fbpx
41.3 F
Spokane
Saturday, November 2, 2024
spot_img
HomeCommentaryIf We’re Facing the Apocalypse, Must We Go Down Arguing?

If We’re Facing the Apocalypse, Must We Go Down Arguing?

Date:

Related stories

Is darkness enshrouding our democracy’s free press?

Two major newspapers—the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post—suddenly halt presidential endorsements, raising concerns about media integrity, journalistic courage, and the state of democracy in an era of declining press trust.

Biden’s historic apology to Native Americans for boarding schools is a welcome first step

President Biden offers a heartfelt apology to Native American tribes for the abuse suffered at Indian boarding schools. Learn more about this historic moment.

Tending my garden helps me think of ways to grow a better world

Uncover the happiness gardening brings. Learn how cultivating "seeds" can lead to a better world from secular humanist writer Janet Marugg.

Exploring exile: Should Christians see America as Babylon or Egypt?

Explore the concept of exile in the context of Christianity and American society. Discover the biblical roots and modern-day implications.

November’s sacred purpose: Benedictines honor All Souls through ancient traditions

The Monastery of St. Gertrude continues the ancient Catholic tradition of All Souls Month through their Beloved Souls Prayer Project, inviting community members to honor deceased loved ones throughout November.

Our Sponsors

spot_img
spot_img

By Thomas Schmidt

Part I: How to Dialogue  

There have been two discussions  at SpokaneFAVS. One has been about how to carry on discussions with those with whom you disagree about things that are close to your values and therefore your heart. The other, more current, but also ongoing for two thousand years, about the use of the concepts involving eschatology and the apocalypse to give meaning to the torture and assassination of Jesus in a way that kept the Jesus Movement intact. In the mysterious way of “there are no accidents” I have been reading “The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate“, edited by Robert J. Miller  that has Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan and Stephen J. Patterson, on the con side and Dale C. Allison on the pro discussing the various views of the apocalypse and their meanings for the early members of the very diverse Jesus Movement. I’m not concerned about the three to one split here for Allison is so well informed and intelligent that he very aptly carries his own weight forcefully. He is the one evangelical and rather orthodox scholar debating three of the foremost Jesus Seminar scholars, equally well informed and intelligent. The second notable thing about the book, and the first I wish to discuss, is the structure the discussants used to insure that it would become a dialogue and not an argument.

Miller, in his informative introduction, describes the form of the debate which is structured so that it becomes a thoughtful discussion benefiting everyone’s thinking rather that becoming an alienating argument, something at which those of us with a Christian background are sadly inept. After the standard presentation of one’s argument and attack, with rebuttals, the second section has the participants answer two pairs of questions: What were your strongest points? And your opponents’ weakest?, and What are your weakest? And your opponents’ strongest?

To quote Miller,” The last two questions call on our participants to acknowledge the strength of the position they disagree with and the weakness of their own. This is beneficial ‘self-criticism. “[A] debate has a limited objective: winning an argument. … In debate one seeks to refute an opponent’s position, whereas in a dialogue there is the freedom to acknowledge that both sides have strengths and weaknesses. … [I]n a dialogue we try to learn from those with whom we disagree.” 

The way the participants handled the potentially divisive topic of whether Jesus was an apocalyptic movement starter or an itinerant ethical and social nonviolent wisdom teacher is, perhaps, one we could benefit from in our discussions. I know I could, for I have too often used an argumentative style, one that does not overly upset me, for coming from progressive politics I am use to that. Also, Janet, my minister wife and therefore myself, got summarily and without any discussion or notification, removed from her Festus, MO, church by the controlling fundamentalist and literalistic powers that had three years previously hired her to bring the church up to date and full membership. Janet had not been telling them how to get to heaven and preached instead the sermon on the mount. They knew how to be good: smile and be nice, don’t cheat, and go to church and didn’t like hearing how war was bad and that we all had to see that everyone had health care and chance for a decent paying job and that maybe a black president could be as good as a white one. They got upset when we opened the table to homosexuals and Muslims. I’m convinced that the rejection she felt, the failure of her faith in fellow Christians, led to her poor health and death. When I have seen any argument relying on a literalistic interpretation of the Bible that ignores the last 400 years of enlightenment and scientific scholarship, I might have, out of my bitterness, overreacted.

The idea of stating what the strong points in the other’s presentation are is something I need to address. And I (choke) might learn more if I searched critically the words and ideas I use that weaken my purpose. I believe that if we all did that, SpokaneFAVS would become a model of learning and spiritual growth in Spokane and across our country.  We need it.  Good old Maoist “Self-criticism” but used in a redemptive environment.

Thomas Schmidt
Thomas Schmidt
Thomas Schmidt is a retired psychotherapist and chemical dependency counselor who belongs to the Sufi Ruhiniat International order of Sufi’s and is a drummer in the Spokane Sufi group and an elder at the Country Homes Christian (Disciples of Christ) Church. He is a member of the Westar Institute (The Jesus Seminar people). He studied for the ministry in the late 1950’s at Texas Christian Church and twice married Janet Fowler, a member of a long tern TCU family and a Disciple minister. He was active in the Civil Rights Movement, studying philosophy at Columbia University and psychology in the University of North Carolina university system. He has taught philosophy and psychology, and was professionally active in Florida, North Carolina, and, for 25 years in Spokane. He has studied and practiced Siddha Yoga, Zen Buddhism and, since the mid 1970’s, Sufism and the Dances of Universal Peace. He has three sons and three grandchildren. With the death of his wife, Janet, he is continuing their concentration on human rights, ecology, and ecumenical and interfaith reconciliation.

Our Sponsors

spot_img
spot_img
spot_img
spot_img

1 COMMENT

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
spokanefavs
9 years ago

Thanks Tom! We agree that SpokaneFAVS can be a big factor in this type of dialogue.

1
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x