How Do I Think I Think? Practical Reconciliation Part 3

 

Practical Reconciliation, Part 3

This is a third in a series called “Practical Reconciliation,” and follows last week’s urging to honour as Kingdom work the talents, jobs, careers, avocations and vocations we find ourselves in. Today, I want to pass on some of the wisdom of others touching on conversation, particularly the talking/listening, writing/reading aspects.ⁱ

Technology is rapidly changing the style and format of conversation, but we will always have occasion to sit in a circle with others—or just across from one other—and exchange ideas, impressions, news, etc., and sometimes to disagree, even quarrel over any number of things. The conversation surrounding the current pandemic is an interesting study of the nature of conversation made more complex by the internet and illustrated by the fact that a student in China and a retired bus driver in Saskatchewan can converse on whatever topics interest both of them . . . with a real-time visual connection.

What this change means is many-faceted: handwriting, for one, is becoming a lost art, victim of QWERTY; it’s possible to blurt out an opinion from a computer in your basement to thousands of people you don’t even know . . . and remain anonymous; the poetry of the written word is displaced with abbreviations (lol, 2G2BT) or emoticons which, to me, mean, “I don’t care enough to type more than up to 5 keystrokes.” How does one answer this? ( : or this? ) : or 4COL?

Certainly, we can’t expect everyone to paint a masterpiece, or sculpt an impressive figure, or perform delicate heart surgery, or play the violin. Nor do we expect that everyone will aspire to similarly-lofty, all-consuming goals. But conversation is universal; conversation is the vehicle by which emotions, information, ideas are passed from person to person. It surely isn’t asking too much, then, to expect everyone to master language to whatever degree they’re capable of, to develop the ability to read more than the cartoons, and to be articulate enough to frame an idea, an emotion or a bit of information clearly. In pursuit of the Kingdom, are we actors, or consumers?

From what I’ve seen lately, that's not the direction in which we’re headed. I asked a Texan a few years ago what lay at the root of many of his countrymen’s animosity toward President Obama. He replied, as if it was a reasonable answer to my question, “Well, it’s because he’s evil.” Here was a grown man who could articulate nothing beyond the one, simple meme that was circulating on the internet.

In a world seen as binary (it’s either this or that) the utility in conversation that ought to be helping us move toward the Kingdom can be lost. There are occasions, of course, when “you’re wrong and I’m right” is true, but generally only where provable facts are in play. Much more often, we think we’re right and the other is wrong, but time reveals that we’re both partly-right and partly-wrong. We need to remember that the goal is not to be my-truth-triumphant, it’s to move together in a positive direction on the “Close to God; far away from God” continuum . . . or spectrum. In a January edition of Ideas on CBC, Irish scholar Declan Kiberd characterized the difference between the English and the Irish thus: “The English tend to think in a binary, ‘this or that’ way; the Irish tend to think, ‘This, that and both.’” Whatever else we may think of the English and the Irish, Kiberd’s point is apropos; we have a choice as to how we approach conversation.

Early on in the Anabaptist Reformation, one of the don’ts held to be creedal was that swearing an oath was not sanctioned by scripture. Based on Matthew 5:33-37, always speaking truth plainly became a measure of Christian conversation. I fully expect that a correct vision of the coming of Christ’s Kingdom must include justice and mercy, but also thoughtful, courteous conversation . . . and truthfulness.

And there’s a point about conversation that can’t be made often enough: let’s say A does something that annoys B, so B goes to C and tells him about the annoyance and they agree that A is an annoying person. They then—subconsciously, perhaps—cut A out of future conversation. The principle that B must talk to A about the annoyance before (or preferably instead of) sharing it with anyone else is highly scriptural, often bypassed but extremely damaging both to persons and to community. We’re far away from the time-honoured maxim that “speaking our truth in love” is at the very root of Kingdom conversation. One striking thing that Matthew 18:15-20 makes clear is that even in the case of blatant transgression, the “transgressor” is always present at conversations about the affair, whatever it may be.

At the same time, it would be folly to avoid conversation because of the possible hazards in saying the wrong thing, being misunderstood, feeling unable to express our thoughts adequately. Generous, forgiving communities are talkative communities.

May the spirit of the Kingdom guide us to the best conversations.

i  I could have included physical communication here as well. An elbow nudge, a wink, raised eyebrows, a snort are all statements not often included in the discussion of conversation arts.