Arguments are not a terror from which to
flee, but a vital part of finding truth and understanding. Within one's daily
life, fights often remain unfinished for fear of continual offense, yet it is
those very fights that may lead to a greater understanding of relationships and
individuals. An argument (if conducted as a search for truth), leads one to
discover and grasp truth, for all objections and points of view can be aired
and duly considered. We can look to the Catholic Church to see illustrated the
positive fruits of arguments.
"And after
Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and
Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem
I could give many
examples, but I will illustrate with two well-known issues: The Reformation (or
Protestant Revolution), and the Circumcision Question. Though far apart in time
and place, these two events marked significant points in the Church's history,
and deserve equal consideration.
If the Apostles had ignored those who taught
that one could only follow Christ if he be circumcised, error and heresy
would have continued to spread unchecked, and grown until it was a firmly established sect, or possibly (which is more likely and far worse) it
would have become a deep-seated error inside the Church itself. However,
because the Apostles addressed it immediately, the error was rectified before
too many followers of Christ were attached to it, and could therefore drop the
matter without a fuss. Thus were many of us lucky Christians saved the
disagreeable and unnecessary experience of circumcising ourselves for Christ.
The second example
(one that did not go over so well), is the Protestant Revolution. The selling
of indulgences, the claiming that man had no free will, and similar mistaken
and dangerous beliefs, began to arise within the church simultaneously. The
selling of indulgences sprouted from corrupt clergy who were seeking sources of
revenue, and the faulty doctrine came from Luther and those like him, who were
seeking to reform the corrupt clergy. Luther requested that his beliefs and
objections to the Church be discussed by a convened council. This council would
have heatedly debated his arguments, and eventually reached a final and
clarifying decision, as had been the case in so many previous church disputes:
thereby avoiding confusion and the loss of souls. However, due to many factors
such as corruption, war, and misunderstandings, the council took fifty years to
convene; and by that point, the heresies were established beliefs and Luther
was past wanting to debate his doctrines. By avoiding a fight, the Church lost
precious charges entrusted to her care, and allowed misunderstandings of truth
to abound.
So, do not fear an
argument: whether it involves politics, religion, social practices, or personal
improvements, for sometimes it is only through debate and a heated word here and there that
an understanding of truth can be found out. Do not leave the words unsaid, for
that will only allow the problem to develop unseen until it rears its
insurmountable head. Embrace the Argument!
anne sent me this, describing our relationship (from a book she's reading)
ReplyDelete“coser (the functions of social conflict) argued that people are bound together more by verbal conflict than by verbal agreement, at least immediate agreement. in conflict, they have to work harder at communicating; as often happens in labor or diplomatic negotiations, gradually the ground rules of engagement mind the contending parties together. coser remarked that differences of views often become sharper and more explicit even though the parties may eventually come to agreement: the scene of conflict becomes a community in the sense that people learn how to listen and respond to one another even as they more keenly feel their differences.”
I quote this in my Philosophical Living blogpost "In Defense of Marginalia":
In the words of Joseph Ratzinger ("The Nature and Mission of Theology" [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995], pp. 32-33):
"[D]ialogue does not take place simply because people are talking. Mere talk is the deterioration of dialogue that occurs when there has been a failure to reach it. Dialogue first comes into being where there is not only speech but also listening. Moreover, such listening must be the medium of an encounter; this encounter is the condition of an inner contact which leads to mutual comprehension. Reciprocal understanding, finally, deepens and transforms the being of the interlocutors."
great post!