Debate or Dialogue: Engaging with Differing Beliefs
My youngest sister joined some random atheist organization a few years ago and posted it on Facebook.
She’s been an atheist since she was twelve years old – at least – and we’ve just had to agree to disagree. I have not been brave enough to engage her in a deeper conversation because I have always felt that I just don’t have the debate gene (she does) and I know that even if I were the best debater in the world, it very likely wouldn’t change her mind. So I have to ask myself, “Is it worth it to debate her about this issue?” I have chosen to pray for her regularly – and for her two young adult daughters – that somewhere along the line Jesus will shine his light into her dark corners, and she will be curious enough to check it out.
It’s amazing, isn’t it, that three children can be brought up by the same parents and end up with wildly divergent views of faith and religion? I’m the oldest. My middle sister freely admits that she’s a bit “woo-woo”; I would call her a spiritual person. She knows that God exists. She’s had visitations by someone she calls Michael (as in Archangel Michael). I don’t doubt her. She is empathic in many unusual ways and I’m not surprised that she is tapped into the spiritual world more than most. She understands me, and I, her, to a much greater extent than our beloved younger sister.
In his book, Evangelization and Ideology, Matthew Petrusek makes the case that once we have a system for leading people to acknowledge our statement as right and theirs as contradictory, it will convince people to change their beliefs. He believes that the political divide in our country is fertile ground for evangelizing non-believers. He states that
“Engaging in political debate is certainly one way to evangelize, and it is a way, this book will argue, that is becoming increasingly necessary as society becomes more politicized. In the end, evangelizing always requires going to where the people are, and where many people are today is stuck in a morass of increasingly aggressive political ideologies, each one seducing its adherents down varied paths to the same dead end: moral, spiritual, and yes, political futility. There is a better way.” [1]
I don’t disagree with his desire to lead people to greater morality. But I’m hesitant to jump on his bandwagon about the best methods to do so, especially in this polarized political culture. I am particularly hesitant when I read, “Likewise, pointing out to others that their political views have the same rational consistency as a two-year-old ‘arguing’ his case by thrashing on a grocery store floor exposes intellectual fraud.” [2] Most people don’t want to think of themselves as being intellectually fraudulent.
It reminds me of David Rock’s contention that we have to pay attention to status to create productive, compassionate relationships. When someone feels attacked – even subtly, as Petrusek teaches – our brains feel threatened. Rock writes,
“The threat response from a perceived drop in status can take on a life of its own, lasting for years. People work hard to avoid being ‘wrong’ in a situation, from a simple mistake made on a document, to an error in judgment about a major strategy… People don’t like to be wrong because being wrong drops your status, in a way that feels dangerous and unnerving.” [3]
I refer, again, to Wilder and Woolridge’s book, Escaping Enemy Mode, because it is this attitude of “I’m right, you’re wrong” that causes deep-seated divisions between family members and community members. Enemy mode occurs when a brain feels threatened and reacts quickly, rather than responds thoughtfully (there are neuroscientific reasons for this; that’s for another time). A brain categorizes people into Them and Us. “An unknown Them can trigger some fear, distrust, curiosity, ambivalence, or other reactions based upon the impressions the amygdala pulls in from the hippocampus.” [4]
Characteristics of a brain in enemy mode include:
- Wants the “enemy to lose”
- Can’t discern when others are trying to help
- Recruits others to attack the enemy
- Feels justified in hating
- Sees other people’s motives as “bad”
- Turns people into objects (not fellow humans)
- Feels alone (no one on “my” side)
- Will often attack or withdraw from allies
- Sees enemy mode as a strength [5]
So I don’t know how well someone like my sister will receive a “debate” about faith, especially when boxed into a corner. When it comes to differing beliefs, Wilder and Woolridge share,
“Centuries of disagreements about beliefs had separated Protestants and Catholics, but given that the relational processing pathway in the brain did not start with beliefs but rather with alarm systems, the solution to enemy mode did not lie in discussing beliefs… It was becoming increasingly clear that much talking, discussing, and changing beliefs was not the path forward.” [6]
So what’s a church to do to spread the gospel, without alienating people and turning on their enemy modes?
Exploring the concept of a “missional” church seems to be a good place to start. Anthony Robinson explains that Princeton missiologist Darrell Guder says “Such a congregation [missional] does not view America as a Christian nation but as a context for mission. The congregation is called to be a leavening influence, the yeast in a loaf, and a seasoning salt to the world… It is a congregation that relates to its community and setting while taking Christian formation seriously. ‘The word mission means “sending,” and the church is the primary way in which God’s sending is happening,’ says Guder.” [7]
So while I know we are called to share the gospel with the world, there are many ways in which to engage people. Being a missional church – being missional individuals – feels more like Jesus than the potentially confrontational methods shared by Petrusek. It doesn’t have to be confrontational, of course, but I think we have more opportunities to convert non-believers with loving actions than with words.
Oh, and in case you’re wondering how to escape enemy mode, I recommend reading the book. But this may help also:
“Escaping enemy mode ultimately depends on living a life that is relational, at least most of the time. Living relationally means a life of daily joy as we recognize and bring out what is special and best in ourselves and others. In Christian language, being regarded as special is called ‘grace.’ Escape from enemy mode follows helping each other bring out our best selves.” [8]
==========
1 – Matthew R. Petrusek, Evangelization and Ideology; How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture (Des Plaines, IL: Word on Fire, 2023), 18.
2 – Petrusek, 65.
3 – David Rock, Your Brain at Work; Strategies for Overcoming Distraction, Regaining Focus, and Working Smarter All Day Long (New York, NY: Harper Business, 2020), 192-193.
4 – Jim Wilder, Ray Woolridge, Escaping Enemy Mode; How Our Brains Unite or Divide Us (Chicago: Northfield Publishing, 2022), 179.
5 – Wilder, Woolridge, 21.
6 – Wilder, Woolridge, 34.
7 – Anthony B. Robinson, Changing the Conversation; A Third Way for Congregations (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008), 5.
8 – Wilder, Woolridge, 227.
About the Author
Debbie Owen
Deborah C. Owen is an experienced spiritual director, Neuro-based Enneagram executive and life coach, disciple maker, professional writer, senior librarian, and long-time church Music Director and lay leader. She has earned the award of National Board Certification for teaching excellence, and a podcasting award, and is pursuing a Doctor of Leadership degree through Portland Seminary at George Fox University. She lives in the backwoods of Maine with her husband and flat-coated retriever. She spends as much time as she can with their 3 grown children, daughter-in-law, and 2 small grandchildren. Find her online at InsideOutMinistries.info.11 responses to “Debate or Dialogue: Engaging with Differing Beliefs”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great post Debbie. Thanks for reminding us of Rock and bringing NeuroScience into this debate. I think you are on to something in that most of the people we are dealing with shut down and feel attacked. It seems like the only ones that might actually listen to a reasoned debate from us are ones that know that they are loved by us and have chosen to be open to the conversation. That makes your conclusion of mission minded relationships a very sound one. What does that look like in your life and ministry to the people around you? How do we work against the desire to insulate and conform to our tribalistic tendencies in times of division?
Ryan, I’m actually on mission to many of the people in my church. For instance, many people in the choir just love to sing; they don’t really believe what they’re singing. So I do my best to select anthems with theologically sound lyrics, and I talk about them briefly in rehearsals. The choir members know I love them so maybe someday some of it will sink it.
Debbie,
Might just be the frame of mind I am in this evening having taught my Interviewing and Documentation class today. But reading your post reminds me of Motivational Interviewing (MI). In MI through a series of techniques, we bring a client into a state of ambivalence or incongruence. The client recognizes things they like about a behavior and at the same time things they don’t like. The key is that it is up to the client to come to this realization. We cannot force them and we do it gently. I think through missional behavior we can allow the world to see how we do life differently and, hopefully, we live different. This missional behavior can bring them into that state of ambivalence where they are at least willing to contemplate why our Christian beliefs might be a better option.
My dad and his wife are, well I really don’t know where they are because we don’t talk about it. He knows what my family believes. I believe my dad was wounded by the church and not willing to consider going back. I love them, pray for them, but choose not to be confrontational with them. So, I have a small understanding of your situation.
Are there ways you believe you are being missional to your sister and her family?
Like you said Jeff, it’s all about living life differently. Unfortunately, there are WAY too many followers of Jesus whose lives look just like everyone else’s… or even “worse” (defining “worse” as less kind, less welcoming, less judgmental, less loving…).
My sister knows what I believe, at least roughly. And she knows I’m attending a seminary. Now I just have to walk the talk myself.
Hi Debbie, thanks for your thoughtful post. I am not sure I have a question for you but some considerations. One of the things I thought of when I was reading it was how someone who is atheist, even your sister would respond if you got into one of Petrusek’s arguments with her? I go there because my guess is that your sister may already know you love her but she still might not hear the argument. Hence, your thoughts on missional church make sense. But there might be another piece to the puzzle. When our oldest daughter was in school, my husband and I were the youth leaders for the church. Every time the youth were together, sometime during the gathering, we share the gospel. Our daughter was a believer but when she went to college she came home one day and said for the first time she heard someone share the gospel. My husband and I just looked at each other in wonder. Was she there for 7 years with us? Did she not hear the same way because we are her parents? Maybe, but, I think the reality was that she heard part of it to believe, she heard more when she was ready to truly follow. It brings me back to wonder if sometime your sister will be ready to hear. Until then, I will join you in praying for her.
Thank you for those prayers Diane. I wasn’t always good at this, but now I am always conscious of how I live out the words of Jesus. I know I need to do my best to be a model. Only by the grace of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit am I able to do that.
Debbie,
I appreciate your reminder of Rock’s work and how when confronted as a foe or an enemy we tend simply to shut down. This is why debate over religion is often not helpful. I am wondering if you can expand a little bit on this statement you make at the end? “but I think we have more opportunities to convert non-believers with loving actions than with words.” Do you see a time for words also?
Great question Adam. Yes, I think there is a time for words. First, I pray for the Spirit to give me wisdom beyond my own understanding. And second, I’ve learned a little from a seminary professor friend of mine that we do best to ask questions. Petrusek’s potentially confrontational manner of arguing or debating rubs me the wrong way. If you’re going to use words, curious questions seem the best way to go.
Hi Debbie,
Thanks for your post. I agree that debate isn’t always the best way to evangelize, although I think it has its place amongst some. I can think of a few Scriptural examples of debating (like Paul in Athens – Acts 17) but I can also think of Jesus encouraging his followers to forgo the debate in lieu of those who are open to the gospel (Luke 10). My personal style is the latter, but I can see a space for the former.
Are there any non-believers in your life that you think debate would be a healthy interaction?
Praying that the Holy Spirit would break through your sister’s life and that you would receive the blessing of being able to witness a revelation after so many years.
Thank you for your prayers Christy. I always remind myself of what both the angel and Jesus promised: Nothing is impossible for God!
No, I can’t think of any non-believers in my life for whom debate would be a healthy interaction. Personally, I think we’ve learned entrenchment from our political climate and discourse. I think it affects all our thought patterns and conversations.
Hi Debbie,
Thank you for your post. I enjoyed reading it. I come from a non-Christian family – I am the minority. It was not an easy setting growing up.
In what ways can engaging in political debate serve as a form of evangelization, particularly in a society where political ideologies often shape moral and spiritual perspectives?