[June 2005 journal entry]
Imagine a dinner table long enough for at least three separate conversations simultaneously to occur. (1) At one end of the table, ‘faith’ is being discussed with a language that prohibits any serious questions. Unless the individuals sitting together at this end of the table happen to confess the same ‘faith’, the conversation inevitably breaks down. There is no motive or method for seeking common ground around a shared way of being ‘with the world face to face’. (2) In the middle of the table, ‘faith’ is being discussed with a language that encourages inquiry for the purpose of understanding the affirmed ‘faith’. The discussion will reveal the degree of difference/diversity re ‘faith’ among the participants. They value the resulting understanding of themselves and their theological neighbor. They need to find a non-theological common ground in order to sustain the conversation without degenerating into the competitiveness heard to their right. (3) Toward the other end of the table, ‘faith’ itself is subject to inquiry. They approach ‘faith’ as that which is intellectually and existentially trusted in life situations. They do not juxtapose ‘faith’ and radical/critical thinking. They have reason to welcome diverse points of view. They clarify early in the conversation what they share in common in their way of being, from which emerges the significance of their discussion.
