Ecumenical Dialogue or Compromising on the Truth?

Is there such a thing as believing in truth and not being imposing?

When you are discussing matters of truth, especially on divisive issues, is it ever permissible to engage the other person's perspective to see whether it is true? It seems among people that are "rigid", which is to say unopen to talk of any kind to do with a contrary view/philosophy to one's own, the answer is a "hard no". The problem with this is it renders evangelization impossible and sometimes even growing in conformity to the truth for oneself. This is quite distinct from giving up on the whole truth thing altogether and lauding one's own perspective of a thing to be the only permissible belief on a subject. However, if you think about this at all, you will probably realize the person who is so uncompromising to not even discuss matters in their depth because they so hold to the truth they favor and the person who is so flagrantly "ecumenical" person that rather abandons the truth to be "welcoming" commits the very same logical fallacy, the former just appears more disguised. How do we avoid this easy pit to adhere to what reality really is without being "dug in" before "the facts are in" and at the same time not always waiting for "the facts to be in" to be swayed by any new and appealing philosophy? The answer would seem to be being a philosopher. Let us consider that authentic ecumenism is an open discussion of ideas that does not rest in a single perspective and does not compromise on the truth, but rather considers its aspects and draws one's interlocutors into a shared mindset at its end, not only conformed to the truth but also with increased understanding of the relevant/practical aspects of a subject.

Be critical of perspectives not in a negative "straw man fallacy" way but in a carefully discerning way. It is often the case that an additional perspective on an issue provides some (of course not all) additional truth about it, which is why it can be dangerous to limit oneself to a particular perspective in a way that denies other truths. As a matter of evangelization, ignorant stubbornness more often makes one appear foolish than educated, making the position of that person seem not worth the time and energy of genuine consideration. Contrary to this move is the one that does accept philosophies at large but acknowledges some part of what they emphasize as bearing the truth based on allegedly more important factors. Between these two extremes is listening to other perspectives and while not accepting any as absolute, practical truth one compares them, finds what is compatible between them, then what is dissonant but not quite contrary, and then what is contrary. As a case example, we will consider stoicism. If one is "listening" enough. they will notice a resonance between the Catholic understanding of the world and relationship with God and Stoicism's emphasis on detachment. However, this consideration is not an assent, nor does it forsake what is true. The detriment would happen when either a difference is perceived and it is not considered or a truth is perceived, and all other truth is abandoned in favor of this newfound philosophy. Either taking on Stoicism wholeheartedly and abandoning Christianity or trying to make both dwell together is to not consider there are tenants of stoicism that contradict faith in Christ and in those situations, one must choose one over the other. The key difference between the two is the call to love, if one is so detached from things and people such that doing what willing the good of others requires is not desirable, damage has been done. If you get a sinking feeling in your stomach for those last two sentences, you realize something is at stake there. This engagement with truth is called "analogy", epistemologically speaking man is severely limited in what he can be certain per se of. Rather seeing aspects of this as bearing likeness to others and knowing reality to be so intelligible as to do that we are able to consider a subject through other subjects and so multiply our efforts in knowledge. (There will be more to come on this subject in later posts)

In conclusion, there can exist a divide between the practical and the theoretical, and the nature of belief to action. To be ecumenical is not to abandon truth, and to hold something of the truth is to not have it totally anyway. New ideas, technologies, other perspectives, etc. are worth considering in themselves but are not fully true since no one has a monopoly on truth. Stoicism's concept of detachment can help immensely with living the Christian life, and especially, fortitude. It ought to help the Christian life and take priority over what the other system of thought proposes. Take the truth and carry on. One will find themselves quite enriched in contemplating the nooks of reality with Christ through dialogue. Moreover, if you wish to be heard about one's perspective concerning what you find to be true and assist others in seeing that, one needs to be able to listen to other perspectives even the ones that make you clench up. Heresies are a very real thing, but not every thought that bears contrariety to orthodoxy deserves the same treatment as Arianism and those not to the same degree opposed to the one truth. Let us know when we, ourselves, may be in error, that we may be corrected. For more on the subject click here.

Written by Carter Carruthers & also available at Vivat Agnus Dei