People Made of Straw
Phatic messages—those little snippets of communication that bookend normative examples of daily conversation. They’re what we send and receive numerous times each day, yet rarely do we stop to ponder the significance of these “throw-away” phrases. “Hi, how are you?” “Good. How are you?” “Good.” Phatic messages establish predictability in conversation, they acknowledge another person’s existence, signal the beginning and end of conversation and generally assist in framing personal interactions. So frequently do we use these clichéd phrases in fact, that something out of the ordinary must occur in order for us to stop to take notice. Just such a conversational abnormality crossed my path not long ago.
Walking hurriedly across campus, toward a class session already in progress, I passed a fellow seminarian with whom I have had several classes. Though we are not great friends, I proceeded to acknowledge his presence. (For the purpose of illustration we shall call this student Bob). “Hey Bob,” I proceeded to say. “Fine, thanks” came his response. Obviously our communication had gone awry, and as Bob continued on his way, I began to contemplate this phatic faux pas. Countless scenarios would validate such a minor linguistic slip—preoccupations, distress, concern, anxiety, despair. In any case, I thought it most likely that Bob simply insinuated the conclusion of my greeting. He presumed I would ask that ominous three word inquisition, “How are you?” Thus, his assumption led him to a complete natural, yet admittedly flippant response. How often do our assumptions lead us to similarly superficial retorts within this seminary community? How often do our assumptions regarding communication lead us away from genuine conversation and towards superficial retort? Regrettably, I believe the seminary community at Luther does consciously, what Bob did unconsciously, far too often.
A prime example of this behavior is exhibited in the “straw man” critique so rampantly used throughout campus. Students and faculty alike develop caricatures of those with whom we disagree—other Christians, people of other faiths, public figures, and (most distressingly) fellow peers. We develop arguments framed around these assumed caricatures and then take turns kicking the “straw man” around the circle. This Cross-Fire method of discussion that involves anything but listening to the one with whom you speak, is the antithesis of the fellowship to which we claim to be called. As a seedbed for “future leaders” in the Christian church, I find it troubling and deeply disconcerting that this community appears to thrive on such characterizations and a lack of genuine communication. I’ve lost count of the number of students who are simply “biding their time” until ordination, where upon they will let their true feelings and theology be known.
In short, these parochial critiques only serve to discredit your own religious confession. Insular attacks rooted in anxiety, (while popular at the cafeteria table) simply reinforce our own lack of religious comfort. I would contend that “mature” faith should allow and encourage us to listen, dialogue, and disagree in unthreatened and positive ways.







