In this episode John and Gregg discuss listener feedback from Eric in the comments for Episode #41. Eric believes John and Gregg have been overly critical of The Misunderstood God by Darin Hufford in a way that is unnecessary and misses the value others have found in Hufford’s message.
John and Gregg reflect on this feedback and consider why they are being critical and detail oriented. Gregg comments on this in the context of his current experiences at Swiss L’Abri where new arrivals often complain that discussions about God are overly complex or major on minor ideas. If people stay for a while this perspective often changes.
Gregg notes that putting valid or questionable details into an orientation that doesn’t work may take you to the wrong destination. This has been Gregg’s concern with The Misunderstood God.
When investigating a presentation it’s reasonable to ask some questions:
- How well have the issues been formulated?
- Are the issues formulated as accurately as possible?
- How well have we understood the methods or ways of responding to the issues?
- Is the response or solution to the issues presented as effective as it could be?
The conversation turns to credentials and credibility and how much those things should factor into the validity of another person’s ideas or challenges to existing ideas.
Gregg explains what he sees as the differences between humility, arrogance and confidence as John raises the question of how to draw the line between trying to evaluate and understand something and being unnecessarily critical. Could it be that one person’s nit-picking is another person’s thoroughness?
John encourages listeners to share a different perspective, even if it’s at odds with his or Gregg’s. It’s especially helpful when sharing your point of view to give some details about how you arrive at your conclusions or experiences you’ve had. This helps us and others learn from you, invites conversation, and aides in refining different viewpoints.