I enjoy a good argument. So much so that I’m able to completely distance myself from the ramifications of taking a particular side in an argument just to see it continue. I am sure other people find this frustrating. Actually, I know for a fact that some people do.

In my mind it’s only when arguing through an issue that you’re truly able to shape your thinking on something – at least that’s how it works for me.

Arguing a point brings clarity to my position because it lets me consider the criticisms of my position and understand the applications of holding to a particular idea. Other people might not approach this the same way. 

Sometimes I find myself reading things that I know will frustrate me for the sheer purpose of entering into an argument – or I’ll bait an issue to create an argument out of it. I’m sure this is also annoying. 

Simone made an interesting point the other day:

“Today I’ve been bored, so bored that I was visiting blogs that annoy me on purpose so that I would get annoyed. Because its more fun to be annoyed than bored.”

I wonder how many people do this. I know I spend a lot of time reading things written by people I disagree with. Probably more time than I spend reading things by people I agree with. And I know too that my hits go up dramatically if I write something controversial that you, my readers, disagree with. 

So now I’m left wondering – should I write things I know will get a bite? It seems people want to bite, and it gives me the opportunity to argue. Or should I write things that there will be consensus on and not actually challenge anyone or anything. I like the first option. Your thoughts?

The danger is that if I go down this path there’s a real chance people will be offended – or caught up in an argument in an emotional sense – if I happen to attack one of their sacred cows. And that’s never really my intention in an argument. Unless I’m arguing about something that I think is a black and white issue, which, for example, climate change and charitable giving is not.

Also – Frustration is the name of a pretty cool card game. You should check it out.


simone says:

Climate change is boring. Whichever way you want to argue.

Go on. Write something controversial. Add some interest to my day…

Nathan says:

Give me a topic that won’t rule me out of one day working for the Presbyterian Church.

Amy says:

I’m sure I have many other sacred cows you could argue with me about. It will be just like old times.

Here’s a topic – whether or not it is a problem that no-one knows how to correctly use punctuation any more. That shouldn’t come back to haunt you too much – except if a parishioner decides that your powerpoint slides contradict what you argue.

Nathan says:

Having just had a grammar refresher while learning Greek I’m not even going to pretend to be an expert on that one.

simone says:

I have plenty of topics to suggest… but most of them could disqualify you from pcq ministry. But we could take the risk and try one. Who reads this blog, anyway?

I’d like to hear more of your thoughts on prayer in church. That would be fairly safe.

Nathan says:

Coming up. Soon. Although I can’t help but think this follows a comment I left on your blog some time back.