Had an interesting conversation...

While I was in CT, visiting and getting to know my in-laws better, one of them broached the subject many consider the antithesis of what can be discussed at a family gathering... religion.

We were sitting outside on Easter Sunday, enjoying the beautiful mid-morning weather and the bright sunshine, when the bulk of the family showed up. All very friendly, very welcoming to Liz and I, and as introduction were made to those we hadn't met in the past (Liz has a large family, understand), I met the "cousin" whom we will call John.

John, and his entire family, are very traditional Catholics of Irish/Italian heritage. Most seemed to maintain a pretty typical center-right political opinion (not happy with Bush, very unhappy with Obama... but we didn't get too deep into politics). So, as small talk is being made and dinner is being prepared, those of us sitting out on the spacious and very comfortable deck (all 1,900 square feet of it) were getting to know each other. John seemed rather pointed in his attempts to direct his undeniably "born again" evangelical opinion into each and every topic... indicating to me, indirectly but very convincingly, that he wanted to talk to someone... anyone... about what was on his mind. I'm smiling, however, as I remember the utter hesitation (outright panic, is more accurate) that the rest of the family seemed to be feeling in regards to John's suggestive comments. His father in particular, seemed to really dread the thought of where the conversation was going if John led the way, so I did nothing to add to the potential problem I saw brewing.

Now, those of you that know me and my wife know that when we are relaxing, visiting and catching up with old friends and close family, we are usually enjoying drinks while we are doing it. This was no exception. As the morning rolled into afternoon, and the stout kept flowing magically into my glass, I noticed John's repeated attempts to bring to everyone's attention the changes that the Catholic Church was undergoing before his very eyes. He repeatedly mentioned the "fact" that the Second Commandment was removed from the list of ten in the Catholic Church. I ignored this the first time he said it, and the second, and I might even have overlooked the third... but eventually, between the excellent stout and the friendly, welcoming atmosphere of the gathering, I took the bait.

Now, to be fair and charitable, John was never confrontational with me (or anyone else) and I am convinced he was nothing but sincere in his desire to discuss what was obviously something that was heavy on his mind. I didn't want to anger the rest of his family (or my gracious host, John's brother) by looking like I was trying to pick a fight with John. I think (and I'm sure anyone there would agree with me) that we were nothing but friendly and polite as we talked... and many voices joined the discussion at various times as it went on... but talk we did, have no doubt. John and I talked about the "issues" facing the Catholic Church and our positions on each for hours, stopping only when the family broke up the "meeting" altogether so we could enjoy our Easter feast together without distraction.

Now, I'm not making this lengthy post simply to re-hash what John and I discussed for those many hours. Suffice to say that both of John's parents seemed to think that what I had to say on the topics touched on was very similar to their position, and that they were delighted that someone was there to answer the questions John had in a way that didn't put anyone into a defensive or confrontational position at a family gathering. I was genuinely fascinated by what John had to say, and he seemed very receptive to my opinions and thoughts, as well.

Here's the reason for my post...

Whenever someone speaks about religion, with someone of similar mind or someone that is of the completely opposite opinion, there is a real tendency to utterly dismiss the other's point when certain "catch-phrases" are used. These terms might be absolutely accurate in their description of the point, but because they have taken on additional connotations the accurate aspect of the term is ignored completely.

For example, Catholic terms such as "infallibility" and "absolution" are misunderstood by a huge percentage of even the Catholic community, while evangelical terms such as "faith alone" and "born again" are meaningful terms even to Catholics, but can be misapplied and misunderstood in even trivial conversations.

I really think that this is a rock-solid example of why the language employed in a discussion is just as important to the discussion itself as those participating in it. It is important that the people discussing the merits and failings of certain theological or doctrinal issues are as well-versed in the topic as can be hoped, but it isn't necessary that either party be an "expert", is it? If the language used is as accurate and direct as possible, then the questions can often times answer themselves.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here (especially not Ryan), but anyone that participates or follows this blog knows we have butted heads about semantics in the past, with wild accusations of too much focus on semantics versus complete disregard for the relation altogether. If two almost total strangers can have a meaningful... hell, even a fun and enlightening... conversation about religion at a family gathering where the "spirits" are moving in abundance, all because of a careful consideration for the accurate use of language and semantic application, then it should also be true of conversations that focus on the polar extremes of political opinion, as well.

I'm actually looking forward to having discussions with John in the future, and I think (hope, actually) that his family will be less likely to exclude him from conversations simply because they think he is one-track in his approach or subject matter. He is a bright, enthusiastic and well-read man, and because he holds views that might seem, at first glance, to be outside the mainstream, I fear he is ignored far more often than he is engaged. This is a shame, if it is a fact, because (in this instance) it could eventually lead the man to feel so alienated by those he considers peers, he looks to find new peers in another denomination or church.

The same can be said for politics. Ignoring or avoiding someone that wants to engage in a discussion of politics simply because the moniker of "liberal" or "conservative" is applied does a disservice to both sides, and furthers neither.