Self-Evaluation Time
I have always tried to listen before I talk (about theology jargon). I have always tried to learn from others in hope that I can grow to always be following the truth. But I would like to evaluate my approach…is it wrong?
On any (and every) debate I start (or try to) in the middle. I have always been a person who doesn’t like the dogmatics of others and I try not to be like that.
I am not an extremist. I have always seen those in the extreme sides of debates as always being wrong…and their pride/ego gets the best of them. For me, I have found that trying to start in the middle (even when I am still biased) allows for me to have lessened the blinders (though I might still have some on!).
I have two questions for everyone.
1) Is this approach good/bad/dangerous/smart? and why
2) Is there ever a time when starting on one extreme side is more beneficial then starting from middle ground?
Casey
Ps…my questions might be stupid…if they are sorry about wasting your time
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
This is my approach as well. Start somewhere in the middle. Listen. And then provide my input.
One thing I’ve noticed is that I sometimes jump in too quickly and start providing answers instead of asking more questions.
The middle ground allows us to learn and give the other side a chance to make their case.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with your approach. Many times here I’ve typed up responses or comments, and before posting I realize that I may not be in the best position to say anything. I’ll just delete the text and allow the conversation to continue without my (likely unhelpful) input.
Reflection is good. I’m a fairly introspective/introverted person, so I naturally tend to internalize things and weigh multiple angles in my head before coming to conclusions. While this can make one indecisive at times, it’s important to realize that most situations tend to represent themselves in various shades of grey rather than the black-and-white right/wrong we typically want.
Being calm and cautious in such things also helps one make sure that their heart is in the right place when they take part in such discussions. There’s no doubt in my mind that the place I’m at in my life morally will dramatically affect the manner in which I interact with others…and I’d be willing to say that this is pretty much true across the board.
That being said, I think bold/impulsive decision-making has it’s place. We need multiple ways of approaching any issue we deal with in life, and the more voices the better.
Casey, I too, like your questions. I must say that I don’t often take a middle ground for middle ground’s sake when first addressing a question or problem. I often take a “best-guess” position. That is to say I look at what I know off the top of my head, based on my partial knowledge and limited experience, and make a snap judgment. This snap judgment might leave me all over the field. I am then open to revising my position. I think the key things for me is the acknowledgment of knowledge and experience in part with an openness to listen and possible revision of my position.
As to your last question, there is always the temptation to present things in an extreme manner in order to bring forth interested conversation, even though I might not adhere to the extreme position. Controversy is a great conversation starter - even though it is wrought with perils.
I enjoyed your comments guys. I really did not know what type of conversation would come from the questions I asked, but I think it is always good to ask these questions about ourselves.
I think you/we all hit the same issues…being humble…etc…that need to be a part of our theological journey.
Are there other questions to think about that is on the same lines as this conversation?
Casey,
I really like what you have brought up and I first want to say that your questions are not stupid, but they are very relevant and insightful.
To your first question I say that starting in the middle is the best approach (especially when the topic is something you are unfamiliar with), for this approach perserves humility, allows to objectively consider both sides, and in the end it will stregthen your certainity of belief for whatever side you think to be true. I once had a professor of theology tell me that the only way to truly understand someone’s writing it to read them sympathetically. I consider this everytime I read something. This being said, do not fall into a the easy trap of believing zealousness to be inherently evil, for it is not. God and His Word calls for zealousness, and a certain passion in our lives. Is there a dichtomy between being “extreme” and being humble? Absolutely not. We are to be extreme with respect to love, faith, hope, truth, virtue, excellence, and mercy to others. For example, as an ethical system, I am particulary in favor of Aristotle’s use of the Golden Mean of Virtues (in the context of Thomistic natural law). Aristotle said that what is right is the mean virtue found between the two oppisite vices. An example of this is the virtue of courage, found between the vice of cowardice and the vice of capriciousness. This however does not preclude the fact that we should not zealously seek to be courageous, even though we speak of what is right in terms of being in the middle.
To your second question, I simply say that as you study whatever topic more and more, you will make epistemic descisions that you simply do not forget. This means that starting at a more moot place will become a fool’s errand. However, you (we) should never stop being sympathetic towards each other’s views and in love critique them and ourselves.
Hope this might help.
Always Soli Deo Gloria