honest, courteous debate is not an inquisition

A Christian who questions widespread Christian beliefs or openly probes the foundations of Christian doctrine shouldn't expect his or her own statements to go unquestioned. Someone who takes a stand for a viewpoint that is incompatible with the rock on which others have built their entire lives shouldn't expect them to be immediately convinced. Nor should they expect everyone in the "conversation" (that word has undeniably better style and PR-value than "debate" or "argument", doesn't it?) to claim that contradictory statements can both be correct and therefore nobody is ever "wrong". In fact, it's even true that when people are discussing issues whose resolution determines what the very definition of "heresy" is, one or more of them just is a "heretic". (Of course, it's still terribly insensitive and dismissive and nonconstructive to apply the label to a fellow Christian who happens to think differently.)

It's simply unrealistic to talk or blog about extremely important ideas in a casual or, worse, intellectually sloppy manner. I have no problem with continual review of the traditional, time-honored stances of Christian thought. My contention is that when it happens, passionate dialogue inevitably "comes with the territory", and also that it's unfair to only allow one "side" (we're all on the same one, ultimately...) to apply critical thinking to the other, as if one side's statements are all sincere seeking after the truth and the other's are all reflexive narrow-minded defensiveness.