By Darrell L. Bock and Mikel Del Rosario
[Darrell L. Bock is senior research professor in New Testament Studies and executive director for cultural engagement at Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas. Mikel Del Rosario is a doctoral student in New Testament studies, project manager for cultural engagement at Dallas Theological Seminary, and adjunct professor of Christian apologetics and world religion at William Jessup University, Rocklin, California.]
As Western culture has been shedding its Judeo-Christian beliefs, the array of voices in our more tightly-connected world presents a cacophony of options. Whether it be a plethora of religious choices or of life choices, our culture exposes people to a wider set of options. What was once exotic and foreign has moved next door. Dialogical apologetics maintains that the best way to cope with such choices and reflect biblical faith is to be equipped to articulate the uniqueness of the Christian faith. Yet, somewhat counterintuitively, to listen carefully before speaking is crucial to this.
In the previous three parts of this series, we discussed the importance of listening and empathy. Now we focus on why this “way in” to a conversation is so important. As dialogical as apologetics needs to be, any good conversation requires a keen ear for what is best discussed and a probing heart to consider the best way to engage with someone—especially someone who may be thinking very differently about the world. This involves understanding how conversations work beyond what is said on the surface and how to determine the best way into substantive territory.
Understanding How Conversations Work
In a DTS Magazine article titled “Negotiating Difficult Conversations: Understanding the Three Layers of Communication,”[1] Darrell Bock explained three elements of any significant conversation. He called it “understanding the triphonics in any dialogue.”
Conversations are a primary way we relate to others. Whether it be in marriage, business, politics, theology, over Skype, social media or the phone, human conversations are precious commodities. . . . Understanding how discussions work and what can make them break down is important. In cultural engagement, conversations are a primary means of relational commerce.
Triphonics refers to something playing on three sound channels at once. That’s what most conversations are. . . .
The first level is the topic at hand. . . . Here is where we concentrate our attention—communicating what we see and why—often with a goal of persuading. In this level, we engage with the purpose of establishing assertions, garnering our evidence, and making the case. When we set up a discussion this way, the path leads to a debate versus a conversation. . . .
The second level is a combination of emotions, perceptions, and judgments at work as we speak within our discussions. It is here where conversations can get murky because people will look at the same scenario and read it differently. At this level, we see a strange brew of emotions and perspectives that work as filters in what we see and how we arrange the “facts.” Sometimes we promote these elements to level one, but they may not belong there. . . .
This premature leap often creates a misunderstanding in what is happening, so that progress in the conversation ceases. For example, when my wife complains about my not helping her enough or not caring about her, my instinct is to get defensive, defend myself (emotional level) and feel attacked as not being a good husband (identity level). My response ought to probe why she feels this way and what I can do better to help her. Being aware of our own emotions, perceptions, and judgments helps us in these conversations, especially difficult ones.
The third level is how our identity and self-understanding is impacted by what we are discussing. This is the deepest and trickiest level, but it is also always in play in conversations. It asks, “In this conversation, what is at stake for me and how am I seen as a result? How am I impacted in my soul by what is going on? How is this playing out? Am I looking bad or good in this?”
Our questions aren’t often shared and yet can be what is directing how we respond . . . We fail to make a real effort to understand [others] before engaging in any problem solving about the conversation we are having.
Listening takes effort. The exhortation of James 1:19 applies here. It is to be “quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger” (NET). In applying this to an apologetics context, we are not saying we should cease communicating biblical ideas, concepts that represent a defense of our faith, or arguments for belief. We are saying that it matters how we say it and make the case.
Dr. Gary Barnes and Dr. Wendy Miller discussed these dynamics with Dr. Bock in a Cultural Engagement Chapel titled “Difficult Conversations.” As counselors, they have seen these levels and how we can miss the connection:
Barnes: I find that difficult conversations are having the “facts and events” conversation, but that’s not where the real conversation is. It could be one or two levels below that, but the relational themes . . . are activated or triggered by the fact of that event. But we continue to have the conversation just at the “fact and event” level. To go down to the deeper levels requires a sense of trust and safety. If that’s missing, we continue to have the conversation at the “fact and event” level. For example, spouses can talk about the sequence of the wash soap and the wash cycle for ten years and not really get to what that is connected to that we need to be talking about.
Bock: “You didn’t help me with the dishes tonight,” but it’s really not about dishes. There’s the topic you’re talking about, and there are the lenses and filters that you take that conversation through. Then there are the identity issues that are wrapped up in that conversation. Think about CNN and Fox News. They’re looking at the same set of things, but they are taking it through a very different set of processes and a very different set of results. There are things going on underneath what you’re seeing in front of you that impact the way you are processing what’s in front of you.
Miller: People care more about being known than about what you know. It is important to chase the connection more than chasing change. When we’re up in those upper layers of just the event or trying to chase agreement, when the goal is that we agree, then we’re not chasing the connection where the trust is built. Then that’s where we just stay.
Before you can talk about whether or not you can agree, people have to feel like they’ve been heard. So spend time in the conversation making sure that you’ve heard somebody. You may think you’ve heard them, but what matters is if they think you’ve heard them. Then, after they feel heard, you can go on to whether or not you understand what they’re saying.
Bock: For example, I’m listening to you and my default position is to figure out my response to you. I’m working on framing the rebuttal. But that kind of listening is getting in the way of the type of thing that you’re talking about, isn’t it?
Miller: Yes, you’ve skipped to the top layer to chase agreement. You’re not chasing connection. Connection happens in listening and understanding. To get back down, let go of the rebuttal and leave that until the end—until somebody feels heard and understood. If not, you’re gonna argue about who’s right. It becomes an arm-wrestling match, which is just silly.
Bock: The first goal is the relational element. We also think about it in terms of content, making the effort to understand the other person, expressing it in such a way that they’re able to say to you, “You get what I just said to you.”
In the same conversation, Gary Barnes discusses what blocks us from making progress when we disagree.
Barnes: Whenever we’re bumping into differences, problems, or conflicts, emotions are a part of that experience. Everything is communication—verbal, nonverbal, emotions—it’s all communications. What you don’t want, especially when you’re talking about differences, problems, or conflicts, is to be driving under the influence of negative emotionality because there’s a biological thing that happens in your brain. You leave your prefrontal cortex where you do reasoning and analysis and you get hijacked to your midbrain where you do fight-or-flight. You cannot reach your goal of understanding-reasoning problem-solving when you’re in your midbrain.
The counselors are telling us that when we argue and lose connection, we really lose connection and get nowhere fast. Some might question this by noting the use of marriage illustrations and say that apologetics is different. But is it? We are after more than minds. By the wisdom of the Spirit, we are pursuing the whole person when we engage in a conversation about the faith. Listening and connecting are a key part of having a conversation where even more listening becomes possible. That goal raises the question of the best way in and what are we listening for when we engage. How does one relationally, dialogically, and effectively discuss issues about the faith?
The Best “Way In”
We are listening for a “way in.” This is not so much about the topic as it is about the person—what lens they are wearing, why and how their identity is tied to those glasses. We call this “getting a spiritual GPS on the person.” Just like the GPS tells us where we are as we drive, a spiritual GPS tries to map out where a person is and why. This often is not about the topic being discussed but how one sees it and why. It requires asking questions beyond the topic at hand. What does the person see as driving life and why? What is their knowledge of the church and the Christian faith? Is there an experience, even a bad one, with the church? Such questions are asked not to rebut misdirected ideas so much as to see what lens is being worn and what might motivate it. We speak of muting your doctrinal meter at this point and just listening for a way in. You can turn the meter back on later, once the connection is made and trust exists. You are looking for uncertainty about how the world is seen, a longing for life to make sense, a bad experience that colors how the church is seen, or the discovery of a lack of contact with what Christian faith is about.
In a series on World Religions, going from the listener to our faith, we asked three questions. (1) What does this faith hold to as its contents? This seeks to understand how that belief is structured and what drives it. (2) What is the “Velcro factor” of this faith? When someone holds to a faith, what holds them to it? What do they think they get from it? This seeks to understand why someone is an adherent. It looks for more than “I was born into this family or into this faith,” though that may be all it is. (3) How does the gospel speak into that factor? The first two questions are all about listening and asking questions, getting that GPS not by challenging but by becoming informed about the person’s spiritual direction. This fits what drives people in conversations.
In an episode called “Conversations from Coast to Coast,” Northwest Bible Church Pastor Neil Tomba shared how he used his pastoral sabbatical to bike around the country and have conversations with people. Here is how those conversations worked.
Tomba: I’ll go ride my bike early in the morning at White Rock Lake. Not long ago I came up next to a guy, he was riding slower than me, so I slowed down and I just made a comment about his bike. Next thing you know we’re in discussions about his family and about some very hard things, and he said, “Man, right now my wife and I go to bed every night and she cries.” And over the course of the conversation I prayed with him not thinking anything about it, and when we went to split here’s what he said when he went his way, I went my way, he said, “Thanks for the kindness.” And that’s just what I do, just asking questions.
Bock: You’re illustrating something fundamental: Just sitting and doing a wonderful job of listening, then asking natural but incisive questions that allow a person to tell their story and what’s driving them. Conversations have three levels: There’s the topic, the filter that you’re reading that through, and then the way personal identity is wrapped up in that conversation. Usually, what drives a conversation is that base identity level, but most people never realize it. They think they’re talking about the frosting on the top layer of the conversation. When you ask these questions, it’s like a laser that’s precisely hitting a nerve—but it’s not uncomfortable. It’s a natural conversation that emerges because you’ve asked a caring or a sensitive question. You get honest disclosure that’s not threatening.
Tomba: I started telling people, “We’re here to be curious, kind, and respectful about your story.” There are times when I’ve been riding my bike with men my age. Next thing you know, I look over and they’re weeping, from talking on a bike ride. In a culture where people are constantly confronting each other face to face, there’s something helpful for people when you’re riding side by side, shoulder to shoulder, we’re together instead against each other.
Bock: Well, working alongside together goes back to Genesis 1 and the point of the creation. Adam was created and he was alone. Eve was put at his side. They were designed to function together and harmoniously to oversee the way the creation worked and then pass that on to subsequent generations. It didn’t work out that way, but that was the design. There’s something inherently human in coming next to someone and being supportive—not in a condescending way or in a way that says, “I’m just gonna accept whatever you tell me as being the way to go,” but in a way that’s really interested with what is going on in their lives and raising questions about why they do what they do and what drives them.
Tomba: There was a man and a woman getting ready to ride their bikes, and they’re looking at us. I just said “hi.” The next thing you know we’re talking about what they’re doing, where they’re from, what they think about God, and, boom, within five minutes of the start of our ride I’m like “Oh, this can happen.” At the end of the time, they said something that took me off guard: “Thanks for talking to us today.” I can’t tell you how many times I heard, “Thank you for talking to us today.”
Dialogical apologetics is simply pursuing a dialogue, not a debate or a diatribe. You pursue the topic by working to get to the person and how they see life. You look for a way into their world and then seek to engage with the hope of the gospel. It is good news after all. People may have obstacles in the way of getting to that good news, but the best way is to listen hard and look for a good way in to meet that person in their soul. It is called dialogical apologetics for a very good reason. It is all about a genuine conversation.
Notes
- Darrell L. Bock, “Negotiating Difficult Conversations: Understanding the 3 Levels of Communication,” DTS Magazine, August 29, 2017, https://voice.dts.edu/arti-cle/negotiating-difficult-conversations/.
No comments:
Post a Comment