Greg and Amy explain that when someone calls you “stubborn” or “dogmatic,” you can respond by asking for clarification and returning the conversation to the reasons behind each person’s view.
Transcript
Amy: Let’s go to a question from Brian. “How would you respond to someone who accuses you of being ‘stubborn’ and ‘dogmatic’ simply because you defend your views with facts and reason and don’t capitulate to their arguments? How can I point out that they, by their qualification, are also stubborn and dogmatic, but say that in a more productive way?”
Greg: Well, we have a simple rule in the tactical approach, and that is, when anyone calls you a name, you ask for a definition, which is the first step in the Columbo tactic—getting clarification. What do you mean by that? All right?
When somebody says, “Well, you’re dogmatic,” I mean, that in itself is not a problem, in my view. In fact, there are certain theological tomes that are described as dogmatics—Shedd’s Dogmatic Theology, for example—which means people are taking a very specific, precise, and firm position about something because they think they have good reasons. The issue is the reasons, not the alleged dogmatism. But it might be good to flesh that out—I should say, to flush out the definition.
So, the question there is, okay, when you say I’m being dogmatic or stubborn, what do you mean? What am I doing that qualifies as being dogmatic? And why is that a vice? Or what qualifies me as being stubborn? And why is that a vice?
Now, what I’ve discovered is that a lot of times when people use these descriptors of you—I almost called it name-calling, but it’s not always the case—they have an opposing alternate view that, it turns out, they are just as committed to as you are to your view. Okay? But they don’t consider that a liability. It’s not a vice for them.
I talk about Christians being careful not to be—and this is especially with other Christians in theological discussions—unjustified in their dogmatism. There are certain things that you and I, as followers of Jesus, are extremely dogmatic about. But our dogmatism is justified. We are holding firm to things that we have very good reasons to believe are so, and they matter. Okay? You want to call that stubborn? That’s a pejorative way of putting it, but okay. But being dogmatic and stubborn in a general understanding of the meaning of those terms is only a vice if neither is well justified. I think that married people ought to be real stubborn about not getting a divorce, no matter what happens, because they made a promise not just before man but before God. And so, being stubborn on the right issues is a virtue, not a vice.
So, you have to flush out the definitions here that this person has in mind when he’s using these words to describe you. And chances are pretty good that once the definitions get clearly flushed out, they will apply equally to him. And maybe that will help. The issue is the—and I’ve said this many times before—but the real issue is the reasons. Right? The real issue is the reasons, not whatever alleged vice a person thinks you have—dogmatic, stubborn, whatever. Those things can be raised appropriately in certain circumstances, but I think these are being raised as invectives against the Christian because he’s standing firm.
Amy: You’re both holding to your position. So, maybe you could say to him, “Look, we’re both holding to our position. The question is, who is right? And that’s where the disagreement is. The disagreement is not over who’s holding to their position, because we both think we’re justified. So, let’s look at the reasons. And if we still disagree, we still disagree. But neither of us is changing our position. So, we’re both doing exactly the same thing here.”
Greg: This is where Dennis Prager’s dictum comes in. I’ve benefited so much from him. He’s disabled at the moment from an accident last year, but he says, “Clarity, not agreement.” That’s what I want to pursue. He tells his people on his own show, “We’re not going to get agreement much of the time. How about clarity?” And that’s what he’s after. And I think that’s one of the virtues of his style.