Allow a learning culture to emerge

Imagine that you are in conversation with someone whose understanding of the Bible you do not share. How do you deal with it? Are you waging trench warfare with arguments – which, of course, don’t bear fruit? Or do you immediately demarcate yourself from the other person without confrontation? Should you be more curious? Certainly there are several approaches you can take – if you want to.

If, however, one calls the other person a “false teacher” in conversation or hears the accusation of “heresy” oneself, then strange things happen. These words denote the end of a conversation. To accuse someone else of heresy, heresy, false doctrine – that is said to happen from time to time – is not a wise answer. It is rather the retreat into the supposed security of one’s own views.

When someone comes to me with heaven and hell, I am convinced, based on careful study of the Bible, that they are off the mark. I can even justify this excellently. Of course, my counterpart also thinks that my understanding that God will once become everything in all is completely wrong. We have contrary views. It doesn’t even help that I know exactly what he’s talking about because I once stood in his position myself. It helps me, but not him. You can’t have both positions valid at the same time. Something is wrong. Either there is a hell, or there is not. Either God comes to the goal with the whole creation or He does not come to the goal. In conversation, this is a stalemate. We do not come closer to each other if everyone entrenches himself in his supposed knowledge.

A lot of people don’t want to have a conversation about these things at all. But let’s assume that a conversation takes place. Not infrequently, I have heard the accusation of heresy in such conversations. It also becomes quite tricky when one denies the faith of the other person, declares him to be demonically possessed or otherwise tries to outmaneuver him. These things do not help. They only explain the insecurity and ignorance of the other person, which causes him to see me that way. It has little to do with me, because I took a different path to my understanding than he did. We are not standing in the same place. And that’s a good thing.

We can go after each other or we can try to do it better.

Another approach

Responding differently means fostering a learning culture that helps everyone. We should make everything grow in love, into Him who is the head, Christ, writes Paul (Eph 4:15-16). It is then no longer about orthodoxy, or about throwing the other into the condemnation corner, but about finding a way of learning together that leads to Christ. It does not matter at all whether I am right or not, if I have Paul’s aforementioned suggestion in mind. This is challenging and may not always succeed. Perhaps, however, we can learn to focus more on questions than answers. I always assume that someone has valid reasons to believe as he does. Even if the findings differ, I always assume that the counterpart actually believes what he says.

How does a conversation succeed in such a situation?

Presumably, this remains an ongoing practice. This morning I was in an exchange with a wonderful friend about these things. He told me a proven way to better handle such situations. The point is this: From now on, one no longer uses terms like “false doctrine” or “heresy”, but speaks of “other doctrine” and “other understanding”. Both parties to the conversation should agree on this. It is about a sober and humble attitude that is expressed through such choice of words. If both agree, there is another conversation. One no longer assumes supposed superiority.

You can then no longer say, “I’m right and you’re wrong!”. Or: “There you have the whole Christianity against you” (which is of course never the case). Rather, one could meet each other with questions. “Why do you believe this or that?” or “How do you live with this knowledge you have?”. These are better guidelines for a fruitful conversation. In this way, you may be able to look behind the facade and also give the other person a real insight into your own hopes and expectations.

Unity must be sought in faith, not in knowledge.

Such an attitude does not require one to come to the same realization. But perhaps you can discover in the other person a brother who, like you, is trying to shape his life and faith. Does such a conversation always succeed? No, unfortunately I don’t always succeed. But here is the difference that one can have in mind: Unity must be sought in faith, not in knowledge.

Delimitation

If a good conversation does not succeed, you should separate yourself. We should not be involved in disputes (2 Timothy 2:14-17). It is better to let go. Paul assumes that God is powerful to make everyone see what is important (Phil 3:15).

Demarcation is also important where people are overreacting. For example, because they impose conversations, if they incessantly harass you with emails or otherwise, or if conformity to their beliefs is expected. Such things are unhealthy and there is no right to talk. It is important to keep a healthy distance then.

Besides, there are people who do not want a conversation, but only want to ventilate their opinion. Again, this is not to be considered an open conversation.

The crucial question in all conversations is: Is the conversation desired by all? If not, then I let the conversation go. However, when a conversation takes place, I ask myself, what can I contribute to his or her well-being? In doing so, I do not want to overlook my own good. In all of this, I may ask myself: what kind of conversation culture do I want to cultivate? What kind of conversations do I want to have? It is worth exchanging ideas about this.