Differences in non-essentials

[Billie Goodson]

True, very true. Even if not explicitly, it would be so by implication. But that can't always be avoided, unless by taking no stand at all. How would you deal with something like this?

How else to state my honest opinion?

Hans,

I hope you don't mind, I read your last reply on the saints interceding and it made me go back to your previous post. As you said, no one answered it, and, I agree, it speaks volumes. So, let us not lose the question, because I think it is an "essential" to what many of us claim is a key component Wesley's approach.

So, when we differ, such as Hans' difference of opinion on asking the saints to intercede, how do we share our position and not be defensive or offensive. How do we honestly state our opinion? Hans, if I have royally hoarked up your question, please feel free to edit or add, because, I think that this topic is so significant -- and is a product of a couple hundred years of church history.

How do we express -- and as important, how do we listen to it -- when we have a difference of opinion on a "non-essential." It probably applies as well to an essential -- for it is probably more important when we feel that a brother has wandered from the basis of the essentials.

I think the responsibility falls on the speaker, yet, there is some responsibility on the part of the hearer in how we receive what is said, and surely how we react.

Thoughts, Ideas?

When I have not been defensive, I tend to react with -- "I don't get it, but, if it works for you, then go for it." Is that sufficient? Am I abrogating a responsibility. Hans clearly stated that he felt something was "wrong." Debating theology in our culture seems to have become a defensive at best proposition. This is a product of the anti-intellectualism, because it forces us to deal in areas that we are uncomfortable in facing. Kind of like bartering, we don't do it well in our society. There are other societies where they do it as a way of life -- an example would be buying a car. Most Americans hate the process of the negotiations. However, someone from a culture such as India, seems to be more amenable to this form of business. When I worked for a brief time selling cars, we almost hated when they showed up -- they would negotiate an ash tray! Drove us nuts!

Anyway....what say ye?

[Hans Deventer]

I think the responsibility falls on the speaker, yet, there is some responsibility on the part of the hearer in how we receive what is said, and surely how we react.

Thoughts, Ideas?

I agree. Especially on the internet, communication is very limited. So we need to presume someone means well, and that we might not have understood it, before we "dig in".

Also, I try to respond in "I think" of "I feel" messages. They are honest expressions of my thinking, but my thinking isn't the last word on an issue.

"I think this is wrong" sounds differently to me then when someone says: "You're dead wrong".

[Billie Goodson]

"I think this is wrong" sounds differently to me then when someone says: "You're dead wrong".

That is an obvious distinction when you put them both down.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

...., how do we share our position and not be defensive or offensive? How do we honestly state our opinion?

I'd like to discuss the same question with a slightly different nuance: When discussing a morality or ethics issue, how does a person state an opinion without being judgmental? Is this even possible?

Hypothetical example: If I were to say that I think watching R-rated movies is wrong, everyone who watches R-rated movies would immediately start in about how I shouldn't be judging them!

On any given topic, whoever seems to have the more conservative opinion is automatically accused of judging.

Wilson

[Billie Goodson]

I'd like to discuss the same question with a slightly different nuance: When discussing a morality or ethics issue, how does a person state an opinion without being judgmental? Is this even possible?

Hypothetical example: If I were to say that I think watching R-rated movies is wrong, everyone who watches R-rated movies would immediately start in about how I shouldn't be judging them!

On any given topic, whoever seems to have the more conservative opinion is automatically accused of judging.

Wilson

Good question Wilson -- why are you judging me? :basic02

On a more serious note -- I think it is a good question. I think it goes back to an older issue -- for me, the manual. When I first came to the Nazarene Church, I really didn't get the manual. It seemed to be more full of "don'ts" than "do's". It seemed to try to tell me how not to live my life, then presumably, if I didn't do those things I was being a good Nazarene. I have admired the changes that are underway with the manual. It seems to be getting away from an extension of the "10 commandments", to the "greatest commandment." I guess it took Israel a while to hear that (and they never really got it as a nation), so maybe the Church is just being a little quicker and I should rejoice!

So, how does that relate? Well, I think when we sit and tell others what they do that is wrong with their life, we lose the focus on our own personal relationship. I think the question itself shows some bias. I have an "R"-rated movie that I have seen/and shown clips of within worship services and small groups. It is one of the best examples of a movie to show -- yet it is "R". The problem is not the "R" -- for The Passion of the Christ is the film. So, we can't just broadbrush "R's". We need to evaluate what we do, say, and write. The thought should be "how can I help", not, "why you are wrong". Christ was a great example, he simply stated and let the hearer discover the truth. We never see him adamantly stating a position -- well, he did some cleaning once -- but, I personally even think that was not as bad as some paint it to be. I really don't even get that he was angry when he cleaned out the temple, just emphatic! Hopefully others will weigh in -- we need to discover how to do this. It is too important and we need to quit poking each other in the eye, and maybe start touching some hearts.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

What could be listed as non essentials?

[Genevieve Boller]

What could be listed as non essentials?

I always think of the Nicene Creed as covering all the essentials.

In answer to the original questions, I think Hans said it best--stating your opinion in "I" terms and making sure that you don't state your opinion as fact (saying "I don't generally like seeing R-rated movies because ____" rather than "R-rated movies are bad (or whatever other adjective you have)).

As for making sure others don't think we're being judgemental for stating our opinion, I think our power over other people's feelings is very limited. I never talk politics with people because I can't cope with how emotional people tend to get.

If I were going to discuss theology, I would test the waters a lot before diving into touchy subjects that are non-essentials. Religion, by its nature, is very personal and emotional. We need to be very cautious, therefore, in the way we craft our sentences. That's much easier in writing, but with practice I believe we can all learn how to better communicate our beliefs and ideas in diplomatic ways.

All my life I've been a very frank and candid person. The Lord has helped me incredibly in these last few years, though, in answer to my prayers to be better at demonstrating Christ to everyone in my life or with whom I come in contact. I'm learning how to be much more sensitive to touchy subjects, and mostly it's a result of two things--attempting to see and love others as God does, and practice. I have practice conversations in my head (or even out loud) very often. My kitchen sink is a very good listener. :)

[Genevieve Boller]

How do we express -- and as important, how do we listen to it -- when we have a difference of opinion on a "non-essential." It probably applies as well to an essential -- for it is probably more important when we feel that a brother has wandered from the basis of the essentials.

I think the responsibility falls on the speaker, yet, there is some responsibility on the part of the hearer in how we receive what is said, and surely how we react.

Thoughts, Ideas?

When I have not been defensive, I tend to react with -- "I don't get it, but, if it works for you, then go for it." Is that sufficient? Am I abrogating a responsibility.

I don't see how you could be abrogating responsibility if the subject in question really is a non-essential.

If a brother or sister in Christ is headed down a dangerous path, then yes, it's important. In that case, the discussion is going to be even more touchy and emotional, making it even more crucial to be careful and choose our words wisely.

Of course, the importance of grace can't be ignored here.

Maybe we should all make it a regular habit to assume the best of people, applying grace liberally, in both our speaking AND our listening. It takes just as much practice to learn how to not be defensive as it does to learn how to speak without offending.

[David Parker]

I move among people of vastly different Christian traditions. I have discovered deep sincere faith and commitment to Christ in those with whom I may not have much in common and who may not share my assumptions. Christ reaches out to all of us where we are and draws us to Him.

We all know what the essentials are, and one thing is for certain, they are not culturally dependent. In my opinion, much of what we get stirred up over are lifestyle issues that do not touch the heart of the Gospel.

Grace and deference need to consume our hearts when interacting with other believers.

[Barb Bouldrey]

There is a difference between argument and debate and discussion.

Too often, discussion becomes debate or argument. I can say what I mean, but someone reads what I say and interprets it differently. Then they pounce on how I said something instead of asking me to clarify what I mean.

I like to use phrases like, "to me," "in my opinion," "I have always understood it to be," and "for my own personal relationship with this issue."

I SOMETMES think that when someone else quotes something I say in a box and then responds to it, that person is attacking me. But that is how I FEEL about it, sometimes, even if it is not meant that way.

SOMETIMES, I believe it is softer discussion when we do not quote other people's opinions and then respond with our own....keep it more impersonal. (notice I used the word SOMETIMES..lol)

I know that even if I say, "I am not being critical of this issue," I might get emails attacking me for criticizing the issue or someone will criticize me for being critical.

We often read things according to our own opinions and lives and often assume things we should not.

When it comes to religion and politics and raising children, it is always difficult to keep a discussion from becoming an argument.

Barb

[Billie Goodson]

I am going to post this link to Wilson's "Argument/Discussion" thread. I think it is relevant to this discussion and some may have not seen it before.

http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=17011&highlight=discussion+argument

[Billie Goodson]

Discussions on politics are like driving in the snow.

In political discussions -- many have no idea what is going on, but feel compelled to express their opinions. Those that do know what is going on get frustrated over the lack of depth of the others and respond in frustration. And, many get their knowledge of politics from the news -- which demonstrates a complete lack of depth on the entire debate.

So, how does this fit the snow analogy:

When you get to an area like D.C. where you have many diverse people coming together, some have experience that is applicable to snow driving, some don't. Those who do, know when they should and shouldn't for the most part, but, sometimes will dare it. Those who don't are just doing what they do, no thinking required. So, when the "experienced" drivers are out there, they get frustrated at the "idiots" and end up doing something stupid out of frustration. In all, neither group fares well because there is a reason they call it dangerous conditions.

I always do think it is funny when people from "snow country" criticize "non-snow country folk" -- I always just pointed out how all of those tourists must be the ones on the weather channel when they show how some area is undergoing a blizzard, yet, idiots are out driving and causing hilarious if not horrendous wrecks.

For me, I have adopted the stance that I don't talk about politics or evangelize at work. I feel extremely uncomfortable when I go into someone's office that has a plethora of religious information laying out for someone to take. Although, for the most part those people have not foisted it on me, but, it does not mean I don't feel uncomfortable.

Notice I said I do not avoid religion, just, not evangelize. I also try to bring it up in a purely personal way and depending on the reaction of the other person, it may go no further. Sometimes I am left with that uncomfortable need to live my faith as a witness instead of telling people about it.

[Eric Frey]

I always think of the Nicene Creed as covering all the essentials.



Which is why I find it so imperative that our people know the creeds by heart and recite it/them regularly. It really does form the outline for orthodoxy. Too bad I never even heard of it until I went to college.

[Hans Deventer]

Which is why I find it so imperative that our people know the creeds by heart and recite it/them regularly. It really does form the outline for orthodoxy. Too bad I never even heard of it until I went to college.

I have to credit the Dutch Reformed Church where I came from. We regularly sang the Apostolic Creed there. It does help.

[Eric Frey]

I have to credit the Dutch Reformed Church where I came from. We regularly sang the Apostolic Creed there. It does help.

It seems there is quite a difference between the "Reformed" churches in Europe are significantly different from most of the reformed tradition churches here in the states. A friend of mine I belive grew up in the Hungarian Reformed church and it is quite astonishing the stories I hear from him.