Modern V Post Modern 'SPEAK'

Cant recall if ive blogged on this but cant be bothered to trawl back to see - sorry if i repeat myself.
Sarah in one of the article comments where we have been chatting stuff around commented "I really love the dynamic aspect of learning through dialogue. I find it much more effective than the static lecture-style of traditional teaching and education". It prompted me.
There are two key transitional aspects of how we 'have' been communicating and how we 'Are' beginning to find it necessary to communicate. They conveniently sit well within modernism and post modernism.
Perhaps i should have called this Debate V Dialogue as thats more accurately what it is ( i wont touch on this here, but the whole lecture 'you sit i speak' thing is total modernism - where the less learned sit at the feet of the specialist - again something which is shifting. Interesting to note though - if this is becoming accepted as a poor method of teaching - why is it the primary method employed to communicate in church gatherings?).

Debate - most modernistic specialists (and their minions or those they have mentored) generally communicate through debate. It says 'this is what this means they enter into conversation with an already developed perspective which they state. Some of the conflict in modern/ post modern transitions for church is said to be the risk of POLARISATION - where we have two opinions, which become increasingly separate and off to the ends of opposing spectrums - even if they began quite central on the spectrum scale. Debate - does not end in polarisation............. it begins there. i think - as far as that goes - they also think it is right, until persuaded otherwise by a better statement of perspective'. As such it is generally full of both attack and defence........... therefore quickly moving to taking sides and moving further away from anything resembling co operation or a mediative view point.
Dialogue on the other hand has very different rules of engagment - statements are not made, instead views are offered into the mix, conversation is had with the potential for both parties walking away with a developed, informed, sharpened perspective. A verbal interraction takes place which both honours and values the view of the other. It does not mean we submit our values and views to another, but it does perhaps mean that if its meant to stand - it will.
Can you imagine being in relationship with someone who is modern - at takes their 'positions' out of the class room, out of the church pulpit and onto the street? people either wouldnt give them the time of day, or would become dependants who have been assimilated into the collective. When we have a position of leadership /eldership or even function in a leader at work setting - modernists are such a nightmare to be around when it comes to wanting to process anything new - not the best friend of the prophets thats for sure........... and at times, they even risk being the physical manifestation of a stronghold, no longer channels for Gods unfolding purposes, but bottlenecks! Im not saying that we dont need to be guardians of truth...but how we communicate truth in this shifting landscape, will determine how and if people walk into it.

Now - take this into some of the present tensions of church transition!!!!!
Just sit down modernist (most people leaders in their 50's onwards unless they did woodstock - but actually you can get a 20 year old so out of step with his own generation he is a modernist)
.sorry - my 'in brackets ' bits are longer than the other text...........start again...yeah so sit a modernist down with a post modernist............. youve got one poor guy going in wanting to SHARE a perspective and see where it goes, youve got the other fella holding onto a position waiting to debate and see who wins - see who gets disproved.
Often - you have one guy going in anxiously workign through how he is goign to justify some new thinking to someone who is holding onto the point that they have arrived at.
The modernist - will often walk away feeling he has maintained a position and won a piece of ground - the post modernist if he is insecure - walking away feeling the kingdom has just gone backwards and not advanced - he will also submit to the lecture of the specialist - who has been to seminary so must be right.
However..................... the true post modernist - knows the rules of the game, that doesnt mean he goes in armed to win the game............... it means that he refuses to play at all.
Debate V Dialogue...................... one is almost not conducive to the fruit of the spirit at all if you think about it!