Wudn't it be GREAT?

There are a lot of things in the world each of us wish could be different, BETTER. We are in the midst of the most unusual and unattractive political campaign in modern times. Wudn't it be GREAT if we had better candidates.

For me, I wish we would quit shouting over each other and have a better political narrative. How we "talk about" what we believe matters. Wudn't it be GREAT if political campaigns discussed core assumptions instead of attacking each other personally and occasionally judging each other's conclusions on policy.

You may be asking, "what do you mean by core assumptions?" These are closely held beliefs and patterns of thinking that people never question, but use to draw conclusions about everything else - from suitability of a candidate to which policy is best. "Which core assumptions should be debated?", you may now ask.

Good question.

As far as our country goes, we should decide on which institutions meet the needs of society the best - government or free markets? We should decide if we should view the changing culture through the lens of a Constitution that is a stable, absolute view of law or whether Constitutional law should adapt to changing culture? There are others but this would be a good start. If we cannot agree on these core assumptions, we never will agree on people to govern us. We will never resolve issues on marriage, abortion,capital punishment, guns, sexual identity and such. The paths determined by differing core core assumptions should be on the ballot, not personalities.

BUT, there is even a more profound diversity of core assumptions that every person should be able to articulate and decide intentionally what they believe. However, human nature as it is, generally influences people to take the easy and safe way. So, most people just conform to prevailing cultural positions that make them feel legitimate and argue conclusions that they really haven't thought about much.

For example, whether you are a Christian or not a Christian, you should be able to adequately discuss
1) the 2 types of "knowledge"
2) the 2 different ways "truth" can be determined
3) the 3 different forms of life and what makes life "good"?
4) the 3 different ways to view the "law"
5) the 2 different ways humans can be accepted
6) the 2 different ways to view "reality"
7) the 2 kinds of evidence we "trust"
8) the 2 types and 3 forms of identity - finding "self"
9) the 3 approaches to power

Where you come down on each of these is not my point at this time, BUT wouldn't it be GREAT if every millennial and their parents, their professors, their governmental authorities, their friends, their mentors, and so on were competent in explaining these competing core assumptions. I envision a time when much of what we debate is focused on the differences in these 9 areas of core assumption. Debating topics like "how do we know God exists?", "are people naturally good?", "why is there evil?" and "is Jesus the only way to God?" are futile if we start from differing core assumptions. For instance, what does "know" mean? "exist"? "good"? "way"?

Usually when I make a point, many people say, "yes, I agree, but HOW?"

I am not a "how" person by nature, BUT I have spent over a year scripting an online learning experience where anyone who stays with it for 10 - 12 hours will come away with a competency to discuss these assumptions.

I envision hearing people of all ages and stages talking about these core assumptions as easily and eagerly as they talk about politics, sports, music, and each other.

Wudn't THAT be GREAT!!! ...