3 Conversations and How to Have Them

A few months ago I was invited to speak to a group of parents at a church. The topic: Standing on Truth in Love.  A few months prior I was invited to another church to speak on Identity and how to address it in a post-Christian culture (to book speaking engagements click: HERE).  In both instances I started my talk on the topic the same way: with a quick note on conversations, and how to have them in different contexts. Over the past decade I have become convinced that one of the main disconnects within the home and church (and even online) is in the type of conversation we are having. By conversation, I mean an exchange of ideas varying from person to person, person to group, and person to public. While truth and facts do not change, the way we carry ourselves while presenting them must change depending on audience and circumstance. Jesus exemplified this well as his conversations with his close friends and disciples (Mark 8) carried a different weight and tone than those he had with the religious elite (Matthew 23), the government (John 18), the regular person (Matthew 14) and the outcast (Luke 19). How we speak to one another matters, and how we enter into various conversations does as well. The advent of social media and the progression of culture from Christian to post-Christian has blurred lines that have long been clear in ages past. Redrawing the lines clearly will help us understand if we are approaching our friends, family, or public in a way that is effective and loving. For simplicity, I have narrowed these dialogues into three different types of conversations. Note: It is important, as with anything, to recognize that these are not fool proof ways of convincing someone but they are good ways of recognizing whether or not the conversation is worth having.

Cultural Conversations

Cultural conversations take place in public. These are posts made on Facebook, news stories, blog posts (like this one) and more. The point of the cultural conversation is to help shape the culture and move it from one spot to another. We have always had cultural conversations, but until recently these conversations were always built on the same foundation.  The foundation of the Judeo-Christian ethic. A cultural conversation in a post-Christian culture looks different than a cultural conversation in a Christian culture and this is where we can sense some confusion as we engage those around us publicly.  Things we thought were settled, like the concept of objective reality and truth, are suddenly negotiable. A post-Christian culture seeks to deconstruct long held beliefs that undergird society, so a cultural conversation is about maintaining these foundational aspects of society. The cultural conversation cannot, by definition, take into consideration every individual's experience or triggers.  The cultural conversation is not designed to consider exceptions to the normative rule. For example, in the debate on whether marriage should remain defined as one woman with one man for one lifetime we cannot take into account all of the exceptions that someone might use to disprove the rule (see: In Defense of Marriage). The definition of marriage, sex and gender, and the differences between men and women must be made on 

principles

which, by definition, exclude the exceptions.  For instance, in principle, a marriage is historically defined as between a male human (with the capability of fertilizing an egg) and a female human (with the capability of carrying offspring).  Are there unfortunate circumstances in which a man is infertile or a female is barren? Absolutely. Does that negate the historic definition of marriage due to the exception? No. In the cultural conversation we must risk offending others and being offended in order to have a dialogue about how best to order society. Needlessly littering our discourse with caveats and trigger warnings unnecessarily confuses the issues. The lines must be drawn clearly and distinctly for an ordered society and for a consistent worldview.  But a post-Christian culture seeks to limit these conversations.  Often, inconsistency is the point. However, these cultural conversations are necessary and unavoidable, even as society seeks to move the Overton Window these sorts of conversations will necessarily occur if a culture is seeking to move in a direction oriented to human flourishing.

Social Conversations

Problems occur when we confuse our cultural conversation with our social conversation. Social conversations are those conversations that are limited to small groups of people that we know. In these conversations we have to take into consideration whether the offense that might be had is worth the risk of starting the dialogue.  In other words, these types of conversations need to be assessed by the

is the juice worth the squeeze

principle. Because of social media and our postmodern influences we often confuse the social conversation with the cultural conversation.  For example, in March of 2023 a federal judge named Kyle Duncan was invited to speak at Stanford University.  Duncan, a Trump appointee, was accosted, shouted down, and his lecture interrupted by student protestors. Duncan requested a Stanford administrator to address the situation, and when a dean of DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) stepped in she said, "

absolutely believe

in free speech," but added that, in this instance, "is the juice worth the squeeze?" In other words, is risking offending college students worth allowing free speech to continue on a university campus? Whether she realized it or not Tirien Steinbach (the administrator) had confused the type of conversation happening on Stanford's campus. That is a cultural venue, not a social venue.  A social venue involves people in relationship and might not come with a platform to speak from, but in the form of a discussion within a group of people we know. We often avoid hot button topics around the Thanksgiving table, but we might not if we recognized there is a certain disposition of humility, grace, and love that one takes in the social setting.  In this setting exceptions may be discussed, the nuances of arguments examined, and the breadth of implications pondered. The truth does not change, but how we carry it to continue a positive discourse ought to.

Personal Conversations

The final conversation is a personal conversation, which occurs either at home or with a friend/acquaintance that involves a specific person that is directly affected by the topic at hand. The most poignant example of this type of conversation involves LGBTQ+ issues and how we dialogue about them.  In our homes we often treat this issue as a cultural or social conversation but a personal conversation is not based on truth claims and weighing the risks/rewards of entering into a conversation about said truths. A personal conversation's primary starting point is based on 

love. 

Often, as parents, we discuss things with our children as if we are teaching them or lecturing them about cultural issues from a stage.  We say things like, "In this house we're conservative" or "Don't even ask that question, what are you thinking? You know what we believe!" These sorts of responses miss the point of the personal conversation.  The personal conversation is 

deeply

personal. Most likely, these conversations impact how someone sees themselves and whether or not they or someone they know, are worthy of love. If you are thinking these conversations used to be easier, that's because they were. But since the culture impacts the social and the social impacts the personal we see the downstream effects of cultural shifts playing out in the midst of our personal conversations.  Take the word 

love

for instance. Thirty years ago, the cultural conversation agreed on the definition of the word, but now, the definition has shifted and so our personal conversations use the same words but the older generation means something different than the younger generation.

So What Then?

The proper way of handling each conversation is different, it’s as different as Paul writing a letter to the church in Colossians as it is him standing on Mars Hill in Athens. The truth remains the same, the tactics and tone are different. When a teen asks or speak about Transgenderism, they are not asking what the truth is, that’s not even on their radar. They are asking, "what is love, really?  Why can’t I love them?" You see, to them, love means affirmation, or, at least, letting someone do what makes them happy.  If they find fulfillment in that way of life who am I to argue? I like to look at these conversations through two biblical lenses.  The first, is in Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus in John 3. Jesus handles this very personal conversation with Nicodemus in a loving but clear way (

this is right after he has culture shifting moment in John 2 where he clears the Temple - sometimes our cultural conversation requires over and direct action

). While Jesus does not mince words, he does seek to move Nicodemus beyond his cultural understand into the understanding of reality.  Our personal conversations can be handled similarly. Another approach within the context of personal conversations is what I call the Acts 17 approach. In Acts 17 the Apostle Paul enters the city of Athens and realizes that the gospel is going to be an intensely personal conversation for the Athenians (

something Socrates would have been wise to recognize a few centuries before

).  So his tactics could not remain the same. Instead of assuming they would understand, Paul gives a simple message starting from the position of humility and adoration for the people (Acts 17:22-23). We can approach our personal conversations in a similar manner:

"I see that in every way you want to love those around you. This is good and right! But what does it mean to love?  Let's discuss this excellent way of life and how to most effectively love someone."

This approach still risks offense (as Paul found out) but it also generates rapport with those that are genuinely interested in continuing a dialogue and finding the truth.  When we approach personal conversations this way we can cut through the chaff quickly so that we can gauge whether or not the conversation is worth having (some conversations are not worth having). Here is a working definition of love:

Love is thinking of someone more than yourself based on the truth of objective reality.

This means that what is true undergirds love. The belief that the truth is 

best

for that person in the long run.  Think of someone that has a sickness, maybe something like cancer, and they are in denial, love, according to this definition

that you tell them the truth

and

help them to see the truth. Love according to the tautological definition actually serves you more than it does them. 

You

get to avoid an uncomfortable conversation and you get to look like the good person. Maybe you want to avoid the conversation and you feel like knowing the truth would make them too upset. If you affirm them in their delusion you will feel good and they will feel good. Win-win right? But at what cost? They still have cancer. If we can agree that the first definition actually helps us to love people better then we need to apply it across all avenues of life.  The word cannot have a different meaning depending on circumstance. Kid wants to touch a hot stove, love them by stopping them. Someone believes that there is no God, love them by sharing the gospel with them. Love and truth are inextricably linked, you cannot have one without the other. Since our personal conversation is influenced by our culture it is important that we actively participate in all three conversations and often, in our personal conversations we need to start with undoing the presuppositions of the cultural conversation in order to get anywhere. Often times, we start at the wrong entry point in those conversations because we assume that we believe in the same fundamental principles that help to guide the conversation forward.

For more on this topic check out our first episode of FTMonthly:

https://youtu.be/xTK_7VFtZTE?t=1231