Ship of Fools: The Bishop of Blackburn on listening

Thread: The Bishop of Blackburn on listening Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020092

Posted by bad man (# 17449) on :

The Bishop of Blackburn talked about his idea of "listening" in his speech to Synod in defence of the bishops' report on Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations. I know the report and its subject matter are Dead Horses so this post is just about his idea of what constitutes listening.

He said:

quote:
"...this is the key issue, we need to understand what “listening” means. It means hearing, but not necessarily agreeing with what is heard. It’s a mistake to conflate listening with agreement. A person who receives and understands information and then chooses not to comply with it has listened to the speaker even though the result is not what the speaker wanted. Listening is therefore a term in which the listener listens to the one who produced the sound to be listened, and you can change the letters of the word “listen” to be reformed to spell “silent”.

This seems to me a really breathtaking example of someone who has no idea what proper listening involves.

Surely you have to listen in a way which shows that you have heard and taken on board what is being said - which is, of course, particularly important when you are not in agreement. When you agree, your subsequent actions show that you have heard. When you disagree, you have to reflect back what you have heard, in order to show to the person speaking that you have understood - and in order to confirm to yourself that you have correctly understood.

It seems incredible that a person whose job is to pastor thinks that listening is a sort of power play ("comply with information") or that it is in any sense tantamount to "silence".

I also find it disturbing that he describes the person being listened to as "the one who produced the sound to be listened", as if communication is only about "sound" rather than all the other things that a speaker, especially a vulnerable speaker, conveys, and all the many ways in which important parts of the message are conveyed non-verbally.

Can someone please teach him about the well known research into good listening, including “reflective listening”, “active listening”, and “radical listening”?

He might also benefit from a quick read of Krznaric's article on the BBC website. "Can you teach people to have empathy?"

[ 23. February 2017, 16:29: Message edited by: bad man ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Hard to respond without sounding hellish, but I suppose it is fair to say that there are different kinds of listening, just as there are different kinds of discussing - and I'm not sure it is a given that the one who is properly listening necessarily takes on board what the person is saying. That seems, in and of itself, a value statement - this person hasn't engaged with what I'm saying so hasn't really listened to me.

I suppose we might think of extreme examples; a Neo-Nazi might want to tell us all about his philosophy and theology of white power, and a (very adult) person might be able to listen carefully to what they're saying without slugging them. But if one disagrees on-or-near first principles then there isn't much alternative than to listen for the words that are being used and trying to follow the internal logic. What else can you do?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

May it not be the Bishop's listening which defective, but his way of talking about it?

Having said that, I personally can't see much that's wrong with his comments!

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

That's the problem.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
May it not be the Bishop's listening which defective, but his way of talking about it?

Having said that, I personally can't see much that's wrong with his comments!

Nor me.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Indeed, I thought he was addressing the sort of people who think that it is morally wrong to listen to certain arguments because that counts as 'validating' or 'legitimising' them.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I can't see anything at all wrong with what the Bishop said. "Taking on board" - what does that mean? If it means acknowedging that the speaker has an opinion, that's quite ok, but the usual meaning here of that phrase is that what's been said is somewhere between complete garbage and utter nonsense.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The problem with the excerpt from bishop's statement is that it is incomplete.
In the context of this situation, it is not enough to hear and understand. One must address the concerns as well or having listened becomes functionally the same as having ignored.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem with the excerpt from bishop's statement is that it is incomplete.
In the context of this situation, it is not enough to hear and understand. One must address the concerns as well or having listened becomes functionally the same as having ignored.

Yes!

Therapists have their place when people are traumatised and hurting. But the time comes for problem solving, action and moving forward - finding strategies which work.

How long has the C of E been talking and listening? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Blackburn's 'logic' may be behind the latest stunt from ++Justin in Africa.

After all, what better way can an ABC choose to show his feelings after a Report he personally commended to the Synod had been rejected by his fellow clergy than to use a speech in Rwanda to contrast the numbers attending (implying 'faithfulness') of the church there with the CofE.

Yes, we all know the ABC wears two hats but surely wearing his 'Anglican Communion' hat shouldn't mean he feels free to diss the church he comes from.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'm not sure I get the point in the sentence with the pun on the spelling of the words 'silent' and 'listen'. Nevertheless, however much this may annoy some people, the Bishop of Blackburn is making a valid point.

It's a misuse of all the pieties about 'listening' and 'conversations' if at the end of them, group A among those that have taken part condemns the other participants, whether groups B, C, D or whoever, for not ending up agreeing with them. It's not even recognising that there has to be a legitimacy in B, C or D being allowed to say,
"I feel you're pain, but I still think you're wrong", or
"I've heard everything you've said, but you still haven't persuaded me".

If group A don't recognise that, it's difficult not to draw the conclusion that for all the pieties about 'listening' and 'conversations', group A has participated in the entire process on the basis that B, C and D are obliged to listen to A but A isn't under any comparable obligation to listen to B, C and D. That's a dishonest participation. It is group A saying that throughout, the only acceptable outcome has been for B, C and D to agree with where A was both before and after the entire process.

Now of course, I'm only commenting on this in the abstract. I couldn't possibly be relating this to any particular listening exercise or conversations.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Blackburn's 'logic' may be behind the latest stunt from ++Justin in Africa.

After all, what better way can an ABC choose to show his feelings after a Report he personally commended to the Synod had been rejected by his fellow clergy than to use a speech in Rwanda to contrast the numbers attending (implying 'faithfulness') of the church there with the CofE.

Yes, we all know the ABC wears two hats but surely wearing his 'Anglican Communion' hat shouldn't mean he feels free to diss the church he comes from.

To which 'stunt' are you referring? Can you provide a link?

Whatever the reference, I haven't heard what he has said. But as a general principle members of the CofE should take far more seriously than we do, what the seriousness with which many African Christians take their faith says to the low level of Christian faith in contemporary England.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It says that they are less educated.

[ 24. February 2017, 13:47: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It says that they are less educated.

How very patronising, Martin.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Sorry?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0