Running Head: Can We All Just Get Along?

Setting the Tone with Dialogue and Discourse: Can we all just get along?

Dawn Trickett

Azusa Pacific University

TESL 537

Professor Michael Chamberlain

In 1992, following the acquittal of officers tried for the beating of Rodney King, parts of Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Atlanta erupted in riots. On the third day of the melee, Rodney King appeared in public before the television cameras to appeal for peace and voiced his now famous line, “Can we all just get along?” Little did he know this would become one of the 25 most memorable quotations (usatoday, 2010). Since that time this quotation has been referenced by the Young Turks calling for an end to the arguments about genocide, Asian communities calling for peace in their neighborhoods, and 1,260,000 other occasions noted on the web. I propose “Can we all just get along?” as the overarching question offered by Wong (2009) when she states, “I posit that a reconstructed identity from a ‘missionary who is teaching to gain access’ to a ‘global Christian professional language teacher’ has the potential to redress the concern raised while enhancing many of the benefits that can occur when teachers align their spiritual and professional identities” (p. 91, emphasis mine). I don’t think Mr. King will mind if we borrow his phrase one more time for application to this discussion of how Christian English language teachers integrate their spiritual identities and their pedagogy. To determine if we can get along, I will address issues that are foundations for the discussion. I will begin with a key definition that seems lacking and follow with my thoughts on the effectiveness of the contributions in Part I to the cause. To effectively begin any discussion, definitions should be established. Definitions are necessary to make sure that participants in the discussion can connect their thoughts. Canagarajah opens from a good starting point with philosophical definitions on page 3 of the introduction, but one term that continually shapes and impacts the interaction is woefully under clarified, “evangelical.” Bill Johnston addresses his chapter largely to perceived failings of “Evangelical’s” using the word 8 times on the first page (not counting the title or the non-evangelical category) without identifying what or who is represented in his mind by this term. A sampling of his “challenges” to the evangelical Christians would lead me to believe that he defines evangelicals as furtive, politically deviant, and dogmatic about holding beliefs that the rest of the world has already determined are foolish. As an evangelical myself, I find his perceptions naïve at best and offensive at worst. A sampling from the participants in the course (TESL 537, 2010) offered the following as definitions for evangelical: A Christian whose faith is shaped by the teachings found in the Bible and who believes that salvation and eternal life in Heaven is achieved through conversion to this faith (Jacqueline Martello) The authors defined Evangelical Christians as having four main beliefs: the centrality of Jesus Christ and his redeeming work, reliance on the Bible as the word of God, the importance of a personal conversion experience, and religious and social activism.” The Biblical definition of “evangelical” is a messenger of good news. As Christians we are not called to “religious and social activism”, we are called to be messengers of good news, it is then up to the hearer to accept it or reject it. (Clarence Badman) I would define an Evangelical Christian as a Christian who believes it is their duty to spread Christianity by sharing the gospel and by converting others. (Patrick Daly) I would define evangelical as a Christian perspective that seeks to tell other people about the gospel, which is the redemptive story of Jesus Christ. (John Ruiz)

In addition to this myriad of definitions, various chapters and articles contain definitions or more to the point just as Johnston offers, assumptions of definitions. A term such as this that is central to the discussion should be clearly defined. What is an evangelical? There is a lot of confusion over the definition of Evangelical Christian. The word is used in this discussion to include so much that it is questionable at times if participants are discussing the same thing. In part, I believe this is because media has largely applied it in a pejorative sense to radical religious conservatives or people who hold up crazy signs on the street reminding us of our fallen nature. But, to the reformers it was related to gospel recovery, that is, one who adhered to the Reformation's tenets, which means that historically, Evangelicals confessed a belief in the truth of the five solas: Sola gratia, Sola fide, Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria. In short, they confessed that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in the Person and work of Christ alone as revealed in the Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone. For further exploration of this subject I highly recommend the short online document called The Cambridge Declaration. The term evangelical is not about conversion as so many of the definitions above would think. The focus is about the core tenets of faith. Ultimately, the Great Commission as expressed by Jesus gives the Christian the command to "go and tell" the good news of God, however, if Jesus Christ is recognized as the model for the Christian Evangelical’s mission, we find a model that is more subtle in application and more gentle in spirit than "Repent or Burn!" This new (old) model does seem to fit with the definition of, “Evangelical Christian mission as defined by Moreau (1994)” Is the human responsibility to serve as ambassadors of Christ in communicating the message he commissioned to the church… seek[ing] to discover appropriate means of entering new cultures, sensitively and completely communicating the good news and meeting the needs of the whole person (Wong, 2009. p. 91).

In the course of establishing a clear set of definitions to use for the concepts concerning the term evangelical, some things will necessarily be termed out of the discussion. One of the questions that would then need to be addressed is, who should be accountable for the fringe examples that seem to be getting all the attention? This is an important part of the process of having a coherent discussion and should be established at the outset to help keep the content on track. Having addressed my first issue of defining evangelical, I will now turn my attention to the second aspect I wish to cover, how effectively do the contributors to Part I of the text establish the foundation of dialogue. The term “dialogue” is defined in several chapters. Edge (p. 31) offers a kindred term of, Asymmetrical reciprocity, that he defines as, participants recognize there are aspects to the other position they don’t understand yet they are open to hearing without changing or identifying with each other. Johnston (p. 36) offers two different kinds of dialogue. Exploratory is giving voice to allow views to be heard and ending with mutual shaping of ideas. Conciliatory occurs when sides are entrenched- presentation is not to create change but to dispel prejudice. Morgan (p. 197) also offers two forms of dialogue that carry some connection to Johnston’s definitions. Interactional as reforming consequences for the participants and Transactional as guarded presentation of positions without intention of change. The dividing factor in these definitions seems to be the openness to change by the participants. Transactional, conciliatory and asymmetrical reciprocity are in reality monologues that have an audience. I believe that to be true dialogue there must be an opportunity for transformation/ change of the participants. Because of this I appreciate the way Edge does not call his interaction dialogue. From Morgan’s writing I see an essential element of vulnerability expressed that is missing in the others. Canagarajah also notes this in the critique offered of Johnston’s position. “As operationalized, the label ‘exploratory’ puts too much emphasis on the ‘exposure to the views of others’ and less on ‘leading to the mutual shaping of ideas and views’ (p. 36)” (p. 76). Canagarajah goes on to state that, “The dialogue should enrich participants in a holistic manner, not just contribute to the exchanging of ideas” (p. 76). For dialogue to enrich the participants, they must be vulnerable, open to change. If we take the view of Canagarajah for our definition of dialogue, we are left to consider, to what extent do the chapters in Part I offer or create an openness to further discussion and contribute to enrichment of the participants? For the second part of this paper, I will focus on the contributions of Edge, Johnston, Loptes, Pennycook and Canagarajah. I had two reactions to the article by Julian Edge: “Non-judgmental steps on a road to understanding.” My initial reaction was, of course we should realize that argumentation is one of several types of responses available to interpersonal communication. A recent skim of a textbook in my cabinet (Adler 2007) found prompting, questioning, paraphrasing, supporting, analyzing, advising, and judging (to name a few) as potential skills to employ in interaction. A well-rounded person should be able to draw from their communicative bag of tricks the appropriate skill for the occasion at hand. My second reaction to the article was, “I don’t think this author really understands argumentation.” In fact, I believe Edge has confused argumentative with argumentation. The complaints listed by the author about argument read like the LAPD’s definition of a domestic dispute: “dominated by a desire to come out the winner,” (22) “arguing, accusing, name calling,” (23) “attitudinal set that can boil over…” (24). Whereas I would define argumentation as “The communicative process of advancing, supporting, criticizing, and modifying a claim so that appropriate decision makers may grant or deny adherence” (Rieke, 1993, p1). There is a difference between having an argument and making an argument that seems to escape Edge. Using a proper definition for argumentation is the starting point for a real critique. I believe the list of characteristics Edge hopes to gain by what he terms a non-judgmental approach are inherent in effective argumentation. The characteristics, identified as respect, empathy, and sincerity are found in an open-minded approach to interaction. The process of argumentation involves formulation of ideas, presentation with support/explanation, listening to the critique of others and reformulation of ideas. To truly listen to ideas, to offer an appropriate critique, and even to reformulate ideas, one must keep an open mind that first offers respect to the other person and what they have to say. Second it requires a real attempt to see the other persons’ point of view (empathy.) Finally the process of argumentation requires a commitment to the speaker and /or audience to be of service (sincerity.) While academic debate and public policy debate will carry different burdens, the process of argumentation appropriately applied, will create a learning opportunity for all sides of a discussion. In recognizing the need for the availability of multiple skills to be available and the appropriate one chosen for the given situation is a positive contribution to the discussion, a more clear focus of argumentation by Edge would offer greater enrichment for all concerned. Bill Johnston: “Is Dialogue Possible?” offers himself as the intermediary in the conflict between Critical Practitioners and Christian English Teachers. However, in his desire to take both to school over the lines drawn in the sand he has inadvertently been guilty of the vary thing he intended to scold. Johnston tells the non-evangelical practitioner, “Do not dismiss” (p. 41). This is an insightful concept that asks the hearer to remain open-minded about the information or position of the other. However on the previous page he dismisses the Evangelicals’ position on intelligent design as “a discursive fabrication of political evangelism to further its political interests.” Johnston misses the evidence for creation, the faulty nature of the evolutionary fossil record, and the foundational principle of creation to the sacred nature of the Holy Scriptures when he dismisses as ignorant anyone who would believe in intelligent design. In that one statement, Johnston tells me that he is not really interested in hearing what others have to say. Johnston’s position does not offer hope for his own exploratory or conciliatory dialogue. Karen Asenavage Loptes: “A preliminary Survey of Christian English Language Teachers in Countries that Restrict Missionary Activity” offers concrete research. The information (however limited in scope) does seem to be a response to the stereotypes expressed in other articles about Christian English Teachers. It also seems to fit well with the definition noted earlier of Evangelical Christian mission by Moreau as being sensitive and concerned with the whole person. My attention was drawn to the identified purpose of 95% of the surveys respondents, “…to serve the local population.” I was also encouraged by the particular response that noted the teacher-student power issue regarding the introduction of religion in the classroom. This issue exists in classrooms of all types (even in the states) but more so in cultures that are collective in structure and must be kept in mind. Ultimately the conclusion speaks loudly when Loptes notes that, “Most of their responses revealed a sense of professionalism, integrity, and respect for the host culture…” (p. 57). This chapter opens the dialogue on significant issues of power, integrity, and cultural impacts. In Chapter 6: “Is Dailogue Possible?” Alastair Pennycook offers the following statement, “If one wishes to adhere to this exclusionist interpretation of religion, then it is not plausible also to claim a position of respect for others” (p. 62). It seems that holding to a form of religion is not the only thing that precludes one from having a “position of respect for others.” Pennycook also seems to hold the position that if you are a Christian, you cannot (by definition) have reason. Where does he demonstrate respect for others? In his writing he offers the following: “Nandy (2006) notes, after the secularity of the twentieth century, nobody expected religion to emerge from the shadows… And for many of us this is not a welcome return” (p. 60). “In the same way that evolutionary scientists have recently been obliged to return to the old hapless arguments involved under the name of Intelligent Design, so I wonder why in ELT… we are obliged to return now to issues that surely should not have much space in current intellectual debate” (p. 60). “Unless Christians confront the deep connections between their religion and the many atrocities done in its name, between extreme right-wing politics and evangelical Christianity, between subjection and abuse, belief and ignorance… dialogue will remain impossible” (p. 62). These arguments are not offered as observations or as his own perspective, but as the reality for all who are part of the belief system that includes Christ, demonstrating his own closed-minded position on the questions at hand (emphasis mine). He further offers arguments that are outright fallacies or misleading at best. To counter the use by one author of a quotation by Ravi Zacharias, Pennycook offers, “…Atheism is misunderstood as a worldview” (p.62). Is Atheism a worldview? It’s adherents think so. An Atheist Manifesto (1954) by Joseph Lewis outlines the basic tenets of the philosophy of Atheism. Furthermore, according to the American Atheists established in 1963, (atheists.org) “Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook (emphasis mine) verifiable by experience and scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.” It seems the Dr. Zacharias has a better handle on what Atheists believe. In another instance, Pennycook brings up a colleague who was teaching in the American Mid-west who, “dared to suggest that texts had multiple readings” and did not stay long at his job. He seems to infer that this man left his job due to the bigoted mindset of those fundamentalist Christians in the Bible belt that couldn’t reason. Why are we forced to conclude thus? I can think of other options. Could the colleague have been a poor quality teacher? Could it be that this colleague came from a position that precluded having a “position of respect for others?” Finally, Pennycook misses the concept of truth when he offers that the argument against relativism is a fallacy. He boils the argument down to, “if everything is relative, then nothing is…” (p. 62). The point of the argument against relativism is that regarding truth, there cannot be two things that are opposites and both be considered true. Something cannot be and not be at the same time. If I hold a position that God exists and you hold a position that God does not exist, we cannot both be correct. I bring this up here because this seems to be at the center of his argument. Pennycook seems to hold that believing something to be true means that I cannot with honesty dialogue on the issue. What seems to be obvious from Pennycooks’ example is that his lack of respect for Christians makes an honest dialogue on his part questionable at best. Suresh Canagarajah: “Can we talk: finding a platform for dialogue among values-based professionals in post-positivist education” Is there such a thing as value-free education? I have long argued that it doesn’t exist. When Canagarajah argues for a transformative dialogue, he argues on my behalf and on behalf of every person who has had their values trampled by an ideologue. I take note that much of the negative content printed in the text has come from the non-evangelical position directed at Evangelical Christians and I appreciated the reminder offered that abuse comes from all sides of the value-laden spectrum as, “there is an in-built power difference (teachers) over their students” (p. 84). All teachers need to keep in mind the power difference accrued with their status. The existence of this difference does not mean that values need to be kept out of the classroom, even if that were possible, but that educators need to be aware of their values, open to understanding the values of their students, and considerate of the implications of the value clash. This transformative dialogue process identified by Canagarajah promises a greater commitment to the person than the position. It does not negate my position or authority, nor ask me to leave my value system at the door: but asks me as the professional to be mindful of the impact of my authority and concerned about the needs of the student. I have addressed the need for a definition of evangelical to help clarify the discussion and my thoughts on the effectiveness of a few of the contributions in Part I to the cause of dialogue. To answer the question, “Can we all just get along?” Some have contributed to the dialogue, some have only added to the barriers. I believe dialogue is possible. In my own classroom, I often have students expressing values that are diametrically opposed to my own. I like to call this dialogue. As I question and hear them, I gain a better understanding for where they are coming from, for the kind of person they are, and their hopes and dreams for the future. I hope they gain from me too and in the process we both come away transformed.

References

Adler, R & Proctor, R. (2007). Looking out looking in, 12th edition. Thompson Learning, Inc.

monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/cambridgedeclaration.html. Accessed June, 02, 2010.

Rieke, R., & Sillars, M. (1993). Argumentation: critical decision making, 3rd edition. HarperCollins Publishers.

TESL 537, online cohort postings, spring 2010.

usatoday.com/news/top25-quotes.htm. Accessed June,02,2010

Wong, M. S., & Canagarajah, A. S. (Eds.). (2009). Christian and critical English language educators in dialogue: Pedagogical and ethical dilemmas. New York: Routledge.