13 July 2010

Dealing with diverging views

This caught my attention because it is about pluralism vs exclusivism. However, the way of handling the differences is one that bears emulation.
"Whenever I see smart people take opposite sides of an issue ... I tend to do four things.
First, I look for truth on both sides. Each side sees something worth seeing...
Second, when questions create polarized camps with wise and good people on both sides, I tend to look for limitations or flaws in the way the question is framed. ...
Third, when I come across questions that divide good people from each other, I often look for the rhetorical purposes of the question and its possible answers: what good do they intend to accomplish - beyond the intermediate goal of engendering agreement or disagreement? ...
Finally, in situations like these, I try to hold the good things that each side values, and encourage each side to do the same. ..."

Christians inherit a tradition which calls peacemakers blessed. We will more likely be called blessed when we approach issues of disagreement in the spirit that Brian McLaren outlines here.
On Faith Panelists Blog: Let there be peace in our individual identities - Brian D. McLaren:

3 comments:

Steve Hayes said...

I tend to take a slightly different approach.

When A and B are at loggerheads, there are usually four things in the equation:

1. What A is saying
2. What B is saying
3. What A thinks B is saying
4. What B thinks A is saying

They may end up still disagreeing, but let them at least disagree about their real differences rather than imagined ones.

Andii said...

THere's a lot of wisdom in that too Steve. In many ways it captures a lot of what Brian M is saying. I'd hold out for finding a way to incorporate the further insights of Brian's schema, namely, listening for the good things in each and also looking for the rhetorical intent and impact. What I think is important in yours is to get people to explain what the other seems to be saying. (That can be quite hard work; to get them to do so without interruptions). It relates to the counselling practice of active listening; we need space and assurance that we have been heard before we can move on into the next phase of the discussion.

Steve Hayes said...

I suppose my schema is based on experience on the Internet, where I've met many people whose approach to dialogue is, "If I want your opinion I'll give it to you."

Review: It happened in Hell

 It seemed to me that this book set out to do two main things. One was to demonstrate that so many of our notions of what goes under the lab...