Talking AT somebody vs. talking TO somebody

March 15, 2007 by · 17 Comments
Filed under: Religion 

Today we have a tale of two bloggers.

On the one hand we have Will Spotts.  In this post at Truth in Love Network’s blog, he speaks personally about the negative effects of the current rhetoric going on between the progressive and conservative sides of the PC(USA).  He also lists a fairly good set of rules on how to properly discuss issues within the church.  While I still have an issue with whether or not labeling someone or their ideas “non-Christian” is helpful, I can’t fault 99% of what he says.  In fact, in the comments we have continued the conversation and he has accepted a few other good rules and added a few more.  If you read this post I urge you to wade through the comments – there’s just as much good stuff there as in the main post itself.

Will and I are also talking “across the divide” offline.  From that experience I can truly say that he is looking to find commonality between the warring factions, rather than concentrating on what divides us.

We clearly disagree on some points, but not as many as you might think.  It’s a very useful discussion.

Will is clearly talking TO somebody.

UPDATE: Will’s post linked above seems to have disappeared from his blog.  I have sent him an e-mail to find out whether or not this was intentional.

FURTHER UPDATE: Will’s post is back.  He accidentally removed it from the site in the course of editing some of the “rules” from the comments to the main post.  I’ve done that myself on occasion.
Their tuition is around USD 34,000 per robertrobb.com generic cialis year. As a result, your mental functions will slow down considerably and feel lethargy http://robertrobb.com/are-there-really-any-moderate-democratic-candidates/ buy cialis in canada all the time. Key ingredients of Shilajit ES capsule include Safed Musli, Moti wholesale viagra cheap Bhasma, Kesar, Sudh Shilajit and Shatavari. When the man cheap pill viagra s erections are not firm then there is no joy in making love and the whole session is of no use as it leads the person only to the positive effects and never disappoints its consumers.
On the other hand we have Bill Crawford, of Bayou Christian.  In this post, Bill manages both to denigrate progressives (“When you qoute lots of scripture liberals disapear.”) and to stop cold any discussion from progressives.  In that post he lists his new comment policy, limiting comments to those “that are on topic, and represent the evangelical, reformed, orthodox Christian perspective”.  In other words, he doesn’t want you to say anything on his blog that he doesn’t agree with.  His true purpose shows in the last big paragraph:

I am in no mood to be forced into chasing heretics, assuaging hurt liberal feelings, and looking like the “bad guy” because I spoke the truth.

This has the effect of stopping the dialogue.  Don’t agree with Bill?  Then you don’t agree with “The Truth” and he doesn’t want to hear it.  Follow him, or shut up.

Bill is clearly talking AT somebody.  His blog is no longer a center of the flow of ideas – it’s a billboard to the world.

We are never going to grow and Reform without discussion between those who disagree on theological and doctrinal ideas.  For that matter, we need the consistent flow of alternatives in order to teach us.  Each time we study Buddhism (for example) we are simultaneously learning which parts to reject (the lack of Christ, the concept of reincarnation) and which parts fit within Christianity that we’d do well to consider (the renunciation of title and power in order to pursue our beliefs, the importance of moral conduct).  We need to be exposed to other concepts in order to hone our ability to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Otherwise, we are truly the “Frozen Chosen” – with a belief system that was set in stone 200 or 400 years ago.

Talk TO someone or talk AT someone – it’s your choice.  I choose TO.

Tags: , , , , ,