The newspaper for which I write these columns tells me that it sometimes run short of letters to the editor. I can’t personally remedy that shortage. But because I was partly responsible for them starting a “Letters to the Editor” page, many years ago, I feel some obligation at least to consider the matter. Letters to the editor are, I contend, the essential second half of communication. The first half is the message sent out, by whatever means. Including blogs, FaceBook, and, yes, handwritten letters. It’s one person talking. The second half is the other person responding. If no response is possible, communication might as well fall on deaf ears. I don’t know about you, but I lose interest very quickly whenever I encounter speakers who are interested only in hearing their own opinions.
The mass media’s shortcomings Western civilization, I contend, has passed through a technological blip. Once upon a time, all communication depended on both give and take. Speaking and teaching occurred as a dialogue. Hearers were free to challenge, to question, to debate. The Bible contains a brief reference to this practice. Although children had roughly the same status as slaves in that society, the boy Jesus was found questioning the priests in the Temple. The technological blip started with Gutenberg. When he invented printing with moveable type, Gutenberg also invented the mass media. Suddenly one person’s opinion could go out to thousands of readers, but the readers had no way of responding. Unless they wrote their own book. Which took time to produce. And cost money. Both limited the ability to respond to an elite who were wealthy and literate. My reading of history suggests that other spheres copied the model of the printed book. Churches built pulpits raised high above contradiction. Universities turned teachers into lecturers, where students were viewed as empty vessels, waiting to be filled. The teacher figuratively opened their skulls, poured in the relevant knowledge, and then closed their heads. Tragically, some students never opened their minds again. The broadcast media, when they eventually emerged, took the talking head to an extreme. Pundits pontificated behind microphones, safely insulated from rebuttal. A current politician -- you know who I mean -- still thinks he operates on this model.
Opportunity for rebuttal But newspapers, which came along about two centuries after Gutenberg, were always an exception. True, they provided a platform for a limited group of writers and commentators. But their short shelf life meant that a rebuttal could appear the next day. For a few British newspapers, the sometimes vitriolic exchange of letters attracted more readers than their news coverage. Letters to the editor restore the give and take, the cut and thrust, that used to characterize communication before Gutenberg.
In face to face conversations, we always have opportunities to interrupt, to question, to supplement. (If we don’t, we soon find ways to exit. Indeed, that may be one reason why churches all across the religious spectrum lose members -- they still expect audiences to sit passively while the words of a sermon wash over them.)
Words of advice Which brings me to some advice. Letters to a newspaper are more likely to get printed if they -- are short. -- provide supplementary information rather than simply attacking an another author. -- stick to a single point. -- don’t require major editing to correct sloppy spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Of course, nowadays one can simply tap the “Like” button instead of going through the effort of composing a letter. And if you DON’T like something, you can blast off a heated retort at light speed. In person, you might – I hope – phrase your response with some concern for the individual you’re addressing. Does she seem sincere? Can he cope with a crushing retort? But online, anonymity enables people to say, and send, what I hope they would never say face to face. And no one can stop them. Because the sender is now the publisher. Letters to the editor impose a different context. An editor will decide what’s worth publishing. Writing for possible publication demands some mental and emotional discipline. It also offers some benefits. Before you tap “Send,” you have time to look at what you’ve written. To delete digressions, perhaps. To tidy up typos. To re-think your logic. The mere act of writing out your response serves -- as the Canadian Senate is supposed to -- as an opportunity for sober second thought. In newspapers, letters to the editor provide the essential second half of the equation of communication. ********************************************************
Copyright © 2016 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups encouraged; links from other blogs welcomed; all other rights reserved. To send comments, to subscribe, or to unsubscribe, write jimt@quixotic.ca
********************************************************
YOUR TURN
Some interesting responses to last week’s column on making decisions by consensus. Here are some of the letters.
Art Hildebrand sent the column to his Member of Parliament and also to his church council. He called the article, “really good, insightful and helpful.”
Mary Sweet had used a different consensus model in a United Methodist congregation: “The consensus model I was taught, ‘fist or five,’ went the other way; five was full agreement and fist was adamantly against. There was also an option for those less than five to 'better it up,' to gain consensus. It worked very well in that location.”
Cliff Boldt happened to be reading a book, I’m Right; You’re an Idiot. Cliff wrote, “It's about the toxic level of public discourse out there. It is slow reading because there are so many good points that I want to highlight with my felt pens. And many points that make me stop and think. “I commend it to readers who are interested in the consensus process. And for those who long for ‘adult’ discussion rather than emotional rantings.”
Isabel Gibson worried that the consensus process might be “Slow. That's the first (and maybe the last) objection I have. I just don't know whether we have time to use that method.
“Of course, as one of my friends says in another context, ‘Why is there never time to do it right the first time, but always time to fix it?’”
Wesley White recommended “this consensus flow chart [http://seedsforchange.org.uk/consensusmice.pdf] from among the other resources at http://seedsforchange.org.uk/resources”
Ted Wilson applied the consensus model to his dogs: “There is a saying among retriever aficionados that ‘You tell a Lab. You ask a Golden. You negotiate with a Chessie.’ In response to your latest column, I suggest we all own a Chessie at some time in our lives, [and]. we learn to negotiate. Having never met your Phoebe I cannot attest to her independence of thought or insistence on having her opinions taken seriously, but I just received my 4th Chesapeake Bay Retriever as a birthday gift from my children. I have learned to negotiate! Sometimes the dog IS right. It has saved me a few times, including a confrontation with an angry black bear. “Consensus demands negotiating skills and being willing to compromise. It is also not always the final solution. I have seen people not willing to compromise derail the process. Our church board adopted the total consensus approach for a while and the time demands drove people away. To make it work you need an impartial Chair… The situation where I saw it work the best was on a government advisory board where we usually had multiple options that we had to rank… Most votes required listing the options in order of preference. It was surprising how often the option that was the first choice of very few ended up with the most points because it was high on most peoples’ list. The process also started to bring us together. Once people had vented their initial opinions on issues, conversations quickly turned to the points or perspectives that had commonality and we could put forth recommendations that…usually the entire board could support. It was a good learning process that, unfortunately, ended too soon with a change of government.”
********************************************
TECHNICAL STUFF
This column comes to you using the electronic facilities of Woodlakebooks.com. If you want to comment on something, write me at jimt@quixotic.ca. Or just hit the “Reply” button. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send me an e-mail message at the address above. Or subscribe electronically by sending a blank email (no message) to sharpedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca. Similarly, you can un-subscribe at sharpedgesunsubscribe@lists.quixotic.ca. Unfortunately, the archived columns at http://edges.Canadahomepage.net have disappeared. The site was hijacked, and I haven’t been able to get it back I’m hoping to have a new website up fairly soon. I write a second column each Wednesday, called Soft Edges, which deals somewhat more gently with issues of life and faith. To sign up for Soft Edges, write to me directly, at the address above, or send a blank e-mail to softedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca
PROMOTION STUFF… Ralph Milton ’s latest project is called “Sing Hallelujah” -- the world’s first video hymnal. It consists of 100 popular hymns, both new and old, on five DVDs that can be played using a standard DVD player and TV screen, for use in congregations who lack skilled musicians to play piano or organ. More details at www.singhallelujah.com Ralph’s HymnSight webpage is still up, http://www.hymnsight.ca, with a vast gallery of photos you can use to enhance the appearance of the visual images you project for liturgical use (prayers, responses, hymn verses, etc.) Wayne Irwin's “Churchweb Canada,” an inexpensive service for any congregation wanting to develop a web presence, with free consultation. <http://www.churchwebcanada.ca> Isabel Gibson’s thoughtful and well-written blog, www.traditionaliconoclast.com Alva Wood’s satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town -- not particularly religious, but fun; alvawood@gmail.com to get onto her mailing list. Tom Watson writes a weekly blog called “The View from Grandpa Tom’s Balcony” -- ruminations on various subjects, and feedback from Tom’s readers. Write him at tomwatso@gmail.com or twatson@sentex.net
***************************************