This just came across my radar this morning – a series of conversations between “leading pastors”, each conversation taking place between two pastors who disagree on the finer points of theology/ecclesiology etc., and moderated by a third. The first day of conversations took place late last year, and a second event will take place later this month in Illinois, broadcast live to 70 venues around the country. Churches and seminaries are being encouraged to sign up to attend, pastors to bring their mentees and interns, and Professors to bring their whole classes.

“Who Should Attend The Elephant Room 2? Any pastor or student or motivated disciple who is serious about theological ideas and how they shape methodology. Not purely pragmatic or theoretical, the conversations hope to stir changes of mind and retrench long held beliefs. A great event for teams and groups, the conversations are a starting point for important conversations.”

The intention, it seems, is to get pastors who disagree robustly in private to do so in public, in order to gain trust, educate, etc., those who follow their lead. Well, that’s not a bad motivation at all. That’s what we do in universities a good deal of the time. Ongoing debate is essential for finding the flaws in an argument, getting the bigger picture, avoiding lazy thinking, collaborating, refining and developing ideas, sparking inspiration and so on.

As regular readers will know, one of my scholarly interests is analysing texts with as much attention to the form as the content. And scanning the Elephant Room website, I didn’t need to think very hard to notice a couple of things that seemed not so much subliminal as glaring messages. One is sadly predictable: beside an advertising flag saying “time for a new direction”, is the list of debaters, all of whom are men. So any Professor or Mentor taking their class, mentee, or junior colleague along to this event is going to be exposing them to a subliminal message: theology and church leadership is done by men. If the intent is really to “stir changes of mind and retrench long held beliefs”, then why not entertain the possibility that people with a really divergent viewpoint might have something to tell you?

The other is that, mixed in with the rubric about education, openness, honesty etc., and the claim is that the conversations take place “in a spirit of respect and love and mutual concern…”, is another thread of highly combative language. The next conversation is described as the “next round”, and website visitors are challenged to “take your ringside seat”. Now, most of the time I’m not a fluffy person; I’ve worked in some of the most presitigious Universities in the world, and I’m greatly in favour of robust debate. But there’s all the difference in the world between robust debate and a punching match – regardless of whether it’s inside or outside Church. I’ve been present at University seminars that have been hostile, aggressive, and conducted in the spirit of having a winner and a loser. There weren’t any actual bloody noses, but I’ve seen fine scholars emerge from such events looking about as traumatised as if they had been given a good kicking. But I’ve also been to seminars that, without any conscious recourse to a Christian ethic really were conducted in respect, love and mutual concern. Not at all like a boxing match, more like a high level reading group. The two are not the same. So I’m fascinated to see that the Elephant Room presents itself with such mixed metaphors. One might hope for a night out with the Inklings, but it sounds worryingly more like a boxing match, a competitive debate with a referee, a winner a loser, and not much potential for the development of thought. Of course, I hope I’m wrong.