Rethinking our Theological Conversational Styles

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

Rethinking our Theological Conversational Styles

Forum: Theological Expressions
Date: 2001, Jul 26
From: RTC

By Frank Viola (This essay was written with Hal Miller) Those of us who have spent any length of time discussing theological issues with others in person or over the Internet know too well the intense misunderstanding, frustration, and hard feelings it can generate. It has been our observation that such discussions are often hampered and confused due to the different "conversational styles" that we use when we express ourselves. It is our conviction that many of the misunderstandings and disagreements regarding theological matters arise, not out of genuine substantive differences, but from divergences in communication. Oftentimes a person will use certain expressions to make a theological point (no doubt picked up by his denominational background), while his discussion partner is made to feel uncomfortable, or even turned off, by these particular expressions. Hence, the problem of cross-talking arises, and the conversation drifts from actual substance to one that is bogged down in the gears of diverging styles of communication. Interestingly, the individuals involved in the discussion are not aware of what is happening. They are only aware of the fact (at least in their own minds) that the conversation has been hijacked because "the other person" is hard-hearted, closed-minded, Biblically ignorant, or deceived. (Ring a bell?) If we can get a handle on the varying conversational styles that Christians use, we can better comprehend what people actually believe rather than mistakenly focusing on how they communicate their beliefs (which can often drive one batty). In a nutshell, we believe that understanding the reality of theological conversational styles (TCSs from hence forth) can move us far ahead in the game of theological discourse. For those of you who find this essay helpful, we suggest that identifying a particular TCS in yourself (or in another) is only half the solution. The other half is to transcend it and to be able to cross-communicate with those who hold to a different TCS than yourself. This is excruciatingly difficult, though it is not impossible. In this essay, we will introduce you to three of the most common TCSs. We trust that as you read through our discussion, it will stimulate you to examine the underpinnings that govern how you communicate about theology. As you read through each TCS description, try to populate it with people you have tried to converse with in the past. Perhaps in this way you will appreciate the insights TCSs can give you. And hopefully those insights will help to spare you the agony of talking past others when discussing spiritual things. THE MYSTICAL TCS Those who utilize the Mystical TCS tend to be associated with the Charismatic/Pentecostal subculture of the Christian world (although not all who are from this tradition use this TCS). In conversation, the Mystical TCS appeals to personal revelation of the Bible as the authority for interpretation and application. These individuals seem to despise Biblical scholarship, paying little attention to the principles of hermeneutics and sound exegesis, deeming them carnal and man-made. In contrast, statements like "the Lord showed me", or "God revealed this to me," or "the Spirit told me" are peppered throughout their conversation. Those who do not use this particular TCS usually feel quite uncomfortable with such phrases. While they may experience spiritual illumination from the Holy Spirit, they believe it is woefully unbefitting to wield it as basis of authority or to flippantly broadcast it in public. Further, they find such claims to Divine authority difficult to analyze and inadequate to settle disputes, not to mention that they believe these declarations often convey the clear impression of "boasting in the flesh." In short, those who do not employ the Mystical TCS feel that the mere appeal to personal revelation makes the playing field unlevel in the arena of theological discussion. There is also a subset of the Mystical TCS, employed by those who are more familiar with the Bible and the rules of logic, that is marked by the use of a double-standard. Such people invoke both logic and mysticism in their theological communications. When they attack someone else's interpretation of Scripture, they appeal to the rules of Aristotelian logic. That is, when on the offensive, they say things like, "This interpretation is inconsistent and does not follow; it does not mesh well with other Scriptural passages." Yet, when they are on the defensive and their conversation partner uses logic to refute their claims, they respond by saying, "I cannot explain this to you...it transcends logic...you must have a revelation...I can't put the truth into words...only the Holy Spirit can show this to you," etc. And the stalemate persists. THE QUOTER TCS Individuals who use the Quoter TCS hinge any meaningful conversation about God to a particular view of Biblical authority, which they insist, must be their own view of authority. While it is not our intention to clarify the slender distinctions between Biblical inerrancy, infallibility, plenary vs. verbal inspiration and the like, the Quoter TCS simply cannot tolerate a theological discussion unless the other party shares his own assumptions about how the Bible is to be viewed, and more importantly, how it is to be used. Most of the folks that use this TCS, particularly in the United States, demand a specific expression of Biblical authority. It is the expression that was formulated by American Calvinists in the last century and that has been championed by those in modern fundamentalist circles. This expression is rooted in the belief that the Bible possesses a journalistic type of accuracy concerning events and details. It also affirms that the Scriptures provide answers to any and every question that is brought to bear on it. To the person who uses the Quoter style of conversation, such a view of the Bible is a sine qua non. In the eyes of the Quoter TCS, individuals who hold to more moderate views of Biblical authority, such as those held by mainstream evangelicals (e.g., Carl F. H. Henry) and neo-evangelicals (e.g., F.F. Bruce), have departed from sound orthodoxy and are the targets of a pro-longed "battle-over-the-Bible" (to use Harold Lindsell's phrase). The Quoter style deems all theological discourse to be meaningless without an explicit verbal affirmation by their conversation partner that precisely matches their own. Without such an affirmation, the Quoter style's level of comfort in discussing spiritual things becomes violated and proves inadequate to carry on a theological discussion. At best, they will simply lose interest in the topic. At worst, they will benightedly conclude that their discussion partner is a heretic! For the Quoter TCS, the only way to settle a theological dispute is by quoting Scripture. And by the mere act of Bible-quoting, necessary defensible boundaries are set for theological discussions to take place. Granted, there is no problem with quoting the Bible (for the authors of Scripture themselves quote the inspired Word in abundant measure). However, the problem arises in that the Quoter TCS believes that theological disputes are settled by the simple quoting of Scripture and nothing more. (Another version of the Quoter TCS is the one who appeals to the authority of a favorite theologian. Such naked assertions as "Calvin says" or "Wimber said" to settle arguments are punctuated throughout their discourses.) Let us attempt to illustrate this. Suppose that Jim uses the Quoter TCS while Jack does not. Whenever Jim disagrees with Jack, he quotes a raft of Scriptures (sometimes screens full when using the Internet). Yet in his quoting, he gives no attention to context, historical setting, and linguistic style. Rather, he appeals solely to a bundle of isolated texts that he feels buttress his position. And in the aftermath of his endless quoting, he retorts with something like, "See, the Bible is clear about this. Here are the verses. Believe it or reject it." (Granted, not every one who use this style are as curt as we've painted Jim, but you get the idea). In short, the Quoter TCS feels safe and secure under the arsenal of isolated texts that he has managed to string together to defend his post. Any dialogue about what those texts actually mean by appealing to their historical setting and original rendering is shrugged off as being irrelevant. To the practitioners of the Quoter TCS, nothing can be argued after the simple and direct appeal to Biblical references has been made, even if these references are isolated from the rest of the text. Too often, the Quoter TCS finds himself caught in a parenthesis of disagreement, when the root problem beyond the controversy is subtly masqueraded beneath the pious rhetoric of faithfully defending the truth. THE PRAGMATIC TCS Unlike the Mystical TCS and the Quoter TCS, the Pragmatic TCS is chiefly interested in what works. His method of evaluating and discussing theology is rooted in a nuts and bolts approach to life. Appeals to personal revelation do not impress him, neither do quotes from the Bible. He wants to see what is working and what has proven to be successful in the lives of the individuals with which he converses. This, he affirms, is where the truth is to be found within the realm of theology. Furthermore, those who hold to the Pragmatic TCS believe that there are no easy answers to the countless theological questions that have raged in the church for centuries. Rather than quibbling about correct doctrine, the Pragmatic TCS focuses his sights on what is working in the real world. With this in mind, the Pragmatic TCS concerns himself less with academic differences and centers more on actual practice. And he is willing to agree to disagree with his fellow brethren over theological matters. Of course, this approach does not sit well with those who are less charitable and more militant in spirit, insisting upon resolving their differences "for the sake of the truth" (some who use the Mystical TCS and the Quoter TCS are of this breed). While this sounds quite noble, it more often than not actually tends toward division and harsh feelings. Nevertheless, the pragmatic TCS is always pressing the question: "How has this truth worked in your life, in your church, in your family, etc.?" Those who do not use the Pragmatic TCS feel quite uncomfortable with this approach, for they believe that such a rearrangement of the conversational furniture betrays the authority of Scripture. Since the pragmatic style is more concerned with outward success, it pays less attention to doctrinal precision. Hence, when a Quoter TCS quotes a text from Matthew, for example, the Pragmatic TCS is not satisfied. He wants to know "how this works out in real life." His conviction is that evaluating the practical outworking of a given belief is much richer than merely quoting the text and less likely to short out the conversation. Those who use different stylistic conventions argue that the pragmatic approach rests upon shaky ground as a basis for one's beliefs, for they feel that just because a tenet may appear to have practical utility does not mean that it is valid or Divinely approved. Hence, when Quoters and Pragmatics discuss together, both seek to cajole each other into rearranging the boundaries of the conversation so that the other is conversing according to their play-book. This is largely true with the Mystical TCS as well, for if God hasn't spoken something directly to his conversational partner, the Mystical TCS is apt to reject it, regardless of its practical utility or Biblical merit. It must be stressed at this point that not all who hold to the Pragmatic TCS work with the same premise. For some, their notion of success is a self-evident, centralized idea that is reflected in outward evidences such as numbers, size, growth, bulk, etc. For others, the concept of success lies in following Christ and being conformed to His image. However, because of the strong appeal to success and workability, these two versions of the Pragmatic TCS are often not distinguished by other TCSs. CONCLUSION Ironically, all three theological conversational styles honestly affirm Biblical authority. But each is too unwilling to hear this affirmation in terms other than their own! For this reason, misunderstandings abound when believers discuss theological matters. When going into such discussions, they are often confident that they will persuade the other with their own views. But not long after, they discover that they have found themselves to have dashed headlong into an unbridled, frustrated tension that frequently leads into virtual insanity on the one hand and division on the other. We trust, however, that our brief (and admittedly uninspired) attempt to identify a few of the more common conversation styles used by Christians will help us all get past the way people express their ideas and delve into the meatier matter of hearing what they are actually trying to get across. May we learn to swallow our initial reactions to someone else's TCS and instead seek to touch what is behind their less than perfect speech styles. In this way, Mystical, Quoter, and Pragmatic styles alike will no longer shanghai each other into pointless and unprofitable discussions, but instead, learn to listen to what each is seeking to communicate. May we also rid ourselves from the common penchant to be quick to speak, to judge the motives of others, and to think the worst of our brethren. For does not Paul say, "love thinks no evil?" In light of all we've said regarding conversational styles, let us be clear that understanding a TCS, either our own or that of another, is not a cure-all for resolving a theological disagreement. Not every theological battle finds its root in a conflicting TCS. Yet, it is our firm belief that if we exercise ourselves to better understand the way in which we communicate, we will be brought further along in our attempt to guard the unity of our faith in the bond of peace.