bearing blog: Speak, show, argue, listen, rebut, correct, pray.

Doctrinal Note On Some Aspects of Evangelization, a clarification on the faithful's responsibility to evangelize, produced by the CDF. (link is a pdf file of 14 pages). It's an argument that positive evangelization is still necessary, as well as a caution against attempts to put dishonesty and coercion at the service of the Gospel.

This is the quote that I noticed most, from the introductory paragraphs (page 3 of the pdf):

Often it is maintained that any attempt to convince others on religious matters is a limitation of their freedom. From this perspective, it would only be legitimate to present one's own ideas and to invite people to act according to their consciences, without aiming at their conversion to Christ and to the Catholic faith.

The implication is, of course, that other things are also legitimate, and that these are not enough. And that's kind of shocking. It's hard enough to "present one's own ideas" sometimes, that is, to freely speak about what one believes, because it's frowned upon in the workplace, and in certain company religion and philosophy is a tasteless unmentionable. And if you've been through a conversion/reversion/reawakening so that in your life there's a before and an after, it can be extremely awkward in the presence of people from your before even to acknowledge your change. (This last isn't limited to religion of course -- ask dieters, vegetarians, recovering addicts -- you name it).

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that "presenting my own ideas" is about as far as I feel comfortable with, most of the time. Hey, I thought that was "attempting to convince!"

So if we're to "attempt to convince," and if "presenting your own ideas" and "inviting people to act according to their consciences" isn't enough, what's implied?

"Presenting your own ideas" is only the first part of "attempting to convince." There are four parts. The second is to give evidence for those ideas -- that is, to lay out a set of observations, events, or facts, that the other agrees happened, or are, or can see; a set of observations, events, or facts that in your view support your thesis. It almost goes without saying that we also have to be evidence of Christ. The third is to show the connections between the agreed-upon area and the thesis you wish to promote: in ohter words, to argue in the classic sense. The fourth is to rebut, that is, to answer the other's objections. This last bit is uncomfortable because, no matter how you finesse it, it means having to say "You are wrong."

Speak, show, argue, rebut: why, that's a debate! Or, because rebuttal implies listening to and endeavoring to understand the other's arguments, call it a "dialogue" in the classical sense, not the mooshy modern sense in which we all are supposed to listen and understand and validate and never, you know, say anything.

How about "invite people to act according to their consciences?" A moment's thought shows that there's something wrong with that too. Shall we invite people to act according to a grossly malformed conscience? No, we can never invite people to do immoral things even if they think they are right. (Comes to mind the folk a few generations ago who thought race-mixing was immoral and enforced separation was right.) We can, however, invite people to act according to a well-formed conscience. Seems to me that part of our duty is to spot the malformed consciences and attempt to form them, one rhetorical prod at a time. Once again, this implies having to say "You are wrong." Or, since we only see a malformed conscience through the moral choices a person makes, "What you are doing is wrong."

(Mind you, Christian belief and well-formed conscience are not universally correlated. There are lots of faithful Christians with screwed-up consciences, i.e., who are easily confused by sentimentality or hard cases, and who can't derive clear moral guidance from the the Christian principles they hold; and there are plenty of non-Christians, atheists, etc., who do have well-formed consciences and easily make moral choices that are logical extensions of their beliefs.)

Speak, show, argue, rebut, correct. Lastly, we are to do all this with the aim of conversion: and that means to do these things only if we can do them well. Which means discernment on our part of when to speak and when to be silent. If we choose to remain silent, let it be because silence in that moment on our part best serves that aim of conversion, not for any other reason. Such discernment implies that we need the help of the Holy Spirit, both on our lips and in the hearts of our interlocutors. Ask for it.

Speak, show, argue, listen, rebut, correct, pray.