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

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.