I used to be against small talk. I hated it. I hated the idea of having a shallow conversation with someone else just because society told me to. I refused to talk about the weather, for sure, but I didn’t talk about stupid non-news stories that should be in People, not The New York Times. I couldn’t care less if OJ was guilty. Not real news to me, and not a good topic for conversation. Similarly, I was told not to talk about religion or politics in ‘polite’ conversation. What else is there, really? The weather.
Most of the people who know me will freely suggest that they know this about me. And many will recognize the difficulty I have had in switching into a culture that detests controversy. Thank you for the prayers and concern you have no doubt had throughout this process. Regardless, I have learned to see what small talk is and the part it serves.
I have also been a proponent of removing the first steps from most “games”--which includes, of course, the game of conversation. Step 1 is the greeting “Hi” or “Good afternoon”, followed immediately by the unintentionally probing question of “How are you?” None of us wants the truth, but this is part of the formality inherent to the game. We say “pretty good; how about you?” expecting to receive the same response of “pretty good” or perhaps “fine.” The conversation then is allowed to begin, but in some cases, we need to ease into it with weather our common interests such as sports or other events or those fluff news stories. It takes forever just to get going most of the time!
My concern with these stages of the process is the confusion implicit in them. I am no longer obsessed with conversation “meaning something”, but I am a bit concerned with what is being communicated in fluff talk and whether or not both parties recognize the postures. If I answer the “how are you?” question to Person A with “pretty well”, then they (rightly) regard this as sufficient and move on. But if they hear me move on to Person B and answer instead “you know, my wife’s been pretty sick and we’re wondering what’s really going on”, then Person A will be rightly upset at not only my not disclosing this fact about myself and my life, but that I lied in suggesting that things were ‘fine’.
The application of these concerns is much more profound in the playing out of political chess moves. For the Anglican Communion to show an interest in reconciliation (demanded of it by Akinola) is fair and proper and the right thing to do. I’m all in favor of waging reconciliation, BUT The Network and ‘Global South’ and any other religious pirates never showed any interest in reconciliation--they are playing out this game knowing that these would be the steps taken by the Anglican Church, knowing what they would be able to get away with things (sheep stealing) without reprimand, and that they could easily win the media war with cries of persecution from a tyrannical and abusive church. This is all BS, and everyone involved in it can see this--but the people (in the pews, in the press, in other faith-groups) aren’t privy to this information. They still think it actually has something to do with sex.
The church itself was stuck by its predictable opening moves and they were easily exploited because of it. At the same time, it has also served to give cover to both the dissidents and the Communion, as they can both say “we tried to make it work, but…”. Perhaps starting at the initial conversation, which was that the fringe Right was looking for a way out for years, may have allowed for a dissolution of bonds of affection in an amicable agreement. “You want the church building, then pony-up for it!” It may have been doable. Perhaps even lines of communication may have been maintained after the inevitably messy resolution period.
In truth, none of this occurred, nor will any amicable agreement arise (easily) at this stage. There will be no cavalry arriving at the final moment or superhero swooping down. We are stuck in a morass because of common civility. Clarity of motivation isn’t a ‘tipping of one’s hand’, but a position of strength. Perhaps we’ll remember that for the next great controversy.
No comments:
Post a Comment