More from the Draft Files
A friend and I like to have intense discussions about faith. Don't get me wrong, this isn't arguing, as we both have tons of fun with it and it's all good-natured. The interesting thing is we can start out believing we are on opposite sides of an issue, but with further discussion and clearer communication we find in the end that we ultimately agree.
We recently realized why this happens. I am a big picture kind of person and she is a small picture one. Now popular opinion will tell you that the big picture is more important than the small one, but that's not where I'm going with this. At least in matters of faith, it's equally important to have both.
I'm going to try to sum it up as best I can, because I thought it was really great insight about discussions and how people might believe they hold different views, but with further dialogue they will realize that the reason they seem to see it so differently is because of the breadth of their focus. She sometimes reads this blog, so I will say that I am open to her correction if she thinks I have characterized this insight inaccurately.
I tend to see things from a broad perspective, making sweeping generalizations. I tend to be wide-minded, seeing how an issue affects life or faith as a whole, in the long-term. I might make a statement about something with the perspective that all people associated with that thing are similar in beliefs. I will see the benefit of the process as more important than the end result. I will think about the general context, or spirit, of a biblical passage. I'm always looking at the larger context.
My friend, on the other hand, tends to see things in the right now. She will look at the individual people involved with something and admit they have differences, that just because they are on the same side of something does not mean they are all alike. She will look at the letter and specifics of what is written in the bible. She will see the end result as being more important than the process, and will generally see the smaller context.
The issue we were discussing recently was this: is it our primary mission, as Christians, to save souls or make disciples (assuming these two things are different)? We also got into "which comes first": the disciple or the salvation? Now we know these are not either/or questions, but many Christians see converting people as the quintessential aspect of Christianity. I feel this is a distorted attitude about the mission of Christ, but she sees this as our prime directive. While the question certainly can be quantified by how your define the word disciple (convert or follower?) in the concept of "go therefore and make disciples...". I can agree that we are to aim for BOTH, but in this conversation we were talking about which should be done first, which is more important: to get as many people saved as possible, or create fewer but more thorough and more relational disciples.
At least initially, these were our positions, but as the conversation progressed we both began to see things differently.
More to follow.
A friend and I like to have intense discussions about faith. Don't get me wrong, this isn't arguing, as we both have tons of fun with it and it's all good-natured. The interesting thing is we can start out believing we are on opposite sides of an issue, but with further discussion and clearer communication we find in the end that we ultimately agree.
We recently realized why this happens. I am a big picture kind of person and she is a small picture one. Now popular opinion will tell you that the big picture is more important than the small one, but that's not where I'm going with this. At least in matters of faith, it's equally important to have both.
I'm going to try to sum it up as best I can, because I thought it was really great insight about discussions and how people might believe they hold different views, but with further dialogue they will realize that the reason they seem to see it so differently is because of the breadth of their focus. She sometimes reads this blog, so I will say that I am open to her correction if she thinks I have characterized this insight inaccurately.
I tend to see things from a broad perspective, making sweeping generalizations. I tend to be wide-minded, seeing how an issue affects life or faith as a whole, in the long-term. I might make a statement about something with the perspective that all people associated with that thing are similar in beliefs. I will see the benefit of the process as more important than the end result. I will think about the general context, or spirit, of a biblical passage. I'm always looking at the larger context.
My friend, on the other hand, tends to see things in the right now. She will look at the individual people involved with something and admit they have differences, that just because they are on the same side of something does not mean they are all alike. She will look at the letter and specifics of what is written in the bible. She will see the end result as being more important than the process, and will generally see the smaller context.
The issue we were discussing recently was this: is it our primary mission, as Christians, to save souls or make disciples (assuming these two things are different)? We also got into "which comes first": the disciple or the salvation? Now we know these are not either/or questions, but many Christians see converting people as the quintessential aspect of Christianity. I feel this is a distorted attitude about the mission of Christ, but she sees this as our prime directive. While the question certainly can be quantified by how your define the word disciple (convert or follower?) in the concept of "go therefore and make disciples...". I can agree that we are to aim for BOTH, but in this conversation we were talking about which should be done first, which is more important: to get as many people saved as possible, or create fewer but more thorough and more relational disciples.
At least initially, these were our positions, but as the conversation progressed we both began to see things differently.
More to follow.
Hey lily-
ReplyDeleteI found pams blog thru a friend barbara-prodigal daughter- and i did leave her a comment on her big honkin bible post i think lol diabetes really does suck always good to find others close by. You and pam sure do add depth and challenge to the blog land here glad i found you both.
Ok so I'm not crazy, thought I'd seen you comment at Pam's blog. She's one of my homegirls.
ReplyDeleteBTW I don't know how long you've been diagnosed, but if you didn't already know, the diabetes education classes at Providence Hospital are really good. They are spendy ($500+) but they *should* be mostly covered by insurance. Anyhow they really helped me know what I was doing.
If you're seeing a specialist, you maybe don't need the classes, unless you want to meet in a support-group type thing with Type II's.
Just FYI.
lily-
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for the tips. i had an angioplasty almost exactly one year ago today at providence so i really like them. I also work for a med/dental insurance co so i will have to see how much they cover. i do see a diabetic specialist which is helping alot. i really look forward to reading your blog more.