Tactical Grace
I was amused to note the number of times Bogossian and Linsay reference using hostage negotiation tactics in How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide. That is because there is a second, much larger conference than we Nazarenes are having in my hotel this week. It is for the Midwest Hostage Negotiators. Every trip to our conference space entails walking through hundreds of men (and a very few women) decked out in tactical gear and side arms. After passing by several times, I finally stopped to inquire at one of the tables.
This particular display was for a phone. The poster said, “Your Throw Phone Can Be a Smartphone.” I finally asked the representative to tell me what a “throw phone” is. He explained that it is used to provide a means of communication with someone who is barricaded or has hostages, etc. The negotiating team “throws” it to the person with whom they wish to communicate. The phone appears to be a device with only one function, to communicate with the negotiator team, but it actually does more. This model surreptitiously records audio and video even when not being used as a phone and sends the feed back to the crisis response team. I thought, “That’s some sneaky business.” Perhaps it is a bit dishonest, but worth it in an effort to de-escalate and save lives.
I did not want to read How to Have Impossible Conversations, but from the perspective of being a tool to de-escalate and possibly save lives, I embrace it. This blog will reflect on the sources of my resistance and how my perspective is shifting.
My knee-jerk response to the title and initial overview was that Impossible Conversations is about actively trying to change other people’s minds by employing an array of tools and tactics. Interestingly, this is similar to the reaction some people have to my NPO about more effective evangelistic preaching. Because of this occasional response, I have learned to deploy one of the fundamentals put forth by the authors: to define terms up front.[1] When people know what I mean by “evangelistic,” they are much more likely to engage in conversation about my NPO. Having found some common ground with the author, I was willing to take another step and read more deeply.
Impossible Conversations repeatedly emphasizes avoiding using facts to change minds, plant doubt, or bring people to another position.[2] The authors’ approach is more about inclining people toward disconfirmation by using thoughtful questions to raise doubts.[3]
This approach opposes that of Gad Saad in Parasitic Mind. When we read Saad, I was put off by the author’s sarcastic tone and his seemingly daunting strategy of developing a mountain of evidence to combat people’s anti-rational beliefs.[4] Saad’s approach felt impossible. How would I ever be able to amass enough facts on a wide variety of topics to “win” a conversation?
My impression of the type of scenario in Parasitic Mind tended toward hostile encounters with people of dubious common sense who had drunk deeply of the worst of postmodern ideology. That book seemed to be focused on the kinds of conversations Boghossian and Linsay refer to as “Master Level” beginning in chapter seven, “Two Keys to Dealing with Ideologues”.[5] By coming to a self-understanding about “why” I might wish to engage in impossible conversations, I accept that I don’t need to have an encyclopedic fact list memorized, nor do I need to be a Chapter Seven Level conversationalist. My goal is not to change minds, but to win hearts. My faith is in the prevenient grace of God that is drawing all people to Godself. My role is not to do the work of God, but to partner with God.
I am not alone when facing impossible conversations. My partner is the Holy Spirit, who cares deeply for people who are hostages to the extreme outcomes of postmodern thinking. I don’t need a “throw phone” with special features. The Holy Spirit is hearing every word, seeing every interaction, and already knows the heart behind every belief antithetical to a relationship with Jesus. Impossible Conversations repeatedly emphasizes listening deeply, a skill I have previously blogged is a form of love.[6]
Sometimes, I just do not want to have an Impossible Conversation. It feels burdensome and effortful. It is tempting to slap a scripture on it and move on, but doing so can be inflammatory and only reinforces non-Christians’ preconceived ideas of Christians as judgmental hypocrites. Reading the book while adjacent to a crisis negotiator conference strongly impressed me with the idea that some people are captive to their ideologies, and as a follower of Jesus and a pastor, I have a responsibility to lovingly engage in impossible conversations. My goal is not to change a mind, but to soften a heart by representing Jesus as someone who can listen deeply and understand why people believe what they do.
[1] Peter G. Boghossian and James Linsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide (New York: Hatchette Books, 2020), 42.
[2] Boghossian and Linsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations, 23.
[3] In chapter five of Impossible Conversations, Boghossian and Linsay state that the most effective question is “Under what could [insert belief] be wrong?” If the conversation partner can answer, then the door of disconfirmation is cracked open.
[4] Gad Saad, The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense, New York: Regenery, 2020.
[5] Boghossian and Linsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations, 158.
[6] Boghossian and Linsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations, 10.
About the Author
Julie O'Hara
12 responses to “Tactical Grace”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Julie! Thank you for your transparency. I believe impossible conversations have the potential of leaving one drained and asking why I even engaged. You mentioned listening, and I wonder how much this has aided you in the impossible conversation zone?
Hi Daren,
Listening has both helped and hurt me in the impossible conversation zone. Sometimes I have used listening as a way of being present, but it can be a lazy default if I don’t go to the next step of asking some type of question. I am able to reassure myself that I responded with love by listening, but when the gap between what the person is saying, and my own belief feels so wide, I’ve been tempted with an emotional “why bother” response. I would like to well and truly demonstrate being a better listener by being able to ask an open-ended question with a heart and mind open to learning.
Hi Julie, I really appreciated your connection to your NPO and that your partner is the Holy Spirit. I will keep that one, thank you. Was there any particular skill that the authors talked about that either resonated with you or you thought – ugh that’s not for me?
Hi Diane,
My mind went immediately to something I highlighted about acknowledging anger. (p. 128) If we notice an emotional reaction in someone and label it “anger,” they may become defensive. I know that is really true for me. Nothing in the world enrages me like being told that I’m angry! Using the word “frustration” instead of “angry” is a good help for conversation within marriage or family and can be practiced in lower stakes settings.
Julie, I loved reading this post. I had never heard of a throw phone either. You seem to have figured out your personal boundaries pretty well. You are aware of the authors (or interpersonal relationships) that may be more draining and those that are more apt to produce fruit.
How might you use these tips in a hard conversation that may not be combative, but hard in the sense of a deep place of love and concern?
Jennifer, Thank you very much for this question. My husband has decided he will never meet our daughter’s boyfriend. It has now been almost 6 months and I don’t see the BF going away… Perhaps I can ask my husband, “Are there any circumstances in which you would be willing to meet our daughter’s boyfriend?” I will go back to the text and consider how to use disconfirmation to possibly crack open the stone wall.
Julie, I loved the fact that you brought in the person and work of the Holy Spirit into this post. The ability to listen to the leading of Holy Spirit while listening to the other person is something worth cultivating.
How have you cultivated this in your life?
Hi Graham,
When I am in a difficult conversation I am learning to remember that the Holy Spirit is with me. For example, if someone is telling something really painful and hard, and I start to worry that I don’t/won’t know what to say, I remember that the Spirit is present and ministering. I also pray for the Holy Spirit to prepare both me and the other party when I know, I am approaching a difficult conversation.
I also have a habit of reminding any congregation I’m speaking to that the Followers in the room are recipients of the Holy Spirit. I envision them as gathered sparks bringing light into any darkness. It is kind of fanciful, but I find the practice of thinking of people this way causes my heart to be very warm toward them and it is unifying.
Julie, thank you for your honesty in not wanting to have impossible conversations. I, too, am tired of them! I try to listen to understand, rather than respond, but it feels like it is rarely reciprocated. Thanks for the reminder that “I have a responsibility to lovingly engage in impossible conversations.” What helps you remember this and keep moving forward?
Hi Kari, I hope this is not too simplistic. It is Jesus. If I reject, listening to people, not including if someone is being abusive, then I feel I am rejecting them. I recently listened and tried to openly engage in a conversation with people over an idea that, to me, was a consipiracy theory. Something I needed to come back, was my own fear of seeming like I endorsed their idea by engaging in the conversation. This book prepares me better for next time. I should be able to more easily say tell me more about why you believe that?
Julie,
Yes, the book does give us the ability to ask better reflective questions. At the same time, these conversations can be very draining and it is okay for us to not engage in every conversation, every time. I think that we can more fully engage in some conversations when we have also taken the opportunity to not engage in all of them.
There’s a poetic tension here of working with the Nazarene pastors adjacent to a whole group of hostage negotiators. Yet both groups require the same skill set in a fractured world – the ability to engage in impossible conversations.
Just a comment of appreciation for you. You’ve picked up on an intrinsic motivation to be available for impossible conversations (even when you don’t want to). You write,
“By coming to a self-understanding about “why” I might wish to engage in impossible conversations, I accept that I don’t need to have an encyclopedic fact list memorized, nor do I need to be a Chapter Seven Level conversationalist. My goal is not to change minds, but to win hearts”.
And that’s just it. Fully available to the Spirit of God for the conversation you need to have, in whatever situation. I’d want you to negotiate my hostage release.