Why Engage (Again)?
In my first post, I broached the question why we should engage with others who do not share our core convictions, values or views. It feels futile. Why waste our time word-wrestling with the wayward? What’s the point?
Admittedly, curiosity does get the best of me. I want to know how any rational person could be duped by Unitarianism. I want to psychoanalyze Wicked Widows of the church and find out why many of them are so damn cantankerous.
I could learn somethingfrom them. But there is no benefit to arguing with them about positive and normative ideas like how to raise kids or if fast food is immoral. I’m not going to imbibe, let alone sip, their cuckoo-agenda kool-aid.
Only a nihilist goes to war to win a stalemate.
Yet the point of our last post is that we don’t engage for our own benefit. My motivation shouldn’t be curiosity. Nor sheer intellectual stimulation, life hacks, or to rack up our “converts count.” We engage because the Truth commands it.
But we do have to come at this with clear eyes. The Conversation Coliseum is not as it was a decade ago. The walls are fractured and leaking. The winsome apologists have passed. We are in “negative world” now, Dorothy.
The pieces are chipped. The board is bent. The instructions are lost. The box is tattered. The players are disgruntled and impatient. The game has changed. Time to play a different one or pour a nightcap and call it a day.
In short: Dialogue is defunct.
Dialogue Is Defunct
If there is one lesson to be learned from raising kids, it’s that we assume a lot about how to interact with one another. Fashioning a tiny ball of whines and babbles into an upright thinker and articulate speaker is no small feat.
Just because someone has a driver’s license and drinks beer doesn’t mean they know how to have a constructive conversation. Babies grow up, but babble doesn’t always age with coherence. Not every adult can dialogue.
Dialogue doesn’t happen by happenstance. It doesn’t come about by accident. You don’t magically make dialogue by throwing a handful of words back and forth. It’s a far more intricate creation.
In other words, dialogue isn’t the result of two monologues having a baby.
It’s an exchange of truth claims, convictions and conclusions. Assumptions are discussed. Evidence is weighed. Values are examined. Claims will probably be challenged. Views may have to be refined.
It takes patience and prudence to discern which points are central and which are trivial. You can expect a process of giving and taking of points and pushbacks. You won’t be able to just assert. Get ready to qualify and reformulate.
If we are going to think out loud, we first have to know how to talk. If we are going to raise concerns, we first have to know how to have a conversation. If we going to disagree well, we have to know how to dialogue.
Our dialogue is defunct, but don’t pour the nightcap just yet.
If we are going to get anywhere with disagreement we have to acknowledge that our inability to dialogue will be a fork in the road. We can’t arrive at disagreement without dialogue. So we have give more attention to the basics.
Many in the church are incredulous that we seem incapable of having civil and charitable conversations. I mean, c’mon—can’t we all just get along? There is no doubt in my mind that we can’t. Because so few know how to dialogue.
The ancient art of dialogue has to be introduced to a whole new generation. (Lord knows public schools and even Christian colleges aren’t doing it!) We will never arrive at disagreement if the basics of dialogue are disparaged.
Dealing with Diabolical Delinquents
Ignorance of how to dialogue is one prong of the fork in the road to disagreement. Poor judgment in selecting interlocutors is the other. Not everyone is a good dialogue partner. Not everyone will be a worthwhile disagreer.
Don’t argue with every Tom, Dick, and Harry. Be prudent and judicious in who you choose. But also know that the pool is getting smaller. The growing cadre of conversation partners aren’t the type that want disagreement.
They aren’t in it for dialogue and disagreement. They want to troll, gaslight, incite, and spew assertions all day. Reaching them is almost insurmountable, as they are hermetically ensconced inside their own perspective with staunch delight.
We have to learn how to deal with these “diabolical delinquents.” They are the new norm. So we may have to get used to doing what Jesus commanded when it seems like we are shouting all the way down to the seventh ring of hell.
But don’t abandon all hope. Not yet. Not ever.
Dialoguing in an age of diabolical delinquents will force us to shift our strategies. Sometimes, we have to just toss the seeds. Other times, pluck and plant one seed. Increasingly, we may have to jam the seed into the ground past the thorns.
I guess my point is we have to come to terms with the fact that dialoguing with consideration, cogency, and charity in this day and age will be like climbing Mount Everest with a backpack full of dumbbells.
But we can do it. We just have to realize that we are rebuilding society by relearning how to have basic dialogue. Many will be tempted to resort to the tactics of “neutral world” in their attempts to rebuild. Resist the devil.
Truth no longer, nor ever needed, Winsomeness or Slant as assistants.
In our next post, I will discuss the nature of disagreement and distinguish it from “non-agreement.” We misunderstand disagreement when we believe it to be the mere act of saying “no.” It’s so much more than that. And so much more Christian.