Reasoning Together, Part 2: Misuse and Wish-use

Only by pride comes contention, but with the well-advised is wisdom.

—Proverbs 2:101 RE

In part one, we discussed what it looks like for people to engage in reasoning together, which is not easy to do. Not every conversation, exchange, argument, discussion, contention or fight can or should be called “reasoning together.” In fact, almost all these do not qualify as anything of the sort. We may like to tell ourselves that our arguments and accusations are actually “reasoning” but this is wishful thinking. There’s no point in pretending do what we cannot and pretending to be what we are not. 

Fighting with a Smile

Being good at arguing is not the same thing as being good at reasoning. Even being measured and kind in disagreement doesn’t mean you’re approaching anything like reason. You may be calmly stubborn and intractable! In fact, the ability to reason with others is a very rare skill—but one most people think they already have. 

We know we have been told to “reason together” but we do not have that skill. Reasoning requires give-and-take, respect and trying to understand another point of view. It requires patience and development of skills, critical reasoning, and thoughtfulness. Most of all it requires attentive listening that lets us understand one another. (Denver Snuffer, “God’s Covenant People” April 13, 2025, p. 10)

We are not without instruction in these things. The Lord has taught us by precept how to proceed, and has also allowed us to learn by experience, much of it sad. And even that experience, when improperly engaged in, does little to help participants learn or develop the skills of reasoning together. Some may persist in argument, discussion, disputation, accusation, or any number of exercises, pretending they are reasoning—and accomplishing nothing. 

This false “reasoning together” may actually do more harm than good, as illustrated in T&C 176 (sometimes called The Parable of the Master’s House). There we read of three groups who reasoned together about how to fulfill the Master’s command that a house be built in a distant land. 

Some reasoned among themselves that their master dwelt in a stone house, and because this far off land had no stone, they ought gather and take stone with them. Others reasoned among themselves that because the master said there was no stone, there must be trees, and therefore brought axes and tools to build a wooden house. And yet others reasoned among themselves that they should go and see the place their master had chosen, not knowing beforehand what would be there. (T&C 176:4)

Each group reasoned and came up with their own conclusion. They then set to work testing their conclusions in attempts to comply with the Master’s command. None of the approaches met with immediate success, and all encountered obstacles. For the stone haulers, the work was impossibly slow and difficult. For the wood workers, there were no trees. For the “wait and see” group, they arrived at the spot an initially found no way to proceed. 

Each group dealt with their difficulties differently. The stone haulers doubled down in their efforts and the wood workers abandoned their previous solution and joined the stone haulers, attempting to convince the wait-and-see group to join the stone effort as well. When the wait-and-see group wanted to see for themselves, the wood workers called them foolish, based on their supposed superior knowledge and their misunderstanding of the Master’s intent. This was not reasoning together.

When the wait-and-see group acted in faith and found the way forward by making bricks, “These servants reasoned among themselves that the labor would be better done if their fellow servants joined them. They sent messengers to those laboring to bring stone.” (¶7)

Interestingly, when the stone haulers heard the happy news that the effort was succeeding, “Many were willing, and some were offended, and some wanted to stop all effort, and return to their master and tell him his command was too great. They argued among themselves, and for a moment forgot their master’s command, and forgot those who were laboring to make bricks from clay at the place the master had chosen.” (¶8) This, too, was not reasoning together.

How remarkable are the differences in response! Some welcomed the news—and some were offended! What was there to be offended about? We aren’t explicitly told what offended them, but human nature being what it is, we can guess fairly well. Perhaps they wanted accolades and recognition for finding the true way forward—that is, they wanted their idea to “win.” Maybe they hoped to be credited with making the construction possible. Perhaps they wanted control over the process because they craved authority over others. Whatever it was, they became so invested in being right, they preferred it above actually fulfilling the Master’s command. The fact that they were offended demonstrates their true intent—and though it may have started in a sincere desire to obey the Master’s command, it became corrupted into the need to be right, at the expense obeying the Master.

It’s worth mentioning that beyond merely being offended, there were some who wanted to stop all work and complain to the Master that it couldn’t be done. How remarkable! They were so invested in being right that they would rather see the Master’s work fail altogether than give up their own faulty opinion. They literally felt that if they couldn’t do it their way, they must see to it that NOBODY could do it at all. This is the equivalent of a playground dispute in which one kid takes his ball and goes home so that nobody can play unless they play his way.

Pro tip: Anybody who would rather burn it all down than admit to being wrong is not only unreasonable, but actually dangerous. Of course, none of us would behave this way, right? We would never insist on pushing our preferred outcome to the point that we would take steps to actively prevent any other outcome from even being considered, let alone succeeding. Right? 

“After a season of quarreling and disputing, some said, We have neglected our master’s command long enough. We go to help make bricks of clay to build our master’s house at the place he has commanded. Seeing some depart, those who remained called for all to reason together because the labor was hard and the loss of even a few made moving stones even more difficult.” (¶9)

Eventually some tired of arguing and disputing and chose to lend their efforts to fulfilling the Master’s command. The remaining holdouts—still committed to their own approach and opposed to the group actually accomplishing the work—then tried a new tactic. Hey! Can’t we reason together? But they didn’t merely seek to reason among themselves. They insisted that ALL must reason together, effectively preventing the brick makers from doing further work on the Master’s house. 

It seems clear from the text and the stone haulers’ prior behavior, that their intent in “reasoning together” was not at all about finding a unified path forward to serve the Master together. Rather it was a further attempt to interfere with the Master’s work and prevent others from fulfilling the Master’s command. Such “reasoning together” was just new clothing on the old desire to argue, contend and dispute in hopes of finally winning. This is pernicious because it’s easy to portray “reasoning together” as a noble and necessary pursuit, and those unwilling to engage in it as froward, even evil. “You must continue to fight with us, or else YOU are the problem!” is the essential message.

Perhaps the stone haulers even threatened the house builders that the Master would be displeased with them if they didn’t participate in further argument. In actuality, the small group of stone haulers were really the ones opposing the Master’s work. They might claim otherwise, but their true intent was amply shown by their actions, despite their pretentious words about reasoning together. Notice how those who didn’t care about the Master or His work used implied accusations to control those who DO care?

The larger group was not the problem. They made it clear they would welcome the stone haulers to join them in accomplishing the work underway, and actually extended the invitation. But the stone haulers refused, instead hoping to continue active disputation instead of productive work.

And so, one point we can take from the parable is this: Demanding people continue a dispute under the deceptive guise of “reasoning together” is counterproductive to the Lord’s work. Until all parties are able and willing to come to the table with soft hearts, willingness to be wrong, genuine desire to understand and humility about their own ignorance, there’s no amount of disputation that will ever qualify as “reasoning together” let alone solve any problems or build the Master’s house. 

In my next post we'll consider a surprising lesson in the rest of the parable.

Meantime we continued to translate at intervals when not necessitated to attend to the numerous inquirers that now began to visit us — some for the sake of finding the truth, others for the purpose of putting hard questions and trying to confound us. Among the latter class were several learned priests who generally came for the purpose of disputation. 

—JSH 15:23