Along with "Brock," "Little R" and "Mrs. Little R," Learner invited me over for dinner last night. Mrs. Learner (whom I will write much about soon, as she is a woman worth writing much about) prepared a tasty meal, and the evening was pleasant in a way people eating together for the first (but presumably not the last) time can be.
Brock and Little R are in Learner's Greek class and, according to Learner, doing quite well (both got 100+ scores on the aforementioned Greek exam; Learner only pulled out an 88). While conversation initially touched on Greek studies, it soon transcended prepositions and perfect verb forms as Learner, Brock, and Little R engaged in a good hour's worth of conversation around the question of what THE moral issue of the day might be, who seems to be on what side of it and why, and what might be done about it and how.
As one intriqued by their ideas (as well as who once spent a good amount of time around Paul, a master debater), I must say it was a rather spirited conversation. Brock was sure the defining issue was abortion, which one could certainly make a case for considering the millions of helpless babies killed since 1973. Little R didn't so much name a particular issue, but talked of how political viewpoint affected the church and people's moral compass. Again, a valid observation and contender for the title of "issue of the day."
Learner, just trying to keep up with his younger (by 10 and 7 seven years, respectively) dinner guests, posited that the defining issue of the day was not abortion or the political spectrum, but a leaving out of the full scope of issues in the name of the one (i.e. conservatives being "pro-life," but in denial about poverty and health care; liberals protecting "inalienable rights" at any cost, but in denial as to where those "rights" actually came from or might go if left unchecked).
As a listening bysitter, I was impressed by the tone and direction of the discussion, as well as the hearts of concern that emerged as a result. Granted, these were three young, semi-idealistic men whose convictions far outweighed their experiences when it came to things like governmental policy. But their understanding and analysis of what the real issues are (instead of what the political parties say they are) came out of a wisdom far beyond their years and for which none took credit, but instead pointed to the Scriptures as their rationale.
Yet, while they may have had the weight of moral authority on their side, the humility with which they swung that particular sword was somewhat inspiring. This conversation was not about who was right but about what was right, a discussion rarely entered into these days (at least cordially) among believers.
As a result, I think Brock, Little R, and Learner felt the same tinges of inspiration I did last night, namely that as long as we can talk earnestly and graciously about issues with a listening ear to what the Gospel says, there's hope we might actually resolve some of them.
