The New York Times columnist David Brookes has noticed Western society‘s pivot away from “eulogy virtues” to “résumé virtues.” Sadly, Christian culture has followed the secular lead on this one. Church tradition contains a wealth of insight about character formation, but few talk about that anymore. All we seem to care about anymore is the immediate and the practical. I’ve become convinced that this regression helps explain the nature of our polarization and why nobody is willing to engage in a good faith dialogue anymore. It’s become a foreign concept.
I remember a particularly strange discussion with a friend. He’s a contemplative Baptist who was pursuing a PhD in historical theology at Baylor University. Meanwhile, I was a newb to the Anglican tradition. What made the discussion so odd was the Baptist held a sacramental view while the Anglican clung to an ordinance view. It was a lively discussion lasting several hours. Finally he said, “How ’bout we agree to disagree for now?” The look on his face when I replied, “No need. You convinced me.” Clearly he felt torn between wanting to shoot me and hug me.
The reason I love that story is not only that it screws with people’s schemas, but more importantly it highlights the real difference between discussion and debate. The difference lies not so much in the tone–any onlookers probably would’ve thought we were arguing–but in the intention. My communication goal was not persuasion, but understanding. I vigorously threw every biblical, theological, and historical point imaginable at him not to try winning a duel of wits, but to get a real sense of the intriguing ins and outs of his nuanced spiritual perspective.
In retrospect, that discussion embodied a sense of the mutual respect and reciprocal trust. We started off strongly disagreeing with one another, but there was a spirit of honesty, sincerity, and fairness in that back and forth dialogue. Sadly, this contrasts with many bad faith discussions I’ve had since then, especially about religion, politics, and culture. Too often I’ve felt like the other person distrusted my character, disrespected my perspective, and was willing to employ any form of deception necessary to win the contest. It’s all about pride, ego, and tribalism.
The original beatniks loved learning about new perspectives and hashing out their ideas together. From everything I’ve read, they saw conversation as an almost sacred opportunity to grow and heal, to know and be known. At the same time, they didn’t feel obliged to dull their edge by holding back the intensity of their beliefs and opinions. The Beat Generation not so much “practiced” vigorous good faith dialogue as “lived” it. That’s a countercultural lifestyle that Jesus followers today would do well replicate, so it’s an essential social norm of beatnik Christianity.