Talking Through (dia-logue), Talking with (com-vertere)

 I have been teaching a class for three weeks now, and I am impressed that students are attentive to hearing rightly. At the same time that I celebrate their desire, I am also concerned that they miss the chance to bless one another, for their aural orthodoxy makes them quite hesitant to speak, sometimes. When they venture into speech, it is not only thoughtful but also expansive to the topic at hand. It is my hope that as the semester goes on their hesitancy will decrease, their freedom to make “speech mistakes” will increase, and all the while their aural orthodoxy will remain.

In other venues, I have noticed a “talking through” one another. The situations are supposedly wiser, more diligent persons who ought to know how to hear and enter into conversation. There is an ecclesial emphasis on promoting “conversation” or “dialogue” for the process of greater collaboration and faithfulness. The latter word is probably the more appropriate term – dialogue. One literal meaning of dia-logue is “talking through.” Dialogue often assumes two persons “across” from one another positing points that can tend to be contrary to one another. Conversation is considered less formal, less didactic, and more open than dialogue. However, conversation is not chit-chat. The middle-English nature of the word implied familiarity, intimacy, and living among. Conversation implies highly relational; dialogue implies oppositional. I hope to pursue places of civil speech – where understanding is pursued through aural orthodoxy.

Dialogue – The Hallway Discourse

The image that comes to mind when I think of dialogue is two persons standing against a wall talking back and forth – there seems to be an urgency to it; a willingness to hear and understand but the complications of standing on your feet in a hallway with passersby. The setting seems to warrant speech that leas to action – the posture of the speakers (standing) and the setting (public hallway) don’t allow raising voices, nuances, or lingering – the words need to lead toward action, for the hallway moment may soon pass and the speakers will need to return to their cubicles, classrooms, or formal meetings. Dialogue has an urgency to it that forces thoughts to action without the needed nuances, pauses, and reflections…

Conversation – Dwelling at Table

Conversation is an invitation to a multi-course meal with family, long-time friends, and even first-time guests (friendly strangers). At the table, there are water, wine, and coffee glasses. The drinks welcome speakers to pause from speaking and sip, while other speakers continue. The food is prepared to encourage patient speech amongst the practice of enjoying each morsel (parents of young children might be unfamiliar with this concept of eating more slowly). The night starts on-time but lingers to an undetermined time. Good-byes last 10-30 minutes, usually summarizing the conversation and assuring the hosts and guests that the time together was worthwhile. Conversation has a patience to it that forces relationship to be at the center, including nuances, pauses, and reflections.

I am a Christian, and I think I am guilty of spending more time in dialogue than in conversation. The cell phone is one of my chief locations for the repeated aural and illocutionary sins. The home is a second place, and my church office the third. I grant the to-do lists in each of these spaces to take over the chance for conversation. In the process I delete my values of relationship and elevate function over friendship.

I encourage my students to be free to speak, for they are deeply committed to hearing well. I pray that they can keep their aural practice while they learn to be more bold, and through it all that we create a conversation for understanding and action.