Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
22 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What are 7 gifts that you can give those whom you want to engage in ongoing conversation:
|
Give them the public imperative
Give them the freedom to take time Give them the freedom to express disagreement and scorn Give them freedom from the fear of retributive power Give them the freedom to engage in civilized contention Give them an invitation to ongoing conversations that matter Give them an assurance of your own need |
|
|
Why do these gifts need to be given in a conversation?
|
An unwillingness to extend and request these gifts often prevents people from pursuing ongoing conversations about things that matter.
|
|
|
What is the public imperative?
|
The public imperative is the belief that truth and reality must go public – especially for the sake of those who don’t possess it. To withhold truth or reality from those who don’t possess it is to content yourself with their ongoing frustration and sorrow; for ongoing frustration and sorrow is the inevitable lot of all who fail to come to terms with truth and reality.
This public imperative is especially necessary for those who think it a mark of civility and culture to privatize their religious beliefs. Would your privately held religious beliefs benefit others who don't presently hold them? Then share them. If you refuse to, then your unwillingness to share your religious convictions with others implies that they are neither good for you or anyone else. All truth ought to be privately and publicly celebrated. |
|
|
What is the freedom to take time?
|
The freedom to take time is the relational space that you offer someone else to carefully reflect on your discussion without preemptively announcing the poverty of their position.
|
|
|
What is the freedom to express disagreement and scorn?
|
The freedom to express disagreement and scorn is the right to state that my belief(s) are stupid.
|
|
|
What is the freedom from the fear of retributive power?
|
The freedom from the fear of retributive power is the freedom that they have to express honest disagreement or scorn without fearing that you will nark them off, and use the coercive and punitive power of HR to suppress their disagreements.
|
|
|
What is the freedom to engage in civilized contention?
|
The freedom to engage in civilized contention is the acknowledgment that there is no subject that has ever been taken up that has not involved disagreement, contention, or controversy. Consequently, disagreement, contention, or controversy will not be despised.
|
|
|
What is an invitation to ongoing conversations that matter?
|
An invitation to ongoing conversations that matter is an invitation to keep talking about things that deeply matter because truth and reality matter.
|
|
|
What is an assurance of your own need?
|
A conviction that because I don't know everything that there is to know, I can be deeply enriched - even by those with whom I deeply disagree.
|
|
|
According to Sharon Daloz Parks, why are young adults often reluctant to openly disagree with others?
|
"[An] increasing numbers of young adults, even the bright and the informed, are reluctant to disagree openly with one another, whether in informal or classroom contexts, because the terms of belonging (increasingly fragile in our society as a whole) appear to be set too much at risk by the free exploration of ideas around matters of real consequence."
Sharon Daloz Parks, Big Questions, Worthy Dreams: Mentoring Young Adults in Their Search for Meaning, Purpose, and Faith (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2000), 141. |
|
|
On judging: Why memorize these seven forms of judging?
|
Often, in our culture, judging is almost universally despised. However, the gospel can never be appropriately savored apart from an appreciation and recoginition of particular kinds of judgment. This set explores good and bad kinds of judgment and lays groundwork for the ways in which the Bible speaks of judgment.
|
|
|
On judging: How many different kinds of bad judgment are there? Name them.
|
Five.
1. Judgment as ungrounded obligation 2. Judgment as premature dismissal 3. Judgment as contempt 4. Judgment as unjustified removal of personal presence and kindness 5. Judgment as hypocritical condemnation |
|
|
On judging: How many different kinds of good judgment are there? Name them.
|
Four.
1. Judgment as true statement 2. Judgment as justified exclusion 3. Judgment as grounded obligation 4. Judgment as gracious satisfaction |
|
|
On judging: Describe "Judgment as ungrounded obligation"
|
When a person makes this kind of judgment, they simply declare to another what is good without showing how their judgment relates to a larger story about life, reality, community, beauty, and God. This is basically telling someone the "what" to do without also telling them the "why." Notice that even little children long to experience this kind of judging. This is why they ask, "why" so often! They are inviting the one judging to ground their judgment in a larger story.
|
|
|
On judging: Describe "Judgment as premature dismissal"
|
This happens when someone prematurely dismisses another person's position or ideas without listening carefully to what the other person believes and why they believe it.
|
|
|
On judging: Describe "Judgment as contempt"
|
In this kind of judgment, someone will assess the intellectual, theological, or moral failures of another person and simply express disgust for the person who has failed.
|
|
|
On judging: Describe "Judgment as unjustified removal of personal presence and kindness"
|
This kind of judgment occurs when someone criticizes another person's failures, while simultaneously refusing to offer their own personal presence and compassion to the one who has failed.
|
|
|
On judging: Describe "Judgment as hypocritical condemnation"
|
This is perhaps the easiest kind of judgment to spot (in others) and happens when one person draws a moral or intellectual line for someone else (and regards the offender as guilty for trespassing the line) while simultaneously violating the same line that one has drawn.
|
|
|
On judging: Describe "Judgment as true statement"
|
One of the most frustrating seasons in life are those seasons in which there is no one to speak truly to the way things really are. These frustrating seasons arise all the time: In the workplace, owner and employee dispute over a wage that will adequately compensate the worker while also securing the financial viability of the company. In the home, husbands and wives dispute about whether present expenditures will end up undermining future goals. In the sphere of environmental concern, citizens dispute over the balance between the rights of an ecosystem and the rights of the people who rely on the ecosystem. In each of these seasons, there is an urgent need for a shared source of authority - someone that can render a judgment about the way things really are.
|
|
|
On judging: Describe "Judgment as justified exclusion"
|
This kind of judgment takes place all the time in our workplaces and life – and is essential for the preservation of any flourishing community. When any community has or will be violated at a fundamental level, the violator must be removed from the community or the community itself will be destroyed.
|
|
|
On judging: Describe "Judgment as grounded obligation"
|
When a person makes this kind of judgment, they declare to another what is good while showing how their judgment relates to a larger story about life, reality, community, beauty, and God. This is basically telling someone the "what" to do and "why" to do it. Notice that even little children long to experience this kind of judging. This is why they ask, "why" so often! They are inviting the one judging to ground their judgment in a larger story. Thus, one of the great questions when this kind of judging needs to take place is: "Is the story you are appealing to comprehensive enough to ground the judgment you are making?"
|
|
|
On judging: Describe "Judgment as gracious satisfaction"
|
This is when one concurs with the judgment meted out to someone else for what they have damaged and satisfies that just judgment by paying for the damage themselves.
|
