Which would you read first?

Here’s a question to ponder. Suppose there was a controversial theological issue, on which you knew the basic for and against arguments and which side of the fence you were on, but had never studied in great detail. Suppose then that there were two thorough and carefully argued books written by acknowledged experts, one advocating the side you agreed with, and the other advocating the opposite position. And imagine that you had decided that to be fully informed you wanted to read both books. The question is: which book should you read first?

Arguments for reading the book you disagree with first:

It seems like the fairest thing to do. After all, you are already prejudiced against this view, so reading it second would seem like you weren’t really willing to hear what it had to say. It also will give you integrity as you discuss the issue with friends - you have read the best arguments against your own point of view. You might even go through a period of strongly sympathising with the opposing view, which would at least make you more understanding in future debates and discussions. Also, you might not even need to read the second book, if the one you disagreed with wasn’t persuasive.

Arguments for reading the book you agree with first:

You might end up changing your mind twice over the issue, when no changes were needed, in effect being “tossed around by every wind of doctrine”. You would be best able to critically read the opposing view if you were in full posession of all the arguments for your own first. Assuming that you are in a church that also holds to your initial view, you would avoid the potential for causing upset by advocating the opposing view without knowing all the counterarguments.

Another consideration - you might just read one:

With all the best intentions in the world, the fact is that you might only have time to read one book. Also, the chances are that the first book you read would enumerate all the arguments that the other book was going to present and refute them. It might sound so impressive that you can’t even be bothered to read the second book. So the one you read first could end up being the one that sets your future beliefs in the subject for some years to come (assuming that is, that you find it persuasive).

Leave your answers in the comments below.

(in case you’re wondering, the books that got me thinking about this are this one versus this one, and this one versus this one - although I have no immediate plans to read any of them)

Jeremy Pierce 12 February 2005

This assumes that you'll only read them one at a time. Why not take turns, reading a chapter at a time of each one? I usually have a bunch of books I'm alternating among. I while back I started reading through three commentaries on Galatians, and I read what each says on the same passage before moving on to the next one. You couldn't ensure that sort of thing here, because they won't all cover things in the same order, but it might solve many of the problems raised in the post if you alternate.

Steph Heath 12 February 2005

To be honest all I can say is if you've got time to write a whole massive debate on which book to read first and then complain you dont have time to read both books something is clearly very wrong..Love me :-)

Richard McIntosh 14 February 2005

Why would you want to be Arminian or Calvinist? Could you not take the Barthian view on it. You can stress the priority of Grace without lapsing into double predestination...Richard McIntosh

Tom Bacon 21 December 2007

It would depend on the nature of the issue - and the price of the books lol! I've been in the position of studying into a similar thing for a while, and Zondervan's series of books featuring multiple perspectives helped me out a little with it. If really pressed, I'd probably go for the one I'd be most likely to disagree with, as the one that said my own view would simply be an .I agree!.