Dialogue, Diaprax & the Death of Christendom

Image via Wikipedia

Conspiracy theorists kill me. Especially "Christian" conspiracy theorists. I've grown up in the church with some of the "best", including Sunday School teachers who raised me on conspiracies both political (Trilateral Commission, John Birchers, etc.) and religious (Antichrist already born in Lebanon, Billy Graham secretly leading Christians into a Marxist, One World Church, etc.) Do think I'm kidding. There's no humor in my recollections of conspiracies drummed into my head when I was young.

Recently I read a warning about churches adopting a study method called "diaprax". Though it sounded goofy to me, it's apparently a legit word—combing dialectic with praxis. But until I read the whole post, little did I realize it spells the End of Christianity as We Know It. Its author explains how someone managed to combine Marxist dialectic with Hegelian dialectic, along with "occult-led globalists" to produce a system of teaching in today's churches (all of them, I guess) which will lead to the complete compromise of defenseless "Biblical Christians" as they're led to reject all those "pesky and divisive hang-ups" preventing them from forming themselves into a One World Church.


O.K. All humor aside, this guy's point was that Hegelian Dialect is a "consensus process". What he's referring to is a philosophical method of "conversation" described by Hegel in which one person formulates what he considers a "truth", finds someone who disagrees with that "truth", and the two hammer it out until they both reach a compromise. His description isn't accurate, but it makes for an exciting conclusion: demonic church-leaders (he offers a Triad of Schuller, Hybels and that Saddleback guy) are setting up meetings between Biblical Christians and non-Christians (even atheists) who come together to dialog. As they argue with each other, each side gradually gives in a little here, a little there—and in the end they've compromised the "Absolutes of God's Truth".

Let's get this straight: What Lies Beneath this guy's argument is unmitigated arrogance. He doesn't have the humility to first understand what Hegel's dialectical process was all about. But then, second, he believes that the "truths" he espouses are God's Absolutes. Let's take a clearer look at what Hegel intended, and the call for humility for which this guy's post cries out.

Hegel's point is a simple point: anytime any human being formulates his or her understanding of some truth, it will inevitably be imperfect or inexact. No one is able to phrase things so perfectly that there's no room left for a better understanding on their part. One of the best ways to sharpen what one believes is to discuss it (respectfully) with someone who disagrees. If all you do is talk with someone who already agrees, whatever shortcomings your argument has will remain undiscovered.

The Hegelian Dialectic is designed not so much to lead to "compromise" but to bring to light any inadequacies in someone's understanding of a truth. One person lays out what he or she believes, the other challenges some aspect of it (biblically, logically or historically) and this forces the first person to re-think what they believe, to clarify it and to strengthen it. In a sense, the underlying principle is that of gaining focus by contrast and comparison. If you have no other argument with which to compare it, you can't see where it might fall short.

For example: I believe that salvation comes to us not by good works but by our union with Jesus Christ. If I discuss this with someone who agrees with me, my understanding grows no deeper. But if I dialog with someone who claims that salvation comes by believing correct doctrine, in the course of our conversation there's a very real possibility that I may be faced with a question I can't answer immediately and will have to do further research. Or even more likely, my use of a particular verse may be challenged and I'll have to go back to my studies to confirm whether my use of it is accurate.

Call it "diaprax", "dialectic", "dialog" or just plain argument, the heart of this process is humility. For you to deliberately enter into such a conversation with someone who you know disagrees with you demands two assumptions: that you don't know everything already and whatever you DO think you know, MUST be imperfect.

Maybe this approach won't lead to One World Government, but it'll certainly sharpen your understanding of truth, and maybe (along the Way) win a brother or two...


Emil & Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net