The Conversation Circle

When was the last time we have debate with someone? I believe, not long ago. In our daily lives, we debate others about so many issues. Small and big matters, practical and theoretical. Almost everyday, I presume. Human are generally striving for superiority. That is why, there are hierarchies naturally established in the society. According to Anderson, Hildreth and Howland, the desire for status is fundamental of human nature. Therefore, it is not odd to see that debate is being fostered. Debate essentially is to be a winner and by this, human fulfill the need of their self actualization. 

However, there is not always the case. In the church history we see lot of debates. Let us take some example. The earliest Christological controversies of early second century like Ebionism, Docetism Gnosticism was still discussed and even debated until now, of course, with a different form and nuance.  Nonetheless, we can safely says, when christian debating this doctrinal issues, they were doing it not for pride or to be a winner nor for the sake of winning the arguments but because of two reasons. Love and truth. These are two main driving force of why they are debating the issue wholeheartedly. Debating because of love because they know, the consequences of having a false understanding is devastating. One can lost for eternity. Truth, is understood in the sense of necessary. In philosophy there is what we call as necessary truth. Truth which cannot be false. For instance: 1+1=2. Or Nothing can be all blue if the color is all purple. God is understood as the necessary truth that need to be understood correctly. Hence, theologians try their best to unpack the truth and having the debate for the sake of presenting God correctly (not fully). 

Ironically, we cannot deny that today, many theological debates seems end in futile. Pointless debate, we can say, for everyone just debating for the sake of debate, and the purpose of debate is to be the winner, no matter what to mantain status. Open Youtube and various online channels, we can see how people are debating with anger not logical arguments. They normally do not listen attentively but listen selectively just to counter. In addition, raising voice is the surest sign of the kind of debaters for the sake of debate only. Many fallacies are committed by this debaters and most common one is ed hominem. Attacking the people ethos not the arguments. The other common fallacy is the appeal to authority fallacy, that is to say, something must be true because some expert say it so. Example: If Einstein says something about science then this must be true!

In the quite old book entitled From Debate to Dialogue, Deborah L Flick argues that it is a time for us to move from debate framework to dialogue framework in conversation, especially when discussing controversies. While debate is for the sake of winning, dialogue is for the sake of understanding within the frame of reference.Hence, we know what's the difference, what's their arguments without agreeing with other counter-part. Personally, Deborah approach is need to be considered seriously, especially for today. Often time, people are focusing more in differences. Converting rather than listening more. The basic assumption is very simple, everyone love to be heard. Dialogue is like a bridge-making to connect us and relate us with others who are far different from us. Certainly, to foster dialogue, open minded is highly needed. Through healthy dialogue, hopefilly conversations will last long and will continue in the next occasion, whereas commonly in debate is to find a way to end the conversation, by winning, without any chance of the next sequence of conversation.

Although dialogue need to be the first step of every conversations but should never be the end norm.To this I adopt the principle from German Hermenutical tradition, Hermeneutical circle (Hermeneutischer Zirkel). Somehow, conversation work in the same way, whereby there is a relation back and forth to a find a greater understanding. In the case of Hermeneutical circle is the circle and loop between part and whole, in conversation circle is loop between debate and dialogue. Dialogue is the first step of conversation to maintain the relation and connection and debate is the next step of bringing the argument, trying to convince others of our position. And if there is a sign of resistance, one need to play again a dialogue mode of conversation as quickly as possible to the extend the discourse for future long. Understanding as a goal of every conversation is never enough for Christian but only for Philosopher. Todd L. Miles in his book, A God of Many Understandings argue for the case of making Christ known explicitly, and not with a vague or unspoken nod which ended only in understanding of "Your Way" and "My Way." That's the end Goal which we can see align with the testimony and trajectory of the Bible.  Making Christ known and make them disciples of all nations need to be the vision but first, in every conversation, dialogue need to comes first before debate otherwise, the only possible choices in our conversations are between this as one title of the book written by Leonard J. Swidler (editor) and John B. Cobb (contributor) describes, Death or Dialogue? So, what will we choose in our conversation?