Posted by Josh on: 02.27.2008 /
The other day, as I was sipping on an Americano from Starbucks, and kicking myself for not bringing my own reuseable cup, when I looked down at the paper cup I was drinking from and read this quote:
“You can learn a lot more from listening than you can from talking. Find someone with whom you don’t agree in the slightest and ask them to explain themselves at length. Then take a seat, shut your mouth, and don’t argue back. It’s physically impossible to listen with your mouth open.” (John Moe)
As I’ve embarked on a journey of conversation with my newly found friend Lawrence, who happens to be an atheist, I was struck with how important this concept of listening really is within the framework of spiritual conversations. Lawrence, who is a psychology and sociology major finishing up his senior year, pointed out very early in our conversations, the fact that our belief (or unbelief) in God acts as a catalyst to separate people from one another, an act he called “dichotomization.” Part of this is based off of fear. Fear that the religious constructions that have informed our faith (or unfaith) might somehow be deconstructed by the other persons thinking.
In Christianity, most of the modern apologetic for the faith has been based on not listening. Rather, we focused our attention on trying to figure out what the objections might be before our “conversations” and SPEAKing to them in defense of our own understandings. Listening was an empathetic means of persuasion, rather than an opportunity to actually learn.
I realized very early on, that in order for my conversations with Lawrence to be genuine and meaningful for ME, I needed to be willing to actually open up and listen, actively engaging his positions on matters of faith (or unfaith), and giving him the dignity that I was asking for in return. In a sense, I had to allow it to get messy.
As I began to do this, I realized that it’s worth it. It hasn’t been a walk in the park, and there have been times in our conversations where I’ve listening without opening my mouth has made things very uncomfortable. However, I’m starting to find comfort in the conversations and discomfort in this separation which Lawrence gave me words to understand.
That is my story so far. I encourage all people who are participating in this conversations to post your thoughts below!
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
1 02/27/08 8:18 PM | Comment Link |Josh I’m really glad you’ve recognized that traditional evangelism leaves out listening and you’re doing your best to incorporate listening (the learning kind, not the “I’m only doing this so you’ll listen to ME in a minute” kind) into your conversations with Lawrence.
Josh can you say more about this? Can you remember what Lawrence said that you had a hard time not responding to? What did you want to say that you didn’t say?
Comment by: Lawrence
2 02/27/08 11:52 PM | Comment Link |All relationships of people to each other rest, as a matter of course, upon the precondition that they know something about each other. ~Georg Simmel
To measure a person, I must get to know them and, unfortunately, too often we are in too big of a hurry to do this, and so we base our understanding on schematas to neatly package people into quickly discernible groups.
I wanted to begin this journey because I felt that my understanding of Christians was largely influenced by the groups that get the majority of attention, and that this was not an accurate representation. The experience with my friend Josh has allowed me to see a demographic that I am not regularly exposed to. This has allowed me to not only convey my view of the world from my perspective but to also see how others may experience the same situation from their unique lens. This is not always an easy task and at times I have also been uncomfortable but a part of understanding is to sometimes be exposed to those things that make us uncomfortable. I look forward to our continued conversations and I feel we still have much to learn from each other.
This makes a lot of sense in my head but I am running on little sleep and in line for another late night of studying. If anything needs clarified please don’t hesitate to ask.
~ljp
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
3 02/28/08 5:11 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your comment, Lawrence.
I appreciate your interest in learning more about the demographic Josh is part of (although of course, he is only one individual representation of it)
Like I asked Josh, can you remember any specific times Josh said something that made you feel uncomfortable?
Comment by: Lawrence
4 02/28/08 6:17 AM | Comment Link |Indeed, Josh may only be one person, but my interaction with him has led to this venue and, I hope, comments, inquiries, and maybe even constructive criticisms that I can flesh out an even further understanding from.
As for times of being uncomfortable, there were two instances. The first was when he said something to the degree of as much, or more faith to be an atheist than a Christian. However, I did not keep it in mind for too long as I did not feel that it meant as an attack. Second, there was an instance when we were discussing the underlying premise for science and what it means in understanding the world. This made me uncomfortable because it is how I understand my world and began to feel to me as an attack before I sat back and thought things through.
Comment by: Lawrence
5 02/28/08 6:18 AM | Comment Link |it requires as much, or more faith…*
Comment by: Mike O
6 02/28/08 11:03 AM | Comment Link |I’ve been working REALLY hard at this *listening* thing, too. I had a major paradigm shift early on here on the blog in what my motives are. As a lifer Christian, my modes of thinking are pretty ingrained. And one that has required a good amount of effort on my part to tweak around a bit is the idea that “anyone who isn’t a Christian needs to be, and if God puts me in relationship with non-Christians, I should use that opportunity to ultimately convert them.”
Any Christian would agree. In fact, to be perfectly honest, I still agree with me on that one :) - I DO think everyone should follow Christ. But the paradigm shift came in one small shift of thinking. It’s not MY job to convert anyone (as if I could??!?) That’s God’s job. And if the God I believe in is real, he can handle that part of it. My “job” is not to convert - it’s to be Christlike. If I make non-Christian friends for the purpose of converting them, that’s not friendship at all, that’s manipulation. I had to come to the place that I didn’t care if people converted or not. Don’t get me wrong - I do HOPE for it, and I do PRAY for it - but my friendship and my relationships do NOT require it. The paradigm shift, for me, comes with the idea that whether you ever convert or not, we can still be friends and learn from each other.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
7 02/28/08 1:01 PM | Comment Link |Lawrence, thanks for your response.
I would be curious to know why someone would say “it takes as much, or more faith to be an atheist than a Christian” because I don’t think it takes any faith to be an atheist. I wouldn’t interpret it as an attack but I would tend to think it means the person saying it doesn’t understand atheism very well. (No offense Josh)
Anyway I think it’s great that you were able to step back a couple of times and realize a comment was not intended as an attack.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
8 02/28/08 1:41 PM | Comment Link |Mike, I think what you said is so important: once you decide it’s not your responsibility to convert people you can relax and enjoy the relationship.
And you can let conversations go wherever, rather than forcing them a particular direction, since presumably it’s possible to be like Jesus while discussing a variety of topics which are fun and not overtly religious.
Comment by: Josh
9 02/28/08 2:38 PM | Comment Link |As to your question in the first comment Helen:
Places where it got intense was often we got to places where I had to listen honestly to what Lawrence saw as the stereotypical side of Christianity. We got onto the topic of Televangelists being the spokespersons for evangelicalism, and it was very uncomfortable for me to hear him talk about christian faith and culture, from outside of it. What made it most uncomfortable was the fact that what Lawrence was able to talk about as something outside of himself, was something that was part of my heritage and culture. I wanted to lash out and say that if he was going to call slimy televagelists the spokespersons for the church, than I was going to call Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens the manifest understanding of atheism, which isn’t a fair assessment from my end either.
Comment by: Josh
10 02/28/08 3:09 PM | Comment Link |One of the things that has come up in our conversations, has been this idea that science and faith have influencing paradigms which facilitate understanding. Often, in a modern world we are told to trust in the modern paradigm and question the former religious paradigms. I think that, not necessarily for the strict purpose of evangelism, we should make ourselves extremely aware of the paradigms we are a part of.
That said, what I said regarding atheism requiring more faith than Christianity, may have been ignorant of atheism, but isn’t that what this exercise of dialog is all about? In our specific conversation, we were talking about how socialization has such control over our decisions, and I was agreeing with Lawrence as to how difficult it must be for him to step out of that socialization and take a stand based off the evidence he has. Maybe “faith” is a loaded term, but it was certainly meant in the “belief that compels one to take a stand” sort of understanding.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
11 02/28/08 3:28 PM | Comment Link |Josh wrote:
Josh maybe your experience is different from mine - I don’t recall being told to ‘trust’ outside Christian circles. But I agree that it’s good to step back and at whether we are more skeptical of some sources than others for no reason except prior bias in favor of some and against others.
Anyway, back to the dialog in general: it sounds like you’ve both been sharing some preconceptions about each others’ groups. I guess that surprised me but maybe it shouldn’t: on reflection I can’t see why not if you are both prepared to hear things you might not like. I can certainly see how it would be uncomfortable hearing someone say things you feel aren’t right about your group without leaping to defend yourself/your group.
So how is your conversation structured? Do each of you talk for a set time and the other listens - is that why you wouldn’t respond to something that you’re uncomfortable with? Or is it more that you don’t want to go there at this point? Will you go into those things later?
I’m just trying to understand how this works…
Comment by: Jason
12 02/28/08 3:33 PM | Comment Link |This is very interesting but I have to say that I have trouble just sitting back and listening. I have so many questions that I have trouble saving them all up till the other person has finished. I also think questions stop me from making my mind up too quickly.
Isn’t deconstruction a good thing? It may be uncomfortable to have someone examine your basis for belief but why should anyone fear that? You gain because you either get to strengthen your opinions by better understanding them or discard false assumptions.
Comment by: John
13 02/29/08 4:52 PM | Comment Link |Hey folks. I wrote that quote on the Starbucks cup up there. It was based on a whole series of listening experiences in my book Conservatize Me (now in paperback!). I’m glad it provoked some discussion and, better yet, some listening.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
14 03/1/08 5:45 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for stopping by, John. It’s a great quote!
Comment by: Josh
15 03/1/08 9:28 PM | Comment Link |I wish I could say that it’s that structures. It’s more freeflow, but I think for me I’ve been “living” with my objections, rather than jumping in and interrupting. I’m sure that we will go there, and have done so.
Comment by: Josh
16 03/1/08 9:30 PM | Comment Link |YEs…thanks John, it really helped put into perspective this concept of otherness and conversation. I really appreciate your inspiration! Now, if only starbucks would put it on their non-paper cups… :)
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
17 03/2/08 8:54 AM | Comment Link |Josh, maybe as you and Lawrence get to know each other better it will be easier to know how to ask questions/take a topic further without seeming accusatory.
Comment by: Josh
18 03/2/08 10:02 AM | Comment Link |Actually, I think for the most part, our conversations have remained pretty non-accusatory. I’m afraid that “uncomfortable” has become synonymous with “accusatory” in this line of comments, which I really feel is a misrepresentation of my conversations with Lawrence. Our conversations are good, and I hope that we haven’t misrepresented them here in this forum. One thing that Lawrence and I have talked alot about is the quickness in which our otherness separates us into unknowable groups by focusing on difference rather than similarity. I think that “conflict” (that word is negatively charged and I mean it is the most positive way possible) has allowed us to dig deeper into our conversations. I actually hope that we can see the redemption of our ignorant questioning/comments into a means of going deeper into the topic at hand. I think that’s how we’ve handled our “conflict” in the past, and I hope that that’s how it’ll go in the future too.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
19 03/2/08 12:15 PM | Comment Link |Josh, I did get the impression your conversations are good. Like you I hope they will continue that way!
Comment by: Jason
20 03/6/08 4:03 PM | Comment Link |Josh, what do you do about someone who won’t listen to you? I agree that it is laudable to listen to others but what should happen if this isn’t reciprocated?
Comment by: Josh
21 03/6/08 6:28 PM | Comment Link |That’s a great question Jason. The only thing that we can control is our own actions and choices. Oftentimes, you will enter into conversation with people of differing beliefs/opinions who demand your listening ear, but are not willing to give theirs.
I think that there are a couple of responses. If the relationship is strong enough, have a “meta” conversation about your communication addressing your feelings about the lack of reciprocity in attentive learning.
Sometimes there is something more to it. In a couple of the books that I’ve been reading, there is mention that non-Christians often feel like the culture has marginalized their opinion with a Christian world-view. This is often the case. It’s interesting for me, because as a Christian I often look at culture and see it secularized, with little actual Christian substance.
I say all of that to say this: sometimes we just have to listen, because the other person feels like their voice is being strangled by a culture in which we’re a part of. It may be hard, but hopefully we can offer it as a gift of grace. Maybe, after the establishment of trust, reciprocity will come naturally.