"When we speak, we do something. Our words literally do something. Speaking is action."
These words echoed in my interpersonal communication grad class like an iPod stuck on repeat. Dr. Mirivel, the hard-lining Frenchman who consistently found a way to critique the most well-written of papers lived by this motto (and he said it often): speaking is action. This thought is echoed in the speech act theory (which I'll leave alone for this posting). Its really not a hard concept to grasp. During one presentation in this class, I incorporated a video of myself asking a girl out, to which she refused as she pushed a knife through my chest. The point was that her words were more than just words. They caused real, physical pain. When we speak, things really happen as a result. Thus, speaking is action.
I read an article recently about Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory (CMM). This was the bane of my existence in grad school. An encompassing cousin of speech act theory, William Pearce and Vernon Cronen came up with CMM just so they could keep communication students up at night banging their heads against a wall. I hated this theory because of its ambiguity and black hole-like ability to suck in many different aspects of communication studies that may or may not have really applied. As defined, coordinated management of meaning views conversation from a participant's perspective, taking note of everything that could add to the perceived meaning of all parties involved. Confused? Me too. Basically, there is more going on in a conversation than just words being spoken. There are certainly things we explicitly understand, but many meanings are implied, assumed, and logically deduced. Regardless of what we understand or the degree to which we understand, a CMM theorist holds that communication is the primary means through which meaning is created.
Church leaders need to understand the implications of coordinated management of meaning. Well, first, communication scholars need to find a better way to explain it! In all seriousness, what do your conversations do to people? What do people understand about you, your vision, your approaches, and your outlook on life and ministry? What kind of social reality are you constructing for your church, the Church, and the person of Jesus Christ? This post could be completely dedicated to James 3 and the reminder that we need to watch what we say. My purpose is to be more specific than that.
What we say and do will have direct influences on the reality of our churches. But not just how we converse with people, but also how we react and respond to what others say. Remember, the name of the theory begins with the word "coordinated." This means our conversations produce meaning through a joint effort. If, for instance, I decide to tell someone in my small group that we will start using a particular curriculum and she replies, "Why are we using that curriculum?", my response will directly effect the meaning attached to her statement. If I respond, "Because I picked the curriculum, its the best one out there, so just accept it", then I label her question as an insult, and my response makes it such. However, if I respond by welcoming her questions and take the opportunity to let her know why this curriculum was chosen, her question will instead be viewed by both of us as a clarification. Even if she meant it as an insult, by simply choosing to respond as if no insult was spoken, the meaning of our conversation will remain positive. When we coordinate our conversations in a way that allows people to question, argue, and even disagree, we create an environment where people are open to change because its acceptable to be vulnerable. The meaning we create is that the churches we are a part of allow people to have new ideas. And as long as these ideas don't take away from scripture, this is a good thing.
Many people leave churches because they feel there is a certain mold they must fit to be included. Others leave because they don't agree with the mold or the existence of such. Churches have been socially constructed as places of rigidity, rituals, and closed-mindedness instead of organizations of discourse, learning, openness, and authenticity. In many cases, I do not believe this is how they actually are. Of course, some communities have become closed off from the outside world and do nothing to include those with any way of life that opposes the critical mass. This happens when the church's leadership creates a culture of absolutism and cognitive superiority. Critical dialogue cannot happen in such an environment.
To ensure that we engage a post-Christian culture, we must pay attention to the meaning our conversations bring. Growing up, I was reminded by my Sunday school teachers that I might be "the only Jesus someone sees." The Jesus I read about in the Bible didn't shun people for bringing up different ideas. Rather, he entered into deep conversation with them. And I'm not talking about the Sanhedrin; that was the group he had no tolerance for, as it was they who held so tightly to the law they squeezed the love out of it. Read the conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus in John 3 or the conversation with the Samaritan woman in the next chapter. He brought the absolute truth, which did not supersede his absolute love. In fact, they were complimentary. Scripture more than implies that our conversations should be conducted in the same way:
"Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone." --Colossians 4:6
What meaning do you bring to conversations with those looking to you for spiritual leadership?
