I have been disappointed with the way some Christian thinkers engage in conversation about important subjects. I have noticed the tone used in dialogue tends to be far too polemical.
Too many Christians will state a point of view on, say, abortion or immigration or education. Then they will construct a straw-man version of the opposing point of view and proceed to dismantle and ridicule that position.
So here are my concerns and observations.
First, Jesus told us to love our enemies, as well as our neighbors. These diatribes by Christians do not indicate a loving attitude toward anyone, especially anyone who disagrees.
Second, personal attacks and calling others stupid has never been very persuasive. If their goal is to persuade, they should find some commonality with those who disagree.
Third, the attacks on a straw-man don't prove much at all. They may energize those in agreement, but that doesn't really change anyone's mind.
Fourth, straw-man attacks tend to weaken the position they intend to affirm. When I hear a straw-man attack, I realize that the attacker has such a weak understanding of the issue that he/she cannot refute the true position of the opposition.
Finally, in a straw-man attack I see someone who is actually afraid of dealing with truth. He/she would rather look good to a particular audience than actually convince someone to change his/her position.
Why not actually construct a robust, persuasive argument as the opposition would actually state it? Why not try to understand that position and make a case that sounds intellectually honest? Then you can seek truth with the opposition, raising actual points of disagreement.
Seems to me that too many people are afraid to construct a steel-man for the sake of honest argument. We are more interested in ridiculing others and putting them down, than we are in actually seeking truth together.
No wonder we are so divided.
