Prodigal Diplomacy?

    A scattering of high school juniors and seniors gathered with me biweekly five or six years ago in a group called, “Worldview Hub.” Students shared how they would personally address various worldview questions: “Is there a God and/or some sort of spiritual reality beyond or within our world?,” “What’s the purpose of human existence?,” and others of a similar nature. The group devised a covenant wherein participants agreed to hear one another out; then ask clarifying questions within an attitude of respect.
    They agreed to avoid what I have termed emphatica, the belief that if one emotionally ejaculates, exaggerates, and gesticulates while sharing their thoughts, somehow their view will be more credible, or if they employ these tactics against another, that person’s view is therefore less credible. Evidences of emphatica are all too frequent.  To the credit of these mature seventeen/eighteen-year-olds, they avoided emphatica even though their beliefs and values were heartfelt--as they should be.
    I miss that group. Certainly, adults discuss these matters, too.  However, "maturity" typically deadens one into a comfortable belief system, either consciously or not.  We surround ourselves with our “choir” or “groupthink,” dismiss any genuine consideration of other views, and assume we have adequately addressed the big questions. All that's left is to cruise down our perceptual paths.
    Of course, our culture, pluralistic though it may be, encourages this model. If we really discussed answers with one another, challenged one another respectfully, we may offend, claim one thing is true a the expense of another. So we keep our worldviews under wraps or fail to believe them true enough to impact us in any appreciable manner. Therefore, while we may have some impressive diversity in our beliefs, we discuss them--or worse, hold them-- rather superficially. Or we just discuss in groupthink, so they certainly feel true. Or we employ emphatica to shut down those with whom we disagree, thereby furthering our potentially false perceptions under the heat of emotion.
    I am hoping Prodigal Diplomacy proves to be a successful exception. To apply diplomacy is to represent a viewpoint in a respectful, conciliatory tone. I hope to represent the worldview components of a Christ follower in a diplomatic fashion.  And I will welcome those who wish to challenge my views and/or share their own.
    Prodigal reminds me to go the extravagant mile in being diplomatic. The temptation for me will be the other way, to utilize the essentials of emphatica to “win” some argument: sarcasm, condescension, ad hominem, exaggeration, straw man . . .  I’m trusting my own title will hold me accountable. I hope it will also hold responders accountable.
    And for those familiar, prodigal is a tied to the parable of “The Prodigal Son,” which Jesus shares in Luke, chapter 15. There’s more than just one who’s prodigal in the story, however: of course, the prodigal son wastes his father’s inheritance in wild living; yet another-- the prodigally righteous brother believes he has earned damning rights in relationship to his pathetic brother; and lastly, the prodigal father, extravagant in his love. Frankly, it’s not really clear by the end if either of these brothers ultimately grasps that kind of love.  I know the feeling.
    Yet, if I can remember that each of us is prodigally loved (in my view), then I believe can be prodigally diplomatic.