tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post7867706315791367591..comments2024-03-15T17:06:31.642-05:00Comments on The Piety That Lies Between: A Progressive Christian Perspective: Tone-Policing and Nonviolent CommunicationEric Reitanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-86891189288352212642015-09-18T11:12:39.678-05:002015-09-18T11:12:39.678-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Eric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-66323436980779184152015-09-18T09:42:25.663-05:002015-09-18T09:42:25.663-05:00"There is no such thing as being outwardly lo..."There is no such thing as being outwardly loving without being inwardly loving according to scripture. Love is one of the spiritual fruits, to say we can possess it without first having the Spirit is nonsense."<br /><br />Let me try again, since it seems I didn't convey my point clearly before. A loving act has two dimensions to it--an outer and an inner. I do not by this mean that a loving act can be a loving act absent one of these dimensions. But it does mean we can speak of certain outer forms of action (e.g., feeding the hungry, educating the ignorant) that are characteristic of loving acts in the sense that they are outward actions that persons motivated by the right inner spirit of love characteristically perform--or characteristically would perform if they had the requisite skills and resources. <br /><br />My point is that nonviolent communication strategies might, arguably, be viewed as such an outer form--an outward way of acting that (assuming requisite skills and resources) someone motivated by love would adopt. When I originally said to you that nonviolent communication was a loving way of acting, that is what I meant. I did not mean that it was loving apart from the right inner spirit and motivation.<br /><br />I hope that was concise enough for you. In choosing between being concise and being complete, I always favor being complete in order to minimize misunderstanding. Sometimes careful editing and re-editing can make matters both concise and complete, but, just like you, I am busy and don't typically have enough time in my day to do that. So often the choice is between no reply, a lengthy reply, or an inadequate reply. And I generally feel I'm wasting my time if my reply to inadequate by my own lights. Eric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-81599226424276598992015-09-17T15:06:05.493-05:002015-09-17T15:06:05.493-05:00I was not saying that God had to be mentioned expl...I was not saying that God had to be mentioned explicitly, I was saying that His love is not even implied by the author of the method because of the foundation by which he set it, which is "it is in human nature to be compassionate." And this foundation as I stated above contradicts Scripture. As scripture says in Matthew 7: 24-27, a sturdy foundation, meaning Christ/Trinity alone, is key to living a Christlike life. Sorry if I seem to be hypocritical by making my response longer, as you can see by the different times, I did not think of this until later. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-29733268047081259462015-09-17T11:51:15.786-05:002015-09-17T11:51:15.786-05:00"I am the truth the way and the life, no one ..."I am the truth the way and the life, no one comes to the Father except by me." You misunderstood what I said completely. All I am saying is that Nonviolent communication without Christ is meaningless. What I am saying does not contradict scripture, I am applying it. There is no such thing as being outwardly loving without being inwardly loving according to scripture. Love is one of the spiritual fruits, to say we can possess it without first having the Spirit is nonsense. Note: long responses do not encourage readership. Not that I don't care, I am just busy. If you respond to me, please make it concise, thanks. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-91096155787902664422015-09-17T11:31:37.769-05:002015-09-17T11:31:37.769-05:00On the issue of love not being authentic love with...On the issue of love not being authentic love without God, I have several thoughts.<br /><br />My theology teaches me that everything that is good springs from God, that God's essence is love, and therefore that authentic human love is not authentic unless it expresses and channels love itself, which has its source in God. It also teaches me that the best way to praise and glorify God is to try my best to be a conduit for divine love in the world, to let that divine light shine through me so that all may be blessed by it.<br /><br />But I have seen that blessing, experienced that blessing, shining through people who are Jews and Hindus and Muslims. I have seen it shining in the lives and choices of atheist friends. My best theological interpretation of this experience--the best understanding I can offer of this experience in light of my theology--is that God works through anyone who is open to being moved by divine grace in the right way, no matter what their theologies, no matter what their explicit beliefs. In other words, it is possible to be a conduit for divine love without oneself using Christian theological categories and concepts to understand what one is doing.<br /><br />I have also seen those who are always hard at work mentioning God and Jesus, overtly praising his name and glorifying Him in ways that studiously observe the language and categories of orthodox Christian thought...and do all this in a spirit of works-righteousness where they use other's failure to do likewise as a standard for judging them inferior. In short, they use the language of God and displays of worship as ways to shut out the divine radiance and make sure they are conduits of self-righteousness and mean-spiritedness instead of love. <br /><br />Whether we are capable of real love seems to hinge on a spirit of openness to being moved by a love that transcends us, as opposed to having all the right beliefs and saying all the right things about that transcendent good and our openness to it.<br /><br />That is the inner side of love--the motive that makes an act loving as opposed to self-serving or self-destructive or whatever else might move us. But there is an outer side as well. I'm not a fan of the saying, "Love, then do as you will," because it seems that if you love, there are certain kinds of things you will do and certain kind of things you won't do. Giving to OXFAM to help the needy is the kind of thing that loving people will do--even if the motive for doing so might be self-serving (it's just about the tax break). So, we can distinguish between outwardly loving acts and loving motives.<br /><br />Nonviolent communication techniques might be used by someone who lacks loving motives. Nevertheless, I think it is an outwardly loving way to engage with people in conflict situations, insofar as meeting needs is an outward way to show love, and nonviolent communication facilitates meeting the needs of everyone affected in conflict situations.<br /><br />In other words, nonviolent communication offers a way to achieve what people with loving motives aim to achieve--even if, as you rightly note, it might be employed by people lacking loving motives. <br /><br />But my experience with nonviolent communication is that practicing it *can* be a vehicle not only for being outwardly loving in relation to those we are in conflict with but for trying to remain open to the spirit of love that transcends us. And sometimes its deliberate use can move us inwardly, such that what started out as simply a cookie-cutter application of a technique for motives disconnected from love leads us to love more fully across the gap of conflict than we realized we could.Eric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-78703980496855886992015-09-17T11:09:53.392-05:002015-09-17T11:09:53.392-05:00I'm not sure why you think Jesus never used no...I'm not sure why you think Jesus never used nonviolent communication, that is, never self-disclosed in favor of making judgments. Is it because you don't find examples of it in the Bible? Keep in mind that most of what is recorded there are His moral teachings, his parables, and his confrontations with unjust systems. My view, at least, is that nonviolent communication is a limited technique in these settings and really comes alive in moments of interpersonal relationship-building at the point of conflict. <br /><br />But let's put that aside. English is a man-made communication technique, one that Jesus did not use. Nevertheless, there are reasons for me to use it--and sometimes, at least, the reasons may include my commitment to be a follower of Jesus, where living up to that commitment can mean I need to communicate with those around me as effectively as I can, which in the circumstances may call for English. If I knew that those circumstances were likely to arise, but I refused to learn English because Jesus never used it and I should be a follower of Jesus, I would be compromising my ability to be a follower of Jesus in the name of being a follower of Jesus.<br /><br />Perhaps you believe that nonviolent communication techniques will never be like this? If so, I wonder if you have seen to the heart of what nonviolent communication is about. So let me put the question another way: Do you think your ability to follow Jesus will never be served by mastering techniques of communication that have been shown to reduce defensiveness in conflict situations, promote mutual understanding and empathy, and encourage looking for ways to meet the needs of everyone in the conflict?<br /><br />Put that way, the answer strikes me, at least, as obvious. My own understanding of what following Jesus means includes building bridges of mutual concern and empathy at the point of conflict. Because that, it seems to me, is what it means to be a peacemaker. And being a peacemaker is something Jesus called us to do (not ONLY this, of course, and not to the exclusion of naming injustices for what they are and calling out their perpetrators--but nevertheless, we are called to be peacemakers).<br /><br />When I first studied Rosenberg's version of nonviolent communication in a workshop with him, I was bothered by his systematic refusal to use the language of right and wrong, good and evil. I am still bothered by it, because I think there is a place for it--in preaching, in exhortation, in challenging unjust systems, in teaching, in venues like this one. But in the business of negotiating conflicting needs and interests in immediate human relationships, the language of self-disclosure is so much better at moving towards the goal of everyone's needs being met than is the language of judgment. <br /><br />Perhaps this is the meaning behind Jesus' words, "Judge not, lest you be judged." And his insistence that before we try to take the speck from our neighbor's eye, we should take the mote from our own. These injunctions speak to a way of approaching conflict that eschews judgment of others in favor of honesty about oneself.Eric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-64346828226202683262015-09-17T00:08:02.768-05:002015-09-17T00:08:02.768-05:00Nonviolent communication does not describe a lovin...Nonviolent communication does not describe a loving way of communication because it does not attempt to mention, praise, or glorify God. God is love and we love because God first loved us. Anything without God is not love at all. And anything without God is meaningless. God is the only being that can make nonviolent communication a truly loving way of communicatingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-6119701438126171012015-09-16T23:32:44.068-05:002015-09-16T23:32:44.068-05:00Explain why Jesus does not follow Nonviolent Commu...Explain why Jesus does not follow Nonviolent Communication. If does not follow it and we are supposed to follow Him, why should we follow Nonviolent communication? Our call is to deny ourselves and follow Him daily, not to follow a manmade communication techniqueAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-73427368610897902002015-09-14T19:19:17.848-05:002015-09-14T19:19:17.848-05:00A few points:
1. It is important, I think, to dis...A few points:<br /><br />1. It is important, I think, to distinguish between the practical communication tool that is nonviolent communication and philosophical justifications for it. I-messages and reflective listening existed long before Rosenberg wrote his book on nonviolent communication, which approaches and develops these core methodologies in the light of his philosophy. But divergent philosophies often converge on the value of a practice for different reasons. Marshall Rosenberg's reasons for valuing nonviolent communication techniques may not be the only reasons for valuing them--and not embracing a particular philosophy which underwrites a practice needn't mean not embracing the practice. The question I invite you to ask is whether your Christian philosophy offers reasons to make use of nonviolent communication practices. You may find that there are such reasons.<br /><br />2. You say, "...the book claims that it is in human nature to be compassionate. This is false, as Christians, we all know our core nature is sinful, not compassionate." I understand Christian theology differently. As I understand it, sinfulness is a corruption of our core nature, not our core nature. Our core nature springs from our creator. If God is essentially compassionate, and if our very being flows from God, then our very being is ordered to what is divine, and hence towards compassion. But sin-conceived as alienation from God--corrupts and distorts this essential nature.<br /><br />3. Not every practitioner of nonviolent communication would answer your question about forgiveness in the same way. Judgment is something we do. Forgiveness is a difficult concept, but insofar as it involves letting go of judgment-or, perhaps more accurately, letting go of the power of our judgments of others to define how we treat and respond to them--nonviolent communication may be a tool for practicing forgiveness.<br /><br />4. "The very foundation of nonviolent communication is self-dependence, instead of dependence on God." Again, I see matters a bit differently. Nonviolent communication describes a loving way of communicating with neighbors. If I try to rely on myself to live up to the love command, then I am self-reliant. If I rely on God to do so, then I am God-dependent.Eric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-54515196212945930452015-09-11T16:52:13.290-05:002015-09-11T16:52:13.290-05:00My problem with Nonviolent communication is that t...My problem with Nonviolent communication is that the very first sentence of the book claims that it is in human nature to be compassionate. This is false, as Christians, we all know our core nature is sinful, not compassionate. We must remember that compassion comes from God, not man. God is love and we love because God first loved us. This book is the textbook for one of my classes this term. I asked my professor where forgiveness fit in to the non-violent communication strategy and she said it would fit no where because forgiveness implies that you are judging someone. When I asked about self forgiveness, it seemed she had no problem with that. The very foundation of nonviolent communication is self-dependence, instead of dependence on God. Yes, some things may appear true in this book, but yet we must also remember that many of the world's traps tend to make good arguments with our flesh and against the Spirit. Let's not forget how convincing the arguments of Job's friends were and God declared them all false. If you would ask me, the core root of this text completely rejects Christ's teaching. The only way to true compassion and "nonviolent communication" is by full surrender to Jesus Christ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-30151038436695365192015-09-02T15:36:56.769-05:002015-09-02T15:36:56.769-05:00I found this article really interesting. I hadn...I found this article really interesting. I hadn't thought about tone policing before, but it makes perfect sense. CordeliaSuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01702486980771872194noreply@blogger.com