Devil's Advocate

I was going through old blogs and found this one and wondered why I'd never posted it. I think maybe I was a little too fired up at the time and thought I shouldn't. Since I can't remember what sparked it's being written though, I feel safe enough in posting it now.

Why do people play Devil's advocate? With a name like that, why would you even want to? The Devil needs help now? He's not persecuting God's people well enough on his own? We have an Advocate, Jesus Christ the Righteous. I don't want to play that kind of part for the Devil. I don't want to get anywhere NEAR it. Now, obviously, I know that people don't mean the phrase that seriously. But things are usually called what they're called for a reason.

Observation: All the people I can think of that I know to play Devil's advocate tend to be the same type of person. Egotistical males (by their own admission) who think that they know more than others and that it is their responsibility to test, try and prove other Christians with their knowledge. (My experience is very limited, but that's what it has been.) This raises many flags in my mind - flags, not condemnation.

So what's the point of Devil's Advocate, and is it really the best way to reach your desired goal? (I give the benefit of the doubt here and presume their goal to be helping other believers.) Or is it a not-so-great way to do things except in very particular circumstances, even potentially damaging to those same people you say you're trying to help?

It seems like there are a few reasons for playing Devil's advocate. One, it allows you to argue and be on opposite sides instead of working together. Two, it allows you to be much harsher on someone's beliefs. You can scornfully question an answer the other person offers and tear it to pieces if you're on opposite sides of a debate. Three, it's a great way to show off just how much you know. If you can tear apart Johnny's (I use Johnny 'cause I don't know any) argument while knowing the right way to answer all of your own questions, boy howdy, you must be a genius! (Please note the sarcasm.)

My argument against playing Devil's advocate:

1) We're Christians. All things are supposed to be done in love. "Be ye wise as serpents and harmless as doves." How often is playing Devil's Advocate being harmless as a dove? I would submit, very rarely. Usually the person who plays Devil's Advocate is one of the smarter people in the room, and probably everyone else respects their opinion. When they start tearing down beliefs that often aren't well-founded to begin with, serious questioning takes place within the person who is being . . . well, grilled. It's not very nice to try to destroy someone's, as far as you can tell, correct beliefs before they've had a chance to really even believe them. Especially if that person looks up to you.

I suggest a different approach. Either teach them or come along side them. Be their advocate; offer to be a sounding board. Ask questions in a constructive way, not a destructive way. Don't debate, suggest. Point out inconsistencies with thoughtfulness, not "Haha! Now your argument is destroyed!"

2) People don't like other people to know that they're playing Devil's Advocate. . . . Why, I don't really get. Probably because as soon as you say, "I'm doing this," then all of a sudden it's less intense. Which makes it seem like the whole point of playing it, is not to help people but because you like the pressure, the atmosphere of a debate. Honestly, I think this is why it bothers me. Christians don't know how to come along side and help others with beliefs. They know how to teach and they know how to argue. There is another way, but it requires a more listening and less talking.

It's just deceptive. I'm going to pretend to disagree with you, I'm going to tear apart all of your arguments as much as I can, and then at the end I'm going to say, "I was just messing around; I totally believe the same thing you do."

Really? And it was all for my benefit? I feel so special that you deceived me and tore apart my mental processes with such gusto. . . .

Nah. Secretive Devil's advocate is way worse than just presenting opposition. Sharp opposition when you're trying to settle things in your head is hard enough, but when you find out afterward that they don't even believe what they were arguing? It's much worse. It feels like a betrayal.

Addendum: I understand that for some people having a person, someone they respect, play the opposing side might be helpful. In fact, it might be exactly what they need in order to work things through in their head. My problem is when the person doing the opposing just decides to do it without anyone knowing, without anyone asking, really without taking into account who they're doing it to. They just decide to test whoever they feel like.

Which brings me to point, 3) It's really presumptive. These people need their faith tested, their beliefs challenged. I'm just the person to do it! It's up to ME to make sure that they know everything they believe and know exactly why they believe it.

And what if you "challenge" their beliefs so well that then they don't know what to believe? Good job; you gave the Devil a point on that round. Did your advocate thing a little too well. Playing Devil's advocate is like tossing around a stumbling-block. Like a ball, you throw it up and try to catch it again every time you argue with someone. And occasionally, you miss and they trip, and it's your fault.

There's got to be better way.