic, and acknowledges it with this statement:<\/p>\n

\n

Of course, there is a species of dialogue in which no Christian can rightly participate.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The ‘species of dialogue’ he is talking about, is, of course, the kind that Hegel advocated in his Dialectic, one that is ever pursuing truth by examining thesis and antithesis, finding common ground by synthesizing the best of both points of view, only to be confronted again with a new antithesis to your synthesis, and the process begins all over again [not a slippery slope so much as a gradual absorption into the morasse of meaninglessness]. The process is the darling of the ecumenical set and the word dialogue itself in the religious context is the word of ecumenicalism and the new evangelicalism.<\/p>\n

In fact, the word ‘dialogue’ has a multiple of meanings:<\/p>\n

\n

di\u00b7a\u00b7logue noun, verb -logued, -logu\u00b7ing.<\/p>\n

\u2013noun
1. conversation between two or more persons.
2. the conversation between characters in a novel, drama, etc.
3. an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, esp. a political or religious issue, with a view to reaching an amicable agreement or settlement.
4. a literary work in the form of a conversation: a dialogue of Plato.<\/p>\n

\u2013verb (used without object)
5. to carry on a dialogue; converse.
6. to discuss areas of disagreement frankly in order to resolve them.<\/p>\n

\u2013verb (used with object)
7. to put into the form of a dialogue.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

[dialogue. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. <\/font>http:\/\/dictionary.reference.com\/browse\/dialogue<\/font><\/a> (accessed: August 12, 2008).]<\/font> <\/p>\n

Essentially, Kevin is arguing for (I think) merely meaning number 1, a conversation between two or more persons. He seems to be arguing against meanings 3 and 6. Now, in arguing for number 1, it does seem that he is arguing for a more formal process than two guys talking things over. He seems to be arguing for a ‘skilled conversation’:<\/p>\n

\n

Real dialogue does not require the participants to diminish their commitment to their beliefs. On the contrary, a real dialogue provides the opportunity for the most deeply held beliefs to be articulated in their most convincing form. When conducted between skilled and knowledgeable participants, that kind of dialogue can be tremendously instructive.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This does seem to be more than merely a mere conversation. I wonder if he has in mind his own participation in some academic discussion at Beeson University some years ago. Or if he has in mind the upcoming participation of Gerald Priest at Southern Seminary next summer. The idea I get from Kevin’s comment is that if fundamentalists would be more willing to participate in face to face formal public discussions of this sort, it would be educational and a good thing<\/strong>. [If you read me much, you will already know what I think of that.]<\/p>\n

I wonder at the appropriateness of advocating for such a theologically charged word. Is it really necessary? And then, on the other hand, I wonder if Kevin is really advocating for the less dangerous form of the word after all… If I am right that he means more than a mere conversation, rather a more formal public discussion as described above, what is the point of such a discussion if not to resolve differences<\/em><\/strong> to some extent at least? Is Kevin advocating that we draw closer to non-fundamentalists in order to improve our approach to fundamentalism?<\/p>\n

One of the SI commentators made a crack at Kevin that seemed to highlight this confusion:<\/p>\n

\n

In other words, never let your opponents change your mind.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

What is the goal of ‘legitimate dialogue’, if it is not to seek some resolution to conflicting opinions. I suggest that even putting a more human ‘face’ on the views of an opponent is a modification of one’s own viewpoint – a resolution of conflict to some extent. For example, I suspect that at some seminaries many derisive comments are made concerning Arminianism and especially Finneyism. [And deservedly so, for the most part.] But I wonder if anyone like, oh, I don’t know, Kevin Bauder, has ever had a well-trained articulate defender of such views in for an academic presentation at his institution. I mean, wouldn’t you want to expose all points of view to your student body? [Correct me if I am wrong, but I would be quite surpised if such an event would ever occur.]<\/p>\n

In any case, the point is that it is very hard to imagine a real ‘dialogue’ in an academic setting that doesn’t seek to ameliorate the hard edges of one’s point of view. Thus, I think it is very confusing to be advocating for such a suspect term.<\/p>\n

I am also wondering about something that I have to call ‘elitism’. What does Bauder mean when he says:<\/p>\n

\n

skilled and knowledgeable participants
skilled listeners who are able to grasp and to digest accurately the position of an interlocutor
That skill comes only with maturity. An unguided dialogue is not an activity for the immature.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

… and why does he use words like ‘interlocutor’? The whole tenor of the article seems to say that the ‘grown-ups’ should engage in theological dialogue performances for the good of the ignorant masses. Forgive the cynicism!<\/p>\n

Now, I do agree with this statement:<\/p>\n

\n

Conversation with other points of view may also expose the gaps in one’s own thinking. We have trouble detecting the weaknesses and flaws in the presentation of our own ideas, even when they are very good ideas. We know that we are not infallible, but we often cannot say just where we have gone wrong. We are unaware of the boundaries of our own thinking and argument. By encountering interlocutors who reject our thinking, we gain the opportunity to have our weaknesses pointed out to us. Of course, we shall have to judge whether any particular criticism really does point to a weakness, or whether it simply reflects the bias of the critic. If our critics do expose our weaknesses, we gain the opportunity to correct them. Our ability to present the truth is strengthened.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

(… again with the ‘interlocutors’. He’s driving me mad!)<\/p>\n

I generally don’t have a problem with conversations. You can even do this, in a way, without even talking to someone. That is, you can read their books. I am currently reading the notoriously liberal, Christ and Culture<\/em>, by Niebuhr. (I would have to say, not for the faint of heart, or the very sleepy! Niebuhr uses bigger words than Kevin does, and more of them. Very sleep inducing.] I made some comments along these lines over at Jason Button’s blog<\/a>. I think it can be profitable to have conversations, real or virtual, with points of view that are different from one’s own. But, as I said over there:<\/p>\n

\n

Of course there does come a point where there is nothing else to say. Then the conversation is over.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Our goal in having conversations with those who differ should be two-fold. First, if the other person’s error is grievous enough, our purpose should be evangelistic. And second, our goal should be for greater understanding, either to sharpen one’s own views or to better understand how to evangelize those who hold opposing (and grievously erroneous) views. But at some point, the conversation will end. You will have said all that you can say and so will the other person. Hopefully some benefit will derive out of it, but especially when neither party is willing to change views, there will be nothing more to say.<\/p>\n

I found it more than a little ironic that Kevin cited Athanasius\/Arius and Luther\/Leo as examples of the benefits of dialogue, only to say this:<\/p>\n

\n

Of course, Athanasius was not dialoguing with Arius, nor Luther with Leo.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Umm… way to make your point!<\/p>\n

Well, we could go on, but I guess that is enough.<\/p>\n

I think that we have here another example of something that I think of as ‘the disconnect’ [to quote a friend]. We have men in positions of leadership in fundamentalism who seem at times to loyally contend for the faith, but then at other times to give confusing and uncertain sounds. This one, I am afraid, is one of those confusing ones. In the end, I am not entirely sure if I should be cheering this article, or if the young fundies should be. (I kind of suspect it is them, but I am not entirely sure.)<\/p>\n

\"don_sig2\"<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Kevin Bauder offers a piece entitled “Dialogue?” in his regular series of articles appearing both on Sharper Iron and at the Central Seminary website as well. You can read the full article at either site to get the full context. I was tipped to the article by Jason Button over at Theosource, where he posted […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true},"categories":[37,71,44],"tags":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2fYWj-dF","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/847"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=847"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/847\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=847"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=847"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=847"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}