Barefoot in the wilderness
in search of understanding

On my team?

Something that caused me pause for a moment today was reading a comment to me on someone else’s blog. We’d been discussing the interpretation of a particular passage in Genesis, and he quoted Bishop Spong at me, apparently believing that (because I’m not conservative evangelical) I must be liberal. I responded that I didn’t take Spong seriously and that I wasn’t liberal in the slightest (because I’m not).

The interesting point was his response – “I just chose the guy I knew wasn’t on my team!” This idea of “teams” in theology (indeed, in the Christian faith in general) is, it seems to me, profoundly unhelpful. Not only does it cast all discussions in adversarial fashion (with its ideas of winning and of “me versus you”) but it also reduces all difference to a binary axis – “if you don’t agree with me then you must agree with this other person who also disagrees with me”. Actually, of course, this is totally wrong. Any point can have many different opinions, and many different justifications for those opinions. Disagreement with one approach doesn’t imply agreement with any particular other approach.

Better, it seems to me, to see debate as a unifying process where possible – as a helpful rather than a destructive force. The objective is to convey one’s ideas to the other person, to correct their errors and to allow your errors to be corrected, to clarify areas where both were unclear before. The point is for both to ‘win’, for both to gain greater understanding, for both to move forward. If the participants can only see each other in terms of right and wrong, instead of in terms of progress towards a common goal (albeit from different directions), debate becomes argument and argument becomes fighting.

pax et bonum