Perpendicular Thoughts

Debates tend to be viewed subconsciously as a line or continuum - there's the left-wing, the right-wing, and a string of points between.  There are those who "Strongly Disagree," "Disagree," are "Neutral," "Agree," or "Strongly Agree" with any statement, right?

But just as any survey can skew its results by the manner it asks a question, it seems that a lot of issues in politics and theology can wind up getting logjammed into eternal non-productiveness merely by virtue of how the questions have been framed.  People fall on either side of an issue in a roughly 50/50 split for many reasons, but often it is because the question is too abstract or too vague, or too binary (a false dichotomy).  And this includes many debates that have gone on for centuries or even millennia: fundamental divisions in society.

So how does one break out?  If this is the line along which people place themselves (left, right, or middle):

_________________

Then we need to make sure we aren't missing something out here:

             X

_________________

Thus, we need to make sure we're thinking in a perpendicular fashion to the original framing of the debate, and not just back-and-forth along the line.  Remember Star Trek II?  Khan forgets that space has up-and-down as well as left-and-right, and it's his undoing.

As a  real-life example, here is an interesting set of survey results:

It's very encouraging to me that 43% of Americans already kinda get the idea I'm talking about.  If someone asks, "Are you Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?" the expectation is that you'll pick a side in this epic conflict.  Given the option, though, 43% will answer, "Both," to some degree.  (If you're wondering, the extra 7% not shown on the graph answered, "Don't know" or didn't answer at all, which I'd also consider perpendicular thinking of sorts.)

And that's the point of this post.  I want to make sure that I'm not needlessly propping up divisions between people and taking sides using prefab labels, because 

a) Jesus said not to do that, 

b) my job is to describe reality better, and let data speak for itself,

c) I have an iconoclastic streak a mile wide, and 

d) I believe it lets real truth shine through into a debate.

This last point is worth dwelling on.  In church-talk it's often referred to as "mystery," meaning a paradox that is true despite the seeming contradiction.  For example, Jesus is both God and human; people are simultaneously saints and yet still sinners.  The mystery helps people understand that the reality is often more complex than our words are good at describing, or our brains are good at comprehending.

And to the degree that that keeps us humble, it puts us on the path to wisdom.