It has been many years since I was a student of Dr. Daniel P. (Payton) Fuller at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. It has also taken many years to learn from reflection what exactly made him different from a crowd of many other teachers. One great impact alone that he had proves the value of his teaching: Dr. John S. Piper. Dr. Piper (former lead pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN) is on some lists one of the top 10 most influential preachers in the world, in case you are not aware of his name. I studied under him as well, but the main take away that I received was the approach to Scripture that Dr. Fuller had passed on the Dr. Piper. I would like to summarize their communication approach to the Bible in a way that maybe has not been fully perceived.
There is a vision that Dr. Fuller has for Biblical studies and that vision is that of a Biblical theology rather than the other kinds. An elusive goal to some, but to Dr. Fuller a task that you keep pursuing and pursuing with great joy! His vision is one that required great discipline. It required a commitment to the text that went beyond the ambivalence of differing interpretations.
In studying some materials from an unrelated field, I think I have stumbled upon a way to express his vision. The first set of words for his vision are these, when dealing with the Biblical text:
1) Ambivalence, facing it rather than avoiding it
2) Examination, performing it rather than quitting
3) Evoking a spirit in students of the Word, of cooperation rather than coercion
4) Way of reading, following a path all the way rather than another
5) Seeing, drawing out rather than imposing
Let me draw out his vision further through looking at two types of teaching (drawn up I realize in extremes and also differing as to when to apply them):
1) Collaboration versus confrontation
2) Autonomy versus authority
3) Completely prepared to read versus partially prepared
4) Way of reading versus technical jargon
5) Drawing out versus imposing ideas
I saw example after example of these things as a student under Dr. Fuller, under Dr. Piper, and under Dr. Piper's close associate, Tom Stellar. Dr. Fuller probably carried out the vision most fully, Dr. Piper most successfully, and Tom Stellar probably most gently. I wish I could have had them as teachers all at the same time with their relative strengths. Add Dr. Garwood Anderson from Nashotah House Seminary in Nashotah, WI to this bunch and then the discussion about Scripture would really be thrilling!
But also it would be deceptive to say that all this was easy or fun. Sometimes students didn't see the vision behind the method. I myself had my differences with some of what was taught by each one, though Tom the least. But in God's grace, I never lost the hold that Dr. Fuller's vision placed in my own spirit.
From my own experience of trying to teach people to "be Bereans" and search the Scriptures to see if these things are true, it is not an easy task to uphold Dr. Fuller's vision. His approach using a method called "ARCING" was not layperson friendly at first. It took awhile to grasp it and so the vision behind the method could easily be lost in frustration or lost in translation, if you like.
My own experience that taught me this the most, that was mostly due to a larger cultural gap, was that of teaching English-speaking Chinese college-age students this way of approaching Scriptures. They were very bright. I could tell that immediately. But also they were not immediately happy with me introducing Dr. Fuller's method into their class. You could say they were very frustrated. They just wanted the rote answers. I didn't give into that request, but persevered instead.
It happened that my wife and I at the time were the last people hired on staff and there was then a cash shortfall that followed not long after our hiring. Unfortunately, this meant letting us both go from this great church in Rosemead, CA. Then came the announcement that they would have a meeting in which people could express their gratitude to us before leaving. I was expecting that people would share with me some very awkward "thank you"s, since there had been some expressions of unhappiness with my teaching method. Boy, was I wrong!
I'll never forget that meeting as long as I live. One of the students stood up and tearfully shared their good-bye and how they would miss my teaching. I confess I was shocked. This happened more than once, I don't remember exactly how many times, but I knew afterward that I wish I could have stayed! Dr. Fuller's vision had again impacted another group of people, even as it impacted me. This idea of digging in the Word and reading it for ourselves really changes lives.
As stated above in short form, Dr. Fuller's method really meant facing ambivalence (more than one interpretation of a text) rather than hiding behind one view to avoid all the others. We really tried to face that in class. It was fun to watch student's faces light up when the light turned on in their minds. Examination had to be done patiently over time, but here again the text could surprise us. We waited patiently rather than quitting and settling for an authoritative note in a study Bible. Students also knew they could challenge me. I was not there to coerce them into my view, but to collaborate or cooperate with them in learning from Scripture. We also used an misunderstood skill called reading, reading, and reading again. It was simple in a way once the fear of reading fell away. The best part though was the drawing out from the passage rather than imposing on the passage. We could mention great Christian names in the class and their views, but it was in drawing out from the passage rather than imposing on the passage that people began to see things they didn't know they could see before. Those moments were fun! And the sharing in the end helped me realize that the students were just beginning to get good at seeing things in the text for themselves!
The type of teaching that Dr. Fuller did really was the type described above. Please bear in mind that these contrasts can be taken to ridiculous extremes, because there is a time for every purpose under heaven and some like to think every time is sunny side up (or sunny side down), but still the overall positive vision under Dr. Fuller was carried out as well as I think any teacher I have had could. He really tried to live by collaboration versus confrontation as far as we as human beings working together under God to understand God's word and be confronted not so much by one another as by God and his word.
He showed too that placing even the greatest of authorities of Scriptural interpretation, like the great commentators of the past like John Calvin, could be dangerous. He gave us some autonomy with Scripture to read it for ourselves and develop our own liberty and perhaps then find agreement or the liberty to disagree when Scripture made it necessary. He also came to class rather completely prepared to read the text with the class versus partially prepared. He gave us questions to answer, but we also looked further into the text and he had his reading tools ready and he knew that passage beyond what his previously prepared questions required. I can tell you from doing ARCing myself in a modified form that it really does get you completely ready for questions. He also gave us some tools to teach us the skill of reading the text versus falling into some technical jargon. He used Mortimer J. Adler's book, How to Read a Book, as a great tool for how to read. He used others as well, but Adler's methods do work. Finally, and maybe the best, he was an expert at helping his students draw out ideas from the text (he called this being inductive versus deductive). This idea of inductive is all over his material. I will tell you he was good at it even when I disagreed with conclusions. He wanted us in the end to be drawing out from Scripture rather than imposing our ideas.
Until this day, he still struggles in some of his interpretations of some of his texts that he has read. He had or has a theological bias, but his efforts to overcome them were a great model of a great goal of a great vision. I am honored to be able to call up "Dr. Fuller". I've had many doctors, even language doctors, but He was my doctor of the Bible.
In Christ,
Jon
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Monday, April 21, 2014
Communication: Learning What We Don't Have First
AMOUNTS
People like to judge others based on what they have. I think there is a better way to judge (fairly, of course) other people or ourselves. The better question is whether the other person realizes what they don 't have.
Let me illustrate. A number of years ago, the head coach of a team where I was an assistant asked me: "What are the fundamentals of basketball?" I quickly responded with a fairly short list of what were mainly skills as to what I considered to be the fundamentals. Unfortunately, I failed the test and I was let go. He had some ties to the L.A. Dodgers baseball before this, so perhaps he had a pretty good short list that covered both sports. He did not tell me in advance or after the dummy-proof answers. I learned though what I did not have. I had assumed that I knew the fundamentals. Before that point, I did not realize what I did not have.
After being let go, I made it my business to find out. Today I know all 5 of the basics for any sport (not just basketball) and the next layers of depth at 10, etc. I know them at an adult-level as well as at the dummy-proof level. It is this bottom level that is missing for most people. They can sound off pretty smart on something only for me to learn that they are not dummy-proof. They are still very capable of some very poor decisions. I've seen a rash of dumb decisions in my life of working for employers, since I learned a pretty dummy-proof list. Now I have a really really good dummy-proof list. I say all of this in the spirit of the dummy and idiot series books.
I find a lot of people, who assume they have something, when they do not. It is not just me 20 years ago. So to prevent this problem of working with people who are not dummy-proof, I am changing my tactic. I am now going to provide tests to people, but not the answers. When I was an A.D., I provided the answers and asked coaches that I hired for their consent. Now I am not providing the answers, but only questions until people realize what they don't have and the fact that they are still not dummy-proof.
My favorite examples of not being dummy-proof is the series of books that are the dummies books. My second favorite is the idiot series. Even these series of books are not dummy-proof. They fail the test. I want to work only with those who can pass it.
I don't think Christian education and public education in the United States realizes what it does not have. It cannot see the obvious, while at the same time it can see how to get to the moon (the goal behind the invention of the microprocessor). Our technological knowledge is very advanced, but look at how dumb our application of it can be at times. Why can't we make smart phones that are dummy-proof?
The United States is an undeniably wealthy nation, when it comes to the money it wields. But I think the nation is very poor educationally. It invests millions of dollars everyday or every week or every year on trying to make school more fun, more vocationally-related, more innovative, more standardized, more standardized at the core, more accountable for results, and more, more, more, etc. This is obvious, isn't it? None of these are bad things on the surface, but when it is realized that the one thing each program changed is not everything, then it just creates more frustration. It is not just millions that are spent now, but billions of dollars that are spent. More money had to be poured in for most of these programs, because it didn't work on a more basic level. So let's give up on more money to the already tried.
Instead, what if we tried just one more new thing? What if it cost only $50,000 to $75,000 for one year to determine if it worked ? Can we as Americans in any form of private or public education really complain that this amount is too much after let's say 50 million on programs tried over many years? Are we prepared to get stingy, when there is as little as $50,000.00 to go? That is a cost of 1% compared to the let's say $50,000,000.00 on other programs. That is also in 1 year versus 100 years to wait for education programs dating back to at least Dewey to work. That is 1% of the time to wait to see results.
I am designing what I am going to call a dummy-proof IQ test on the basics of language or intelligence. I am going to develop 3 levels of this test. The first will be a simple essay exam with one question. The second will be a test with a specific # of questions that will begin to hint at the basics a little bit, making it a little easier to answer the questions. The third will be a multiple choice set of the same # of questions with a certain # of options for each question. This will make things even easier. But I am not publicizing the answers, because many people need to see themselves fail the test before they will pay for the answers.
What will shock you is that I don't think anyone will pass the first test. I also don't think anyone will get 100% on even the multiple choice test, unless I post the answers on-line. So I am not going to post answers. I am going to post questions. I will grade these tests for free, but I will not give out answers and train people, unless they are willing to pay for them. There is too much free-loading going on.
Let me give you a great example of what questions mean versus answers. Most Christians can tell you the answer to the question of "What is the greatest commandment?" But they cannot tell you how that was figured out. See, if they didn't have the answer first, then they could not find the answer on their own. I know how Jesus and his other audience member knew this, but I'm not telling people until they admit they don't know how Jesus and the lawyer did it. How did they know? That knowledge is greater than just giving a rote answer without any understanding.
I'm not settling for answers without understanding. That is the opposite of dummy-proof. People will now have to pay me good money for my answers. But before they do, I will offer them tests to show them what they do not know, so that they realize what they don 't have (just like I had to). I'm not giving the answers to the test before the test.
These questions are like the tests I use, when I tutor a student one-on-one. I find that they need to see what they don't have before I can determine whether I can help them. My greatest fame as a tutor is that I work myself out of job rather fast. It is the badge that I love the most. My last student through WyzAnt was finished within 4-5 months and doing much better in school. I really gave her what these quizzes are going to be designed to test. I want people to see the value in what I am suggesting they need. Church people in general don't seem to see this like my tutoring students do.
These exams over the next series of days will demonstrate that after billions of dollars invested in a variety of well intended programs, what people still do not have. Let's get to where we are truly dummy-proof. People who don't have the fundamentals can move to having them, but they have to first admit they lack them to value dummy-proof learning. Humility precedes success like pride precedes a fall. I hope this happens soon, so I can have wonderful co-workers that I know are reliable, because they are truly dummy-proof. I can't wait!
Sincerely,
Jon
People like to judge others based on what they have. I think there is a better way to judge (fairly, of course) other people or ourselves. The better question is whether the other person realizes what they don 't have.
Let me illustrate. A number of years ago, the head coach of a team where I was an assistant asked me: "What are the fundamentals of basketball?" I quickly responded with a fairly short list of what were mainly skills as to what I considered to be the fundamentals. Unfortunately, I failed the test and I was let go. He had some ties to the L.A. Dodgers baseball before this, so perhaps he had a pretty good short list that covered both sports. He did not tell me in advance or after the dummy-proof answers. I learned though what I did not have. I had assumed that I knew the fundamentals. Before that point, I did not realize what I did not have.
After being let go, I made it my business to find out. Today I know all 5 of the basics for any sport (not just basketball) and the next layers of depth at 10, etc. I know them at an adult-level as well as at the dummy-proof level. It is this bottom level that is missing for most people. They can sound off pretty smart on something only for me to learn that they are not dummy-proof. They are still very capable of some very poor decisions. I've seen a rash of dumb decisions in my life of working for employers, since I learned a pretty dummy-proof list. Now I have a really really good dummy-proof list. I say all of this in the spirit of the dummy and idiot series books.
I find a lot of people, who assume they have something, when they do not. It is not just me 20 years ago. So to prevent this problem of working with people who are not dummy-proof, I am changing my tactic. I am now going to provide tests to people, but not the answers. When I was an A.D., I provided the answers and asked coaches that I hired for their consent. Now I am not providing the answers, but only questions until people realize what they don't have and the fact that they are still not dummy-proof.
My favorite examples of not being dummy-proof is the series of books that are the dummies books. My second favorite is the idiot series. Even these series of books are not dummy-proof. They fail the test. I want to work only with those who can pass it.
I don't think Christian education and public education in the United States realizes what it does not have. It cannot see the obvious, while at the same time it can see how to get to the moon (the goal behind the invention of the microprocessor). Our technological knowledge is very advanced, but look at how dumb our application of it can be at times. Why can't we make smart phones that are dummy-proof?
The United States is an undeniably wealthy nation, when it comes to the money it wields. But I think the nation is very poor educationally. It invests millions of dollars everyday or every week or every year on trying to make school more fun, more vocationally-related, more innovative, more standardized, more standardized at the core, more accountable for results, and more, more, more, etc. This is obvious, isn't it? None of these are bad things on the surface, but when it is realized that the one thing each program changed is not everything, then it just creates more frustration. It is not just millions that are spent now, but billions of dollars that are spent. More money had to be poured in for most of these programs, because it didn't work on a more basic level. So let's give up on more money to the already tried.
Instead, what if we tried just one more new thing? What if it cost only $50,000 to $75,000 for one year to determine if it worked ? Can we as Americans in any form of private or public education really complain that this amount is too much after let's say 50 million on programs tried over many years? Are we prepared to get stingy, when there is as little as $50,000.00 to go? That is a cost of 1% compared to the let's say $50,000,000.00 on other programs. That is also in 1 year versus 100 years to wait for education programs dating back to at least Dewey to work. That is 1% of the time to wait to see results.
I am designing what I am going to call a dummy-proof IQ test on the basics of language or intelligence. I am going to develop 3 levels of this test. The first will be a simple essay exam with one question. The second will be a test with a specific # of questions that will begin to hint at the basics a little bit, making it a little easier to answer the questions. The third will be a multiple choice set of the same # of questions with a certain # of options for each question. This will make things even easier. But I am not publicizing the answers, because many people need to see themselves fail the test before they will pay for the answers.
What will shock you is that I don't think anyone will pass the first test. I also don't think anyone will get 100% on even the multiple choice test, unless I post the answers on-line. So I am not going to post answers. I am going to post questions. I will grade these tests for free, but I will not give out answers and train people, unless they are willing to pay for them. There is too much free-loading going on.
Let me give you a great example of what questions mean versus answers. Most Christians can tell you the answer to the question of "What is the greatest commandment?" But they cannot tell you how that was figured out. See, if they didn't have the answer first, then they could not find the answer on their own. I know how Jesus and his other audience member knew this, but I'm not telling people until they admit they don't know how Jesus and the lawyer did it. How did they know? That knowledge is greater than just giving a rote answer without any understanding.
I'm not settling for answers without understanding. That is the opposite of dummy-proof. People will now have to pay me good money for my answers. But before they do, I will offer them tests to show them what they do not know, so that they realize what they don 't have (just like I had to). I'm not giving the answers to the test before the test.
These questions are like the tests I use, when I tutor a student one-on-one. I find that they need to see what they don't have before I can determine whether I can help them. My greatest fame as a tutor is that I work myself out of job rather fast. It is the badge that I love the most. My last student through WyzAnt was finished within 4-5 months and doing much better in school. I really gave her what these quizzes are going to be designed to test. I want people to see the value in what I am suggesting they need. Church people in general don't seem to see this like my tutoring students do.
These exams over the next series of days will demonstrate that after billions of dollars invested in a variety of well intended programs, what people still do not have. Let's get to where we are truly dummy-proof. People who don't have the fundamentals can move to having them, but they have to first admit they lack them to value dummy-proof learning. Humility precedes success like pride precedes a fall. I hope this happens soon, so I can have wonderful co-workers that I know are reliable, because they are truly dummy-proof. I can't wait!
Sincerely,
Jon
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Communication Basics: The One Device and the Many Devices
There is an old saying: "Keep it simple stupid!". In modern speak, we would say: "Keep it simple silly!". Today, I want to pull out the one tool, among all the other tools, that I wish people felt the need to know. What is unique about this tool is that it is the only one that underlies all the other tools. That is what makes this tool special. It is that it is actually very common but also very specialized. But the problem is that a society, who is also enamored with a strong technological sense by necessity in the 1960's, is also a society blind to its wonderful cousin, common sense. The ideal would be to possess both a technical (specialized) sense and common sense. I am trying to make an atmosphere of both, because finding both is a very rare oddity.
Let me first list the top 5 tools in my communication toolbox. There are actually hundreds in my master arrangement file on my computer. But that number is not simple is it! So it is not for today, it is for another time after the top 5 are grasped first. These 5 are the ones that I have found to be the most helpful in nearly every situation.
They are:
1)
2)
They can be pictured as follows:
[this was interrupted by my Badgers in the final four - I will return to it as it is very important]
Sincerely,
Jon
Let me first list the top 5 tools in my communication toolbox. There are actually hundreds in my master arrangement file on my computer. But that number is not simple is it! So it is not for today, it is for another time after the top 5 are grasped first. These 5 are the ones that I have found to be the most helpful in nearly every situation.
They are:
1)
2)
They can be pictured as follows:
[this was interrupted by my Badgers in the final four - I will return to it as it is very important]
Sincerely,
Jon
Friday, March 28, 2014
Communication Basics: Using Our Common Sense and our Specialized Sense (the tool I have modified)
Possessing common sense is harder than it sounds. Despite it being so very common by even its definition, it suffers from the fate of the familiar. It too suffers contempt. It can even sound boring. Actually, it has a very significant role to play, because it is so very common. That gives it a strength that the other kind of our sense lacks. Some times in life, there is a call for common sense. Sometimes in life, there is a call for specialized sense, like in the race to space in the 1960s. Sometimes there is a call for common sense and specialized sense together Altogether we call common sense and specialized sense expertise. I want to talk about my expertise in the area of communication surrounding one very special tool.
But let's talk a little history, so we know why Americans make so much noise about common sense, but get so little of it. It played such a big role in the American Revolution. Without Thomas Paine's famous book, Common Sense, it could be argued that there would not have been an American Revolution. It belongs in that set of important documents including the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the Bill of Rights (attached usually to the Constitution).
In communication, common sense is also very important, because there have to be things we all share for us to be able to share information, etc. with one another. What is shocking is that most of what is written on communication today is running along a line perpendicular to common sense. I call it specialized sense. Technology developments during the 20th ct. and their use in war, have driven us to also highly prize specialized knowledge. Some of us possess both kinds of sense, but we usually are not self-aware of when we switch from one to another.
So I want to use a specialty that I know well to illustrate the difference between common sense and specialized sense. Because I am a former athlete (somewhat) , former referee, former coach, and former athletic director; therefore I ought to possess a special sense of what is going on in sports. It goes beyond just common sense. It is the knowledge that is as unique as each sport is unique. Knowing how to coach football, cross country, men's basketball, women's basketball, baseball, and track did not automatically equip me to coach soccer. There is specialized knowledge for each sport that is unique to that sport. Even officiating, I could not easily cross from one sport to the other. There are specialized rules for each type of game.
What did allow me though to understand every sport more quickly is the use of my common sense. That is why, when I was offered a position as a college soccer coach without any previous soccer coaching experience, I knew I did not need to turn it down entirely. What I did need to turn down was the idea that I could be as good as someone with previous coaching experience in that sport. So I asked to be last on their list. I lucked out and they found someone. But I was prepared to add another person's specialized knowledge to my common sense coaching experience if called upon. Specialized knowledge did matter, even if common sense matters even more.
So what I need to point out to people is that when I speak of common sense communication, I am speaking of only one major part of communication. Specialized communication matters too as the lesser behind the greater. But the ideal or greatest is a communicator who possesses both common sense first and specialized sense second altogether.
I say all of that as a long introduction to what my common sense and my specialized sense are that I try to contribute to communication. First, people must understand that I use both common sense and specialized sense when I approach even the basics of communication. For me, the basic level must start out by acknowledging that the best communicators possess both common sense about communication and specialized sense about communication. This brings me now to a very specific tool that I regard as the key to effective basic communication. But let's clear up one thing right here. Without both my common sense and my specialized training, I have no right to say what I am about to say. I get my training for each from different sources.
I get common sense from the common people, who I know that are not linguistic experts. I like to say that they keep me grounded. My dad always taught me to respect their insight as to what is common and what is not. My danger as a specialist would be to not respect their expertise on common sense communication. I get my specialized sense from lots of scholars in the areas of linguistics and biblical interpretation. But if I am forced to choose one among them to play a role like my father, I would have to say it was Dr. William A. Smalley, who I studied under at Bethel College (now University) in St. Paul, MN. He acquainted me with all the big experts in linguistics from Chomsky to Brewster and all persons in between. My danger as a local vocal from Northern Wisconsin would be that I did not respect their expertise on specialized communication.
It was while I was studying under Dr. Smalley that I was first introduced to a tool from Wycliffe Bible Translators called the TEAR method. It did not catch on with me immediately and it actually took some 10 years later for it to finally begin to really become something that I used fairly frequently. The problem under Dr. Smalley was that I turned down a summer opportunity to work with the TEAR method as a teacher at SIL-Toronto (no longer in existence sadly). So I instead learned how to use it primarily from Dr. P. Daniel Shaw at Fuller Theological Seminary, when I again to a number of linguistic classes. Once I learned how to use the tool, I realized more its value. But it was not until another 10 years after that, where I was forced to use it due to my desire to teach the Bible to the common members of a church on a level they could grasp and use themselves at home. Until that point, I had largely relied on a teaching method from Dr. Daniel P. Fuller, Dr. John S. Piper, and Tom Stellar. But I now had a great group of students who gave me adequate feedback to show I need to change my ways.
So I did. I switched over to TEAR. I thought surely they could grasp this much easier tool and I also realized that this tool also gave me a larger outlook. Using it I could fit Dr. Daniel P. Fuller's arcing method into it rather than outside of it. I had a ready-made full size tool box for all my tools. One little problem. The common person in a Sunday School class could not grasp it.
As I explored its failure to connect with the common level of knowledge through direct feedback from students in classes, I realized I had to simplify TEAR. TEAR is an acronym for classes of words. The classes were THINGS, EVENTS, ATTRIBUTES, AND RELATIONS. All but THINGS were too complex at a common sense level. So I eventually re-worked each class until I had in a new order AMOUNTS, RELATIONSHIPS, WHOLES, ACTIONS, and THINGS. This many years later I started calling the ARWAT method pronounced like, "Are what?".
This method I tested in a lot of classrooms at the private and public school level with great responses. Students who grasped it called it things like "Cool". You don't hear that from students too often at the high school level. The students really loved it and they realized there was something special about the method, though they and I would have had a hard time expressing its main benefit. Even as this continued to develop, I was unable to have the kind of long term success from it that I expected.
So I took another step. I re-entered seminary, but this time at the post-graduate level at Nashotah House Seminary near Delafield, WI. Here, as part of my research for my final paper in the S.T.M. program, I discovered a lot more about the origins of the TEAR method as well as modifications that had been made to it by people associated with Wycliffe Bible Translators and by SIL.
It is at this point that I became more aware of the role of Eugene A. Nida in the advancement of this method and also of the latest developments by him and others with using new terminology. What is interesting is that while I went the direction of what I call the common sense approach along a vertical axis, SIL and others were advancing instead along a more horizontal axis that took the tool to new levels in terms of scholarship. So TEAR continues to advance in two directions, but now under different names on the scholarly level.
As I have used this method over the years and starting in 2004, I really began to understand just how powerful the tool could be with modifications made based on the common sense level of language. That does not mean it does not have a scholarly role as well, but that the really exciting development is if it can be used by all those who have a conscious level of common sense. This is where I think I am beginning to see the future of Christian communication skills advancing the most. It is making the Bible more accessible to the ordinary common sense level reader or listener.
What is exciting for me right now is to realize that what I have developed is supported at the most common sense level, where words that are very common support it more than any other level of language. But it also continues to advance on the technical side with greater and greater precision for scholarly use as well. That to me, suggests it has the highest capability of being useful because it stands not only on a foundation of common sense, but also it continues to advance to deeper and deeper levels of scholarship when it comes to communication. I also have found it is a tremendous tool for time management as well as other applications.
So, I am convinced that what is needed now is a larger text written, as part of my upcoming book or as a separate book, so that people can see its power more thoroughly. While this blog helps with getting the news out, it is hardly the place to make a longer statement that proves its superiority over other techniques like that of Dr. Fuller's arcing, not because those methods are not valuable, but rather because their value falls under this method's larger umbrella.
If you really want to understand what I am saying, then you really have to learn the method and actually learn to use it as I use it That is when its power becomes most evident. Like any tool, it is in using it that you really learn to use the tool's power and leverage over other tools.
If I have whet your appetite enough, please let me know and I will gladly go long distances even to teach you and others how to use it. It comes with my "unconditional guarantee". Like the old Life commercial, if Mikey likes it, then everyone will like it. It has changed my outlook on many things in school from I don't like it to I do like it. Maybe that is its greatest advantage! God bless.
Sincerely,
Jon
But let's talk a little history, so we know why Americans make so much noise about common sense, but get so little of it. It played such a big role in the American Revolution. Without Thomas Paine's famous book, Common Sense, it could be argued that there would not have been an American Revolution. It belongs in that set of important documents including the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the Bill of Rights (attached usually to the Constitution).
In communication, common sense is also very important, because there have to be things we all share for us to be able to share information, etc. with one another. What is shocking is that most of what is written on communication today is running along a line perpendicular to common sense. I call it specialized sense. Technology developments during the 20th ct. and their use in war, have driven us to also highly prize specialized knowledge. Some of us possess both kinds of sense, but we usually are not self-aware of when we switch from one to another.
So I want to use a specialty that I know well to illustrate the difference between common sense and specialized sense. Because I am a former athlete (somewhat) , former referee, former coach, and former athletic director; therefore I ought to possess a special sense of what is going on in sports. It goes beyond just common sense. It is the knowledge that is as unique as each sport is unique. Knowing how to coach football, cross country, men's basketball, women's basketball, baseball, and track did not automatically equip me to coach soccer. There is specialized knowledge for each sport that is unique to that sport. Even officiating, I could not easily cross from one sport to the other. There are specialized rules for each type of game.
What did allow me though to understand every sport more quickly is the use of my common sense. That is why, when I was offered a position as a college soccer coach without any previous soccer coaching experience, I knew I did not need to turn it down entirely. What I did need to turn down was the idea that I could be as good as someone with previous coaching experience in that sport. So I asked to be last on their list. I lucked out and they found someone. But I was prepared to add another person's specialized knowledge to my common sense coaching experience if called upon. Specialized knowledge did matter, even if common sense matters even more.
So what I need to point out to people is that when I speak of common sense communication, I am speaking of only one major part of communication. Specialized communication matters too as the lesser behind the greater. But the ideal or greatest is a communicator who possesses both common sense first and specialized sense second altogether.
I say all of that as a long introduction to what my common sense and my specialized sense are that I try to contribute to communication. First, people must understand that I use both common sense and specialized sense when I approach even the basics of communication. For me, the basic level must start out by acknowledging that the best communicators possess both common sense about communication and specialized sense about communication. This brings me now to a very specific tool that I regard as the key to effective basic communication. But let's clear up one thing right here. Without both my common sense and my specialized training, I have no right to say what I am about to say. I get my training for each from different sources.
I get common sense from the common people, who I know that are not linguistic experts. I like to say that they keep me grounded. My dad always taught me to respect their insight as to what is common and what is not. My danger as a specialist would be to not respect their expertise on common sense communication. I get my specialized sense from lots of scholars in the areas of linguistics and biblical interpretation. But if I am forced to choose one among them to play a role like my father, I would have to say it was Dr. William A. Smalley, who I studied under at Bethel College (now University) in St. Paul, MN. He acquainted me with all the big experts in linguistics from Chomsky to Brewster and all persons in between. My danger as a local vocal from Northern Wisconsin would be that I did not respect their expertise on specialized communication.
It was while I was studying under Dr. Smalley that I was first introduced to a tool from Wycliffe Bible Translators called the TEAR method. It did not catch on with me immediately and it actually took some 10 years later for it to finally begin to really become something that I used fairly frequently. The problem under Dr. Smalley was that I turned down a summer opportunity to work with the TEAR method as a teacher at SIL-Toronto (no longer in existence sadly). So I instead learned how to use it primarily from Dr. P. Daniel Shaw at Fuller Theological Seminary, when I again to a number of linguistic classes. Once I learned how to use the tool, I realized more its value. But it was not until another 10 years after that, where I was forced to use it due to my desire to teach the Bible to the common members of a church on a level they could grasp and use themselves at home. Until that point, I had largely relied on a teaching method from Dr. Daniel P. Fuller, Dr. John S. Piper, and Tom Stellar. But I now had a great group of students who gave me adequate feedback to show I need to change my ways.
So I did. I switched over to TEAR. I thought surely they could grasp this much easier tool and I also realized that this tool also gave me a larger outlook. Using it I could fit Dr. Daniel P. Fuller's arcing method into it rather than outside of it. I had a ready-made full size tool box for all my tools. One little problem. The common person in a Sunday School class could not grasp it.
As I explored its failure to connect with the common level of knowledge through direct feedback from students in classes, I realized I had to simplify TEAR. TEAR is an acronym for classes of words. The classes were THINGS, EVENTS, ATTRIBUTES, AND RELATIONS. All but THINGS were too complex at a common sense level. So I eventually re-worked each class until I had in a new order AMOUNTS, RELATIONSHIPS, WHOLES, ACTIONS, and THINGS. This many years later I started calling the ARWAT method pronounced like, "Are what?".
This method I tested in a lot of classrooms at the private and public school level with great responses. Students who grasped it called it things like "Cool". You don't hear that from students too often at the high school level. The students really loved it and they realized there was something special about the method, though they and I would have had a hard time expressing its main benefit. Even as this continued to develop, I was unable to have the kind of long term success from it that I expected.
So I took another step. I re-entered seminary, but this time at the post-graduate level at Nashotah House Seminary near Delafield, WI. Here, as part of my research for my final paper in the S.T.M. program, I discovered a lot more about the origins of the TEAR method as well as modifications that had been made to it by people associated with Wycliffe Bible Translators and by SIL.
It is at this point that I became more aware of the role of Eugene A. Nida in the advancement of this method and also of the latest developments by him and others with using new terminology. What is interesting is that while I went the direction of what I call the common sense approach along a vertical axis, SIL and others were advancing instead along a more horizontal axis that took the tool to new levels in terms of scholarship. So TEAR continues to advance in two directions, but now under different names on the scholarly level.
As I have used this method over the years and starting in 2004, I really began to understand just how powerful the tool could be with modifications made based on the common sense level of language. That does not mean it does not have a scholarly role as well, but that the really exciting development is if it can be used by all those who have a conscious level of common sense. This is where I think I am beginning to see the future of Christian communication skills advancing the most. It is making the Bible more accessible to the ordinary common sense level reader or listener.
What is exciting for me right now is to realize that what I have developed is supported at the most common sense level, where words that are very common support it more than any other level of language. But it also continues to advance on the technical side with greater and greater precision for scholarly use as well. That to me, suggests it has the highest capability of being useful because it stands not only on a foundation of common sense, but also it continues to advance to deeper and deeper levels of scholarship when it comes to communication. I also have found it is a tremendous tool for time management as well as other applications.
So, I am convinced that what is needed now is a larger text written, as part of my upcoming book or as a separate book, so that people can see its power more thoroughly. While this blog helps with getting the news out, it is hardly the place to make a longer statement that proves its superiority over other techniques like that of Dr. Fuller's arcing, not because those methods are not valuable, but rather because their value falls under this method's larger umbrella.
If you really want to understand what I am saying, then you really have to learn the method and actually learn to use it as I use it That is when its power becomes most evident. Like any tool, it is in using it that you really learn to use the tool's power and leverage over other tools.
If I have whet your appetite enough, please let me know and I will gladly go long distances even to teach you and others how to use it. It comes with my "unconditional guarantee". Like the old Life commercial, if Mikey likes it, then everyone will like it. It has changed my outlook on many things in school from I don't like it to I do like it. Maybe that is its greatest advantage! God bless.
Sincerely,
Jon
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Communication: Basing the Basics on Common Sense
I am NOT opposed to people having a good technical sense. The race to get to the moon using the heightened abilities of electronic invention was a great thing. It helped give birth to the microprocessor that drives so many technologies today like the cell phone. As a result, most of us have heard of an Intel microprocessor. But I think there is an invention that could eclipse this improvement of electronic devices. I think it lies not in the direction of an external electronic device, but in the direction of improving our ability to use the minds each of us are equipped with as standard equipment.
The human mind is still a wonder. It has incredible capacities. But lately, I am noticing that technical sense does not mean common sense. Many people have high technical abilities, but their minds have little common sense. Here lies the tragedy, because the mind is capable of both.
I think common sense is greater than the lesser ability of technical sense, but it is when the two are combined together that the greatest ideal is achieved. We seem to have come out of the 20th century with lots of the latter and few of the former. We need now common sense to match our technical achievements.
This is what I believe the majority of people yearn for, when it comes to even technology. I like to call my under-developed smart phone a "dumb phone". More times than not it fails to demonstrate smarts. Rather it shows a great lack of common sense features. It can make a pocket call right after I shut it down. It can start up by simply bumping another object in my pocket. It has immense capabilities, but few of which follow even the most basic common sense.
My goal on this blog in this year will be to lay out what I consider to be a common sense approach to communication based on the very common words that we use to communicate every single day. I hate to state the overly obvious, but the common is found among the very common, and not among the unique or exceptional.
I saw this in a commercial: "Great minds think alike" followed by "Great minds think differently". These slogans in the commercial were meant to be mutually exclusive of one another. But I think they are not. The ideal is common sense, where great minds think alike, and technical sense, where great minds think differently.
I recently realized that my communication basic method of "ARWAT" is not common sense enough. The categories of: 1)Amount, 2) Relationships, 3) Wholes, 4) Actions, and 5) Things are not on a list of most frequent words in English. They are closer than the word categories that I had previously used called "TEAR" with the categories of !)Thing, 2Event, 3)Attribute, and 4) Relation. Recently, I took the final step toward "very common". That is where I found common sense! It is alive and well once you know where to find it.
[Sorry, I have to come back and finish this later. You can contact me if you like to learn more sooner. Thank you.]
Sincerely,
Jon
The human mind is still a wonder. It has incredible capacities. But lately, I am noticing that technical sense does not mean common sense. Many people have high technical abilities, but their minds have little common sense. Here lies the tragedy, because the mind is capable of both.
I think common sense is greater than the lesser ability of technical sense, but it is when the two are combined together that the greatest ideal is achieved. We seem to have come out of the 20th century with lots of the latter and few of the former. We need now common sense to match our technical achievements.
This is what I believe the majority of people yearn for, when it comes to even technology. I like to call my under-developed smart phone a "dumb phone". More times than not it fails to demonstrate smarts. Rather it shows a great lack of common sense features. It can make a pocket call right after I shut it down. It can start up by simply bumping another object in my pocket. It has immense capabilities, but few of which follow even the most basic common sense.
My goal on this blog in this year will be to lay out what I consider to be a common sense approach to communication based on the very common words that we use to communicate every single day. I hate to state the overly obvious, but the common is found among the very common, and not among the unique or exceptional.
I saw this in a commercial: "Great minds think alike" followed by "Great minds think differently". These slogans in the commercial were meant to be mutually exclusive of one another. But I think they are not. The ideal is common sense, where great minds think alike, and technical sense, where great minds think differently.
I recently realized that my communication basic method of "ARWAT" is not common sense enough. The categories of: 1)Amount, 2) Relationships, 3) Wholes, 4) Actions, and 5) Things are not on a list of most frequent words in English. They are closer than the word categories that I had previously used called "TEAR" with the categories of !)Thing, 2Event, 3)Attribute, and 4) Relation. Recently, I took the final step toward "very common". That is where I found common sense! It is alive and well once you know where to find it.
[Sorry, I have to come back and finish this later. You can contact me if you like to learn more sooner. Thank you.]
Sincerely,
Jon
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Communication Basics: A Fun Analogy at the Cellulor Level
I have written before about what I consider to be the whole of four essential things in communication:
1) Amounts,
2) Relationships,
3) Actions, and
4) Things.
I ran across today a fun analogy that goes beyond the surface level of these obvious things to the cellular level that is beyond my expertise. But what I did find there is a fun example of how the essentials of communication work for our cells.
What was pointed out is that at a cellular level cells communicate to each other a series of things:
1) Feed me
2) Cleanse me
3) Defend me
4) Repair me
5) Regulate me
6) See me, and
7) Help me*
The last is my own add to fill out what two others are essentially saying already. Here is how I see these communications on a basic level:
1) Feed me is a communication about the essential needs of the whole cell
2) Cleanse me is a communication about amounts that are purified down to the cell only
3) Defend me is communication about relationships that go before the cell rather than after the cell
4) Repair me is communication about the whole cell, if parts have been left out or damaged
5) Regulate me is communication about action that should or should not happen
6) See me is communication about a thing being noticed rather than being ignored
7) Help me* is communication about the whole again just to close with the whole after beginning there and middling there.
So even at the cellular level communication tends to continue to be quite basic, getting at the needs for the whole of:
1) Amounts,
2) Relationships,
3) Actions, and
4) Things.
So if you want to communicate well, you might want to try with someone the basic messages of your cells. You especially might try it at your favorite nutrition store. Remember too, to listen to your body at the surface level. What is it saying? Is it saying "Feed me!" or something else. Have fun with it and remember all communication can eventually be broken down into the essential parts. Don't leave any of them out and don't feed yourself a part after your body says it is full. I imagine another cell knows that when it stops saying, "Feed me!". Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
* I added help me as just another take on "Feed me". I see both as dealing with the whole like "Feed me", but I am not saying that at a cellular level there is another message. That is for the experts to determine. I just wanted to balance the opening communication with a closing communication. .
1) Amounts,
2) Relationships,
3) Actions, and
4) Things.
I ran across today a fun analogy that goes beyond the surface level of these obvious things to the cellular level that is beyond my expertise. But what I did find there is a fun example of how the essentials of communication work for our cells.
What was pointed out is that at a cellular level cells communicate to each other a series of things:
1) Feed me
2) Cleanse me
3) Defend me
4) Repair me
5) Regulate me
6) See me, and
7) Help me*
The last is my own add to fill out what two others are essentially saying already. Here is how I see these communications on a basic level:
1) Feed me is a communication about the essential needs of the whole cell
2) Cleanse me is a communication about amounts that are purified down to the cell only
3) Defend me is communication about relationships that go before the cell rather than after the cell
4) Repair me is communication about the whole cell, if parts have been left out or damaged
5) Regulate me is communication about action that should or should not happen
6) See me is communication about a thing being noticed rather than being ignored
7) Help me* is communication about the whole again just to close with the whole after beginning there and middling there.
So even at the cellular level communication tends to continue to be quite basic, getting at the needs for the whole of:
1) Amounts,
2) Relationships,
3) Actions, and
4) Things.
So if you want to communicate well, you might want to try with someone the basic messages of your cells. You especially might try it at your favorite nutrition store. Remember too, to listen to your body at the surface level. What is it saying? Is it saying "Feed me!" or something else. Have fun with it and remember all communication can eventually be broken down into the essential parts. Don't leave any of them out and don't feed yourself a part after your body says it is full. I imagine another cell knows that when it stops saying, "Feed me!". Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
* I added help me as just another take on "Feed me". I see both as dealing with the whole like "Feed me", but I am not saying that at a cellular level there is another message. That is for the experts to determine. I just wanted to balance the opening communication with a closing communication. .
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Communication Basics: The ARWAT Method
The major tool I use to make observations in life is what I call the ARWAT method. It is directly descended from the TEAR method largely popularized by Eugene Albert Nida.
[Under Construction]
Sincerely,
Jon
[Under Construction]
Sincerely,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
