Posted by Ir (Helen) on: 10.29.2007 /
After reading about the inaccuracy of Chuck Colson’s “1 in 7″ comment here, Benjamin Ady (co-host of our Justice and Compassion blog) started an e-mail dialog with Chuck Colson’s ministry about it. First he asked about the source of Chuck’s comment. This is his follow-up letter in which he describes the problem with the comment in detail:
it seems very clear to me (and I’m only and undergrad college student–don’t have *that* much education) that Chuck’s statement materially misrepresents what the Times Article said: “Dawkins said that on a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being certain God exists, 7, being certain that God doesn’t exist, Dawkins ranks himself as a 6.”. This statement from Dawkins clearly means something very different from what Chuck claimed: “Dawkins admitted that there is a 1 in 7 chance God exists”
Secondly, and much worse, it seems to me that Chuck is misrepresenting his intellectual opponent–Richard Dawkins, who is actually known to have said on multiple occasions, and in his book, that the probability that God exists is vanishingly small. While from an insider’s perspective this might seem fairly unimportant, from an outsider’s perspective, it looks pretty shocking.
Wouldn’t it be better if we Christians, and our apologists, were known for taking the utmost precautions to *properly* quote and represent the ideas of those we disagree with, in order to more effectively and honestly argue against those ideas? Seems like maybe Chuck failed to do his homework. This is sad to me because it seems to me that it is certainly possible for Christians to have an informed, and even constructive dialogue with atheists. Misquoting a well known atheist leader and spokesperson is hardly a way to facilitate such a dialogue.
I have atheist friends who have used this recent misquotation by Chuck to say to me “See–your side isn’t even interested enough in even talking to us to take the time to quote our leaders properly.” I think this is a bit sad.
I think my atheist friends would be beyond impressed if Chuck were to take the time to correct his misquotation on the same web site where he made it ( breakpoint.org?). I think such a bold and humble attitude would demonstrate to them that Chuck, and further that Christians in general, *are* interested in genuine dialog in the marketplace of ideas, and that we correct our mistakes when we realize we’ve made them.
Would love to hear your further feedback.
Thankyou.
Benjamin
I think it’s awesome he went to the trouble of writing to them. As best we know there’s been no public retraction of Chuck’s comment or response from him personally. However Benjamin did receive this back from Chuck’s ministry:
Thank you again for your concerns.
We agree that Chuck’s statement “1 in 7 chance” doesn’t accurately reflect what Dawkins was saying. Dawkins was rating his own beliefs on a scale from 1 to 7. A better way of putting it would have been simply to quote Dawkins.
Thank you for pointing this out. Chuck had intended to use that reference in an upcoming work, but because of your input we’ve modified it accordingly.
God bless.
Ministry Service Representative
It would be neat if they included a note in the book thanking Benjamin for helping them make sure the reference to Dawkins was accurate. I’m guessing they won’t even think of that but maybe I’m too skeptical.
Comment by: benjamin ady
1Just a wee addendum. When I wrote to Chuck/Breakpoint, I took the wee liberty of writing as if I were “on the inside/a Christian”, which was pretty much totally dishonest of me. I was attempting to avoid certain defense mechanisms which I assumed might be installed in the thinking of whoever read me note. I figured “why not”, since if an insider *wasn’t* writing to them about it, then one sure as all get out *ought* to be. or something like that.
Just wanted to correct that here, so everyone knows where I’m coming from.
Comment by: Mike O
2Thanks, Benjamin. It’s kind of kewl (to use a benjaman-ism) that they actually listened - albeit they may have been a bit tricked into it.
You’re probably right - if they didn’t think you were a Christian, they likely wouldn’t have listened.
Dang, that human nature! To only listen to people who you agree with.
Also, I sent you an email this weekend - I think you posted the wrong link for me to respond to - it was about siding with Israel. I’m not exactly sure what you were asking about.
Comment by: Siamang
3Fantastic!
My opinion of Colson just improved!
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
4Benjamin, lol, I didn’t even notice that…it’s probably because I do it myself often.
I find it hard to write ‘we Christians’ but I often write in ways that lead Christians to assume I’m one of them; so it pretty much amounts to the same thing; I know they will make wrong assumptions about me.
Anyway I don’t think it matters because what you said about the book is true. What fascinates me is that we feel we have to do this for some Christians to take us seriously…I wonder if we’re right?
Comment by: Mike O
5Sadly, I think you are. But I don’t think Christians have the corner on that market. As I said before,
Comment by: Mark
6I think I’m confused - seriously, and this isn’t a defense for Colson or anyone. But if I’m reading this right, Colson misrepresents Dawkins somewhat egregiously, and in order to correct him, Benjamin misrepresents himself as a Christian when he is not. The one misrepresentation is condemned and the other accepted as good strategy. I don’t get that, and, having been away from this blog for some time, would be happy to be told I’ve missed something and am just not reading it right.
Personally, misrepresenting oneself in order to be taken seriously is something I find quite counterproductive, destined to fracture and not build relationships.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
7Mike O
That is easy - Colson as a C claims to hold higher ground so he is culpable
Benjamin (while perhaps unethical by his own standards0 makes no such claim
Siamang you said
Not Mine - he should have admitted his error in the same place he comitted it
his people are “protecting” him
Comment by: Siamang
8Good point, Mark.
I would ask what Benjamin’s thoughts are on that.
Comment by: Mark
9Jim,
Sorry, but I guess I can’t see it that way. Ethics are ethics and misrepresentation is misrepresentation. To attempt to correct another’s misrepresentation by doing the same thing seems awfully disingenuous and more than a bit hypocritical. And not especially conducive to friendly and intelligent conversation.
So, as Siamang suggests, I ask what Benjamin’s thoughts are on this…
Mark
Comment by: Mark
10Oh, and to Helen:
If you know that Christians will make wrong assumptions about you anyway, why would you want to force them to do that very thing by deliberately leading them to believe you are a Christian when you are not? If I led you to believe I was NOT a Christian in order to ensure you don’t stereotype me (does that ever happen?), would subsequent dialog be honest at any level? I don’t see how it could be. It seems to me that honesty from the outset - even at the risk of initial misunderstanding - is the only way to create the kind of transparency that makes intelligent dialog possible.
Mark
Comment by: benjamin ady
11Hey Mark, all. sorry so long to get back to you.
It’s intriguing. I actually found the discrepancy you so aptly pointed out quite amusing.
You are right in that I was doing exactly what “hypocrite” actually describes–I was playing a part.
In one sense this is sort of a Christian thing to do, actually–I mean if you include Paul’s letters as defining “christianity”. Paul talked about “being all things to all men, so that I by all means might save some”. Forgive the use of the King James translation–I know it’s seriously dated–it’s just what I memorized so much in all those years ago, so it’s easier for me.
I actually see what Chuck did and what I did as being *opposite*. I mischaracterized *myself* for the purpose of (as I saw it) helping disarm Colson and the staff at breakpoint so that we *could* have actual engaging dialogue. In a sense, I was being otherly. It was as if I were saying “I dont’ want to engage in debate about my worldview vs. your worldview. That’s actually frightfully boring. Instead I want to ask you questions about the cohesiveness of your worldview–does what you do and what you say you believe match up?” So to avoid the former debate, and enable the latter questions instead, I posed as a Christian. I was trying to be helpful to them by going to them privately and saying, as if I were an insider, “Hey, look, the outsiders are saying this about us. It looks like maybe they have a legitimate beef. We’re good people. why don’t we address this and prove that we are good people?”
Which is to say I went to them privately and came as a friend, with their best interest at heart.
Chuck publicly mischaracterized his intellectual opponent’s arguments, and then proceeded to knock down the staw man arguments which he has misrepresented his opponent as putting forth. He hardly had the best interest of Dawkins, nor of atheist in general in mind. I mean when you have someone’s best interests in mind, *especially* if you disagree with them, then you take the time to engage with them honestly.
Chuck Colson was being the opposite of otherly on 2 counts. He clearly characterizes Dawkins/atheists as “other”, and then he proceeds to misreprent them and then attack them for the fellacious arguements which he misrepresented them as having.
So if otherliness is a defining characteristic of genuine christianity (and I don’t know that that is the case, but it seems like some people around here think that way), then it seems to me I was being way more otherly than Chuck. I was attempting to promote actual engagement in conversation, whereas Chuck was attempting to … sabotage it.
BICBW.
Mark–I’d love to hear your further thoughts. thankyou for engaging.
Comment by: benjamin ady
12It seems to me that from *inside* the christian paradigm, this is a very … law-ish statement (I’m thinking paul’s letter to the romans here). And from outside the christian paradigm, it’s a very modern statement. I find that grace and postmodernism works way better for me personally.
I mean (now I’m going to get in trouble), for instance, that it seems to me there is a world of difference between these two misrepresentations. do you agree? why or why not?
Comment by: benjamin ady
13Mark
sorry to carry on at so much length here.
I was thinking a good analogy would be someone who grew up white american speaking english. then they moved to a different country, learned a new language, and lived there for years. Eventually, they decided they liked the new country better. So they became a citizen of the new country. They thought of themselves primarily as a citizen of the new country. In many ways they eschewed the idea of still being a citizen of america, because they didn’t like a lot, or most, of the things that america did or represented.
Nevertheless, they could still switch back to english and talk as if they were american, if they so desired, for the purposes of communicating with facility, and graciously, to americans, and perhaps with the idea in mind of helping setting right some misconceptiosn that the americans had about the country of which this person was now a citizen, and/or helping the americans not come off as so ugly and arrogant in the eyes of the citizens of their new country.
does that make sense? It’s kind of like that.
Comment by: Mark
14Ben,
I apologize that I don’t have time this morning for a thorough response but do hope to come back to this later today. I’m especially interested in your use of Paul’s statement of becoming all things to all people, and would like to look into that more.
Initially, though, I find this statement of yours interesting:
It seems to me that your world view has lost some cohesiveness, that what you say - in terms of the standard you expect from Colson - and what you have done don’t match up very well. Granted, that’s going to be true for everyone at some level, because we are (and here is my Christian world view) all fallen and broken people. But recognizing that reality with remorse and promoting it as strategy for correcting someone’s views are two entirely different things.
Well, I do need to move on, but as I said, I will plan to come back here later today. Thanks for posting your thoughts. A very interesting discussion.
Mark
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
15Jim wrote:
Exactly - who even knows if they told him he made the error. Maybe they just corrected the manuscript for him.
I think it’s really sad when protecting each other becomes more important than honestly admitting “I was wrong”. Like Benjamin alludes to, that looks like corrupt politics more than following Jesus.
Mark wrote:
Thanks for your comment, Mark. It’s ironic that you feel I’m forcing Christians into something because actually they are the ones forcing me to choose which misperception they will label me with. They are the ones who make the truth impossible by their beliefs which preclude it. I’m not saying this of all Christians - it’s just some who are this way. Others seem able to handle my honesty and not misinterpret what I am saying. I can’t think of any Christian who regularly comments on our blogs that is so unable to understand me I am forced to choose between their misperceptions; I’m talking about Christians I come across elsewhere. (Example: the ones who are convinced I was never a Christian since I don’t believe now - they have ruled out what’s true of me)
It’s like me trying to sell someone a red car who is convinced only blue and green cars exist and blue cars work and green ones don’t. Do I follow your advice and continue to exist on something nonsensical to them and let them arbitrarily decide whether I am offering them a blue or green car (it has to be one of those?) Or do I concede to their inability to accept what is reality (to me) and say I am selling them a blue car (they clearly - to me - are color-blind anyway; what’s the difference) because I want them to get the point, that it works. If I am selling it for a fair price then I see no problem in using language which they can understand instead of language they can’t. (Thinking of Benjamin’s analogy, which I use too sometimes because I think it’s a good one)
If this sounds patronizing about some Christians I’m sorry. This is what happened when I tried your suggestion. It didn’t work so I chose another option. I’ve been told that insanity is continuing to do the same and expecting different results and I’m trying to stay sane (because re: insanity, I’ve been there done that and overall, didn’t much like it)
Comment by: benjamin ady
16Mark,
how so? I’m asking why Colson doesn’t meet the standard he himself espouses. Why is it unreasonable for me to ask this while refraining from necessarily espousing or practicing that same standard myself? I wouldn’t want to practice Colson’s standard. It’s repulsive in places. That doesn’t preclude me from stepping inside that standard long enough to say “Hey–how come you say A and do B?”
Comment by: Stephan
17I can see how Colson’s dishonesty is different from Benjamin’s dishonesty. Colson was misrepresenting and distorting an opponent’s view in order to defeat it. Benjamin was trying to engage someone in conversation that may not have otherwise taken place. They are both however , at their root, dishonest.
I agree with Siamang that you need to make sure to paint your opponent in the best possible light (I think he said something like that) to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I am still holding out hope that Colson, now that he has been confronted with the truth, will release a correction or retraction. I won’t hold my breath though.
Comment by: benjamin ady
18Yesterday I had a really fascinating discussion with a fellow student in one of my psych classes, named John. We were doing an exercise related to motivational interviewing in which we were practicing “reflective listening”. So we each had 5 minutes to ask the other “Tell me something you like about yourself” and then develop that with reflective listening.
At first John and I thought we were kind of opposite. What he liked about himself was that he is very relational. He likes to meet and get to know people. What I liked about myself was that I’m pretty good at noticing discrepancy between projected image and actual image, especially as I begin to become part of the “us” in any group. Part of the result of this for me is that I tend to be complete shit at small talk–I hate it. All these niceties seem to me often to be part of a somewhat false projected image. So I don’t really like parties and that sort of thing. John, on the other hand, likes parties, and he likes to try to spend 10 minutes talking to each person and circulating through the room.
But upon further reflective listening, we found out we are actually really alike. John recently spent some time in Thailand and Cambodia. His experience there was that the people were just bottom-line better at being relational. They would just open up with a person right away. He found that enormously satisfying. One thing he *also* finds frustrating is that people hide themselves away and often there’s no chance in hell of getting at them in the first 10 minutes of conversation. This wasn’t the case, in his experience, to such a degree in Thailand and Cambodia.
Both John and I find it rather enormously satisfying when we can get at the underlying reality of people–at their stories, because these stories greatly enrich our own stories.
I said all that to say the following. I remember back in 1997, when I was preparing to go abroad for two years with a large, multinational NGO. One of the books I had to read was a very basic primer on cross-cultural communication. And one of the things in that book that just bugged the hell out of me, at the time, was this strange (what seemed to me to be) moral relativity about “honesty”. The authors were explaining that in some sense, in eastern and/or african cultures, Relationality, or “maintaining face”, was a very deeply held core value, whereas in the west, and perhaps especially in the U.S., “honesty” is a very deeply held core value. The authors told a story about a white American who had the extremely frustrating experience of being given “wrong directions” by a local in an African country. The point was that from an American perspective, the fact that the African person didn’t *know* the directions to the place the American was going, and yet still happily gave him directions, was massively dishonest. Whereas from the perspective of the African, it was far more important to be seen to be meeting the need for the requested information than it was to be “correct/honest”
Don’t know if I’m making any sense here. I guess what I’m getting at is that I guess I’m hoping to tweak my core values a bit, so that community/relationality are at least as core valueish for me as “honesty”. By which I mean to say that it’s seems reasonable to me that “dishonesty” in the service of kindness may be something that we americans need to take into consideration more as a good thing.
Perhaps this is a theorem, which we are attempting to prove, in the system in which the axiom is “It’s better to be kind than right.”
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
19I’m not convinced it’s that clear-cut; Americans lie all the time because they prefer the social consequences to telling the truth.
Anyway, Benjamin, with a couple of small changes you wouldn’t have been lying, you would just have let them draw their own conclusions. Instead of
you could have put
I think they still would have read this as coming from a friendly ‘inside’ person i.e. Christian, because of the appeal you were making. And this way you wouldn’t have ever SAID you were a Christian, so there’s no lie.
I use Christians in the third person to avoid lying and I don’t think Christians who don’t know me or my views particularly notice I didn’t say “we”.
Comment by: Mark
20Ben,
You wrote:
What I read in this statement, then - and please don’t take me wrong, I’m merely trying to understand your thinking - is that it doesn’t matter to you in the least that Colson said something that wasn’t true (that’s his prerogative just as it is yours), but that he claimed it was true even though he knew - or should have known - that it wasn’t. It’s not the misrepresentation that bothers you, but the fact that he claims to live at a level that defines such misrepresentation as wrong and does it anyway.
You, however, don’t consider it wrong to do the same thing (or at least, something very similar regarding the truth), so when you misrepresent yourself, you are simply living consistently with your beliefs and that’s perfectly acceptable.
In other words, you are “practicing what you preach” - and so meeting the standard you espouse - and he is not, and that is the crux of the issue for you.
Am I reading you right on this?
Thanks,
Mark
Comment by: Mark
21Benjamin,
One more thing regarding this that you said, and I will be done for the time being:
As one who (I glean from your comments) once was a Christian or at least was a part of the church in some way, you are most likely familiar with the words of the apostle Paul when he told the Ephesians that they are to “speak the truth in love”. Sometimes, of course, that is painfully difficult to do, but the phrase - indeed, the whole of the life of Christ as revealed in the gospels - is an indication that it is both the standard which we are to hold and possible to do. It does not need to be an either/or proposition.
Granted, living at that level is, as I said, painfully difficult to do, but the Bible and Christ himself never, ever put a premium on truth over community/relationality. Indeed - and this, I guess, was my point when I entered this conversation last evening - I think it can be plausibly argued that successful community/relationality depends upon the openness and transparency that only honesty can bring into that environment. It’s difficult to imagine successful community in an environment that lacks the simple trust that someone is telling the truth, however hard that truth may be to swallow.
I did not mean to monopolize this conversation with my initial comment, and I apologize if this has grown way off course.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
22Mark, was anyone hurt by Benjamin’s misrepresentation? If not then I would say it’s entirely different from Chuck’s, which hurt Dawkins by providing misinformation about Dawkin’s views.
Comment by: Mike O
23Me, too. And do you also find that people who aren’t into this have a hard time grasping the questions you ask? Almost like they’re translating your actual-speak into projected-speak before they even hear it, and your points come out all misinterpreted?
Comment by: Stephan
24Off topic, but I am hesitant to use this kind of rationalization. “He got what he wanted an no one got hurt.” That could be said of so many wrong things that I think it is dangerous. I think it is a slippery slope that is inevitable without a firm moral footing. The end does not, and cannot, justify the means.
Comment by: benjamin ady
25Mike, actually this never ever happens to me. Sounds awful.
(tongue firmly in cheek)
(sorry!)
You rock. I love it when people understand me.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
26Stephan, I think of whether anyone got hurt as the means, not the end.
I don’t think the specific question I asked is the problem - the problem is the rationalizing you referred to. That approach will result in abuse of any value system.
Comment by: benjamin ady
27Stephan,
Indeed–it could be argued that I got what I wanted, and breakpoint got what they wanted as well. Which is to say beyond “no one got hurt”, it’s arguable that “lots of people got helped”.
there is a sort of assumption that the honesty/dishonesty conituum is deeply and basically more real, more … important, than the people got hurt/people got helped continuum.
which is to say, we can flip your statement on it’s head and say “”People got helped, community was created, wonderful amazing lovely things happened and there was “dishonesty” involved” That could said of so many excellent things that I think it is awesome.”
I’m thinking, for instance, what if I visit my orthodox Jewish friends’ church, and I “pretend” that I’m a Jew, in the sense that I choose to operate from within that paradigm for a little while. In some sense, this is just otherlyness/cross cultural communication. I could go over there and act and talk like a non Jew, and make sure that all were clear on this point, all for the sake of “honesty”. but I think that would just be a bit arrogant and selfish, at some level.
making sense?
Comment by: benjamin ady
28Mark,
I guess we just disagree. I guess that’s ok. I would argue that A. It’s probably pretty damn hard for us to get our heads around where Christ would have come down on a balance between relationality/community vs. “honesty/truth”, since he was a 1st century Jew in Palestine, and we are 21st century Americans (well, okay … westerners, anyway). and B. I’m convinced if we *could* get our heads around it, we would would *without* a doubt realize that he came down far more strongly on the side of relationality. I mean the *truth* was (according to the story) that Jesus was perfect, and had all power, and so forth, and that the bastards who killed him were envious, power hungry creeps. But Jesus didn’t … exactly place a super high priority on communicating that truth, did he?
And with regards to “is community even possible if not based strongly on honesty”? I think, again, the question begs more questions–It’s a question strongly rooted in a western, greek-descendant way of seeing the world. We Americans *do* *very* strongly believe that our way of seeing/doing is by far superior to the ways of seeing/doing in other parts of the world. And even if we are fighting that tendency, one can only escape from one’s time/culture to a certain fairly limited degree.
Comment by: Eliza
29What is a Christian? Who decides? Benjamin doesn’t self-identify as Christian anymore (at least, not most of the time), but he was urging Colson to display Christian values, as in “That’s mighty Christian of you, sir.”
From answers.com come these definitions of “Christian” (adjective):
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus’s teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
While I, too read Benj’s letter and did a little double-take (”we Christians”? Gee…) I think he’s promoting the qualities a Christian should ideally have, and indeed he knew that his audience would NEVER take his letter seriously - if they even read it - if he didn’t state that he was one of them. (Would Jesus have deleted, unread, email from someone outside his “group”? Yet a “true Christian” can do so and still consider himself “a true Christian”.)
Comment by: benjamin ady
30I love Mr. Deity’s take on this question. (He’d delete it all =)
Comment by: benjamin ady
31Hey Mark,
Well, … sort of. Regarding: “the same thing (or at least something very similar regarding the truth)”, I think that perhaps you didn’t get the overall gist of what I’ve been saying in this thread. and with regards to “that is the crux of the issue for you”, I dont’ think you quite nailed that one either.
But I think maybe we are talking about different issues, so figuring out what the crux is might be difficult.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
32Update: Chuck Colson’s ministry has now taken Benjamin’s advice and publically corrected the mistake
Comment by: Mike O
33Good for you, Benjamin!
Comment by: Stephan
34Benjamin, let’s look at this another way. Let’s say Colson’s staff found out that you no longer identify yourself as a Christian. They would probably grumble something like, “Another lying atheist trying to get the better of us. I knew we couldn’t trust them.” I can certainly imagine that happening. And that’s certainly not what you want.
So is it only wrong if something bad happens? Is it only wrong if you get caught?
In this case it was a small mostly harmless lie, but the principle is what matters to me.
Comment by: benjamin ady
35Stephan,
sorry so long to get back to you. I lost track of this thread.
I used to see the world more in black and white, and I would have agreed with you back then: a lie is a lie is a lie.
At some point I realized my categories were way too rigid. They kind of led to an automaticity of thought which I no longer found super useful. I don’t see myself as an atheist. I don’t see myself as a christian. I see myself as a complex person who defies categorization. Within that complex person, there is a voice that feels totally at home saying “We” regarding “christians”, as in “We christians”. That voice doesn’t represnt the totality of who I am, but that doesn’t mean that allowing that voice to speak with the Benjamin mouth/Benjamin keyboard is a lie, or dishonest. And it doesn’t mean I lack integrity. It means I am aware that I am a complex person, and I’m okay with that.
And yes, I am attributing a certain lack of complexity to Breakpoint and co, in choosing to let that voice speak for me. But on the other hand, this dialogue I’ve had with Breakpoint has also helped me realize that they are more complex than I was giving them credit for. And I think that’s a good thing.
Comment by: Stephan
36Benjamin, I think I see your point. I was, at one time, a staunch Republican. I no longer associate myself with that (or any) political party, but I still sympathize with conservatives and feel the sting when they are attacked unfairly (even though I am sometimes the one doing the attacking). I can still defend their viewpoint, even if I no longer totally agree with it. It is not hard for me to feel like I am part of their group, even though I removed myself from it. My political views, similar to your spiritual views, have become more complex and harder to categorize.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
37Nice analogy - I think that applies to where I’m at regarding conservative evangelical Christianity/Christians, to some extent.