Dialogue and Feelings can be Roadblocks to Principle:

When differences of opinion on major issues are evident, it's generally a good idea to talk about the issues.  The trendy word for such discussions is "dialogue."  There comes a time, however, when dialogue is simply an excuse to delay a decision, to block the enactment of principles.  We've been discussing certain issues in the Presbyterian Church, (USA), for two decades or more.  Yet, when we seem right on the verge of making decisions, the common mantra is "dialogue."  Sometimes, it's because the losing side is afraid that a vote is going to go against them.  Sometimes, it's because one group or another fears that if somebody really acts on their beliefs, it may lead to some kind of split that would weaken the institution.  The facts haven't changed; the basis of the decision hasn't changed.  Nothing has changed.  And it's for certain that the Bible hasn't changed. The decisions we make based on principle, and certainly the decisions made by a body within the church, are decisions based on theology, biblical interpretation--areas in which there should be less room for compromise and politics than other areas in life.  It's not like we're debating which route should be followed by a new highway, or how money should be divided up in a school district.  Even in government, I hasten to add, there are times when the decisions that are made have to do with principles, and not just party politics.  There is a time for dialogue; but there is a time when dialogue simply becomes a tool for delay.

 

And feelings?  There is a time for feelings, to be sure; but we have come to the point in our society where feelings are substituted for thought.  How often have you been asked how you *feel about something, as compared with what you *think about something?  When I was growing up, we were asked what we thought about things.  We were encouraged to consider the facts and use our minds to make decisions.  Now, pollsters make front-page news by asking people to express their feelings.

 

The twin tactics of encouraging dialogue and talking about feelings,  to the point of the absurd, have weighed on my mind for some time; but the whole subject has been brought to mind recently by emails and other information I have received regarding the way that many people are continuing to discuss recent decisions made by the Presbyterian Church.  None of these issues are new.  Yet, people are asked to continue to discuss, to air their feelings, to suspend judgment and, by all means, to delay action.  The same kind of thing goes on in political discussions, in all kinds of meetings.  The general idea seems to be that if we stall long enough, we can somehow reach a compromise that will make everybody happy.  Of course, the casualty in all this will be principle.  Truth will be sacrificed for "getting along" with everybody.  Integrity will be discarded as old-fashioned.  Individual convictions will take second place to community conformity.  And in the end, everybody will lose.