Christian Apologetics Alliance

answering seekers, equipping Christians, and demonstrating the truth of the Christian worldview

  • About the CAA
    • Statement of Faith
    • Leadership and Ministries
      • Blog Leadership
    • Authors
      • Write for Us
    • Join the CAA
    • Friends and Partners
      • How to Partner with the CAA
    • Donations
  • Resources
    • CAA Chapters
      • CAA Chapter Leaders and Locations
        • CAA Huntsville Chapter
          • CAA Huntsville Chapter – Local Resources
      • Churches: Host a CAA Chapter
      • Chapter Application Form
    • CAA Speaking Team
    • CAA Community
    • Apologetics for Parents
    • Apologetics Bloggers Alliance
    • CAA Catechism
    • Apologetics Certificate Programs
    • Christian Apologetics Search Engine
    • Events | Ratio Christi
    • Ask the Alliance
    • Media
      • Logos
      • Banners
      • Wallpaper
  • EQUIPPED: The CAA Quarterly
  • Contact Us

Dialogue with a gay activist

February 5, 2013 by Paul Buller

The dialogue recorded at this link is a fabulous example of doing many things right in a conversation with somebody you disagree with. Peter Kreeft was taking a class that was being taught by a homosexual activist. Kreeft hoped to chat with his professor (whom he calls “Art”) about his views, striving to open and clarify their respective views on the subject. Kreeft is right to observe that rarely happens when discussing homosexuality.

But I dare say it did happen in this case. Even Kreeft comments that he was not disappointed.

What happened in this conversation that rarely ever happens when two people dialogue about homosexuality? I cannot speak for the many failed conversations, but let’s make some observations about Kreeft’s conversation with Art.

  1. He started by explaining that “I believe in listening before arguing, as you said you do. So I’m not trying to argue now—that’s not the point of my question—but first of all to listen and to understand.” What a brilliant way to begin the conversation! If only we could all remember to listen first and understand the other person’s perspective before we open our mouths in response.
  2. Kreeft is careful to qualify his comments. He knows full well the baggage many people carry into these kinds of conversations so he wisely begins with the statement, “Please don’t take this as a personal insult, or even an argument…” and proceeds from there. When discussing the kinds of subjects that people typically get hyper-sensitive about it is always wise to clarify that no offense is intended, and to tailor your speech to minimize any accidental offense.
  3. There is no specific quote to make this point, just a general observation about the flow of the conversation. Near the beginning Kreeft asks a couple of clarifying questions, then lays out his perspective on the subject, answering Art’s questions. Kreeft has a few lengthy monologues as he makes his case. But he gives Art a chance to respond. In fact, near the end they both exchange roughly the same amount of words, with Art getting a long, uninterrupted monologue near the end. In other words, the conversation was relatively even-handed. Kreeft wasn’t dominating the chat and neither was he timidly letting Art speak without responding.
  4. Kreeft was willing to change his mind. He began the conversation with a certain view of the “hate the sin, love the sinner” perspective and freely admitted that by the end of the conversation Art had given him something to think about with respect to that distinction that he had never thought of before. That is a clear example of open-mindedness. As this dialogue was not recorded from Art’s perspective we have no way of knowing how effective Kreeft was during the discussion.
  5. Kreeft was also strategic in his approach. The very last line is brilliant. While Kreeft appears to be giving up a lot of ground to Art the very last line is a marvelous example of stepping back out of the conversation and looking at the whole thing from another perspective. We don’t know what Art’s response to Kreeft’s final observation was (perhaps Art’s response is in Kreeft’s book, How to Win the Culture War, within which this dialogue is recorded) but Kreeft clearly provides some excellent food for thought with respect to the importance homosexuals place on their lifestyle.

I want to throw out a quick disclaimer. I do not actually agree with Kreeft’s concession with respect to the “hate the sin, love the sinner” distinction. I still think there is theological validity to that perspective and Art’s counter-example is misleading. However, the point of my article is not to agree or disagree with the conclusion, but to observe the conversation itself. All in all, this is a great example of a healthy dialogue. It was healthy because both sides were free to express themselves without condemnation, and confidently did so. It was healthy because once the perspectives were expressed they were intelligently, respectfully wrestled with by both participants. Even though the subject matter was very personal, neither participant chose to be personally insulted. Many of the principles I describe in Arguing with Friends were exemplified in this dialogue and the results were as wonderful as anybody could reasonably hope for from a controversial conversation.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if every conversation about homosexuality adopted this tone? Perhaps one day, but change starts at the individual level. Next time you discuss homosexuality (whatever your perspective on the subject) will you follow the example of Art and Kreeft?

This article originally published at Arguing with Friends.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • More
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket

Filed Under: Incarnational Apologetics, Pro-Family

Comments

  1. labiscuitnapper says

    February 6, 2013 at 6:33 am

    I do think this exchange highlighted something that for me has become more of a problem with discussing these kind of issues. I think we’ve have definitely improved on things like logic and debating techniques but the emotional aspect always seems to be lacking. So whilst someone might be brought to agree with the logic of the argument, it’s not going to change it because they don’t like it.

    Obviously as Christians we know there is only so far we can go and true conversion is a work of the Holy Spirit

  2. Lion_IRC says

    February 5, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    Let’s remember that the operative word is ”activist”.

    I never ”caught them in the very act.” They sought me out to push their agenda in public.

    I never went looking for homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in the privacy of their home. I never dragged them before Jesus and asked what the law demands and I never picked up a stone to throw because, as sinners, the person we should be throwing stones at is ourselves.

    But when an ”activist” gets all in my face and claims their adultery or their homosexual act or their lying, stealing, murdering, etc. is not a sin, I am going to point them to John 8:11

    http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/choose-your-own-topic/biblical-approach-homosexuality-6020477.msg1275102830.html#msg1275102830

    .

Connect

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

What Interests You?

  • The Problem of Evil, Suffering, and Hell
  • Apologetics Methods, Tactics, & Logic
    • Incarnational Apologetics
  • Arguments for God
  • Science, Reason, and Faith
  • The Reliability of the Bible
    • Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences
  • The Historicity of Jesus & the Resurrection
  • Worldviews & World Religions
    • Evaluating Islam
    • The New Atheism
    • Post-modernism, Relativism, and Truth
  • Imaginative Apologetics
    • Fiction Book, Movie, & TV Reviews
  • Contemporary Issues
  • Youth and Parents
  • Full List of Categories

Archives

Christian Apologetics Alliance is a Top 100 Christian Blog

Unity Statement

In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity. The Christian Apologetics Alliance (CAA) is united in our Statement of Faith. The CAA does not, as an organization, have positions on many of the doctrinal or theological debates that take place within the church. Our primary concern is to promote the gracious, rational defense of the central claims of Christianity and the critique of opposing systems of thought. The CAA joyfully welcomes Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and diverse Protestant believers, and we are committed to treating all these traditions with respect in our community.

Copyright © 2011 - 2020 Christian Apologetics Alliance