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."

Christian England? Maybe not...

I've just read an interesting blog article from Paul Kingsnorth . I've responded to it elsewhere with regard to its consideration of...