A friend of mine just revised and edited this from his blog, and sent it to me for suggested use with our Wednesday Bible Study Group.
Ingredients of a Conversation: Something important, a couple of people, and a desire to learn from one another.
But, often mutual exploration is not what happens. Why?
The first obstacle is the ‘right vs. wrong’ risk. The assumption: “Orthodoxy is right; anything else or less than orthodoxy is wrong!” With that looming behind every conversation, when a person raises a question there is immediately a worry if what the person is asking is orthodox or not; whether or not by participating in such a conversation, a person will be seen as harboring doubts about orthodoxy; and whether associating with such persons, calls into question one's reputation. Quickly, in many cases, the conversation stops being conversation and becomes, instead, a quick lesson on what tradition teaches the Bible says and that if one strays from that, one is questioning the Bible and, there you have it, the slippery slope worry comes to the surface.
The second obstacle is that conversations, instead of becoming explorations of one another's minds on a given topic as each reflects on how each makes theological decisions, become information-exchange sessions. Whoever knows the most becomes the teacher; whoever knows the least becomes the student. That's all. It's about information exchange. It becomes catechesis instead of conversation.
But the "art" of conversation can't be learned in such a context when everything is dominated by right vs. wrong or when it becomes whoever knows the most becomes the teacher. This isn't conversation; this is lecture or information exchange. I do not deny the value of information, nor do I deny the importance of orthodoxy. But can we have conversations sometimes?
What are the marks of a good conversation?
First, a good conversation (and therefore a good conversationalist) requires a safe environment. By this I mean space—somewhere to feel comfortable; and I mean at least two people with listening skills; and I mean the ability to disagree if necessary but not denounce, condemn, or berate.
Illustration: Many have turned to the blog world because they are having difficulties finding a safe place. But even that is not always enough. I can't tell you the number of pastors who have written me privately and said "I can't say this on your blog, but I want to converse with you about the post today" or about something else.
Second, a good conversation requires a good topic or a good question. This one is clear: what is a good topic for some is not for others. It is also clear that some topics are better than others. Some topics are off-limits for one person and on-limits for another. There is a social skill involved here: some people perceive immediately what is on-limits or off-limits; others don't.
Third, a good conversation operates on the basis of frequently-unexpressed, but nearly always assumed, shared assumptions. I find this to be a regular hang-up on the blog. Many of us operate with a set of assumptions—and it would be fun to bring to expression what these really are—but we don't talk about them. When someone violates them, we raise our eyebrows or start to wiggle our fingers and maybe even break into a sweat. Perhaps it begins with the viability of the question we ask.
Fourth, a good conversation requires the spirit of exploration and experimentation. If I ask my good friend, Greg Clark, who happens to be a philosopher, and therefore practiced in the art of conversation and one who finds it delightful to turn over each stone somehow, a question, I expect him to tell me what he is thinking on the subject and he will probably explore his mind and he'll ask me what I think, and then I'll ask him back, and it goes on and on.
The major problem here is when someone gets too dogmatic. If in conversing we want to explore something together, we can't have someone say, "Here's the answer, Buffo, and there's no other possibilities!" The shared assumption is that we don't get too dogmatic and that we explore and think together.
Fifth, a good conversation desires wisdom. I have very little use for a conversation that goes nowhere unless a few of us are gathered just to chat over beer or coffee or about a football game. No, a good conversation with a good topic or question leads to mutual exploration so each of us can learn and grow in wisdom. As a Christian, we want the conversation to lead us into the wisdom of the way of Jesus.
Sixth, a good conversation stays within the parameter of the topic. One of the routine challenges of conversation is wandering. We begin with a good question—Did Jesus do miracles by the power of the Spirit or in his own power? Can libertarian economics exist in a world like ours? That begins on the right track, but then someone begins to talk, and wander aloud to another topic (a previous event in life) and then we're talking about that event, which leads to another topic and we realize we are no longer on topic. This element of conversation requires either a conversation partner who keeps us in line or, better yet, we make a mutual commitment to stay in line.
Ingredients of a Conversation: Something important, a couple of people, and a desire to learn from one another.
But, often mutual exploration is not what happens. Why?
The first obstacle is the ‘right vs. wrong’ risk. The assumption: “Orthodoxy is right; anything else or less than orthodoxy is wrong!” With that looming behind every conversation, when a person raises a question there is immediately a worry if what the person is asking is orthodox or not; whether or not by participating in such a conversation, a person will be seen as harboring doubts about orthodoxy; and whether associating with such persons, calls into question one's reputation. Quickly, in many cases, the conversation stops being conversation and becomes, instead, a quick lesson on what tradition teaches the Bible says and that if one strays from that, one is questioning the Bible and, there you have it, the slippery slope worry comes to the surface.
The second obstacle is that conversations, instead of becoming explorations of one another's minds on a given topic as each reflects on how each makes theological decisions, become information-exchange sessions. Whoever knows the most becomes the teacher; whoever knows the least becomes the student. That's all. It's about information exchange. It becomes catechesis instead of conversation.
But the "art" of conversation can't be learned in such a context when everything is dominated by right vs. wrong or when it becomes whoever knows the most becomes the teacher. This isn't conversation; this is lecture or information exchange. I do not deny the value of information, nor do I deny the importance of orthodoxy. But can we have conversations sometimes?
What are the marks of a good conversation?
First, a good conversation (and therefore a good conversationalist) requires a safe environment. By this I mean space—somewhere to feel comfortable; and I mean at least two people with listening skills; and I mean the ability to disagree if necessary but not denounce, condemn, or berate.
Illustration: Many have turned to the blog world because they are having difficulties finding a safe place. But even that is not always enough. I can't tell you the number of pastors who have written me privately and said "I can't say this on your blog, but I want to converse with you about the post today" or about something else.
Second, a good conversation requires a good topic or a good question. This one is clear: what is a good topic for some is not for others. It is also clear that some topics are better than others. Some topics are off-limits for one person and on-limits for another. There is a social skill involved here: some people perceive immediately what is on-limits or off-limits; others don't.
Third, a good conversation operates on the basis of frequently-unexpressed, but nearly always assumed, shared assumptions. I find this to be a regular hang-up on the blog. Many of us operate with a set of assumptions—and it would be fun to bring to expression what these really are—but we don't talk about them. When someone violates them, we raise our eyebrows or start to wiggle our fingers and maybe even break into a sweat. Perhaps it begins with the viability of the question we ask.
Fourth, a good conversation requires the spirit of exploration and experimentation. If I ask my good friend, Greg Clark, who happens to be a philosopher, and therefore practiced in the art of conversation and one who finds it delightful to turn over each stone somehow, a question, I expect him to tell me what he is thinking on the subject and he will probably explore his mind and he'll ask me what I think, and then I'll ask him back, and it goes on and on.
The major problem here is when someone gets too dogmatic. If in conversing we want to explore something together, we can't have someone say, "Here's the answer, Buffo, and there's no other possibilities!" The shared assumption is that we don't get too dogmatic and that we explore and think together.
Fifth, a good conversation desires wisdom. I have very little use for a conversation that goes nowhere unless a few of us are gathered just to chat over beer or coffee or about a football game. No, a good conversation with a good topic or question leads to mutual exploration so each of us can learn and grow in wisdom. As a Christian, we want the conversation to lead us into the wisdom of the way of Jesus.
Sixth, a good conversation stays within the parameter of the topic. One of the routine challenges of conversation is wandering. We begin with a good question—Did Jesus do miracles by the power of the Spirit or in his own power? Can libertarian economics exist in a world like ours? That begins on the right track, but then someone begins to talk, and wander aloud to another topic (a previous event in life) and then we're talking about that event, which leads to another topic and we realize we are no longer on topic. This element of conversation requires either a conversation partner who keeps us in line or, better yet, we make a mutual commitment to stay in line.
