Official Draft - Blog 27

The Awkward Religious Conversation

Introduction

Almost everyone can describe an experience they have had when a conversation about religion came up unexpectedly. One of the most common ways this experience is characterized is awkward. What makes this situation so awkward? Are these conversations doomed to be forever labeled as such, or can something be done to help them be natural? To discover these answers, I chose to research the causes of awkwardness in religious conversation in order to make an effort to develop guidelines which could help these conversations function more naturally and effectively. Specifically, I hoped to find that phrasing and word choice play a part in how natural a religious conversation feels to the recipient.

For the purposes of this paper, a religious conversation is any which is directed by the believer of a religion and focuses on the topic of religion. Because Christianity is the faith I am most familiar with, I found it easiest to reference Christian-based religious discourse in my research. Most commonly, awkward religious conversations are those involving proselytization, or what a Christian might calling sharing one’s faith. Since the purpose of conversations vary greatly, and often change in action, my discussion is not intended to be limited to only rhetorically inclined conversation. Although coercion and insensitivity are frequently topics which arise when discussing this topic, and well worth discussion, this paper is intended to focus strictly on the concept of awkwardness as felt by the recipient of the conversation. However, as will be disclosed, those guidelines which guide an unawkward conversation are by nature those which guide one of respect and sensitivity.

For my purposes, awkwardness is considered to be the feeling of tension one has in a situation of discomfort. It is an internal feeling usually developed in a social context when something unpleasant or unexpected happens. As opposed to offense, it is not necessarily accompanied by a feeling of anger. Awkwardness is a problem for people not only because it creates temporary discomfort, but also because it makes them less likely to enter into that type of situation again. I believe that awkwardness in religious conversations is not necessary, and that it is possible to strive towards a conversation about religion which feels comfortable for all of those involved. In order to do this, the conversation initiator, or holder of the religion in question, should consider particular guidelines and also develop greater sensitivity to the comfort level of their conversation partner.

Although plenty of Christian literature considers the “how to’s” of sharing one’s faith, little is said about the topic of awkwardness. Few consider the perspective of the recipient, including any discussion of their comfort level. Phrasing and diction, as far as I could find, are left out entirely as possible factors. The methods of writing studies, especially that of discourse analysis, are particularly useful for this field of study. It is important to contribute a discussion of discourse into that of religious conversation because it is so much a part of how these conversations function. The success, sensitivity, and comfort level of these conversations will hinge on many factors. It is necessary to consider how language features specifically play a role so that we can consider specific moves to avoid when aiming for a natural religious conversation.

Methods

In order to understand the many possible causes of awkwardness, I chose to do research of available literature as well as conduct an interview. As noted above, Christian literature is particularly lacking when it comes to this topic. The one article I reviewed from a Christian writer was a master’s thesis intended to discuss Christian rhetoric as a whole. Beyond this, secular sources were just as useful. I looked into conversational etiquette guides to get an idea of what people generally consider normal and abnormal moves in a conversation.

 In order to gain a more personal version of the causes, and possibly examples of real-life incidences, I chose to do an interview. It was important to me that the subject be someone with first-hand experience on the “receiving” end of such a conversation. When I proposed my need for this interview to a group of friends, H immediately offered to participate. I presumed, correctly, that this was because she had a particular experience in mind that she wanted to share. Another factor which made H a good candidate was that she considers herself agnostic, so she does not have a commitment to any religion in particular, and would therefore have a heightened awareness to these conversations. The interview was conducted through Skype chat on a Friday evening and lasted a little over an hour. Although at the time our conversation seemed slow and a little awkward itself, H had a lot of insight on what made her feel awkward in particular situations.

Literature Review

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. It next discusses how proselytizing can be done with sensitivity. Using another researcher’s discussion of Rhetorical sensitivity, Cline develops a list of seven criteria for measuring a sensitive Christian rhetoric. These criteria, although intended for sensitivity, work well as a way to discover potential causes of awkwardness.

The first guideline is what 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. In other words, it is about developing an awareness of context. People do not expect to be approached about religion at any random time. This is why a sudden shift in conversation or a surprising approach from a stranger with a tract may feel more like an ambush than a natural conversation.

A second cause of discomfort in conversations is what Cline refers to as using “in-group jargon”. Using specialized lingo with someone who doesn’t understand it will make them feel uncomfortable because they may not know exactly what is meant, or how to respond appropriately. Furthermore, use of an unexpected word or phrase can serve as a marker that the conversation is about to change to a weird subject, and prepares the person to feel awkward.  Christianity, as a discourse community, certainly has its own specialized terminology. For whatever reason, Christians seem to be especially prone to using this insider language with the outside world, presuming grandly that everyone is familiar with it. This, when added to the fact that Christian jargon tends to be downright dorky, makes for the perfect cause of awkwardness in conversation.

As the Cline article shows, there are certain expectations for “normal” conversations. Going outside of peoples’ expectations without thinking of how it will make them feel is part of what makes it insensitive, by Cline’s definition. These expectations are in part governed by everyday social rules, the same unspoken standards that we measure “good” and “bad” conversations against every day. In order pin down these social guidelines, I looked into several short blogs about conversational etiquette. I thought these would be helpful because an awkward-free religious conversation must first and foremost be an awkward-free 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”. Its suggestions include that one should tailor the conversation to the listener, which means sticking to topics both people can and want to interact about. The obvious guideline which topped every one of the etiquette guides was listening well. Listening conveys respect and interest in your conversation partner. Moreover, it gives you valuable feedback to decide what the other person may or may not want to talk about. This is critical in the setting of a religious 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 rule the article mentions is that of taking your turn. The article states “A conversation is a group project”. It seems almost obvious to state that a good conversation will involve give and take, leading to a natural pacing of topics. Henrik Edberg references this idea in his blog post on common conversational mistakes. He says, “No one will be that impressed if you “win” every conversation.” The feeling that someone is trying to drive home a point or “do something” with you is certainly a discomforting one, specifically if the context and natural flow of the conversation has not led to that premise.  It is considered impolite to hijack a conversation for one’s personal motivation. The moves which surround such hijacking then, naturally create a sense of uneasiness in the recipient. This is especially true of a religious conversation because there is immense sensitivity surrounding the idea of conversion. A conversation about religion brings immediate implications on one’s core values, this should be done with the utmost effort at sensitivity and comfort for all conversation members. 

Data & Analysis

            Through H’s interview I saw that the antithesis of an awkward conversation is a natural one. H referenced one particular example throughout the interview of an ongoing incident she has been having with someone. H gave several reasons for why this/these conversations have been so awkward, many of which aligned well with the guidelines proposed in the Cline article.  In some cases her terminology was different, and in many ways her insights expand more deeply into the qualifiers for a natural conversation.

            After discussing her religious background a bit, I asked H to tell me more about her experiences with religious conversations. Immediately our conversation picked up in speed, and she related the following story of an awkward conversation. Right after, without my prompting, she offered a cross comparison of natural conversations she’s had with a friend.

H: Sure. The experience that immediately pops into my head was when I was in my first year of undergrad. I was on campus and sitting in the lunch room with a friend and a guy who I had seen around my high school. We were sitting around the table talking about something unrelated when he began talking about his religion to the two of us. It was very jarring because it had nothing to do with what we were talking about at that time.

A: Yeah that'd be weird

H: I've also had some discussions about religion with a close friend of mine (she is Muslim) and she often shares some information about her religion with me when the conversation calls for it or I happen to ask.

A: Oh ok. Yeah those are two pretty different things

A: With the muslim girl does it seem more natural?

H: Definitely. Even during our first conversation about her religion, it was about answering questions and giving information for knowledge. I didn't get the impression she was trying to convert me.

One of the first indications of why the second experience was not awkward is given in how H identifies each person. The boy is called “a guy I had seen around” where the girl is more personally referred to as “a close friend of mine”. The fact that she is Muslim is added in parenthesis almost as an afterthought. This makes it clear that her friendship is the primary quality in question, not her religion. When asked directly later in the interview, she states “Of course, we also had a relationship, so it definitely took away awkwardness”. We even discussed the potential level of relationship needed to make such a conversation appropriate, and she suggested “strong acquaintance would be a good starting point”.

H makes it clear that the first experience was uncomfortable by characterizing it as “very jarring”. This concept of how the topic of religion came up in the conversation became one of the key factors that H mentioned throughout the interview. Her words here communicate how unprepared she was for the topic switch by clarifying that they had been talking about “something unrelated” previously and that what he brought up “had nothing to do with” the old topic. She even references this idea in her second example by making sure to mention that she and her friend only talk about religion “when the conversation calls for it or I happen to ask”. The fact that she mentions this factor so many times within this brief account makes it clear how important it is to her.

These two features that H identifies can be classified as part of Cline’s idea of role-playing, or context. Sensitive topics like religion are by and large restrained to discussion between friends and family. So when this conversation comes up between acquaintances it is, in a sense, out of an appropriate context.  Still, it often happens that near-strangers end up talking about intimate or deep topics with each other; what makes this occurrence natural hinges on the second feature that H points out. The flow of a conversation should lead to that that topic naturally; it cannot be forced there by either member. As mentioned in the conversation etiquette articles, the natural give and take of the conversation should be allowed to take the topic where it may. When a person suddenly shifts to the topic of religion, it leads the other person wonder if there is a hidden agenda involved.

Phrasing

When I asked H about memorable phrases from religious conversations, her answer was again immediate and came straight from the same aforementioned example.

H: Ah, yeah. The one that immediately comes to mind is "have you accepted Jesus Christ as your lord and savior?"

After some shared laughter and commenting on how awkward this was…

A: what about it makes it weird, do you think?

A: did you even know what he meant?

H: Well, to start it makes some assumptions about you, I think. I remembered thinking "is there a specific reason why you would decide to start talking to me about this unprompted?" It also kind of cages you. No matter how you answer, you're being forced to enter the conversation with him

I had to laugh at this example, because unfortunately I have heard of similar experiences with that exact phrase. I consider it to be a concept of the Christian discourse community, not one that would be easily understood by an outside audience, making its use presumptious for the general audience. Instead of breaking the concept up into its real meaning in normal language, this phrase comes all together and sounds unmistakably churchy. So to me the issue with this phrase is that it presumes understanding as well as membership in the discourse community.

H clarifies why and how the phrasing played a part in an awkward feeling. She specifies that it “makes assumptions about you” which I take to mean it presumes that you understand the phrase and are familiar with the religious discourse group it comes from. Second, she repeated the idea mentioned earlier of how the conversation is initiated by saying that she wondered what had made him bring it up. Lastly, she pointed out something that I hadn’t specifically thought of before, which is that it “cages you”. I had to agree that by starting a conversation with a phrase like this, the recipient has no way of getting around a religious conversation. Because not all people may want to have a religious conversation, it has to be pointed out that phrasing should allow for them to direct it in another direction if they choose.

Later, we continued our discussion about phrasing and H gave explanation for what kind of jargon makes her feel awkward.

H: I'm having difficulty coming up with specific words, but I think when the tone and language gets preachy it gets problematic. When I'm being told about my soul, or that I should or need to do something (be it attend a church or read literature)

A: yeah

H: Whereas when I'm in a good conversation about religion, it's more passive and has ownership. Phrases like "I believe" or "In my religion/church" tend to be said

A: oh yeah. so there's not a presumption

H: So I suppose the focus on the subject shifts

H seems to like specifying that the religion belongs to the other person. Even in the first piece of dialogue mentioned, she noted that it was talking about “his” religion or “her” religion. Here she emphasizes ownership as an important quality of a natural conversation. I believe that using such qualifying phrases as she mentions would help make it clear that the conversation initiator is not suggesting that their religion should belong to the other, only that it belongs to themselves. The alternative, making blanket statements about the religion, would make the recipient feel like they are lacking in something. As H says, the focus of the subject shifts from the recipient to the initiator. I believe she intended this in more than just a grammatical sense. I get the feeling that people are very wary of others making judgments on the state of their souls. So in a religious conversation, the initiator should be conscious of how they phrase things so as not to induce guilt, either intentionally, or unintentionally by making the focus be too strongly on the other person.  

Although H couldn’t give many specific words, I was glad to see that she agreed that overall language use was a factor in how awkward a conversation would feel. Generally, “preachy” sounding language has a negative connotation. It is associated with poor representations of Christians who are overly focused on inducing guilt and/or gaining converts.

Other

The full interview with H offered much insight on the many factors of awkwardness. All of it cannot be used for discussion in a paper of this length, but I would like to highlight one or two more features that she noted which were not as clear through the study of the Cline article.

H: To kind of expand this experience even though it's sort of off the question, when he saw me on campus at future times he would sometimes try to give me things to read and try to make me promise to read them. They were usually about Jesus

A: oh man

A: that must have been weird to have him recognize you

A: I wonder why he kept going like that

H: It was less weird and more awkward. He was always kind in his approach, but he just would not let up. And again, I never gave him any information on me, so I couldn't figure out why he kept trying.

H found it disconcerting that this person continued to approach her. I realized that there was something of a conflict here, since she mentioned that he was “kind in his approach”. So I asked what specifically was making these encounters awkward.

 H: the persistance and the continual attempt to engage me when it should have been really clear (in a polite way) that I wasn't interested in talking with him about it

The factor that H is identifying is “persistence”. In her case, this guy continued to approach her and attempt to have a religious conversation even when it “should have been really clear” that she wasn’t interested. Based on the guidelines of the conversation etiquette articles, I think that his persistence is based in a lack of social skill and social awareness. It is clear that H was giving off the normal cues for “I’m not interested”, yet he was either ignorant of them or intentionally ignoring them. This example speaks for itself. It should go without saying that if a person seems be giving the cues for “no” that you should back off and let them away. The guideline of listening pertains not only to verbal language but to body language. Perhaps developing a greater level of social awareness for these cues, specifically tIf he were listening, as the guides suggest, tailoring the conversation to the listener

Another thing we can note from this section of dialogue is that confusion is an integral part of awkwardness . H felt uncomfortable because she “couldn’t figure out why he kept trying”. We often have a sense of uneasiness when we don’t understand people’s intention in a topic, or what that topic’s connection is to us. Awkwardness is the feeling we develop when trying to figure these things out. Again, letting a natural flow of conversation lead into these topics would help avoid this problem, because there would be contextual language for why that topic was coming up.

Conclusion

The interview with H offered far more material than I could include on the many factors involved with awkwardness. For one thing, I think it is necessary to note that these factors are immensely interrelated. What makes for an appropriate context will depend on the kind of relationship you have with the person. Yet the level of relationship needed can adjust based on setting. For example, it seems somewhat normal that a “deep” conversation could develop between two strangers seated next to each other on an airplane. Yet if a stranger were to approach you in your workplace about this topic it would seem highly unusual. Another important thing to note is that the level at which these factors will matter depends greatly on the individual. Some people are more outgoing and enjoy conversation more, so the level of relationship may not matter to them. Also, the way a conversation is initiated will matter differently to different people. Another personality factor is that of prior experience. Someone who has had one or more bad experiences with religious conversations will be much more sensitive to discuss that topic again, so the qualifiers they need will be much higher.

In all things, I think it is possible to summarize that if the initiator is attempting to be sensitive, is paying attention to social cues, and is conscious of the other person, they can avoid a lot of the moves that make people feel awkward. I’m not sure why awkwardness has become such a widespread problem among Christian discourse, but I feel that simply raising awareness is a good place to start. The conversation etiquette which is available details many of the basic (obvious) ways that one can aim for a pleasant and interactive conversation. If you care enough about your conversation partner, you will make an effort to be aware of whether or not they feel uncomfortable. This is a skill, not simply a piece of information, and has to be practiced. But if you care enough about the other person you will take the time to do it. Develop an awareness to context – if it feels out of place, it probably is. Be careful of your terminology – don’t assume that they know what it means. Don’t use things you heard straight from the pulpit without first putting it into street language, the language everyone is familiar with. Don’t break normal social rules – listen and gauge your conversation based on what they’re saying. Go with the flow, don’t hijack the conversation to get your point across, but let it take you where it takes you. The religious conversation that comes up out of genuine interest will be far more succesfull than the one you forced. Worse yet, if you are the cause for a “bad experience” in that person’s eyes, they may never willingly talk about that subject again because of you.