{"id":37342,"date":"2024-04-10T10:08:45","date_gmt":"2024-04-10T17:08:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/?p=37342"},"modified":"2024-04-10T10:08:45","modified_gmt":"2024-04-10T17:08:45","slug":"debate-or-dialogue-engaging-with-differing-beliefs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/debate-or-dialogue-engaging-with-differing-beliefs\/","title":{"rendered":"Debate or Dialogue: Engaging with Differing Beliefs"},"content":{"rendered":"

My youngest sister joined some random atheist organization a few years ago and posted it on Facebook.<\/span><\/p>\n

She\u2019s been an atheist since she was twelve years old – at least – and we\u2019ve 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\u2019t have the debate gene (she does) and I know that even if I were the best debater in the world, it very likely wouldn\u2019t change her mind. So I have to ask myself, \u201cIs it worth it to debate her about this issue?\u201d 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s amazing, isn\u2019t it, that three children can be brought up by the same parents and end up with wildly divergent views of faith and religion? I\u2019m the oldest. My middle sister freely admits that she\u2019s a bit \u201cwoo-woo\u201d; I would call her a spiritual person. She knows that God exists. She\u2019s had visitations by someone she calls Michael (as in Archangel Michael). I don\u2019t doubt her. She is empathic in many unusual ways and I\u2019m 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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In his book, <\/span>Evangelization and Ideology<\/span><\/i>, 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\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cEngaging in political debate is certainly <\/span>one<\/span><\/i> 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.\u201d [1]<\/span><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t disagree with his desire to lead people to greater morality. But I\u2019m 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, \u201cLikewise, pointing out to others that their political views have the same rational consistency as a two-year-old \u2018arguing\u2019 his case by thrashing on a grocery store floor exposes intellectual fraud.\u201d [2] Most people don’t want to think of themselves as being intellectually fraudulent.<\/span><\/p>\n

It reminds me of David Rock\u2019s 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,<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe 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 \u2018wrong\u2019 in a situation, from a simple mistake made on a document, to an error in judgment about a major strategy\u2026 People don\u2019t like to be wrong because being wrong drops your status, in a way that feels dangerous and unnerving.\u201d [3<\/span>]<\/span><\/p>\n

I refer, again, to Wilder and Woolridge\u2019s book, <\/span>Escaping Enemy Mode<\/span><\/i>, because it is this attitude of \u201cI\u2019m right, you\u2019re wrong\u201d 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\u2019s for another time). A brain categorizes people into Them and Us. \u201cAn unknown Them can trigger some fear, distrust, curiosity, ambivalence, or other reactions based upon the impressions the amygdala pulls in from the hippocampus.\u201d [4] <\/span><\/p>\n

Characteristics of a brain in enemy mode include:<\/span><\/p>\n