Conversation Peace
This past Easter, I shared a passage from N.T. Wright that I still find pretty compelling. Wright wrote that Easter marks not so much the end of an old story but the start of something new:
The gospel resurrection stories end, not with “well, that’s all right then”, nor with “Jesus is risen, therefore we will rise too”, but with “God’s new world has begun, therefore we’ve got a job to do, and God’s Spirit to help us do it”. That job is to plant the flags of resurrection — new life, new communities, new churches, new faith, new hope, new practical love…
I thought of this image over the weekend as I considered how to continue with my previous posts about the pitfalls and possibilities of this interactive medium. Is it possible, I wondered, that a humble site like this (or some of the others I visit) could possibly aspire to be a “flag of resurrection”?
I realize that’s a pretty highfalutin’ assertion. And as with my previous discussion of community, it’s quite possible that I’m taking on a tad more than I should.
And yet, over the past year or so that I’ve been regularly reading the sites listed on my sidebar and others, I’ve learned a lot, I’ve been challenged quite a bit by my interactions with others, and I think I’ve grown both intellectually and spiritually. So maybe a lofty aspiration to “new conversations” might not be too much of a stretch.
But what do I mean by that?
Well, if you remember back to the beginning of this discussion, I wrote about David Dark’s idea that the lifeblood of a vital community, be it that of the American democracy or the Christian church, is the lively give-and-take of honest conversation. Yet I went on to show how easily our conversations in this medium can become fractious and can reinforce already entrenched divisions in our society and our churches.
I propose that it doesn’t have to be that way, that we might instead pursue transformational conversations that point to reconciliation. After all, that’s what “God’s new world” is all about, right? Renewal, restoration and reconciliation.
If we are to aspire to this, I’d like to suggest that these conversations need to be marked by three characteristics: truthfulness, openness, and humility.
Tonight, we’ll look at the first of those.
Truthfulness
To begin with, I think that truthful conversation is about more than just being honest. Honesty in conversation refers to how we go about presenting ourselves. It means that we don’t engage in rhetorical trickery just to win an argument. It requires us to say what we really think, even if that means admitting weakness or confessing that we don’t know something.
And this honesty is certainly important.
But I think that truthful refers to an orientation. It means that while we are being honest, we are working to point our conversations in the direction of truth. I don’t want to belabor the mechanics of this idea, but I think it changes our conversations in a few ways.
For one thing, it gives each discussion the potential of becoming part of a journey. And that means we can’t stay in our trenches, lobbing rhetoric and ad hominem attacks at each other. We have to leave our positions of safety, approach each other (more on this later), and together move our conversation towards truth. This last part can require quite a bit of negotiation and may ultimately lead to failure. But if we’re finally able to come together, face the same direction and set off in pursuit of a common goal, then perhaps reconciliation is within reach.
One more thought on this before I move on. When Paul wrote to the church in Ephesus about the goal of unity among the people of God, he said that one of the chief ways to bring about that unity was to begin ”speaking the truth in love.” While just about every English version of the Bible renders the phrase this way, I’ve read a few commentators (most recently Volf) who suggest that this translation is inadequate. They claim that the the verb is not “to speak” but rather “to truth.” Now, I’m no Greek scholar (Leighton?), but if we accept this, it means Paul is calling us to something broader than just speaking truth. He’s calling us to do truth, to live truth. And, most importantly, to do so in love. Maybe we can talk more about what this looks like later, but for now, I’m just trying to give us new ways to think about conversation, and I particularly like where this one leads.
9 Ripples from “Conversation Peace”
Brandon says:
August 31, 2005 at 6:08 am
You know, that NT Wright quote makes me think of the last scene of the first Matrix. Where Keaneau (sp?) takes off and rather than finding a nice swimming pool to sun himself by, he takes off to do something.
Also, an aside, I love how all us ‘church-going-bloggers’ appeal to Leighton whenever we need an unbiased theological source. No, really, I love it. He probably is the least biased of any of us when it comes to the holy scriptures, in my opinion.
Brandon says:
August 31, 2005 at 6:09 am
Okay, sorry about hogging your comments, but I love this post. You’ve captured thoughts I’ve been having (i.e. our blog-periods have aligned). I’m reminded a bit of my ‘ethic of dissent’ post and the email you sent me after that.
I like how you’ve put this. I think that sometimes even the more progressive of us are lulled into a conversation only when we find something to disagree with. That’s unfortunate, because at the start it puts us into a position of tenuosity. I think you’re dead on that we too often bask, then, in the safe-haven of rhetoric, red-herrings, and ad-hominem. After all, what’s easier than that; you’d never have to leave the safety of your tidy little ideological home.
If we lived in a world where people could ‘have’ the truth (all of it, not just distorted little parts), this, perhaps, could be a reasonable rubric by which communication could happen. But, we don’t. Thus, transformational communication is a must, and I’m thrilled of your shining the light on this, Zalm.
Here’s my challenge: What does renewal look like? Does it mean communication that is persuasive? That is, is transformational communication right because it gets people to agree? I suspect your answer to that will be no. But, then, what does it mean to ‘bridge the gap?’ (And, it’s fine if you haven’t a good answer to this, it’s a pretty tough--actually damn near impossible--question to completely answer...but I’m curious on your thoughts!)
Pete says:
August 31, 2005 at 9:08 am
Great discussion.
I agree with the Greek construct that you mention - aletheuo, usually translated as “speaking the truth” is literally - “to truth”. This construct is - VERB: present active participle masculine plural nominative - there is no “lego” (to speak) in the participle nor in the sentence. The idea of “speaking” is carried over by the context of the previous verse in that we are carried away by “bad doctrine” or “trickery” from the spoken or taught word of others - I think that the translation is correct in intent, but I also believe that “to truth in everything” captures the heart of the idea, since for someone “to untruth” it starts in the heart and intents- broader than just the words we say. This HAS to be what Paul means since he was very concerned with inner transformation in contrast to outward show.
Just my two cents.
zalm says:
August 31, 2005 at 3:09 pm
Thanks for starting the ball rolling on discussion, guys. And for the people who are coming over from Brandon’s site, feel free to pull up a chair and join in.
I appreciate the extra info on Paul’s Greek, Pete. While I’m focused specifically on these kinds of online conversations, I think the characteristics I’m talking about are perhaps even more important in the rest of our interactions. And I think the idea of “truthing” in love speaks to that. It’s also an admonition that it’s one thing to talk a good game, but it’s another thing to live it.
I thought you’d be up for this one, Brandon. And with your questions, you’re thinking about three posts ahead. I have some general ideas that I was going to riff off of, and I probably should think about them a bit more instead of dashing them off on a lunch break. But I would love to hear how other people might answer those…
Heidi says:
September 1, 2005 at 3:09 pm
Zalm,
I just found your blog from visiting Two World Collision. GREAT stuff here, and I love this topic?...it’s something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately too, as often I tend to hit on sore subjects in my blog (I’m not trying to be contrary, really!) - and since most of my readers are real-life friends of mine, this has some interested connotations for those friendships. (Sheesh, the fallout after I brought up the topic of the subjection of women?....)
Brandon asked:
I think the answer has to be in our hearts and our attitudes, because nothing we do will ever be guaranteed to persuade someone or guarantee that they respond with humility and “truthing in love.” I love the phrase “transformational communication” - it makes me think of the transformation that happens in our own hearts when we’re willing to be vulnerable and open and admit we don’t know everything, but that we’re going to point ourselves in the direction of truth like you said and head that direction with the help of our partners in conversation. It’s so different than debate for the purpose of proving a point, and I love that. Too often I settle for mere debate, and it ends up being so empty.
Jim says:
September 1, 2005 at 8:09 pm
I don’t know Greek either and I’m sorry I haven’t gotten around to reading this until tonight. But 1 John has the same sort of thing you’re pointing at here… doing the truth. The writer of 1John uses the expression a number of times beginning in the very first chapter. The NRSV translates it like this...1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him while we are walking in darkness, we lie and do not do what is true;
So it wasn’t just Paul, it was also the Johannine community. And you’ll have a hard time getting more of a Koinoniac (???) orientation that theirs.
zalm says:
September 1, 2005 at 8:09 pm
Thanks for stopping by, Heidi. Your comment got eaten by WordPress, so I ended up reposting what I got on my Bloglines feed. The only thing I missed is the url to your site. I’d love to read some of the conversations you’ve been having, so I hope you’ll be back to leave another comment.
I’m still thinking through where to go next with this discussion, and I’m still tossing around Brandon’s questions. I think you bring up a good point, one that I touched on in Part 2 but didn’t really flesh out. And that is that this whole idea of stepping out of our places of safety and opening ourselves to the possibility of being shaped by someone else is often unilateral and therefore quite risky. Perhaps all we can do is step out in good faith and invite others to do the same.
In my case, I find it interesting that the same aspects of this kind of conversation that make it difficult to achieve meaningful community or meaningful reconciliation also make it easier for me to take that step. One of the reasons I’ve enjoyed writing over the past few months is because I actually feel a little more free to explore things and take stances that I’d be more afraid to take in many of my other relationships.
Heidi says:
September 2, 2005 at 11:09 am
Zalm,
Hopefully my URL will come through this time.
If not I’ll include it here in the body of my ripple: http://www.livewithdesire.com.
I feel the same way you do about being able to explore things and take stances in writing that I am not yet able to do in other relationships. It’s a wonderful tool for learning and growing...if we use it wisely, as you’ve been so meaningfully expounding upon in these posts.
Timothy Wright says:
December 31, 2005 at 4:12 pm
Hi,
Lots of great insights and thought here. I was just passing through and I caught the thoughts by Volf and then this one where you said “ We have to leave our positions of safety, approach each other (more on this later), and together move our conversation towards truth.”
How do I do this. I am not trying to be critical, this comment just stopped me and made me think. I work with college students in England and when we are talking about Jesus, they want to know if I think if its the only true way to know God. I do but I prefer not to start there. How do I actually disenage my belief system for a conversation?
Do you think Jesus could actually do it, being 100% human & God. How does that happen? If he didn’t know he was God could he say such things as He said, and how do I really listen with out having my experience of Jesus get in the way of a dialogue.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Tim--Great Blog
-----