I've heard it said on multiple occasions from multiple sources that the problem with conservatives is that their arguments are logical while liberals' are emotional. Now, I know, liberals would disagree, and I'm not entirely sure it's true, but it is true that many of the discussions, dialogues, and debates I've seen and had were on these two footings. "Well," I might say, "Scripture says this, that, and the other" and they might reply, "Hater! Homophobe! Bigot!" Umm, you know that's not a rebuttal, right?
But, look, I'm not trying to draw a distinction here between conservative and liberal arguments. I'm trying to ask if we might be missing the point here.
Consider. A dear friend loses a loved one to, say, cancer. Your dear friend is a Christian, a believer, a follower of Christ and the Word. So you go to comfort your dear friend with the truth. "They're in a better place" or "The Bible says that God works all things together for good for those who love God." It is the truth, sure, but is it helpful? Do you think you have actually provided comfort? Not likely. Because the problem here is emotional, not logical. The truth when emotions are not running so high might absolutely help, and, in fact, I think arming ourselves in advance with the truth might help during emotional circumstances, but the problem at that moment isn't a lack of truth; it's emotional pain. "God will work it out" doesn't address that pain.
Just an example. But I hope you see what I'm saying. I hope you see my question. Are we missing the point? Sure, maybe we have our ducks in a row. Maybe we have our proper basis and our proper facts and our proper line of reasoning to the proper conclusion, but are we missing the point? Are we addressing their issue?
I can't tell you how many times I've argued, "This is the truth from Scripture" and been rebuffed with, "No, this is" with the clear and careful reasoning, "because it feels right." Rarely have they offered, "This is where you're wrong in your facts or arguments because of these facts or arguments." It is almost exclusively an emotional response. Mind you, I'm not even limiting this to "them." I include Christians with whom I share much of the same beliefs. But on certain points when I pull out Scripture that disagrees with what they feel is right, they disagree because it doesn't feel right. "What about free will??" "If God did that, I would have a hard time." "It can't mean that; that would demean women."
Look, I am not, here, defending my arguments or texts. I'm talking about approach. I'm wondering if we are not missing the point. In 1 Corinthians Paul tells them, "For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some." (1 Cor 9:19-22) I don't understand that to mean "I become an legalist (which I refute) to win legalists and sexually immoral (which I condemn) in order to win the sexually immoral" kind of approach. It's not "Let's go get drunk to win drunks for Christ!" It's the approach Paul used all his ministry. To the Jews, he offered Scripture and Jewish thinking (Acts 17:1-3). To pagan philosophers at the Areopagus he offered a philosophical approach (Acts 17:16-23ff). He didn't become those things; his approach started with where they were.
Are we missing that point? Do we need to address feelings more with people who are arguing from feelings? Do we need to respect the starting point of the atheist to address the atheist? If we fail to observe how the homosexual sees things, can we effectively direct their attention to Christ? Now, clearly we aren't the ones who actually change their hearts and minds. I'm just thinking that we might be missing out on our approach if we simply refuse (for whatever reason -- arrogance, superiority, certainty of being right in the facts and logic, confidence in our understanding of the Word, whatever) to see where they are coming from and meet them there. We may be completely right and still miss the point.
3 comments:
I see what you're saying, but how do you counter "it doesn't feel right" as their "objective" position with the opposite "objective" position "well, it feels right to me"? How can you counter subjective arguments effectively?
I have to compliment Dan. He offered an answer that agreed that we're missing the point when we use logic and ignore the liberal emotional stance ... and he did so completely missing the point. Well done, Dan.
David, we don't typically acknowledge "it doesn't feel right." We typically think (or even say) "We aren't talking about feelings here. We're talking about facts, evidence, logic." I'm not saying it would make any difference, but I wonder if understanding their feeling and responding to it might not improve relations and communication, even if it doesn't change minds. "I understand that you feel that way," is a good start. "I can see why that would be." Then something that addresses it -- "If I had a way that might make you feel better about it, would you be interested?" (Understand I'm using shorthand here. This would obviously be a typically longer process.)
Correction: I didn't mean that Dan wrote that we're missing the point when we "ignore the liberal emotional stance." He didn't include the word "liberal" in there. I inserted it unconsciously (because my point in the article was that liberals are often more emotional and conservatives more rational). My mistake.
Post a Comment