Shaun Groves
To read the post on chapter one of Ron Martoia’s Static click here. To buy the book and join the discussion click here.
On to chapter two.
Ron writes…
“The words we use have no raw definitions. Instead, from our life experiences we fill up “mental containers” – containers of understanding and meaning – that we call words. And because your life experience is different from my life experience, the connotations of words – our understanding of what those words mean – will vary from person to person.” (p. 12)
Ron also acknowledges that not only do we all define words differently to a degree, but we also use these words to communicate ideas we might not even fully understand or might understand incorrectly. So the problem of communicating our beliefs are many. Words we use don’t always mean to others what they mean to us and we may not have a good understanding (or correct understanding) of what we’re trying to communicate.
Ron says…
“I realized one day that I had come believe I was about 97 percent accurate in what I held to be doctrinally true. In other words, I acknowledged that I may be wrong about a few details, but certainly no more than about 3 percent…I was the product of the academy, where a premium was placed on being right, ready, and full of insight. At some level, I was merely reflecting the values commonly taught at Bible schools and seminaries around the globe. The problem with this sort of posture – this sort of “certainty” – is that over time it becomes impervious to change, fresh insight, or new understanding. Before long, we move from being learners (which is the real meaning of the Greek word for disciple in the New Testament) to becoming protectors – protectors of “what we have always believed.” (pp.13,14)
QUESTIONS: How do you process new ideas and insights? If someone speaks or writes an idea that is contrary to what you believe or just outside the scope of things you’ve thought about, how do you respond? How should we? What percentage of what you believe could you be wrong about?
Then Ron writes the most underline-worthy words in this book, for me…
All genuine learning requires a tentative disposition – tentative in the sense that I must hold open the possibility that the thoughts I have and the positions I hold may need to be adjusted, revised, or even discarded in favor of more complete understandings. (p.14)
This is difficult to me. I like certainty. I’m afraid of the “slippery slope” that leads from “tentative disposition” to “there is no absolute truth.”
QUESTIONS: What keeps us from living with a “tentative disposition?” How does having certainty benefit us and others we communicate with? How does it harm us and those we communicate with? Same questions with tentativeness. How’s that disposition benefit us and “them?” Are you convinced being more tentative and uncertain is the right way to go? Why?
Ryan G. says:
1: There are some things I hold to as dear, truth, absolute, what I believe is undoubtedly correct and I can not be swayed. I’m a “protector” in this instance.
Then there’s things that I here about at a different angle, like what Ron uses, and I try to open my mind to understand them and take away something with it.
2: Pride.
Although, being “tentative” creates a feeling a “reality” (to quote another buzz word)
Ryan G. says:
I meant a feeling of “Realness”
(don’t type and talk on the phone at the same time)
Cali Amy says:
I really like what he says about words and ideas. I see this all the time in my job. (I teach reading improvement and language acquisition) In fact, we often encourage our students that knowing what the author is intending to communicate is the most important thing, the words they use are not. (so if they read, I don’t like raw fish, it’s the same as, I can’t stand to eat raw fish–or something like that) In that example (a poor one–sorry!) although they’ve changed the words a bit, they’ve clearly made a connection with the author through their own experiences and languages.
The second part is hard for me. I think I am fairly open to new ideas. But often, when I come to a determination about something, it has taken some time to get there. I am often less open if I have spent considerable time mulling something over and come to some sort of conclusion. In that case, I will have often already heard and thought about most of the objections to whatever it is, if I haven’t, than I might be more willing to listen. I agree that pride and also fear are what keep us from being open to new ideas or ways of thinking about things.
Thomas says:
Over the last few days I have been thinking about the questions posed by Shaun and the thing that I kept coming back to was trust. If I did not trust the person trying to teach me something, I would not listen to them or take what they are saying seriously. If I trust the person who is teaching me something I would be receptive to what they are trying to teach me. If it was about a subject that I have prior knowledge of I would be hesitant to change my views, but I would still be willing to listen to the person teaching the subject.
I guess what I am saying is that I want footnotes and a peer review of a book if the authors is trying to teach me something.
Thomas
Cali Amy says:
I get that Thomas and I agree. I am much more likely to listen to someone I trust and take what they have to say into consideration than someone I don’t know or may think is a fruitcake. I was listening to a tape of Ravi Zacharias this morning, and he said, “often we want to reject a message because we don’t like the messenger.” I thought that was a really great point.
Shaun Groves says:
WHich, Amy, I think is why professional messengers (pastors, speakers, musicians, authors) are so fake publicly. We know if we do anything or say anything that loses trust our message won’t be heard.
I’ve stopped improvising at shows for this reason. I want kids to be sponsored so badly that I don’t want to make a joke I think is funny, that no one else thinks is funny, and some think is wrong, and lose a potential sponsor. I get that trust thing.
But isn’t that forgetting the massive number of very flawed people, crass people, thieving and mean people who’ve told the truth on this or that subject?
I think of Rich Mullins.
Rich is revered now for writing Awesome God and saying a lot of great things in concert and in articles he wrote. But Rich got drunk. He was foul-mouthed. He was sometimes hard to work. He was flaky. He was human. But he said great things about simplicity and poverty and benevolence and politics. And about how awesome God truly is.
And we can’t forget the number of “good” people we all like who’ve led folks astray. Jim Jones? Likable guy. Conservative in many ways on the outside. Quoted scripture. (But interpreted it wrongly.) Helped folks. No one knew he had some special kool-aid in the pantry until it was too late.
Do we ignore the source altogether? What are aspects of the messenger to evaluate when considering his/her message? Are there any?
Cali Amy says:
No, I’m definitely not saying it’s right to reject a message because we don’t like or trust the messenger. I just think it was a very concise way of putting it.
There is some sort of judgmentalism in us that makes it hard for us to trust someone who drinks excessively or cheated on their spouses or who kept their homosexuality a secret.
I guess the truth is more than anything, we have to evaluate a message (not so much the messenger). Back to using my work as an example, the methodology we use is a little bit radical. So far, it’s not been accepted by many intellectual sorts of people. But it works. Like amazingly well. And when I first learned about it and how to do it, the people who trained me drove me a little nutty. I wasn’t even sure I liked all of their business practices. We struggled in that area. But that didn’t change the fact that they had a really awesome and amazing program that changes lives and works. In this case, “the message” speaks for itself. The package it comes in is a little bit rough and at times hard to take and I’m certain it has turned people away from embracing the truth of their theory of learning.
So I’m not sure I have the answers. If I am speaking as the messenger, I know not everyone is going to agree with me. At what point do I just trust the truth of the message I am trying to convey and stop worrying about the image I am presenting?
If I am the receiver of the message, I’d like to think I am of a tentative enough disposition that I do really listen to everyone. But I know it’s not true.
Tracy says:
There is validity in looking at the messenger. And, that fake public life is always pretty quick to crumble.
But, don’t we want to know that the messenger did his research? That he is “trained” in his area of expertise? That he doesn’t pick and chose facts or scripture to only affirm his beliefs?
Part of the problem is that we, as a public, have taken so many things for face value. And, that includes the lessons we have been taught at church. Are we so lazy or gullible that we don’t think for ourselves? And, part of forming our own beliefs and thoughts is listening to others beliefs and thoughts.
See, the tentative position may not be the most comfortable place to be. But, as you work through the thoughts and questions, you will create, hopefully, a bigger story and will have not just created a God that affirms your beliefs and keeps you in your comfort zone.
Cali Amy says:
Just out of curiosity, are we going to continue to discuss the book? I hope so! No pressure, though!
Tracy says:
I hope so, as well!
Shaun Groves says:
I lost my book.
I’m stupid like that.
When it turns up we’ll resume. Sorry.
Tracy says:
Can I send you a new book??? I happen to have some connections!
Shaun Groves says:
FOUND IT!
I’ll post the next segment this week. Promise.
Cali Amy says:
Promise?