If you've been checking in here from time to time this week, you know I've posted interviews with three prominent and articulate evangelicals about their approaches to the Mormon community. Dean Jackson argued for reconciliation and repentance, Greg Johnson pleaded for "Convicted Civility", and Mike Stahura called for uncompromising commitment to the truth. But however much their approaches may differ, there is also a common thread among them. All three describe their activity as "dialogue".
This is an encouraging sign. In the past, evangelical outreach to Mormons tended to be described as "evangelism," "ministry," or even "missions," but rarely as "dialogue". "Dialogue" was a word that conjured the specter of an impotent ecumenical movement. It was a word that seemed to imply weakness and lack of conviction. So to see a conservative evangelical like Mike Stahura unashamedly using the word "dialogue" signals a welcome shift in the evangelical movement's attitude toward the term.
The great thing about the term "dialogue" is that it implies a two-way interaction. It means that both sides will have an opportunity to communicate their views, and both sides will be expected to listen to each other. The term "evangelism" suggests that one party has the knowledge and will be dispensing it to the other side, who is merely a passive recipient. In dialogue the two parties approach each other as equals, and both have an opportunity to be active participants.
It should come as no surprise that I disagree with much of what Mike Stahura said about Mormons. But at the same time, I respect his approach. He is a person of strong convictions, and he places all of those convictions on the table before entering into dialogue. There is something refreshing about the frankness with which he states what he believes is true. There is no masking of his views behind a facade of false acceptance or phony fellowship. The advantage of this is that his views and attitudes then become fair game for discussion. Assuming that he is sincere in his desire for dialogue, Mormons will have the opportunity to challenge his misconceptions with equal frankness. Whereas organized interfaith dialogue too often degenerates into an exchange of platitudes, Mike represents an opportunity for Mormons to engage in a robust exchange of ideas. This is interfaith dialogue of the truest kind. This is where the rubber meets the road.
Ilya Somin on the fall of the Berlin Wall
5 hours ago
3 comments:
Chris, I appreciate this line of posts and I'm encouraged at these developments. In human communication, sending a message is only half of the process. Having that message received and appropriately understood is the second half.
In my experience, I feel all to often the main emphasis has been sending a message, or discharging one's duty to tell it like it is, with no concern for how or even if the message is received. In fact, when I try to explain this idea, often people tell me "Why should we be concerned whether what we say offends someone?" However, if we send messages all the time but none of those messages are received then communication is simply not taking place. It isn't necessarily about being afraid of offending someone; it is about being afraid we are not communicating effectively. I think you are right that often one party is seen as the passive recipient, except that there is very little concern for whether the party has actually received the message, and no means to check whether understanding is taking place. I like your emphasis that dialogue suggests a two-way interaction.
So, I'm very encouraged by those who understand this and are seeking to find more effective and winsome ways to communicate their faith to others.
Chris, I hope you don't mind my adding your blog to one of the sections ("Individual Blogs") on my own blog. I've enjoyed reading your latest posts. (Mine won't drive much, if any, traffic to you, but . . .)
You said:
"Mike represents an opportunity for Mormons to engage in a robust exchange of ideas. This is interfaith dialogue of the truest kind."
I only know of Mike from your previous post, but my only quibble at all with this post is the idea that "a robust exchange of ideas" automatically equates to "interfaith dialogue" - especially "of the truest kind". To me, interfaith dialogue of the truest kind is where BOTH sides walk away having learned something and having been edified by the conversation, and I'm not sure at this point whether Mike would allow that possibility on his end. I get the sense that his underlying motive is NOT "understanding and edification", but rather finding ways to convince and convert - which, imo, is not really "dialogue in the truest sense".
I might be completely wrong about that, as it is only an impression from one post (and nearly three decades of "dialogue in the truest sense" with those of nearly every religion and denomiation).
Ray (Papa D from now on, since I'm using my Google name from my own blog)
Aquinas, that's a great point. I think some people wonder why we should dialogue as equals if we have the truth and others don't. Your answer is perfect. Others will not be inclined to listen to us if we don't return the favor. Thus if we truly care whether our message is received, then we simply must dialogue as equals. The only way to create receptivity is to model it ourselves.
Papa D,
I'm honored to be added to your blog list. You make a good point that a claim to be willing to dialogue does not necessarily translate into action. Mike's actions will speak louder than his words, in that respect, and one can only hope that dialogue is truly what he is engaged in.
My point about "dialogue in the truest sense" was simply that if the goal of our engagement is to find superficial similarities and to engage in a sort of coffeehouse fellowship, we do ourselves and our dialogue partners a disservice. It is when we engage with full conviction and a full recognition of differences that frank and meaningful communication can occur. You are of course correct to point out that, these must be accompanied by openness and a willingness to listen.
Thanks for commenting,
-Chris
Post a Comment