Communication

Review: Communicating for Life

/ rtrube54 / Leave a comment
Cover image of "Communicating for Life" by Quentin J. Schultze

Communicating for Life, Quentin J. Schultze, foreword by Martin E. Marty. Integratio Press (ISBN: 9781959685098) 2024.

Summary: An introductory text in communication grounded in a theology of communication and a vision of faithful stewardship.

Communication. It may be argued that we spend the greater parts of our day in some form of communication. Conversation with family. Scrolling through our newsfeeds, posting and commenting. Listening to podcasts. Sending texts and emails. Writing a proposal or report. Teaching a class or giving a presentation. I could go on. Our unique human capacity to convey meaning, however imperfectly is constantly employed.

Followers of Christ are people who want to please him in all we say and do. Matthew 12:36 is sobering: “But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken” (NIV). That strikes me as a lot of accounting. And it motivates me to want to do this well, in ways that honor the one I follow.

Quentin Schultze has given a great deal of thought to this matter as a professor of communication. Communicating for Life is a product of a life of reflection and teaching. While meant to serve as an introductory text for communication courses in a Christian setting, it offers great insight to any of us engaged extensively in communication. Which is all of us. While he discusses various theories and media, the focus of his work is to help us think about communication in light of our faith, with thought of how then we should live.

He begins with creation and understands communication as a way we “co-create” culture in our relationships with God, our neighbors, our world, and ourselves. Our ability to name makes us symbolic stewards in defining what things are. Done under God’s grace, communication fosters the shalom of flourishing in community in all the relationships just mentioned. One of the most powerful aspects of our symbolic stewardship is the ability to identify with other communicators through listening well and conveying our sense of connection–that we understand something of each other’s world.

Hence, Schultze thinks our theories ought to reflect our call to servant stewardship with symbols. Thus, he takes issue with transmission models of communication, which reduce communication to sending and receiving messages. Not only does this miss the creative aspects of communication but it may foster manipulation and control. In contrast, he proposes a cultural view of communication, emphasizing co-creating culture.

But theory alone does not account for what goes on in our communication. Instead, human rebellion through the Fall results in misunderstanding, arrogance, and presumption. Consequently, there is confusion and hurt. However, there is hope in Christ’s incarnated loving work. He both exemplifies to us and empowers in us the use of communication to serve and love others and to advocate for the marginalized.

Then Schultze turns to an analysis of the role of mass media. He notes how much is shaped by love for earthly wealth and power and functions as a form of religious storytelling, occasionally challenging the status quo but more often supporting it. He also deals with how powerfully it may be used to demonize those who don’t fit in.

From here, Schultze turns to ethics. He affirms our responsibility before God. We are to tell the truth, and live authentic lives. Most of all, he challenges us to think of our communication as part of Christian discipleship, seeing all our communication in terms of both service and worship to God.

My sense is that the chapters closely reflect the 2000 edition of this book. That means he wrote prior to social media and the new forms of online-based media that arose since that time. For all that, I found him remarkably prescient in his analysis of mass media and spot on in his ethics. However because of the changes in both media and his discipline, he invited a team of scholars to respond, one for each chapter, to his work.

On one hand these essays often complemented his content well. For example, in response to Schultze’s shalom focus as a goal for our communication, Bill Strom proposes covenantal communication as a means to that end. Others enhanced his ideas with their own research. But I felt that the book lost some sense of continuity as a result. This may be remedied by reading all the chapters first, then the responses. One nice addition are reflection questions at the end of each response.

In conclusion, I’m glad to see Schultze’s work updated. The theology of communication he elaborates is timeless, and the communication virtues he advocates are, if anything, even more timely. And he models co-creating in community with a new generation of communication scholars to carry forward his work. And the relevance of this work isn’t just communication in the classroom. It is, indeed, communicating for life.

_____________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: End the Stalemate

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment
Cover image of "end the Stalemate" by Tim Muehlhoff and Sean McDowell

End the Stalemate, Sean McDowell and Tim Muehlhoff. Tyndale Elevate (ISBN: 9781496481153), 2024.

Summary: Addresses how we move past impasses around disagreements to have meaningful conversations.

Our highly polarized cultural atmosphere has led to the breakdown of civil discourse, a rancorous political atmosphere, and sadly, friends and family who no longer talk to each other. It has led to a situation where many do not feel free to share their opinions in their families, workplaces, or in public discussions. It just doesn’t feel safe.

The authors of this book are both engaged in dialogue with those with whom they would disagree, including at times, each other! Sean McDowell, a professor of apologetics, frequently engages in discussions and debates with those who do not agree with his reasons for believing. Tim Muehlhoff is a professor of communication who directs the Winsome Communication Project. Both host podcasts focused on conversations with those who differ on important questions. This book, to which each have contributed chapters focuses on how we may both prepare to engage with those with whom we differ and how we may have those conversations in ways leading at very least to civil disagreement and perhaps growing mutual understanding.

They begin by contrasting a transmission versus ritual view of communication. The transmission view has problems with myside bias that doesn’t reckon with counterarguments and often leaves everyone more entrenched. The ritual view looks for points of commonality where there is an emotional connection, sympathy, with the views of another. This requires understanding the way both we and those we engage with see the world. The writers describe this as bricolage, because often worldview is pieced together from disparate pieces into a whole that makes sense to the person, whether or not consistent. Some of the pieces include our communities, families, hinge moments in our lives, narrative injuries that may have altered our lives and beliefs, and influencers. The goal of understanding as much of this as possible is perspective-taking, where we try to see the world as the person we are engaging does.

All this lays the groundwork for constructive conversations. How then do we have these conversations? One basic principle Sean McDowell uses is: “Show as much grace and charity as you can without violating your conscience.” He believes one has to approach issues with clarity (what it actually is), charity, and critically. But many conversations approached this way still explode because we aren’t ready emotionally, the physical environment is not right, we are not intellectually prepared, and perhaps most important, there is not relational trust.

Tim Muehlhoff says there are actually three conversations. The pre-conversation focuses on getting our hearts in the right place by discerning our snap judgements, cultivating curiosity about the convictions of the other party, and recognizing the power of the words we choose. In the actual conversation he encourages inviting the other to share their perspective first, summarize their main points where they feel heard and understood, acknowledge where there is common ground and ask for clarification. The post-conversation is how we describe it to our friends–how we speak about people privately will be reflected in how we treat them publicly. One of our challenges of talking about others is we often present strawman versions of their arguments rather than “steelman” versions. They even suggest roleplays of arguing the strongest case of the other side. This, I thought, was one of the most valuable ideas of the work, and something we should be prepared to do if we have been attentive to perspective-taking.

One of the other things the authors do is model engaging over differences in questioning each other about their different views of using preferred pronouns. The discussion itself is illuminating, no matter how you approach this and they both model grace and conviction while differing. Then in the final chapter, they put it all together, offering checklists as one prepare for difficult conversations.

Part of what is winsome in this presentation is that the authors share their own failures and convey that, while we will fail at times, there is real hope for meaningful dialogue across differences, where friendships are forged rather than alienated, where understanding grows alongside respect. With a fraught election season approaching, it is a good time for this book.

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: Winsome Persuasion

/ rtrube54 / 2 Comments

winsome persuasion

Winsome Persuasion, Tim Muelhoff and Richard Langer (Foreword by Quentin J. Schultze). Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2017.

Summary: Explores how Christians might effectively engage a dominant public culture by understanding the nature of counterpublics and the elements that go into effective communication and engagement.

It has become almost tedious to talk about how fraught our public discourse is with toxic argument and discord. Furthermore, there are many who would consider Christians a part of, perhaps a substantial part of, the problem. Alternatively, there are times they are utterly invisible, content to tend their own flocks. In Winsome Persuasion Muelhoff and Langer contend that far too often, the only modes by which Christians have sought to engage are the prophetic or the pastoral. While there are times and places where these are necessary and may be effective, they may not be what is needed in our present time. In this work, the authors explore a different mode, that of persuasion, that both recognizes difference, and seeks to overcome this by winning people rather than arguments or political power.

The authors begin by emphasizing the importance of understanding what it means to be a “counterpublic.” A dominant public not only holds the prevailing ideas, but has the power to prevail in enacting them. Thus counterpublics are “groups that exclusively engage in opinion formation and lack the ability to make policy decisions.” The authors identify three characteristics of such groups: opposition, withdrawal, and engagement. I found the discussion of withdrawal particularly illumining in highlighting the development of hidden transcripts that often may be rhetorically harsh and unflattering (consider Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” or Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” who don’t pay taxes and are dependent upon the government).

The authors then apply this understanding of counterpublics to Christian counterpublics. They observe how counterpublics often function in an argument culture: consideration equals condoning, monologue is valued over dialogue, disagreement degenerates to demonizing, all of which online disinhibition intensifies. They call instead for Christian counterpublics to lead with compassion that cares for others, goes beyond sympathy to empathy, confronts the uncompassionate, and is unconditional. This leads to establishing credibility as a counterpublic by demonstrating knowledge both of facts supporting one’s view and the reasons others would oppose it, practicing the virtues including humility and building goodwill by acknowledge the worth of those with whom we differ. There is a lengthy discussion of the critical value of the ethos of the messenger.

Part Two of the book focuses on how we engage others. It begins with crafting your message. One of the most valuable ideas here was finding an “audience of one,” a person with whom you have some relation who represents the public you wish to engage, which often exposes your blind spots, your “in group” language, and your need to find ways to frame your argument in universal terms. The authors cover finding starting points of agreement, using images, and connecting with the plausibility structures of the public to be engaged.

Messages need to be delivered as well as crafted. A crucial factor is persona, ideally one of humility that is able to laugh at oneself, and can give a fitting and succinct response in public discussion, whether with stories or statistics or a combination of both. Appropriate identification, without misappropriating identities helps in gaining a hearing. “Loose connections” help in conveying a message where we make common cause around limited but shared commitments. The authors helpfully talk about the strengths and pitfalls of such loose connections.

The last part of the book is their attempt to illustrate “winsome persuasion” by each articulating responses to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold same-sex marriage. The two responses are very different, albeit with some common characteristics that reflect principles of winsome engagement. Then the authors engage in a dialogue highlighting both appreciation and differences with each other. Some might find this last section unsatisfying in looking for more far-reaching answers. Yet for me, the responses and discussion reflected thoughtful yet succinct statements such as one might share in a public forum, and a good example of civil dialogue characterized by both goodwill, and real engagement.

The book is enriched by four historical sketches illustrating principles developed in the work: Saint Patrick, Jean Vanier, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and William Wilberforce. As a Wilberforce fan, I loved the four lessons they drew from his “great speech” advocating abolition of the slave trade:

  1. Wilberforce left his opponents room to join him without humiliation.
  2. Wilberforce refused to make the battle personal.
  3. Wilberforce let the facts, not his rhetoric, be the fuel of moral outrage.
  4. Wilberforce refused to fall into the all-or-nothing trap.

I found myself thinking how important this work is in our setting for the counterpublic that might be described as the “evangelical resistance” to the current president and to the evangelicals and others who support the president. In particular, Muelhoff and Langer’s book is a challenge to move from opposition and withdrawal (complete with hidden transcripts that invariably leak) to substantive engagement.

Winsome Persuasion represents an important extension of the work of Tim Muelhoff and his collaborators into the public arena. His earlier work, I Beg to Differ (review) focused on difficult interpersonal communication. In this work, Muelhoff and Langer move from the personal to the public. They call us to move from hubris to humility,  from combat to compassion, from demonizing to dialogue, and from argument to at least limited forms of agreement. Most of all, they remind us both of the urgency, and the possibility of a better public conversation.

Studied Ambiguities

/ rtrube54 / 3 Comments

6972755597_d434bd750d_o

Ambiguity or Opportunity? photo by ArtistIvanChew (CC BY-SA 2.0) via Flickr

Have you ever been in a situation where two parties who differ on some important matter (and you may have been one of them, or trying to mediate between the two) are trying to find their way to agreement so as to collaborate and live more charitably with each other, or outright join forces. Often, it is important to articulate this agreement verbally and in writing, and this, perhaps is where things are most difficult.

Words matter. And words don’t always mean the same things to different people. Often, the attempt to find the right words to delineate an agreement surfaces the places where disagreement still exists.

I came across this recently in a critical discussion of an effort between a group of Evangelicals, and a group of Catholics during the 1990’s to articulate an agreement that expressed their unity around Christ and his gospel. (This is in R. C. Sproul’s Getting the Gospel Right; review forthcoming)

The writer noted a number of areas that he felt were “studied ambiguities.” On the face of it, these were statements both parties could agree upon, and yet were capable of interpretations that would reflect the historic differences between the parties. Elsewhere in the document, some of these differences were acknowledged, but he felt that the document purported a greater degree of agreement, and even unity than the author thought warranted.

I’ve been thinking about this phenomenon. What is “studied ambiguity?” A sentence may be ambiguous in different ways. Sometimes it is lexically ambiguous (“I went down to the bank” could mean I went down by the riverside, or to my local financial institution). Sometimes, it may simply be syntactically ambiguous. (What, for example does “I ate the cookies on the couch” mean?) At other times, the meaning of the words may be clear and there may be a particular understanding that the person uttering the statement intends, and yet it is capable of more than one meaning. What differentiates “studied ambiguity” from these others types of ambiguity is that the person or persons uttering or writing the statement intend the possibility of multiple interpretations and realize their words are capable of these interpretations.

Why do we use “studied ambiguity”? The main reason I can come up with is that parties who retain significant differences feel compelled to mute these to arrive at some semblance of agreement. I suspect, for example that there was much “studied ambiguity” that could be found in the statements of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin at Yalta about their vision of a post-war world.

It seems that the aim of “studied ambiguity” is preserving tenuous alliances and coalitions, and the veneer of good feelings toward one another. In cultures where communication is indirect, it strikes me that this allows people to avoid outright confrontation over differences while working in indirect, and often behind-the-scenes ways, to reach a greater sense of agreement than could be achieved publicly. What seems important in this instance is that the parties are aware that they are farther apart than they seem and they are employing discreet mechanisms to address these differences.

What can be more troubling about this kind of communication is when people are intentionally misled to believe that a greater degree of agreement exists than is actually the case, because the words sound good, even though they mean something different to each party.

In the instance I mention above, it is interesting that those who participated in writing the agreement claim not to have consciously done this. They saw themselves as articulating areas of common agreement, some of which they saw as real breakthroughs, as well as areas where they still differed, some of which were substantial, as individuals in both parties acknowledged. Yet the tone of their final document conveyed a degree of agreement and even “unity” that others questioned in light of the substantive remaining differences and the multiple interpretations that could be drawn from the language.

And that leads me to wonder if there is another kind of ambiguity, what one might call unconscious ambiguity, where in a spirit of good will, people convey a sense of agreement, while being aware of difference, that nevertheless affirms the agreement of spirit the parties feel.

I’m having a hard time thinking of examples where ambiguous agreements turned out well–maybe someone else can help me think of one. More often, it seems, they result either in falling-out between parties, or compromises on deeply held values, practices, and beliefs to preserve “unity.” Yet I can see the temptation, particularly in our deeply divided society to try to come to these kinds agreements for fear of the alternative.

I wonder instead whether, on important things, we are talking about far longer processes than we ordinarily envision. Perhaps honest discussions that recognize common ground for limited collaborations while addressing honest differences that take longer times to change, because these involve changes in belief, and personal and institutional practice.

Getting to shared understandings on important things is genuinely hard work. Perhaps this is why Jesus blessed the peacemakers. It seems so urgent in a divided society. Studied or even unconscious ambiguity is a real temptation. Sometimes it doesn’t look that different from common ground. Yet agreements not rooted in truth engender suspicion and not trust, and unravel, or they relativize “truth.”

What do you think?

Review: I Beg To Differ

/ rtrube54 / 4 Comments

I Beg to DifferI Beg to Differ, Tim Muehlhoff. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014.

Summary: Building on an understanding of the dynamics of communication, this book develops a strategy for navigating difficult conversations through asking four key questions of those with whom we differ.

Difference is a given of life. Difference can make life delightful…or disturbing. What can be tough is when two people in some form of significant relationship differ and have to figure out how to make life with each other work. It happens between spouses, parents and children, business partners, and political leaders.

Tim Muehlhoff, a professor of communications, knows all about this. He begins his book with a married couple who come to him with manila folders stuffed full of documentation of the grievances they had with each other. In various settings, he has worked on communication issues with families, men and women, college students, faculty and others in the public and private sectors.

He begins the book laying out some basic truths about communication. He explores how powerful words actually are. He outlines the various causes of conflict including poor communication climate, differing views of reality, lack of credibility, relational transgressions, lack of small talk, and latent conflict. He discusses the necessity of managing and expressing emotions in conflict. And he considers the role and importance of our spiritual disciplines in helping us with our self-control and self-talk.

All this lays the groundwork for four basic questions to ask in difficult conversations:

  1. What does this person believe?
  2. Why does this person hold this belief?
  3. Where do we agree?
  4. Based on all I’ve learned, how should I proceed.

He argues that these questions work to promote understanding in difficult situations because of the rule of reciprocity. When I make a sincere effort to understand another person on their own terms and look for the things we hold in common, it often creates a climate where the other sees themselves as obliged to do the same.

The final question is important. He elaborates it in the chapter as follows: “With this person, at this time, under these circumstances, what is the next thing I should say?” It takes all we’ve learned about the person through the first three questions under consideration. It considers timing–is this a good time to have this conversation? It considers circumstances–are they conducive to a good conversation? And it focuses on a very specific goal, a manageable agenda–not everything I would ever want to discuss with this person.

The book concludes with three “case studies” of applying this strategy: a disagreement between spouses about finances, a disagreement between work colleagues about religion, and a difference between parent and teen about video games and grades. The dialogues are believable and illustrate a deliberate effort to walk through the four questions.

I found this one of the most helpful books on communication I’ve read because, while rooted in theory, it didn’t become lost in it, but provided very practical steps and illustrations that helped this reader think about how I could actually practice this in the next difficult conversation I face.

He concludes the book with a quote from The Miracle of Dialogue by Reuel Howe:

Dialogue is to love, what blood is to the body. When the flow of blood stops, the body dies. When dialogue stops, love dies and resentment and hate are born. But dialogue can restore a dead relationship. Indeed this is the miracle of dialogue: it can bring relationship into being, and it can bring into being once again a relationship that had died.

Powerful words that seem so crucial for our time. What Muehlhoff does is point us away from the death-dealing discord of our culture to this life-giving dialogue.

Where Are The Reviews?

/ rtrube54 / 4 Comments

Partially Read Books.jpgThat’s a question some of you who follow regularly may be wondering for a little while. I wonder if other reviewers have ever had this happen? You end up in the middle of a number of books at the same time! The picture right now represents my current reading stack minus a couple books I’m reading on Kindle. Notice all those bookmarks in the middle of my books! So I thought I would give you some “mid-book” updates, that hopefully I’ll remember not to rehash in the reviews. Consider it a taste of things to come.

I Beg to DifferI’ll begin with the top most book. Tim Muelhoff’s I Beg to Differ is a very practical book on one of the hardest relational challenges–having those difficult conversations around disagreements without creating relational discord. Muelhoff outlines a set of questions and approaches that I’m finding very helpful.

Paul and His Recent InterpretersThe “meatiest” book comes next. N.T. Wright’s Paul and His Recent Interpreters is described as a companion to his magisterial Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Wright’s definitive work on the Apostle Paul. In Paul and His Recent Interpreters, Wright engages the range of contemporary Pauline scholarship, including the criticism of his own work. Wish I had read Paul and the Faithfulness of God, but haven’t been able to wade through the two volumes that make up this work yet! Point is, we often read Paul in light of the Reformation rather than Paul’s Jewish context and may miss some crucial things as a result. Stay tuned to the review for more!

Destiny and PowerThe “fattest” book in the stack is Jon Meacham’s Destiny and Power: The American Odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush. I’ve liked the things I’ve read of Meacham, and this is no exception. Bush, the 41st president was a complex mix of character and ambition, that both led to the presidency and was his undoing after one term. His single term, and the shadow of his son’s presidency may obscure the significant things this man quietly accomplished, both as president, and in the rest of his life.

A Commentary on 1 and 2 ChroniclesEugene Merrill’s A Commentary on 1 and 2 Chronicles is probably not something you’d pick up unless you were teaching or preaching on these books. I’m reading it because it was sent to me to review (and I am teaching a Bible overview that includes these books). Good introductory materials as well as enough depth to inform of textual issues without being overwhelming to all but the specialist.

Falling UpwardThe last two books are not in the photograph because they are on my Kindle. One is Falling Upward by Richard Rohr. Rohr sees our lives in halves, each with their crucial tasks, the first half, preparing for the second. I’ve just started this and find his basic premise intriguing. I’m clearly in the second half (unless there is a medical miracle) and interested to see what he says about this.

HolinessFinally, my last book is one our Dead Theologians group is reading at present, J. C. Ryle’s Holiness. The version we are using includes all twenty sermons on this theme. Unlike some 19th century writers, Ryle is plain-spoken without being simplistic. He argues that growth in holiness, or the idea of becoming more like Christ, involves faith that actively strives for this goal.

All of this is rich reading. One decision I’ve made though, particularly after a comment on yesterday’s post is that I’m going to move Nine Tailors to the top of my reading pile. This commenter thought it “just might be Sayer’s best mystery.” After all this meaty reading, I’m ready for a good mystery!