Recognizing Our Faith - A Modest Proposal

[chaoschristian]

Realizing I have absolutely no standing on which to propose this, I nevertheless modestly submit that we discipline ourselves, as Christians, to not bring into question the faith of our fellow Christians during debate, regardless of how averse one might find another's POV. Whether overt or subtle such accusations are unwarranted, as anyone who can post in this part of CF has already witnessed to being a Christian by a widely accepted orthodox standard and none of us are endowed with the authority to call that witness into question.

Such behaviour is unnecessary and distracts from what is supposed to be the main focus and substance of these debates.

I for one would like to state that I greatly admire the faith of my fellow Christians who post here, regardless of their POV on Creation or origins theology. Regardless of what position one holds, it takes faith.

 

[SBG]

I agree.

 

[shernren]

The problem is, there are many very, very subtle ways to insinuate that someone is not a Christian or not as Christian as somebody else. It gets worse because a statement which may not seem insulting to the poster ("well, if somebody called me XXX, I'd just brush it off, so I don't see why you have to make such a fuss about it") may very well seem insulting to the reader. The whole nature of the online environment is that without facial, tactile, and audio clues, it doesn't work like a face-to-face chat where people can stomach a lot more abuse. Maybe it would help if we shared here some of the things people have said with good intent which have hurt, offended, or irritated us - without pointing fingers at the person(s) who said it. A sort of "known issues checklist".

(Would that help or would it incite more arguing?)

 

[chaoschristian]

Maybe it would help if we shared here some of the things people have said with good intent which have hurt, offended, or irritated us - without pointing fingers at the person(s) who said it. A sort of "known issues checklist". (Would that help or would it incite more arguing?)

I can see it helping if everything is given and taken in a positive spirit and with a clear eye on the purpose of the exchange - to help each other understand.

 

[Calminian]

I think you've made an important point. One can be wrong on origins and yet be a christian.

I think we need to be careful that we're not hypersensitive either, though. We must never infer from the questioning our theology and logic, that our faith is also being questioned. The Genesis story is the logical foundation of the gospel (please note my emphasis on logical). You have the 1st Adam who fell and the 2nd Adam who redeemed us, etc., etc. One who accepts the gospel (as historical narrative) yet rejects the fall (as historical narrative) is certainly saved. They're just being illogical in my opinion. But I don't believe God damns folks for being illogical.

I do think a logical approach to the bible is important though. Therefore the debate is important and necessary. Too many times, unfortunately, I see individuals take critiques of their theology as critiques of their faith. I will agree that direct attacks on faith based solely on origins theology is a mistake, but I know of very few individuals that do this.

 

[vossler]

Too many times, unfortunately, I see individuals take critiques of their theology as critiques of their faith.

I think this nails it!

Obviously one of the main reasons we're here is to defend our theology, we certainly shouldn't be here to defend our faith because we all profess the same faith. I feel pretty confident when I say that no one truly believes that a fellow poster/brother doesn't believe in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

So if this is true, then why do allow the questions and statements as an attack on our faith? It probably stems from other 'accusations' or 'inferences' that project a person's theology as being a bad witness or even worse, some kind of fool. I think that's the core issue, not whether someone truly believes or not.

Just my two-cents.

 

[gluadys]

One of the activities I am involved in is untangling discrimination based on race and/or gender. Something I have learned in the process may be helpful here.

Intent is one thing.

Impact is a different thing.

It is the impact of a statement that hurts, even when the intent is well-meant.

So let's try not to be surprised or take offence if another poster remarks of something we have said as hurtful. From our own perspective and intent, what we said may seem innocuous. But from the other person's perspective, the impact is truly hurtful.

Another helpful hint: one I am trying to make a habit without great sucess yet.

Use more "I" sentences than "You" sentences. Especially if the "you" sentence has the least trace of accusation in it.

 

[shernren]

I see individuals take critiques of their theology as critiques of their faith. I will agree that direct attacks on faith based solely on origins theology is a mistake, but I know of very few individuals that do this.

I agree with Vossler that this really nails the problem(s) we've been having here. But somehow I feel as if this statement can be taken the other way around: oftentimes people (accidentally or intentionally) critique people's faith when in fact they should only critique their theology.

 

[chaoschristian]

One of the activities I am involved in is untangling discrimination based on race and/or gender. Something I have learned in the process may be helpful here.

Intent is one thing.

Impact is a different thing.

It is the impact of a statement that hurts, even when the intent is well-meant.

So let's try not to be surprised or take offence if another poster remarks of something we have said as hurtful. From our own perspective and intent, what we said may seem innocuous. But from the other person's perspective, the impact is truly hurtful.

Another helpful hint: one I am trying to make a habit without great sucess yet.

Use more "I" sentences than "You" sentences. Especially if the "you" sentence has the least trace of accusation in it.

 

[Calminian]

One of the activities I am involved in is untangling discrimination based on race and/or gender. Something I have learned in the process may be helpful here.

Intent is one thing.

Impact is a different thing.

It is the impact of a statement that hurts, even when the intent is well-meant.

So let's try not to be surprised or take offence if another poster remarks of something we have said as hurtful. From our own perspective and intent, what we said may seem innocuous. But from the other person's perspective, the impact is truly hurtful.

Another helpful hint: one I am trying to make a habit without great sucess yet.

Use more "I" sentences than "You" sentences. Especially if the "you" sentence has the least trace of accusation in it.

I don’t know guys, you seem to be taking this a little too far (I have no idea how to make that into an "I" statement). It’s one thing to be nice and respectful, but another to hold back opinions in a forum like this for fear someone will get their feelings hurt.

I don't think you would have liked Paul too much. He said many things that hurt—made people pretty mad in his day. Yet it was out of love.

This seems to be in accordance with liberal feelings based morality. If it’s different tell me how. Any time you express an opinion on subjects like these, someone's feelings are going to be hurt.

I think we all should be nice, but some of us really need to be less sensitive. If you’re too sensitive you’ll find all kinds of reasons to be offended. Even with gender and race the sword cuts both ways. There is true racism and sexism, but unfortunately that card is over played to the point that it actually harms race/gender relations.

Offensiveness is truly a harmful thing but in today's day and age, hypersensitivity is doing far more harm.

Why do I have the feeling I've offended somebody?

 

[gluadys]

I don’t know guys, you seem to be taking this a little too far (I have no idea how to make that into an "I" statement).

How about "Guys, I think this is going a little too far."

It’s one thing to be nice and respectful, but another to hold back opinions in a forum like this for fear someone will get their feelings hurt.

I don't think you would have liked Paul too much. He said many things that hurt—made people pretty mad in his day. Yet it was out of love.

It takes practice to not hold back while being respectful, and I know I haven't mastered it. But holding back is not what is called for.

As for Paul, well there is a sense in which the gospel will offend. The aim is to be sure it is the gospel that offends, not the preacher of the gospel.

This seems to be in accordance with liberal feelings based morality. If it’s different tell me how. Any time you express an opinion on subjects like these, someone's feelings are going to be hurt.

It's basically what has been stated before. Go for the theology not the person.

And don't restate your own theology as if it were the other person's theology. A common example that turns up from time to time is the consequence of a belief in a non-literal Adam. TEs who don't believe in a literal Adam are often told something along the line of "Then YOU don't believe Paul when he speaks of sin and death entering the world through Adam." Even if that statement is made with a ? at the end, this is dumping a creationist theology on to a TEs head and implying that the TE does not respect scripture.

The same point can be made just as forcefully as an I statement. e.g.
"Paul's statement about sin and death entering the world through Adam doesn't make sense to ME if Adam was not a literal person. Can you explain your thinking on this?"

In the second form the creationist is taking responsibility for his/her own theology without subtly implying disrespect for scripture on the part of the TE, as the first form does.

There is true racism and sexism, but unfortunately that card is over played to the point that it actually harms race/gender relations.

Offensiveness is truly a harmful thing but in today's day and age, hypersensitivity is doing far more harm.

In fact, this is a question that people subject to racism raise themselves. Here is an example that was presented to me. The largest visible minority in our church is Korean and we always have a significant number of Koreans at our major church gatherings.

Last June a Korean professor happened to be sitting next to a non-Korean during a break while a number of other Koreans were sitting together at a near-by table. The non-Korean said to the professor something along the line of "Why don't you go and sit with your people?"

What is the Korean professor to think of this? She asks herself, "What does he mean by this? Am I being over-sensitive if I take this as racism? Or should he be told how offensive this sounds to me?"

And the problem is that she doesn't really know his motives. Is it just an unfortunate choice of words? Or does he really believe she should stay in her place with "her people" and not sit beside him? Is he rejecting her or trying to be gracious to her? There is no way to read his mind. And even trying to ask him what he means could hurt his feelings.

Why do I have the feeling I've offended somebody?

No, I don't think so. But this whole area is a mine-field, and it is not easy to avoid an explosion. All we can do is try our best. One way we can do that is to accept that when people say they are hurt by something, they really are hurt, whether or not that was our intention.

 

[shernren]

Yes Cal, I think that it is possible to carry this whole "let's be nice to each other" thing a bit too far. But honestly, have you actually seen that here? XD

Making "I" statements is actually part of an important Christian principle: taking responsibility for personal response. There is a fundamental difference between

"You offended me"

and

"I felt offended"

In the first case I am putting responsibility for my response on you the poster. It's your fault that I feel offended. It's your problem that you touched the wrong spot on me and you'd better apologize or all hell breaks loose!

In the second case I am taking responsibility for my response. How I respond is my choice. In this case, I felt offended. That is partly my responsibility. I am now responsible to tell you what there was in your post that made me feel off and I am responsible to tell you how to rephrase it in future - or, if necessary, it is my responsibility to "agree to disagree".

This is something that I have had to practice a lot. My college is close to this hyper-charismatic youth group which is very active, vibrant and warm, but which seems theologically suspect. When I first went there, and I found myself uncomfortable with them, I didn't say "Gee, these guys are making me uncomfortable" but I said "I'm feeling uncomfortable with them". The difference was that maybe I felt uncomfortable because of my leanings: maybe it was not a matter of them being wrong but me being wrong.

Ideally that is what "I" statements do in a discussion. "I" statements should force me to examine myself first and see if maybe it's my fault for feeling sensitive or offended, if maybe I'm wrong and not you. "I" statements also help you to examine objectively the impact of your statement without feeling that I hold something against you personally or am accusing you of being offensive.

[Of course, there are statements which are very, very clearly offensive, like calling someone a racist, comparing him/her with Hitler, etc. but in my experience I think most "offensive" statements are said with good intentions - or at least with reasonable doubt of good intentions.]