The Trouble with Online Discourse

In the age of social media, theological issues are widely circulated among believers. These topics often lead to swift divisions and finger-pointing. As conversations become more complex, we reach a point where we can no longer hear one another’s voices.

How do we view people with different perspectives? We begin to label them as intentionally hostile to the truth. Forgetting that most differences are simply matters of perspective, we see ourselves as being in a state of war. This leads us to classify their voices as something that shouldn’t be heard, especially not in our “territory.”

The tone and language we use gradually shift. We overlook our own mistakes while exaggerating the faults of others. Even if someone is correct, their sincerity is questioned, their character is attacked, and their identity is dissected. Over time, the original topic is lost, and we become the subjects of the discussion. Our main goal becomes to prove others wrong. When we see ourselves as the guardians of truth, we label others as destroyers or “compromisers.” The way we describe others becomes increasingly cruel.

Soon, we want to separate ourselves from others “for the sake of truth,” and we encourage others to do the same. We attack those who advocate for living with our differences, labeling them as “compromisers.” We start to believe that creating institutions where others are not present is a way of preserving our purity.

This entire process shows that we have moved from the path of discussion to the path of debate. However, it seems debaters forget the end result and the bigger picture. We fail to realize that we are shaking many things at their foundation. We overlook the fact that believers who observe this behavior may start to think, “If this is what being a believer is like, what’s the point?” We fail to see that our lack of balance and our extremism jeopardize our credibility.

Debate vs. Discussion

Church historian Martin Marty clearly distinguishes between discussion and debate, explaining that their focus is different. A discussant focuses on the question, while a debater focuses on the answer. This distinction drastically changes our mindset.

A debater sees themselves as having the correct answer. They believe that anyone with a different answer must be defeated and views the other person as an opponent to be converted. If the opponent doesn’t change their mind, they are seen as an obstacle to the truth we stand for, and we believe they should no longer be considered one of us, but rather condemned.

A discussant, however, focuses on the question. This allows them to view the other person differently. Someone with a different opinion is respected and seen as a collaborator who can contribute something valuable.

Types of Listening and Our Tendencies

Not all listeners are the same. The difference lies in our listening styles. Experts in this field categorize listening styles in various ways. For today, we will focus on one framework with four main types of listening._[2]

1. Listening Through the Lens of Habit:People are often prisoners of their past experiences. We may think we are listening, but in reality, we are not. There are many times when what we hear only enters our consciousness if it aligns with our existing knowledge and beliefs. We are often closed off to anything that doesn’t fit our pre-existing understanding. This style of listening causes us to compare what others say only with our own perspectives. We may appear to be giving our attention to the other person, but our focus is really on ourselves; we only listen to what resonates with our own internal thoughts. Anything that doesn’t echo our ideas has no place with us.
2. Listening with an Open Mind:Some of us are more open-minded than others. We listen to things with a sense of curiosity, hoping to find something new. We listen with a questioning attitude, asking, “Could this be?” Something surprising, unexpected, or interesting will grab our attention, even if it doesn’t align with our previous understanding. We take time to write it down so it doesn’t escape our memory. We also try to take the time to reflect on it and examine the information and evidence.

The strength of this listening style is that the focus shifts from ourselves to the speaker. The person speaking is truly being heard. Its limitation is that it is purely intellectual. If we are not careful, our judgmental nature can become more prominent, and we might “shoot down” new ideas from a distance. We may find it difficult to humble ourselves and listen. The fear of losing something may also hinder us from properly evaluating things.

1. Empathic Listening:Most people struggle to step out of their own shoes and see things from another’s perspective. This type of listening comes from a deep sense of love and open-heartedness. It engages not only our minds but also our hearts. Empathy governs our relationship. For this to happen, the person we are listening to must first hold a high place of respect in our hearts.
2. Generative Listening:Generative listening requires courage above all else; it’s a difficult path. In our hearts, we have a readiness to listen for something new beyond just understanding the other person. We don’t find ourselves debating with a different idea. The main reason this path is difficult is that it requires silencing oneself. Listening in this way means we cannot continue to be the same person we were before. Every conversation adds something new to us.

Because it requires us to accept things as they are and be willing to learn, it moves not only our hearts but also our will and our decisions. When we listen in this way, we question and challenge ourselves in a new way, not the other person. Among the many questions that arise, the main ones are these:

The person I’m listening to thinks differently than I do; their different thinking is not a problem. What can I gain from our difference in ideas?

What are the underlying assumptions and beliefs that the person I’m listening to has regarding this topic?

What are the things that I have not seen, but the person I’m listening to can see? How does their perspective enrich my own?

How to Overcome Our Limitations

Most of us consider ourselves good listeners just because we are silent when another person is speaking. However, these moments of “listening” are often just times when we are preparing our counterarguments to challenge ideas that differ from our own. If we want to avoid this, we must silence the internal voice that says, “I must interrupt, I must reply, and I must debate.”

Many of us believe we “know” people with different ideas without ever listening to them. We believe they have nothing new to add beyond what we already know. This mindset limits us to focusing only on ideas that align with our previous thinking. If we don’t break free from this mindset, we will never learn anything new.

Some of us worry that gaining understanding through empathic listening means collaborating with ideas we don’t like. However, truly understanding something does not mean supporting or endorsing it. Understanding opens our eyes to the complexity of things and creates the capacity to play a positive role in the process of finding a shared solution.

Let’s remember that we move from the path of debate to the path of discussion by truly listening to one another.

[1] Given that the article was originally written in Amharic and then translated into English using AI, it’s important to be mindful of potential nuances that might have been lost in translation.

[2]  C.OttoScharmer, Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges  (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2009), 11-13.