I enjoyed reading ‘the Andrews’ (Atherstone and Goddard) in the Church Times and, agree with much, perhaps even all, of what they write.
I appreciate their sense of realism:
‘Disagreement is an indelible fact of life.’
It is from this straightforward statement that they are able to draw the question:
‘Can it be transformed for good?’
Andrew and Andrew are also correct when thy point out that ‘good disagreement’ is a slippery term. For some it is not just slippery, it is also vacuous a bit like ‘virtuous sin.’
I am in the ‘camp’ that regards good disagreement as a real and distinct possibility, but not at this stage a probability. For good disagreement to become a probability flexibility and creativity will be required along with an acceptance that most of those with strong views, liberals and conservatives alike, are probably going to have to give a little. (Liberals – on this issue…
View original post 634 more words