What Peter Intended for Evil, We will Use for Good
My title is a bit over-the-top, but it captures the direction I’d like to go in this post.
But first let me address what, I suspect, many of us will recognize and wrestle with in relation to this book: Peter Boghossian is someone firmly entrenched in the atheist camp and he seems motivated to use all of his relational know-how to move people from any sort of spiritual faith to a more rationalistic and materialistic worldview. Even though this book is entitled, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide (1), and in spite of the fact that Boghossian declares in chapter 1 that he and James Lindsay are writing to help the readers, “learn how to have these difficult—even seemingly impossible—conversations” (2) it becomes increasingly obvious that the last half of the book could more accurately be entitled, ‘How To Change People’s Minds Through Effective Communication.’ This shift, in my view, takes place on page 72 where the authors write, “In this chapter, you’ll learn intervention techniques, that is, strategies for intervening in someone’s cognitions and helping them revise their beliefs.” (3) There is nothing inherently wrong with this trajectory within the book, but it is certainly worth noting that this book is as much—if not more—about persuasion than it is about civil discourse.
Now…back to my title: This book offers up numerous practical tips to helping people have meaningful conversations in the midst of different opinions and beliefs, so I decided to read through the book with a specific eye on how we, as Christians, might better engage our culture with the claims of Christ. In other words, how could Boghossian and Lindsay’s book help us be more effective in our verbal witness/evangelism in our current context (Thanks for all the good ideas, Gents!).
Several things that evangelicals could learn from this book…
Quote 1: “Usually, the more invested someone is in their beliefs, the more they want to speak about them. The difficulty in these cases isn’t having someone speak to you; it’s that a give-and-take seems hopeless because the person across from you fails to speak with you and instead speaks at you. In such cases, you’re viewed as a receptacle to pour ideas into or as an opponent to be debated and vanquished.” (4)
Boy…are we guilty of this! We are convinced Jesus is the way, the truth and life…so we just want to tell others! While perhaps rightly motivated, it is (perhaps increasingly?) not a great methodology. The classic example of this is our declaration that ‘Jesus is the answer!’ and we haven’t even taken the time to determine what question people are asking! Julian Treasure, in his book, How to Be Heard (5) reminds us that effective communication is perhaps more about good listening than good speaking. Therefore, we would do well to adopt Rapoport’s Rules in our conversations with others about Jesus:
1. Attempt to re-express your targets position so well that they wish they said it that way themselves
2. List any points of agreement
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target
4. Only after doing those three things can you give a word of rebuttal or criticism (6)
This is a massive shift for many evangelicals (or at least the ones interested in doing any kind of evangelism, which is a pretty small percentage). We often want to ‘tell and convert’ rather than genuinely ‘know and converse’, and it would be a threshold moment for many evangelicals to realize that we might even have something to learn in those conversations with pagans!
Quote 2: “If you must make an assumption about your partner’s intentions, make only one: their intentions are better than you think.” (7)
Pragya Agarwal reminded us in her book, Sway, (7) that we all have unexamined or unconscious biases, and I grew up with a few about those who weren’t Christian. Essentially they were either too ignorant (they had a God-shaped hole in their heart that they were foolishly filling with other things that wouldn’t satisfy…except the more I got to know them, they actually did seem pretty satisfied) or too evil (they just wanted to avoid Jesus so they could be greedy and lustful and do whatever they wanted…except as I got to know them, I realized that lots of them led good and generous lives serving others). I think these two assumptions are still alive and well in many churches (perhaps more prominent in an older demographic? Or more fundamental churches?). This assumption certainly doesn’t assume the best of the other, and it tends to make us Christians arrogant in our approach towards others, causing us to do more talking (point #1) and less listening.
Quote 3: “Model Better Conversation – say, “I don’t know when you don’t know. Not knowing something isn’t a badge of shame, it’s a public display of honesty, humility, and sincerity.” (9)
If we could get over problem (quote) #1 as evangelicals, we would likely take a bunch of pressure off ourselves—thinking we have to be an expert or feeling like if we can’t answer a tough question God’s credibility is at stake! And while it would be good for many Christians to have a greater intellectual grasp on their faith, a more powerful evangelistic witness arises from a deep experience of the Gospel and a transformational work by the Spirit that others then notice and we can freely speak about (because it’s happening to us as we abide in Christ). Changed lives will speak more powerfully than us having all the answers, and if we don’t have the answers we can admit it and explore that unknown question together with a seeker and both grow together.
Quote 4: “Disavow extremists: Identify how ‘your side’ goes too far.” (10)
Few things are as disarming to those outside the church than the statement, “I totally agree with you—the church has done horrendous things in the past and the present. It’s terrible.” We don’t do God, ourselves, or seekers any favours when we try and justify or dismiss sexual misconduct, abuse of power, hypocrisy and judgmentalism within the church…nor should we! Rather, we can name it for what it is and point people to the perfect-human, who is meant to be not only our saviour but a beautiful example of what it means to be truly human and God’s child.
Quote 5: “Let people be wrong” (11)
When we speak to others about Jesus, we aren’t responsible to convince people about the truth of Jesus and we certainly can’t take the scales off of their eyes and change a heart of stone into a heart of flesh. As a result, we can do what we are invited to do by the Spirit and then leave the other person with the Spirit. This, of course, is easier said than done when it relates to someone we care about or our own children, but it is, itself, and act of faith–to entrust them to God and love them in the midst of their ‘wrongness’ (from our perspective). This phrase (Let them be wrong) could also speak to need for Christians to be ok with others thinking WE are wrong, without having to defend or justify ourselves or keep on arguing. Some Freidman-like healthy differentiation (12) is definitely required in this regard!
A Few things that make me go, “Huh?”
I am already over my word limit so I will quickly note two things.
Huh? 1: Are we all, in the end, ideologues?
If an ideologue is, ”one who is unwilling or unable to revise their (moral) beliefs…or a person who zealously advocates an ideology” (13), don’t we all tend to live as an ideologue—at least in the deepest sense? Who among us doesn’t believe that the way they view things and are living is best/right? Sure, we might be willing to change on lots of shallow or even mildly-significant ways…but the deep convictions/feelings/and fears that really govern and shape our lives? Most of us would resist change in those deep places and it would take a long, long time to shift from those.
Huh? 2: “How to End a Conversation: Attempting to fill your partner’s doubt and wonder with your beliefs is sometimes genuinely educational, but it can also be a form of evangelism. Don’t Evangelize. It is an unethical abuse of the vulnerability that accompanies doubt to use it and then attempt to sway your partner…” (14)
This quote was in the first part of the book (page 31) and it struck me as a bit strange—particularly as the book went on and clearly became about persuading others. Is it ‘abusive’ only because of its timing? And why would that be abusive? In fact, 28 pages later (page 59) Boghossian seems to do exactly what he says NOT to do in the example of him speaking with an inmate:
“Boghossian: I’m not saying; I’m asking. What is Justice? [Inmate 6] said it’s standing up for what you believe in. But is it really standing up for what you believe in? Don’t you have to believe the right stuff, then stand up for that? No?” (14…bold mine).
It seems to me Boghossain got the inmates to question or doubt their definition of justice and then jumped right in with his own framework or definition. (Classmates: Am I being too hard on him in this case?)
Ok…I have to wrap this too-long blog up with a summary: lots of very useful ways of being and communicating that the church could heed in order to more effectively proclaim Jesus to the world. Not the author’s intent for writing this book…but I’ll let him be wrong.
(1) Peter G. Boghossian and James A. Lindsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide (First edition. New York, NY: Lifelong, 2019).
(2) Peter G. Boghossian and James A. Lindsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide (First edition. New York, NY: Lifelong, 2019) 3.
(3) Peter G. Boghossian and James A. Lindsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide (First edition. New York, NY: Lifelong, 2019) 72.
(4) Peter G. Boghossian and James A. Lindsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide (First edition. New York, NY: Lifelong, 2019) 4.
(5) Treasure, Julian. How to Be Heard: Secrets for Powerful Speaking and Listening. Coral Gables, FL: Mango Publishing, 2017.
(6) Peter G. Boghossian and James A. Lindsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide (First edition. New York, NY: Lifelong, 2019) 97.
(7) Peter G. Boghossian and James A. Lindsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide (First edition. New York, NY: Lifelong, 2019) 27.
(8) Pragya Agarwal, Sway: Unraveling Unconscious Bias. Bloomsbury Sigma Series (London; New York: Bloomsbury Sigma, 2020).
(9) Peter G. Boghossian and James A. Lindsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide (First edition. New York, NY: Lifelong, 2019) 38.
(10) Peter G. Boghossian and James A. Lindsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide (First edition. New York, NY: Lifelong, 2019) 48.
(11) Peter G. Boghossian and James A. Lindsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide (First edition. New York, NY: Lifelong, 2019) 73-75.
(12) Edwin H. Friedman, Margaret M. Treadwell and Edward W. Beal, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix (10th anniversary revised edition. New York: Church Publishing, 2017).
(13) Peter G. Boghossian and James A. Lindsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide (First edition. New York, NY: Lifelong, 2019) 157, 159.
(14) Peter G. Boghossian and James A. Lindsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide (First edition. New York, NY: Lifelong, 2019) 157, 31.
About the Author
Scott Dickie
7 responses to “What Peter Intended for Evil, We will Use for Good”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Scott, this is an excellent post. I found myself literally smiling (in a smirky sort of way) when I read your last sentence. Couple things stand out: 1) You raised the question about whether or not we are all idealogues. It’s funny — this is similar to what I was pondering after I read the book and have actually been contemplating throughout the semester, probably due to the nature of my NPO / project. Everyone has ultimate beliefs, ultimate convictions/values that govern why and how and what we do on a daily basis. This sort of thinking probably brings into question what one’s rule of faith and life is. Reflection question: Am I able to talk about ultimate issues AND have the posture that I could be wrong, without throwing away my faith?
Second, you quoted the authors, stating, “If you must make an assumption about your partner’s intentions, make only one: their intentions are better than you think.” This statement makes even more sense when one considers the image of God in humans. We are “fearfully and wonderfully made” as the psalmist says, able to make incredible decisions in the hopes of making the world — and our relationships — more harmonious, and yet we are also broken and so our intentions, as good as they are, are always mixed. It’s why the late missiologist David Hesselgrave wrote, “(E)very culture has elements of divine order and satanic rebellion; each has potential for the revelation of God’s truth and for its concealment or mutilation.” (Hesselgrave, David J., Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally: An Introduction to Missionary Communication, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991.)
Reflection question: Am I able to talk about ultimate issues AND have the posture that I could be wrong, without throwing away my faith?
This is the crux of the matter, Travis…and I am aware that in the midst of some conversations about faith I make the statement, “I could be wrong”…and I genuinely recognize that I cannot know things with 100% certainty….but still….deep down, I’m pretty sure I’m right to the degree that I can determine right-ness.
So…is my statement of potential wrong-ness truly authentic and honest? I’m not sure. At this stage of our faith journey, we have certainly come against things that don’t make sense, things we can’t prove, issues like suffering that can’t be sufficiently answered, and I have to choose faith, choose to surrender, choose to believe….sometimes ‘in spite of’ and not ‘because of’. If I was truly open to being wrong….would I, in those moments, wander down the doubting trail and begin to examine other ways that faith doesn’t make sense? I suspect I know where that journey leads…but I’m not sure that it’s a good place to arrive at. So I guess I have ultimate faith in the necessity of faith, and the importance of choosing faith in the midst of the mystery of life.
That is a meandering half-answer to a question I have been mulling over myself, but you succinctly asked. Thanks.
I appreciate your insight, Scott. I did not pick up on some of the discrepancies but I see them now that you mentioned them. I also appreciate your thoughts on how we evangelize. “We can do what we are invited to do by the Spirit and then leave the other person with the Spirit.” Like you said, this can be difficult, especially in family situations because we care so much for their wellbeing. It’s also hard at times to love someone in their “wrongness” when it seems offensive in some way and, yet, this is the way of Jesus. As a pastor, what are some of your strategies to redirect your anger to love when the “wrongness” seems to be offensive?
Or is it sometimes justified to have a “holy indignation”?
That’s a great question Esther…and I’m not sure I have a good answer! For many years I have had a saying, “I can’t stand Pharisaical people because they turn me into a pharisee!” In other words, when people are being judgemental, I can find myself getting pretty judgemental of them.
Of course, you rightfully point out that there is a rightful and holy indignation when others are being oppressed and hurt…and there are probably some times that I can rightly embody that righteous concern for others. Unfortunately, a lot of the time I can simply be quick to judge others (internally, which doesn’t get me in as much trouble in my work!) from a sense of moral superiority.
One question my wife has given me that helps in this regard is to NOT have my internal question/posture be: “What’s wrong with you?” to those who are hurtful or even harmful….but instead have compassionate curiosity that wonders, “What’s happened to you?” In other words…what sort of life experiences have shaped you into this angry or scared or judgemental person? It can help me look beyond the behaviour to better see the person.
Scott, I really appreciate how you engaged with this book. I was really struggling with it because I felt the author was essentially contradicting his own advice (as you mention in his conversation with inmates).
However, you were able to recognize that there were contradictions but still find positive and helpful takeaways from the book, where I just wanted to dismiss the whole thing.
I feel like you did a great job approaching this critically without dismissing it like I did, and the way you approached it, and the things you shared that you learned from it. were instructive for me.
Hi Scott,
Great post.
Huh? Idealogue or good and faithful servant. I think we all strive for the latter. The issue is how important we think OUR words are, versus the movement of the Spirit.
We are released from a lot of pressure if we speak honestly with humility (I don’t know) and let the Holy Spirit do the convicting.
Prayerfully, we rejoin the conversation when/if a conversion is achieved (not through our power but HIS). Enter discipleship.
Still, I find it rare to reshape someone’s opinion on immigration (my NPO) through conversation. IF they want to be educated then YES I have data, but I also have leaned into letting them be wrong.
Prayerfully, my activities to follow the mandate to love our neighbor will serve as an example. Words whisper, Actions THUNDER (an old army adage).
Shalom
Scott,
I believe after you finish this doctoral program you can write the next book on how Evangelicals could learn to talk about their faith based on books like this one! You make so many good points but my favorite one is:
“Quote 3: “Model Better Conversation – say, “I don’t know when you don’t know. Not knowing something isn’t a badge of shame, it’s a public display of honesty, humility, and sincerity.” (9)”
I really wanted to write my post about my mediation work and resolving conflict within Christian organizations. Just recently, a friend of mine was asked by her pastors to step in to help with some conflict with the women’s ministry. My friend attends a mega church in Chicago. She called me asking for advice as she met with women one on one and then tried bringing them together. I practically begged her to not get involved as my friend is lovely, smart and kind but tends to reflect your #1 problem more than reflecting good listening. All that to say, rather than help resolve the real conflict, she ended up photocopying a small booklet on why bitterness is wrong and dropped it off at each woman’s house. As you can imagine, this did not go well. The conflict was never resolved and the director of women’s ministries asked her step away. To your point, my friend did not model conversation. She could have acted in greater humility by saying, “I don’t know the answers but let’s explore them together.” Great thinking in your post, Scott!