Some writing i have so far -blog 23

This is a draft of my literature review. I've also done some work on the intro but it wasn't clear enough to put up here.

I began my research with an article by Benjamin Cline titled “Reaching Others: The Rhetoric of Proselytizing and Community of a Christian Campus Organization”. This article describes a Christian college group and discusses how its outreach methods are a type of rhetoric. Next, this article discusses how proselytizing can be done with sensitivity. Using another researcher’s discussion of Rhetorical sensitivity, Cline develops a list of seven criteria for creating a sensitive christian rhetoric. These criteria, although intended for sensitivity, work well as a way to discover potential causes of awkwardness.

The first guideline Cline calls “sensitivity to role playing”. “The sensitive proselytizer is sensitive to the role that religious rhetors are playing within a particular scene…and recognizes there are times not to play that role”.(29)  What this means is that a Christian, for example, should understand that there are times and settings which are appropriate for sharing his/her faith. People do not expect to be approached about religion at any random time. This is why a sudden shift in conversation to this topic, or a surprising approach from a stranger with a tract, may feel more like an ambush than a natural conversation.

Cline further expands on this concept through a discussion of Kairos. This Greek term refers to the idea of taking advantage of the appropriate moment. It again reflects the understanding that there is a time and a place where religious conversations will seem less weird. Specifically, we must consider when would feel appropriate for the listener, given the context and setting. This idea was frequently referenced in my discussions with others. Almost exclusively, the awkward gospel conversations that people describe were those that “came up out of nowhere”. I refer to this concept as an awareness to context. A topic that comes up in an unusual or unexpected context can create a feeling of discomfort. 

When the topic of a conversation shifts in an unusual or enexpected way, it creates discomfort as the listener tries to adjust. Cline references an example in which he witnessed certain members of his christian organization going out and approaching students … (pg 79_

A second cause of discomfort that I will focus on is the use of what many Christians jokingly refer to as “christianese”. Cline discusses avoiding “in-group jargon” as the second guideline because it can be easily misunderstood and, in a sense, marginalizes those who don’t have a familiarity with Christianity. When you use specialized lingo with someone who is not familiar with it, they will likely feel uncomfortable with the conversation. In addition, particular phrases can serve as signals that the conversation is about to get weird, cuing the listener to feel a sense of tension. In fact, I believe phrasing alone is the best giveaway that a person is about to begin proselytizing.  Once the listener realizes that this is what’s happening, discomfort ensues as they try to decide, internally, how to handle the situation.

This second guideline is less talked about in Christian materials for how to proselytize, yet I think it is one of the most crucial aspects of creating a natural conversation. The article mentions, “certainly, inititating someone into any worldview is to initiate them into the vocabulary of that worldview.” Using in-group jargon with someone who is out of the group is one thing that creates awkwardness. In fact, this idea of specialized lingo is referenced in articles about natural conversation, it is part of not leaving out certain people. You don’t talk in lingo that only one person can understand. It is better to work from a place that everyone can contribute. It is natural that religious ideas will come out in religious terms for the P who is used to saying them that way in their religious circle. However, for the person with no background in that religion, the terminology can create discomfort or unease. For one thing, it is rude to presume knowledge of someone else, and use of a fancy term or phrase presumes that the person knows what it means. For another, it is uncomfortable to be in “over one’s head” or be talking about something that you don’t have familiarity with.

As the Cline article shows, there are certain expectations that guide a proper conversation. These guidelines usually remain in the realm of the unspoken; they are social skills which are developed in life but perhaps never openly stated. I looked into several short blogs and online postings concerning the etiquette of conversation in order to pin down these social guidelines. I thought these would be helpful because an awkward-free religious conversation must first and foremost be an unawkward conversation in general.

The article “The Art of Conversation” explains some of the major Do’s and Don’ts for a “a laid-back, casual manner that sets people immediately at ease”. Being put at ease is of course the opposite of feeling awkward. One should tailor the conversation to the listener, which means sticking to topics both people can and want to interact about. Another point is to listen more than you talk. Listening is a critical aspect of conversation ability which signals your respect for the other person. It also gives you valuable feedback to decide what to talk about and what to the other person may not want to talk about. This is critical in the setting of a gospel conversation, for if the person guiding the conversation is listening well, they should be able to take cues from the other person on whether or not they’re interested.

Another standard social etiquette the article references is to taking your turn. The article states “A conversation is a group project”. Again, this feels like an obvious fact that a good conversation will involve give and take. A proper discussion is not one which one person dominates or direct, but a free flow of ideas between two or more people. Henrik Edberg references this idea in his blog post about 10 mistakes in conversation. He says, “ No one will be that impressed if you “win” every conversation.” This is true and can be very tricky for the christian to incorporate in their habits. People don’t like to feel like you are trying to “do” something when you are talking with them (likely the reason why rhetoric in general has so much criticism). The feeling that someone is trying to hijack the conversation and have the need to drive home a point is certainly a discomforting one, and also does not suggest that the one person has much respect for the other.