If we think about the basic model of communication, the inherent conflict in motivations is obvious. When any speaker tries to communicate an idea to a listener, the speaker is providing information from his/her perspective, while the listener is hearing the information from his/her own perspective. These can easily be in conflict and lead to misunderstandings. Perhaps just as bad, the information the speaker thinks it is important to communicate may not be important to the listener. This means that the listener can easily get “bored” because the information isn’t what she or he expects or wants. Isn’t that basically why we see so many people on their phones in Church instead of listening?

Of course, BOTH the speaker and the listener have responsibilities to each other, to facilitate good communication. For most of us, as listeners, this responsibility means we need to at least recognize that the speaker needs to express what they think is important. THEY NEED TO BE HEARD! Just as each of us need to be heard when it’s our turn to speak. So we need to overcome our expectation that what is communicated will be “entertaining” or “useful” to us, and listen even if the information isn’t what we expect.

AND, when we do this, we can always be surprised: We can be surprised because the information that the speaker is communicating might actually be what we want—that is, our initial assumption about the information might be wrong. And more importantly, we can always gain something by simply choosing to think about what is communicated in productive ways. We can take what is said, think about it carefully, and react to it with our own thoughts that correct, amplify or deepen the ideas communicated. Some little detail of what the speaker says will be all we need to find an uplifting and illuminating thought that will make listening worth it.

The bottom line is that it’s not really about what information the speaker is trying to communicate. It’s about how we think about the communication. We have a choice about how we react and what we get out of Church.

So, what are you thinking in reaction to what happens in Church?

In these posts I am trying to suggest that each of us can have better experiences at Church if we take responsibility for our experiences, and if we are open to learning from what happens by pondering it — by thinking about it in many different ways. We can choose to learn and benefit from what happens regardless of whether it fits our perception of what is “good.” Thinking about our reactions and what we understand allows for revelation and for better understanding.

In this vein, I like the statement that President Hugh B. Brown made in a 1969 BYU devotional, President Hugh B. Brown declared that the Church is “not so much concerned with whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox as we are that you shall have thoughts.” We should be carefully considering what we hear at Church, regardless of whether what we heard is right or wrong, orthodox or heterodox. 

A lot of our thought depends on how we look at it. It is not different from what many artists figure out—they understand that how you see the  world before you is more important than what you see. You might call it ‘active listening’ or shifting perspective. It just means that you see differently. And seeing differently reveals a different world.

In my case, I tend to focus narrowly, thinking about groups of words or sentences, sometimes taking them out of context and thinking about what they say, even if the speaker didn’t intend what I heard. It’s not at all like what we’re taught in school, where the focus is on understanding accurately and completely what the speaker or text says. Its about pulling out useful or inspiring thoughts in spite of what was said.

So, if you aren’t thinking this way, maybe try it next Sunday, or the next time you are in a class or meeting. If you have already thoughts inspired by what happened at church, what are they? How did you react to what happened in Church yesterday? What did you notice? Did you end up thinking differently? Do you think your reactions were what they should be? Were they looking for what God had to tell you? Did your reactions make things better?

This is the latest invitation for reactions to local meetings, continuing a series of weekly posts that started with my post on September 25th about how we receive what happens in Church meetings—sermons, lessons and anything else—and enter a conversation with them, magnifying what was said or adding what we think. In these posts I’m asking us all to think about how we listen and receive what happens at Church. If we only listen for mistakes, or things that bother us, what does that say about us? Is it most important to criticize others? Or to try to change ourselves?

The point here is that no matter how poorly prepared the speaker or teacher is, or no matter how what happens triggers us, or is objectively or doctrinally wrong, we can still find elements in what is said and what happens that inspires and edifies us. Even if church meetings aren’t conducted in a way that reaches us, we can take responsibility and find a way to feel the spirit.