One group only sees the picture on the left and says, “It’s a square!”
Another group only sees the picture on the right and says, “No, it’s a circle!”
The truth, of course, is that it is both and neither. It is neither a square nor a circle; it is a cylinder, but depending on one’s perspective, it can appear to be a square or a circle.
The trick, of course, is backing up far enough so that we can see the cylinder…
It takes time, and sometimes it requires complete separation from all the traditions and rituals that keep us focusing on either the square or the circle.
Jeremy, this is hardly surprising. Try reading the Talmud or Midrash and you’ll find hundreds of different views and even contradictory ones on a single topic. It’s just the way it is. But I enjoy the creativity of the way Jews tried to wrestle with difficulties of scripture. Why should it be any different with Christians. Take the issue of predestination, well the Pharisees and Saduccess were divided on this subject but the Essenes affirmed it (not in a proto-Calvinist way but there’s similarity). The idiotic and extremely destructive aspect of Christianity is that we tried to prove the other guy wrong and even waged war over such opinions. Instead of simply embracing the other guy’s creativity (you can disagree while still being impressed with how different groups handle texts), we lifted swords, clubs and erected burning stakes. Given the heavy influence of Greek philosophy in Christianity, logic ruled the day, and matters were supposed to be either/or but not both. Tolerance of contradiction was unthinkable – hence hundreds and hundreds of years of religious terror.
You’re wrong, Jeremy. The one on the left is CLEARLY a diamond 😉
Thats ace.
Yuri, Yes, I am familiar with the Talmud and Midrash and frequently reference both in my own study of the Hebrew Scriptures. We Christians can learn from them, that it might be okay to allow one another to have different perspectives on issues.
Steve, Sorry for messing that up! 😉
There’s a baseball diamond and a basketball. Why the exclude middle – where’s the football???
The darkness in your image, the shapes and the colors are obviously demonic. My mother and my spiritual adviser taught me the truth about these things, and our gathering of spiritual elites has decided you’re a heretic. I’d explain it all to you, but you’d just edit out everything like you did the last time I shared my great wisdom and spiritual insights with you.
Ha ha! If you were a new commenter Sam, I wouldn’t know you were joking. Sadly, there are too many Christians out there who respond in exactly that same way to any sort of theological disagreement.
This is right On Jeremy, when any kind of theology discussions starts I run the other way and just go make disciples, at least I am accomplishing something then.
Backing up is a physical metaphor. I think that, put into the context of interacting with others, it looks like listening, humility, curiosity, and empathy.
With some other bloggers (Keith Giles, Richard Jacobson, Jon Zens, and Neil Cole), I’m trying to pursue an experiment in a blogalogue – a rolling conversation that is intended to be a way to facilitate that ‘backing up’. This is round one of what I hope will be many more.
You can get an idea of what I’m talking about here http://www.danherford.com/?p=245 and here http://www.danherford.com/?p=301
A blogalogue. I like that idea. I am headed over to read your posts.
This reminds me of the well-known story from India of the blind men trying to describe an elephant. Theological discussions always remind me of that story. I won’t repeat it here, but if you don’t know it, you’ll find a poetic version at: http://www.constitution.org/col/blind_men.htm.
Here’s a cartoon that says it all. I posted this link on another thread some time back, but I’ll post it again, because it’s relevant::
http://nakedpastor.com/2010/11/cartoon-some-light-reading.
That’s right! I forgot about that illustration of the elephant. I have used it myself in various teaching environments.
Is this irony?
Yes, but also truth.
This is a good illustration. I have most definitely been in these conversations on multiple occasions. Nothing quite like being in an argument with someone that you more or less agree with.
Yes, happens all the time!
It’s worse than that!
Christian 1 “the plain teaching of the scripture is that it’s a square (quotes proof text) and if you don’t believe it you are a deceiver.” Christian 2 “no the Bible says its a circle (quotes proof text). God said it. I believe it! You are a gutless heretic who denies God’s word!”
If you want to see real vitriol and inexcusable misrepresentation just go to any debate amongst Christians. I’ve even seen the most horrible insults hurled by people defending the doctrine that God is Love! Christians please, if you want to criticise a position at least represent it honestly, and don’t invoke the perfect man’s rebukes to the self righteous Pharisees to justify your own self righteousness. Not saying such people are a majority, but I’m sure every reader is familiar with this kind of tactic. The Bible may be infallible, our exegesis is not!
Yes, the meanest debates are often Christian debates. I have seen and heard debates exactly the one you describe.
Only God’s spirit can open the meaning of the word of God to the hearer.
Yes, but God’s spirit often works in the community of the saints as we live life and discuss theology with each other.
The picture is worth 1000 words, it impacted me. With maters of the Spirit of Christ we must remember we see through a glass dimly while the realities are three dimensional or more. So many Christian debates are conducted without attempting to see the other side. I want to see others perspective better in the Body of Christ because I need many perspectives.
Thank you and happy new year please keep engaging with love everyone you can.
I found it helpful as well. One reason I love reading comments on this blog is that others can provide their alternative perspective to what I have written. I often try to remember this picture as I read those comments.