I learned a long time ago, but not soon enough, that debate and dogma bear very little fruit worth consumption. I used to be the guy who would welcome the Mormon and Jehovah's Witness folks into my home so I could argue with them about how wrong they are in the hopes that my strong argument would somehow win them over to my side. What I realized in every instance was that they were as passionate and steadfast in what they believe as I am in what I believe. Now, don't interpret what I'm writing to be a relativist acceptance of all religions as truth, just an observation that all religions have passionate followers and debate does nothing more than solidify people in their belief. It had the reverse effect of what I was hoping for. Just like the parent of the adolescent who forbids his/her son/daughter from dating someone. So, I have given up on passionate debate. Until the other day...
I got rooked into one of those stupid "comment" debates on Facebook over a couple of people's assertion that pastor/teacher/author Rob Bell is a heretic. Notice in this case it was not someone from a DIFFERENT religion which makes this all the more sad. I won't bore you with the details. The summary of the exchanges is that I was simply trying to note that I had been listening to Bell's podcasts for over a year and never heard anything I would consider heresy. This other guy, (we'll call him "Dwayne" because I like the way that name sounds, say it out loud, "Dwayne!") chose to make his argument about the "postmodern movement in Christianity" and the need for its demise and the advocacy for more apologetics. "Apologetics" is Christian code for "debate." Fortunately, when I realized his over-generalization, I stopped commenting because it was getting off the point. The point being, one man, one fallible man, doesn't seem to be teaching heresy. I am not and do not idolize or hang on every word of this man. I find him engaging and his perspective fresh because he and I agree that increasing debate will only increase division (within our own faith) which does nothing but distract from doing good (Eph. 2:8-10) and decreases our efficacy in society as a whole.
Just as with every debate I have ever been in, the result was further solidarity to my view point and while I had only listened to Bell and never read any of his books, I ordered Velvet Elvis on my Kindle and have begun reading. In his first chapter, Bell uses two metaphors to illustrate the two sides of this Facebook debate. In speaking of doctrine (which is important but not more important than the object of that doctrine)Bell writes of trampoline springs and brick walls. One is much more flexible and pliable than the other and there is room for growth. The other is inflexible and unmovable. Those in favor of brick walls make faith about doctrine and derive meaning and confidence in their inflexible doctrines. Bell notes that walls have to be defended and when was the last time anyone had to defend a trampoline. Trampolines are about enjoying and inviting others to enjoy. A defensive faith is not a welcoming faith.
All of this is summed up in the famous words credited to St. Francis of Assisi, "Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words." I want my life and how I engage this world to be my witness, not my defenses. I want to spend more time jumping and inviting others to jump, and less time dividing -- especially among our own faith. I want to be the guy who welcomes Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses in my home for a cup of coffee and conversation, not an argument.
