(The Nationalist, 14 May 2004)
Sometimes we imagine naively that the early Christians were much better than we are, good holy people living together in unity, and that it’s been downhill ever since. But anyone who has read or heard the Acts of the Apostles knows that this was not the case. One difference among early Christians was about just what it is that makes a person right in the sight of God: was it by observing the laws of Jewish tradition from Moses, or was it through faith in Jesus Christ? The implications of this were large: if people were saved by keeping the Law of Moses, then Christianity would probably have remained a sect within Judaism. But if it was by faith in Christ, then it meant that the Christian community was open to people of any race, language, class or social group.
How did the early Christians resolve this difference? With the concurrence of the whole community of faith, they chose respected delegates to discuss it at length. These focussed on what was essential, and set aside what was not. And from the fact that they reached a conclusion which was accepted by the community, and has stood the test of time, we can be pretty sure that they did their job well.
They probably knew the difference between argument and dialogue. They probably recognised that unfair criticism arouses reasonable resentment, and increases the difficulty of creating an atmosphere receptive to new ideas. Argument is about scoring points, coming out on top and being able to say that we got the better of the other. It may even mean shouting at each other.
Dialogue is about listening to each other, searching for what is true and good in what anyone says, using the ears and the heart more than the mouth and the mind. Dialogue creates unity in essentials, freedom in what is not essential, and charity in all things. Dialogue is a way of ensuring that differences become, not divisive, but creative of something fresh and new.