![\"Church\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/40\/2015\/01\/Church.jpg\")
<\/a>I am preparing to lead a discussion on science and Christian faith this fall as part of a group life offering. As our church is located next door to a major research university, this is a topic of significance in our community and in our church. It is possible to play ostrich and bury our heads in the sand, but this will not help when it comes to having an impact for the gospel in our community. The apparent conflict between science and Christian faith gives many an excuse to avoid any deeper consideration of the claims of Christianity. This is not the only issue \u2013 but it is a major issue.<\/p>\nIn preparation for this discussion I have been reading material from the Public Conversations Project<\/a><\/em> (PCP). Some of the material doesn\u2019t apply directly to our situation, but most of the general advice remains valid. The most significant is the emphasis on dialogue rather than debate. In a debate the goal is to win, often at all costs. In a dialogue the goal is understanding. It is hard to move forward on any complex and controversial topic when the focus is on the debate rather than understanding. Consider some of the following comparisons, adopted and modified from a PCP table.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Debates are contests with winners and losers. They can be entertaining, but they don\u2019t generally advance they tend to harden the lines. We can also consider other contrasts complementary to the (dialogue vs. debate) such as (teach vs. preach) or (engage vs. deliver).\u00a0 While debate is almost always destructive (even when it is entertaining) the other pairs have pros and cons.<\/p>\n Teaching, Preaching and Delivery.<\/strong><\/em> You can argue with my definitions but I would make these distinctions: Teaching aims at education and discipleship while the primary focus of preaching is persuasion and inspiration. There is a valuable place for preaching in the church. Inspirational preaching can bring people to a position of decision in a manner that more \u201cmundane\u201d teaching cannot. We need good preaching.\u00a0 But we also need teaching designed to grow disciples. Preaching cannot shape mature disciples of Christ in the way that good teaching can and does. Teaching allows for give and take as well as in-depth discussion and dialogue.<\/p>\n A slightly different distinction is found in the classroom. Delivery is focused on lecture and on the presentation of information, engagement is focused on bringing people to understanding. Lecture, like preaching, is a valuable tool. A lecture can be a powerful way to present information and deliver content. I am not one to undervalue a good lecture. But we, as educators, are learning that an opportunity for active engagement is of equal or greater importance. The education that sticks tends to come from active engagement. I am currently teaching a class that I\u2019ve \u201cflipped.\u201d\u00a0 The student watch lecture segments introducing concepts between class sessions. In class my time is devoted to working through problems with the students. One advantage is that in this format the students can see how I work as a scientist and I gain insight into the concepts that trouble the students. In a traditional lecture class I deliver information and the students figure out how to work through the material on their own, albeit through carefully designed assignments.<\/p>\n Teaching and engagement can go hand-in-hand with productive dialogue.<\/strong><\/em> While the PCP doesn\u2019t aim to teach, the principles remain helpful. An openness to dialogue does not mean that we accept every position as equally plausible or equally true. It is certainly possible to engage in dialogue from a position of conviction or expertise. All that is really required is a commitment to basic principles of conversation.\u00a0\u00a0 Some of the guidelines suggested by the PCP include the following, with my comments added.<\/p>\n For example, I can\u2019t speak for all professors or all Christian scientists. No one can be expected to speak for all students, musicians, pastors, teachers, mothers, etc. In a dialogue it is important to converse as individuals. Let the social scientists try to make generalizations based on data \u2013 and then realize that they are only generalizations within a distribution.<\/p>\n All professors are not atheists intent on converting our youth to secularism and all Christians are not ignorant yokels. Evolution is not synonymous with atheism.\u00a0 It doesn\u2019t forward a productive dialogue to throw in such generalizations.<\/p>\n This is a big one. It is possible to disagree strongly and to explain why an idea doesn\u2019t seem reasonable to you without a critical spirit.\u00a0 We need to practice patience and gentleness in dialogue.<\/p>\n The apostle Paul should be heeded in all the conversations.<\/p>\n If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. \u2026 Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful. (1 Cor 1-2, 4-5) If someone shares an opinion that hurts you, just \u201chang in\u201d and listen. This is a lesson I have learned and tried to practice when it comes to discussions of biblical manhood and womanhood and the role of women in church and society.<\/p>\n The only time it is appropriate to interrupt is if someone cannot be heard or to indicate that some previously agreed upon time limit has been reached.<\/p>\n This is a big one. There can be no open dialogue when there is fear of being outed. Most hard questions are at least somewhat controversial. Safety is essential and this requires a level of confidentiality.\u00a0 One can\u2019t always guarantee confidentiality in an open class or meeting setting \u2013 but it should be made clear that this is the expectation. In intentional dialogue groups it should be agreed on from the outset.<\/p>\n Another big one. For example, I find it frustrating when others suggest that I only accept evolution as God\u2019s method of creation because I am caving to peer pressure; or as a pragmatic strategy for professional advancement.\u00a0 It is equally frustrating to be told that the only reason I remain a Christian is because I am not strong enough to break free from the bonds of my upbringing.\u00a0 I am sure that pastors find it equally frustrating to be accused of taking a position only to avoid ticking off the big donors. Making such accusations and negative attributions will squelch productive dialogue.<\/p>\n This leads to a few questions I would like to throw out for discussion.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n Debate<\/th>\n Dialogue<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n \n Participants tend to propound a carefully crafted position.<\/td>\n Participants may or may not be committed to a position.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Atmosphere is threatening. Attacks are expected and permitted.<\/td>\n Atmosphere is one of safety. There is an agreement to respect one another even in disagreement on the issues.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Participants speak to represent a group.<\/td>\n Participants speak as individuals from their own experience.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Participants speak to the already committed.<\/td>\n Participants speak to each other.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Difference within a \u201cside\u201d are denied or minimized.<\/td>\n A broader continuum of personal positions are expressed.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Participants express unswerving commitment<\/td>\n Both deeply held beliefs and uncertainties are expressed.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Participants listen to refute.<\/td>\n Participants listen to understand and gain insight.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Participants aim to win.<\/td>\n Participants desire to learn and grow.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n
\n
\n
\n<\/em><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n