Being human, it is a given that we will have varying opinions on varying ideas. That is, we won't always agree. Given. This, of course, leads to ... oh, that's too obvious ... disagreements. And disagreements lead to arguments. And arguments lead to fights. (So much so that often "argument" and "fight" are interchangeable terms.)
I'm here to offer a possible aid in this problem. It's an idea I recommend heartily. It shouldn't be done without care, but I recommend it nonetheless. I think it will be very helpful. Here's the idea. Wait for it. Consider the other person's opinion.
Yeah, I know, Earth-shaking, isn't it? But it's not as light weight as I made it sound. Here's the idea (more fleshed out). If you cannot defend the other person's viewpoint, I think it is questionable that you should be allowed to attack the other person's viewpoint. If you haven't examined the opposing position well enough to fully understand it, is it safe or wise or kind to take up arms against it?
Let me offer an example. I grew up with "believer's baptism". In this view, a person was baptized after they believed. The whole notion of "infant baptism" was foreign to me. And since it was foreign, obviously, it was wrong. Well, eventually I figured out that this was an arrogant and, indeed, foolish approach. So I started looking into the entire "paedobaptism" (the fancy word for "infant baptism") thing. I began to see where they got their ideas. I began to understand their logic. I began to follow their thinking. Eventually I understood it well enough that, in one instance, I took up the debate to defend their viewpoint. Mind you, I didn't agree with it, but I understood it well enough to 1) be able to defend it from Scripture and (more importantly) 2) to understand that the people who held to it weren't all radical, wacko, anti-Scripture nuts with some backwoods understanding of the Bible and no interest in the truth. Because isn't that how we typically view those who disagree with us? We, clearly, have the Bible on our side and they, obviously, don't. We, quite plainly, are thinking people and they, as anyone can tell, don't engage their brains at all. We, therefore, are superior and they, in fact, are dangerous people. Wrong.
I find this so often in the political arena. The right disagrees with the left (and vice versa), so the right characterizes the left as "anti-American". The right loves America, but the President and his left-wing cronies all hate America. Not so. It's just that the left believes that their approach is better for America and the right believes that their approach is better for America and demonizing your opponent doesn't help decide which is right.
Of late the most common place I find this problem is in the arena of "Calvinism versus Arminianism". The whole thing, quite frankly, is quite difficult. Extremists on both sides decry the other as "unbiblical" (even though both sides are quoting Scripture). And talk about "demonizing your opponent" ... well! These two groups will do it quite literally, assured in their belief that the opposing view comes straight from the pit of hell. But then I run into two prominent problems. First, when I read the reasons that the Arminian consider my beliefs "anti-Christian", I agree with them. The theology they are attributing to me is plain wrong. I agree that it's wrong. There are two causes here. First, that whole stupid memory tool, "TULIP", is a really stupid memory tool. It uses English words and all, but almost none of them mean what I actually believe. I don't, for instance, believe in "Total Depravity" -- that people are as bad as they possibly can be -- but in radical depravity -- the Natural Man is sinful at the core. That's not the same thing. I don't believe in "Limited Atonement" generally taken to mean, "Christ's atonement was only enough to cover the sins of the elect." I believe that when Jesus died for sins, He intended to save some and succeeded in that intention. The alternative, to me, is that He intended to save everyone and simply failed. And then there is that whole "Irresistible Grace" thing. "Of course," the opponent cries, "we can resist! We do it all the time!" And I agree! Because that's not the point of "Irresistible Grace". Then there's the "P". Funny thing. Some Arminians will say, "That whole 'P' thing is okay. I believe in 'Once Saved, Always Saved'." They're thinking they agree with me there ... and I don't believe in OSAS. I believe in the Perseverance of the Saints. It's different. So the whole acronym thing causes no end of problems and people are arguing against beliefs that neither I nor "Calvinism" hold. Second, no two Arminians or Calvinists or human beings are alike. What you attribute to "Calvinism" or "Arminianism" may not be what your local neighborhood "Calvinist" or "Arminian" actually believes. You're attributing to me what someone else may believe, but I don't. So I'm forced to defend someone else's beliefs? Not right!
I think, then, that it would be so much better if we would plan to come to a much clearer understanding of the viewpoints with which we disagree before we take up arms against them. I understand that such an approach could be dangerous. After all, if you went about examining a view you oppose, it could end up that you don't oppose it anymore. You could discover that you were wrong and the opposing view was right. But isn't that a win? I mean, are you more intent on opposing a view or are you more interested in the truth? Further, if you thoroughly understand the other side and still hold your position, it is most likely that you will be more capable of defending your own position than before. So ... it's a win-win. So why not?
6 comments:
>>The right disagrees with the left (and vice versa), so the right characterizes the left as "anti-American".
Ummm. No.
The right disagrees with the left *and* characterizes their politics as *anti-American*. They point out many speeches and policies that deliberately tear down the United States, that denigrate our history, etc. They point out, in effect, Anti-American policies, and call those policies Anti-American.
i.e., The right is correct in calling the left anti-American. In other words, you make my point.
Only if you assume:
a) That there is no set of actions called 'being anti-American' and
b) The left does not do that thing.
This is similar to the idea that the left puts forth that the right calls it 'murdering a child' because they are 'opposed to abortion', which implies:
a) There is no such thing as a child and
b) the left does not advocate killing it.
In order to find out of the right is right or wrong, it is really necessary to define what 'anti-American' looks like in practice, and t hen see if the left does that.
What I've seen is that in most cases when the right labels the left as "anti-American" it is because the right sees the views of the left as anti-American, not because the left sees them as anti-American. Most on the left see their view as pro-American -- "This is what's best for America" -- even though, as we both know, they're wrong. That is, their goal is not to demean their country, but to improve it.
It is similar to the pro-abortion people naming the pro-life people "anti-abortion". We're not. We're anti-murder. The label is wrong.
I should point out that this is all generalization. There are people (actually both on the left and the right) who are genuinely anti-America. They believe that America ought not to exist and ought to be eliminated. I'm talking about the left in general as opposed to those rare wingnuts. President Obama, for instance, has views that I am certain are harmful to America. I do not believe, however, that he believes they are harmful to America. That's not his intent.
>>That is, their goal is not to demean their country, but to improve it.
Aha, now we are getting somewhere. Here is one definition of 'anti-American'... someone who has a goal of demeaning America.
Now, I would disagree with this definition but, even by that definition, the Reverend Wright would have to qualify; he who said, "Not God Bless America but God &&&& America." (Note, I put that in stars, altho I believe it could be expressed legitimately, as the Scriptures use similar language.)
Or the presidents wife, who for said something like 'for the first time in my life, I am proud of America." Implying, to those of us who have take a course in logic, that previously she was embarrassed by America.
The fact that Mrs. Obama prefaced it with "for the first time in my life" is problematic, I agree. On the other hand, America has done lots of things that have embarrassed me. Does that make me "anti-American"?
My only point, however, is not to debate what is or is not "anti-American", but to point out that these labels are often not accurate nor are they helpful.
Post a Comment