Monday, March 31, 2008

Conversation v Argument

I just started Brian McLaren's third "A New Kind of Christian" book. Apparently, I'm somewhat rare. I read books' introductions and prefaces and all their footnotes!

So I'm in the middle of Mclaren's introduction when I read three thoughts that ring true for me. They express the way I think, the way I approach so many subjects:
  • [C]larity is good, but sometimes intrigue may be even more precious; clarity tends to put an end to further thinking, whereas intrigue makes one think more intensely, broadly, and deeply. Jesus' teaching on the kingdom of God is a case in point; his parables don't score too well on clarity, but they excel in intrigue. . . .

    [L]ike some politicians, we often seek clarity at the expense of truth: we would rather have something simple and clear than continue to search beyond convention for a truth that won't resolve to a neat formula, label, category, or pat answer.
And then:
  • [A]sking me . . . whether I'm an ******ist or a ******ist is like asking a vegetarian whether she prefers steak, pork, or venison. [It] is a question I have no taste for asking.
--I like the analogy. But I like, even better, where McLaren goes with this:
  • My intentional avoidance of this question does not spring from fear of saying what I really believe; a fearful writer wouldn't even begin a book like this. Rather, I am more interested in generating conversation than argument, believing that conversations have the potential to form us, inform us, and educate us far more than arguments.
My response? Amen!
blog comments powered by Disqus