"Our thoughts are with you"

In other posts I’ve mentioned invisible misunderstandings that C.S. Lewis uncovered by probing and listening — for instance, his discovery that many regular folk are skeptical of not only the stories of Jesus but any stories of 2,000 years ago. They don’t believe that historical events are really known reliably.  This kind of misunderstanding would be very hard for an educated person to see — like asking a fish to see the water or a bird to see the air.

Another hard-to-see misunderstanding: Once upon a time I visited the blog of an in-your-face atheist. He had publicly and without shame blogged about divorcing his wife in order that he could live a polyamorist life. Some Christians had posted that they were praying for his wife. He scathingly said he thought this was silly — she didn’t know any of the Christians, and they didn’t know her personally, so why do they expect their prayers to make her feel better?

That is, the atheist talked of prayers as though they were entirely human expressions of concern or empathy or sympathy. A prayer's purpose is to make the person prayed for feel better. At one level, this is a pure flatlander view of prayer: there is nothing supernatural about it, it consists entirely of human good wishes expressed in prayer language. To say “Our prayers are with them” is identical to saying “Our thoughts are with them.” Without active listening such a misunderstanding will remain invisible.

We can benefit from recognizing a flatlander view like this one, because most often they are true in a certain way and they point at practices that, like sodas, have gone flat. In the case at hand it is true that prayers are, whatever else they may be, human good wishes, and unless we are careful our prayers can indeed lose their spiritual fizz and become mere human good wishes packaged as prayers. As a social convention and a habit, saying “I’ll pray for you” or “I’m praying for them” can be merely a way to comfort someone else or feel as though we are doing something about a difficult situation. Intercessory prayer means really asking God to act, and an honest request to God can fail. Flat prayers can't fail, real ones can. And failure is not comfortable.

“It is no good browbeating the critic who approaches a Transposition from below.”

In his essay “Transpositions,” C.S. Lewis says “It is no good browbeating the critic who approaches a Transposition from below. On the evidence available to him his conclusion is the only one possible.” Since in general atheists and skeptics are those who approach Transpositions from below (more details in a minute), Lewis’s conclusion seems to say that evangelism and apologetics are doomed to be ineffectual or nearly so. I don’t think he was saying that. The word “browbeating” is the key.

Really, you ought to go read “Transpositions.” Any summary I give here will be selective and flat compared with the essay.

Nonetheless, let us say there are two systems, one of which includes or contains the other. An example might be three-dimensional geometry, which includes two-dimensional geometry as a special case in which all magnitudes in the third dimension are zero. Now let us picture representing the higher in the lower. We actually do this a lot — paintings and photographs of the three-dimensional world are two-dimensional. A road going from the foreground to the horizon is on the canvas a triangle (a two-dimensional shape). In Lewis a “Transposition” is the correlation or mapping between the higher and the lower. A key feature is that multiple higher things will be mapped to or embodied in a single thing in the lower. Both a triangle and a receding road in the three-dimensional world will map to a triangle in the two-dimensional world.

Lewis is saying that it is no good “browbeating” a person who is reasoning in the terms of the lower because all his or her facts and  logic are limited to the lower and can yield only lower conclusions. The larger point that Lewis makes is that the material world is mapped to the complete world (i.e., the one that includes God) in this pattern. Hence it is futile to “browbeat” materialists and skeptics hoping to open them up to the complete world.

I think “browbeating” means using discursive reason. Certainly we know that materialists, skeptics, and atheists do become open to the complete world — C.S. Lewis himself is such a case. But I do think that discursive reason by its nature plays only a secondary, supporting role in such transformations.

This overall perspective is behind my idea that our goal as leavenly rhetoricians is to create openings for the Holy Spirit to work in and through. In Star Trek terms our job may be to create little, local transdimensional portals through which the Holy Spirit and a person, the upper and lower, can touch.

God *does* break through to the lower, contained world, in joyously multifarious, multiple ways. We can embody or employ many of those ways. See the upcoming blog posts.

A helpful book

I have learned very much from Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, by Greg Koukl. He is the founder and head of an Evangelical Christian apologetics ministry, Stand to Reason. The book sets out his idea of the apologist as an ambassador, treats with detailed examples the idea of relying upon questions rather than assertions, and tells how to recognize and respond to various invalid arguments.

Koukl pictures apologists as ambassadors for Christ. The “Ambassador’s Creed” says the ambassador must have knowledge, wisdom, and character — knowledge of the truths that are being taught, wisdom concerning techniques for propounding and defending the truths, and character that effectively presents the truths and does not undermine them. An important perspective is that an ambassador is speaking for someone else and is accountable to that someone else.

The book contains examples of using questions both to gather information and to act. Asking questions gives the Christian some control over the flow of the discussion and can cause the other to recognize invalid arguments. Questions artfully posed can avoid some of the defensive reactions provoked by positive statements such as “Your argument is invalid!”

Koukl presents a catalog of invalid arguments, explaining why each is invalid and giving each a catchy name to make it easier to remember. His treatment is about real-world effectiveness rather than logical purity. That is, I’ve read apologetics books by philosophers and I assume their arguments are valid but I find them unconvincing. When I read them my mind’s eye glazes over. Koukl focuses on argument failures that the Rest of Us can grok, and gives examples of responding effectively to them, usually by posing a low-key question or two.

How are we as Orthodox to relate to this Evangelical book? First, St. Basil wrote about pagan works, “Now this is my counsel, that you should not unqualifiedly give over your minds to these men, as a ship is surrendered to the rudder, to follow whither they list, but that, while receiving whatever of value they have to offer, you yet recognize what it is wise to ignore.” Second, although many of the examples have an Evangelical flavor the techniques themselves are neutral — they could certainly be used by skeptics as well as by Christians. Many of the examples of answering skeptics can be applied by Orthodox.

One caveat: There is a three-CD audio course for ambassadors, which I do not recommend for Orthodox. Large parts of it focus on eliminating unhelpful beliefs and approaches held so far as I know only by Evangelicals. I have not encountered them elsewhere. The tests on the material (necessary for getting a certificate) spend a great deal of time asking detailed questions about Koukl’s case against these purely Evangelical difficulties. I saw no value in learning that very detailed material so I abandoned the course.

The web site has many resources related to the book, including (for instance) a vinyl cheat sheet of the book’s catalog of major invalid arguments and ways to respond to them.

I said above that the techniques in this book are basically neutral. What if all sides used them? Why, a respectful, substantive, sustained discussion might break out!

Love coarsely garbed is still love.

What if someone calls you an “asswipe”? What to say?

My own response would likely be to go into my Matthew 5:44 mode, thank the person for the insult, and say that I’ll be praying on his or her behalf. To any further insults I’d just say “Thanks for the insult.”

Is it possible to answer as coarsely but still Christ-like? Until recently I wouldn’t even have been able to conceive the question, much less an answer. But on Twitter I saw such speech.

There is a fellow I follow on Twitter, a Roman Catholic, who works in political opinion journalism. Let’s call him Hank Watson. On Twitter he receives a torrent of coarse insults — pure name-calling. Recently a fellow said Hank is greedy, and called him an “asswipe” (the original tweet has been deleted so I can’t quote it). Hank answered, “Dude, I am greedy when it comes to M&Ms. That's it. Asswipes -- always on hand, 'cause you can't never trust a fart.”

When I commented aside to him that perhaps it was unfair to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man, he corrected me: “No wits battle -- a love fest. A smile is a frown turned upside down!”

Hank, being a journalist, can write fancy. So can I. Unlike me, he can write cheerfully and coarsely. His Christ-like answer deflated the vituperation, lanced the boil. No piety such as I would do, just simple, non-combative back-atcha.

Can you imagine coarse Christ-like speech like that? Perhaps from a saint who had been a soldier, prostitute, innkeeper, or sailor? Perhaps from St. Matthew, the former tax collector and hanger-out with sinners?

Lord, love the other in and through me.

Any technique or method or behavior that can influence how another thinks or behaves is open to misuse. Prayers and questions can be weaponized. To do “leavenly rhetoric” one must love the other. It is difficult in a few words to tell how to love; but, having made many mistakes, I can point out some perils to avoid.

First, consciously maintain the mental picture that God is working in and through you. The good things you do are done by you and God cooperating, or done by God when you have the good sense to get out of God’s way. This perspective helps to reduce fear and self-centeredness. Will to cooperate with God and to move love-ward. Behave in ways that are low-key love. Stand aside and ask God to love the other in and through you. This perspective spares you from attempting (for instance) to manufacture loving feelings by sheer will power. It also has the great advantage of being simply true.

Second, eliminate your fears. Focus on the others. I mean this literally — move the attention part of your mind outside yourself. Pay attention to the others, listen to them. Be able to summarize what they say and approximately how they feel.

Third, do not trivialize the others, whether before, during, or after the conversations. People often retweet or share articles, jokes, or “memes” that trivialize others' position on a topic. Usually these strike down straw man arguments and were framed as either-or, black-and-white distinctions or choices, and are directed at people who agree with the sharer. They won't convince any opponent and instead will harden their opposition. The caricatures depersonalize and objectify the opponents, hence it is easy for the poster and friends to feel superior to them and feel comfortable mocking them — they are only stereotypes or cardboard cutouts, not persons. You can see how this frame of mind drives out love. The temptation to talk this way is especially strong when you are talking with those who agree with you, such as before or after the public conversations. Avoid the temptation. Repent if you succumb to it. This kind of thinking is very yeast-like, but in the wrong way. It will subtly taint your behavior and words. It is the way of the world. Avoid it.

Fourth, to love someone does not mean you ratify or justify falsehood or sin. If people violate terms of service with hate speech or personal attacks, love them but take appropriate action. Report them, visibly refuse to accept or ratify their words and actions, protect those who are under attack, perhaps redirect the attack to yourself. But do not take these actions spitefully or pridefully or vindictively.  

Think of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem. He doesn’t wish away Jerusalem’s sins, but neither does he rage at them. He weeps that beautiful, beloved Jerusalem has done these things. We need not actually weep; but it is better to feel sad at the perversion of another’s talents or efforts than to feel offended or superior. Our brother or sister, an icon of Christ, is doing these bad things, is turned away from what he or she could be doing. This is an occasion for mourning.

Does a cloud fear a cannonball?

What if the other refuses to go along? What if your gentle probes for details evoke only sloganistic vituperation and personal attacks? First, always remember the audiences. Your respectful, substance-oriented approach will appeal to them. Certainly they will not be moved by the character assassination and sloganeering of the other. As for the other, there are certainly cases in which nothing you do will have any effect. However, at least sometimes anger and personal attacks and sloganeering come from or are strengthened by fear. At a minimum you have not fed the fear by being aggressive and insulting; and having had this experience the other may someday behave better. Or not.

You can be invulnerable to attacks, or nearly so. There are two ways of being invulnerable: “Invulnerable” means “can’t be wounded.” People often think that powerful shields or armor give invulnerability. But if you hit a knight with a cannonball the knight is at least knocked off his horse. Here is another perspective: In World War II in the Pacific theater some light warships directly confronted a powerful Japanese fleet. The enemy guns had shells specially designed to destroy heavily armored targets - with amazing precision the shell would first hit the armor, starting a timer. Then a tiny bit later the timer would set off the explosive, inside the ship that had been hit (instead of on the armor). Some of these shells went straight through the tiny ships causing only minor damage, because the target's armor was so thin that the shell didn’t register that it had hit anything, and hence the explosion never came. (The Japanese quickly switched to a different kind of shell that *did* do damage.) But picture now firing a cannon at a cloud. Will the cloud be damaged?

The point here is that at least in online discussions the most effective thing is to become cloud-like. Let the insults and misconceptions and factual mistakes pass right through you (remembering their substance, not their tone, for future reference). This is easier than it sounds, and is actually quite a relief.

Pray for the other, and for yourself. Ask a particular saint to pray on behalf of the other and of you. Mentally step back and invite the Holy Spirit to fill the dispute space.

Let go of the idea that one must defend Jesus or Orthodox doctrine or Saint So-and-so from insults or silly factual claims. They are all experienced at ignoring calumnies or returning love for them and can take care of themselves. Focus on actively listening to the person speaking to you. (This blog series is aimed at Orthodox who in informal discussions are not acting in an official capacity but are just folks. It is not for me to advise priests, bishops, and others how to approach formal, official disputes.)

Finally, remember: “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.” (Mt 5:11) “But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.” (Mt 5:44) “If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.” (1 Pe 4:14)

First, listen

The very first step in Richie-Ashburn style evangelism is to listen — carefully, and longer than you want to.

Imagine two wizards fighting. Each of them sends crashing waves of blinding energy at the other. Nothing could withstand these energy bolts! But the wizards are frying the air absolutely in vain — their thunderbolts are aimed not at their opponents but at seemingly random targets. Their bolts hit only emptiness.

I have certainly seen situations like this in online discussions. I’ve been such a wizard, unfortunately. The disputants hurl arguments and catch phrases at each other without first finding out where the opponent is. For instance, an “evolutionist” and a “creationist” may flail at each other, neither striking anywhere near the other’s actual position. So the very first thing is to ask, ask, ask: “What do you mean by ‘evolution’?” State your best understanding of the other’s position and ask if you’ve got it right. If you’re absolutely unable to figure out what the other is saying, you can resort to open-ended responses like, “I can see you really care about [some important word the other used].” Or “Looks like you’ve thought a lot about [X].” Or “The term [Y] is really important to you.” These apparently empty statements elicit further words from the other, without sounding inquisitorial. And since you aren’t stating any content of your own, you don’t trigger angry or defensive canned responses. You can find out whether the “evolutionist” is a thorough-going materialist or perhaps an intelligent-design person who subordinates evolution to God. Now you at least know the position of the other.

In an essay "Christian Apologetics," C.S. Lewis wrote "I find that the uneducated Englishman is an almost total sceptic about History. I had expected he would disbelieve the Gospels because they contain miracles; but he really disbelieves them because they deal with things that happened 2000 years ago. He would disbelieve equally in the battle of Actium if he heard of it." He learned this by listening. If he had not learned it he would have been arguing futilely against what he thought his audience believed, not against what it actually believed.

Furthermore, active listening makes the other feel that you’re really attending to what they’re saying and you understand their point of view. This is likely to reduce their defensive anger and to move them beyond catch phrases and slogans. They’ve already pronounced the magical formulae, and you have gently opened them up to explaining what is behind them.

And indeed you now can ascertain the kinds of info the other will find convincing, the foundations and reasoning chains that lie behind the slogans, and so on. You now have a good chance at framing questions that will create room for the Holy Spirit to work in.

There is no real need yet to set out your positions. The idea isn’t to set a trap for the other, but to focus on learning in some detail what the other thinks and where he or she is coming from.

Obviously it is to the benefit of the audience to have the terms and positions clarified. And your willingness to calmly listen to and talk with the other will gain you “ethos” points — you will appear reasonable, open-minded, and fair.

Learn to lob

Sometimes in a tennis match one player will be up at the net and the other will be back at the baseline. When the baseline player hits the ball the net player hits it in mid air, often directing it to the far corner. The baseline player hustles and manages to return the ball but once again the net player zings it back. The baseline player can sometimes lob the ball over the net player, who then has to fall back to the baseline to return it. The game has become more symmetrical now.

Often in a conversation the skeptic will zing challenge after challenge at the believer - prove this, justify that, prove this other thing, and so on. One way to even things up and create room for the Holy Spirit is to ask questions. The purpose of the questions is not to win a debating point by zinging the metaphorical ball down the sideline, but to make the other take on some of the work.

James W. Sire wrote an apologetics book Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All?. The title question can make it so that the skeptic has to justify existing convictions and knowledge against skepticism. No longer can the skeptic merely zing challenges at the believer. He or she must also grapple with defending the plausibility and truth of history, science, common sense, and so on.

This inversion is one instance of a general class of questions that lob the rhetorical ball over the head of the skeptic at the net. This is not a reductio ad absurdum, which tries to shut down discussion by destroying the opposing argument. Instead, it puts both interlocutors into a common space for further discussion.

“Prove that the New Testament manuscripts are reliable” can be turned into “How can we assess the reliability of any ancient manuscripts, say Aristotle or Herodotus or Beowulf? What criteria and methods can we use?” One can pick a particular author or work and then apply criteria to it, and then apply the criteria to the NT. In a case like this Wikipedia can be your friend. For instance of the Annals of Tacitus we learn: “Though most has been lost, what remains is an invaluable record of the era. The first half of the Annals survived in a single copy of a manuscript from Corvey Abbey, and the second half from a single copy of a manuscript from Monte Cassino, and so it is remarkable that they survived at all.” The one manuscript dated from the 11th century, that is, roughly a thousand years after the original work. The NT, on the other hand, survived in thousands of manuscripts in multiple languages widely distributed in space and time that can be compared with one another to verify readings, and the oldest manuscripts are within three or four centuries of the originals (snippets are even older).

Very often objections can be inverted. If the skeptic says there are four accounts of Jesus’ life and they differ in details, one can ask “If we had only one version or the several accounts were identical in their details, wouldn’t we be worried that it was indeed a fabricated story? In real life, don't multiple histories or eye-witness accounts always differ one from another?”

Since the goal is not to win the argument but to create room for the Holy Spirit to work in, all a question has to do is get the skeptic (and those in the audience) to ask the question and attempt to answer it.