A Decoder Ring for Civil Discourse
I will come clean. I was the person who suggested to Jason that we read the book How to Have Impossible Conversations.[1] (HTHIC) After all, I am the person in our cohort trying to develop a methodology for leaders to facilitate conversations in which there are deep differences of opinions while maintaining community. Why wouldn’t I want to review a “practical guide” and discuss it with my academic friends? And, I appreciate the authors work to help people take a beat, name their own emotions and not run head long into a verbal war of words.
However, this book did not turn out to be what I had hoped. On one hand, I feel a little like Ralphie in A Christmas Story [2] when he finally gets his decoder ring and realizes it is not what he expected: disappointed. Alternatively, as a person trying to come up with a novel solution, I also am relieved to find that what I am trying to create has not been done yet.
Maybe it is an occupational hazard of being a professional facilitator, but I cannot NOT hear the other side of an issue. When I see an outlier, I want to kick the tires on the ideas, understand the why, hear the background. My word count limits me to discuss only one side of the coin, however, so an ask of you: Please, push on my arguments, here. Give me some guardrails to protect me from “heretical” thinking. Tell me how, as leaders, you have found an equilibrium in the tension between establishing a moral code, and being inclusive?
Boghossian’s (and Lindsay’s) Stated Objectives for How to Have Impossible Conversations
In an earlier work: A Manual for Creating Atheists[3], Peter Boghossian developed a methodology which he coined: Street epistemology to help “religious believers” critically reflect and question their beliefs. It is an effort to help people change their minds- presumably, to convince them to adopt his rejection of any religious belief which he sees as delusions.[4] He takes this idea of subtle persuasion further in HTHIC, which was described by someone in a blurb in the back of the books as ”… a self-help book on how to argue effectively, conciliate, gently persuade.”[5] Indeed, on the Amazon page telling us what the book is about, it references a goal of teaching “the subtle art of instilling doubts and opening minds” [6]
When I read this intention of “instilling doubts” and “gentle persuasion”, I feel a number of questions emerge:
- Do I really think I own a corner on the Truth Market, or is it possible that I also see through a mirror, dimly?[7]
- Am I completely confident that my own views on the matter consistently reach an unimpeachable standard of critical thinking?
- Is it possible that approaching the other as an intellectual equal (not assuming they need their critical thinking skills adjusted) may garner a deeper conversation, and even potentially change some minds?
I have spent the past 2.5 years thinking of ways to do something different than what is suggested in HTHIC. I have endeavored to help create a space for people to share their own views, with the primary purpose of being heard and understood. A core intention is to not perpetuate an attitude that one view is better or more important than the other.
But, What About Truth and Critical Thinking? Yes, and…
I realize that what I am suggesting here may sound as if I am in favor of adopting a relative truth. On the contrary. I like truth as much as the next person but this gets down to a role clarity conversation. Is it my job to convince you of truth? In John, When Christ was preparing his disciples for his departure, he said:
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.[8]
Discerning truth is empowered more by God than by a my well-applied use of the Socratic method. Do we need to temper this with an unflinching assertion that there is an ultimate truth? YES! Does society also need an answer to the lack of critical thinking that we see across society that is potentially contributing to a collective anxiety. Probably. We are learning leadership is all about managing tensions, so I will continue to surface more questions:
- Do we need MORE conversations where we are trying to correct wrong thinking? I am not asking if we need them… of course we do, but I would suggest we currently have a lot of people telling others that they are wrong. We do NOT have a lot of people just listening to each other.
- Imagine, after you have had a conversation with someone who you thought sincerely wanted to hear what you have to say and then you discover that they only wanted to hear you so that they could get you to change your mind. What does that do to a relationship?
I shared on the call last week that I was struck with how people on either sides of the political spectrum are feeling alienated. Scared. Fearful. When you have most of a society operating from a pace of fear, rational thinking of the other seems beyond our capabilities. IF I hear you, then maybe I am giving your idea credence. Or, gasp, maybe I will even convert to your way of thinking. Again, I am not suggesting we abandon critical thinking, or sharing that process with others. I am not suggesting that we ignore scripture or the truth that is revealed there. I guess what I am suggesting is that we put on hold the temptation to try to be the arbiters of truth. Let’s let God do that. Instead, what if we focused on, in relationships, struggling alongside one another as we try to see more clearly? What if we compassionately encouraged each other to not give up prayerfully pursuing God’s truth, and to listen to each other as we progress on that journey?[9]
___________________________
[1] Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide (Da Capo Lifelong Books, 2019).
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Christmas_Story
[3] Peter Boghossian and Michael Shermer, A Manual for Creating Atheists, Illustrated edition (Durham, NC: Pitchstone Publishing, 2013).
[4] “Peter Boghossian,” in Wikipedia, November 8, 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Boghossian&oldid=1256167135.
[5] Boghossian and Lindsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations, 234.
[6] “How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide: Boghossian, Peter, Lindsay, James: 9780738285320: Amazon.Com: Books,” accessed November 12, 2024, https://www.amazon.com/How-Have-Impossible-Conversations-Practical/dp/0738285323/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=.
[7] 1 Corinthians 13:12
[8] John 16:13-14
[9] In my research, I have discovered some resources that did NOT make me feel like Ralphie from that ridiculous Christmas Story. Resources I have found helpful:
- Shirley A. Mullen, Claiming the Courageous Middle: Daring to Live and Work Together for a More Hopeful Future (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2024). A commissioning of sorts; a call for us to be the liaison between two sides in a debate.
- Kevin Palau, “Unlikely: Setting aside Our Differences to Live out the Gospel” (New York: Howard Books, An Imprint of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 2015). Kevin Palau’s story of finding a way to be in relationship with people who reject his worldview
- Unfractured: https://willamette.cc/un-fractured/un-fractured-resources. This is a quirky little group from equally quirky Portland, Oregon, trying to build up Church leaders who are comfortable living in the tension of varying viewpoints within the congregation.
About the Author
Jennifer Vernam
16 responses to “A Decoder Ring for Civil Discourse”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
And ( I am taking the author’s cue here) wouldn’t that require our conversation partners to know themselves well? I wonder if the problem lies in the fact that we are a shallow culture with a lack of self-knowledge? Maybe that’s where your desire for active listening is stemming from–for individuals to re-aquaint themselves with the self they have ignored for so long-which can only happen with feedback from another?
I am going to jump in to agree with Pam’s question here. In these ongoing conversations about critical thinking and epistemology I keep coming back to many experiences where I think people just don’t want to engage rationally. Or maybe they haven’t been taught to do so. I don’t mean to make this a rant. I genuinely sometimes don’t know how to deal with these conversations where the other person is not interested in logic or curiosity.
I will add to your comment, that I think the frustration may be that people do not have a firm grip on what their non-negotiables are and why. In my work, I am putting a lot of emphasis on people understanding their own values and then looking for places where those values overlap with others with whom they disagree (sorry for the awkward grammar!). Maybe part of the issue is that people are not getting that deep in their thinking and instead relying on soundbites or opinions of influencers?
Jen,
You ask – “Tell me how, as leaders, you have found an equilibrium in the tension between establishing a moral code, and being inclusive?”
This has become tough. What does a moral code look like? How do you enforce it without seeming to be exclusive? These are very real tensions for pastors in a world that wants the moral code to be defined by each person’s own perception of morality.
I do believe teaching congregants to extend love is crucial. Acceptance is a healing balm. Allowing people to grow at their own pace is important. The tension we have is more on the leadership level.
When I have leadership meetings, we discuss what is expected of a leader and why living morally and ethically to a Biblical standard is important. And that Biblical standard aligns with what we believe scripture to say. In some ways this is exclusive. If you don’t want to live ethically or morally as our church defines it, then we would rather you not lead.
You can certainly attend and will be very loved, but there are expectations that are different for leaders in a church setting (at least for ours). What are your feelings about this?
I agree with your approach, Esther.
I wonder how we can move the language from one of exclusion/inclusion? For example, if we opt to only have leaders who agree with us on our essential issues, is it more about having someone who holds our values? Do we have to say that “exclusive”? I mean, what if a corporation hired a CEO who hated the company’s product? We would not call that inclusive, we would call it foolish. I get that this is going against the prevailing narrative of identity politics.
Maybe I am naïve, but I think if we can land the relational and listening portions of this work, then the concerns of exclusivity might be eased. If I am in relationship with you, you will be more likely to accept the views I hold that are different from yours.
Good point. We (the church) just hear that language so much and are often blamed for exclusion. As I think about it, it makes sense in how we approach and word it. Such a difference between “you can’t be a part” and “we’d love for you to join us and here is what has made a difference in our lives. Would you like to join us?” Thanks for your insight.
Jenn, I really appreciate how you approached this.
This book didn’t sit well with me. I wanted to like it and learn from it, but I kept feeling that the author was tryign to teach us how to win the argument rather than have a conversation.
As one who cares about absolute/scriptural truth, I do care about helping others see that truth, but not in a manipulative way. I want others to find the truth because it’s true and because the Spirit leads them there, not because I “owned” them.
I’m super interested in what you come up with as you engage a unique solution.
Jen has generated such good comments from her post that I’m jumping into a second thread here. I resonate with what you say, Tim, about desiring others to see for themselves the ultimate truth. The question that is coming to me is this: What is the role of experience in understanding truth? In other words, as several of us have been circling around in our conversations, rational arguments often aren’t going to change someone’s heart/mind. What is the role of experience, emotion, narrative, ongoing relationship, maybe something else I’m missing? How do we weave these various elements together as we seek to show ultimate truth to others? Or maybe that’s too much pressure? Let’s say, how do we stay mindful of all these various elements as we engage in meaningful conversation directed toward ultimate truth?
I think it all boils down to relationship.
I really think that the prevailing loneliness and over scheduling of our society has been a big contributor to the division and intolerance we are seeing. We are too busy and too isolated to have the relational currency that allows us to quiet our emotional response and just hear someone else’s viewpoint. Add to that our gnat-sized attention span and we have a recipe for intolerant animosity.
Thanks for your thoughts Jen. I feel like I can sense where you’re leading…but can’t always clearly see the destination. One person who helps me get a picture of what I think you’re talking about is my friend Matt. He’s a relatively successful business coach who was once and atheist and found Jesus about 8 years ago. He told me that he was going to be a Christian but was going to be ‘undercover’ about it and not tell anyone….and the Spirit gave Matt the gift of evangelism! (God’s sense of humour). But Matt, who is still probably 35% New Age in his thinking, is not an evangelist like any other person I know. He is genuinely open to people’s ideas…he’s not threatened…he doesn’t try to convince, he just asks good questions and makes suggestions. He doesn’t have any evangelical backstory so he doesn’t know he should be convincing people to become Christians! And yet…in his openness (which at times is a bit uncomfortable for me) he has encouraged many people to consider the possibility of God and that they could do life with Him.
I think you’d like Matt and the way he goes about things. In one sense, we might say he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know….and in another, he doesn’t know enough to get caught up in all the evangelical knots and, as a result, ends up having genuine conversations without a preconceived agenda, that God uses to encourage others to take one step closer to Him.
I think that’s what you’re talking about? And if it is…it’s a beautiful thing!
I think you are saying what I am getting at. Do you think your friend is crystal clear on his nonnegotiables? I ask because I am still weary of being rudderless. I would be interested in how he approaches disagreement with others on what he has determined to be essential.
Hi Jennifer,
Such a great post. It made me reflect much more deeply than I thought I would.
Pam Lau wrote, “Use Socratic Questioning: Haidt suggests using a method of questioning to help individuals reflect on their beliefs and thought processes without immediately challenging or dismissing them. The Socratic method—asking thoughtful, open-ended questions—can encourage individuals to examine the logical consistency of their views and the underlying assumptions driving them. This technique can help diffuse defensiveness and open up space for genuine dialogue.
I was so impressed with this method that I used it for my Immigration Symposium in Texas. It helped prime the intellectual pump for many of the students who attended. I sent out a “Worksheet/study sheet” with Socratic questions AND added websites that would fuel what I hoped would be “critical thinking.”
The topic of immigration has given me ample opportunity to speak with those who are against immigration PERIOD. They don’t want to be changed on this topic. I have let them go their own path. Instead, my NPO seeks to empower like-minded people who want to love the foreigner amongst us. Hmmm, does this mean I forgo arguments? Does this make me a coward of sorts?
I’m not sure, but I have more traction that seems to be in line with the guidance God has given me in regards to the “alien amongst us.”
Shalom.
You have landed on the fly in the ointment, Russell. When do you keep in the relationship, keep engaging, when the “other” holds a viewpoint that you find wrong, upsetting, or even repugnant? I am sure this varies situational but asking “am I disengaging because I am being led to reapply my efforts elsewhere, or because I am lazy, or afraid of the conversation?” is important. Sometimes, I let a person’s view impact how I feel about that fellow image bearer and lose sight of how I think God wants me to see them.
Hi Jennifer,
I’m really looking forward to reading your doctoral project. I think we may have some overlap and now I’m guessing I’m missing something that you have!
You made a great observation, “We do NOT have a lot of people just listening to each other.” I think that is the root of most of our issues. Listening is relational. Being arbitrators of truth does not always lend itself well to building relationships because it leads to too much talking and trying to convince or persuade. I would never make it as an apologist! Thanks for the reminded that it is the Holy Spirit who guides us into truth. That is a gentle and often slow process.
Was there a take-a-way from this book that informed your doctoral project?
You know, I had high hopes for that book and was disappointed. The biggest ‘a ha’ I had was the discovery that their chief intent of the conversation was to persuade, rather than to learn. That, in itself is instructive, as I think that is where a lot of people land. (I actually had invited someone to participate in my workshop who declined once he learned that I was not going to let him try to convince others of his stand on abortion!) So, my big takeaway was to spend time in my final product explaining why that was NOT the intent of my work, and to be very explicit on the impact of listening has on relationships in teams, congregations, families, etc.
I KNEW it was YOU! Ha!
Appreciate the challenging read. Didn’t love their approach – but sure will return to it in the future because there were helpful aspects to it!
Can’t wait to see what you develop. I’d buy THAT book! 🙂
Blessings and hello from Ecuador.