I think that a good conversation is to be regarded as something valuable. Not only does it mean that two persons or more get down (or up!) to the same level and choose a mutually interesting topic, but it also means that these persons are essentially saying to each other: ”We are right here, right now, together. Why not make the best of it and share experiences and perspectives together?” It’s beautiful!

Wiki says that ”[…] for a successful conversation, the partners must achieve a workable balance of contributions.” And that is true. To be a good conversator, it simply isn’t enough to be able to convey your own opinions. You have to be a good listener, too. And if there are more than two persons in a conversation, you have to be better at listening than at speaking. And I don’t think people are aware of this all the time.

So how about the emerging church conversation? Are the people taking part in it better listeners or better speakers? I don’t know, what do you think? Perhaps they are good listeners, and that’s why they often connect with people that aren’t that used to churches and religious buildings. But on the other hand – if they are just good speakers, maybe that’s the reason for many people, often already church-going people, simply do not get the emerging church. If you can’t listen to what other people say, and really understand it, you can’t convey your own opinions in a way that would ensure a maximal understanding.

And when it comes to books, we have to be able to listen to what they are saying, reading as much between the lines as we do on the lines. I believe that literature is at its best when the reading becomes a conversation and a dialogue between book and reader.

And while we’re discussing this topic, you might as well go and read this article on Newsvine about Luis Palau, pastor, and a chinese atheist, that got together to discuss if God exists or not. Very interesting. It made me glad when I read it.

Technorati tags » , , , , tags » , , , ,


About this entry