Tucker Carlson, Vladimir Putin & Jesus Walk into a Bar ...

... And Order a Real Encounter and Dialogue, in a World That Prefers Remoteness and Alternating Monologue

Did that headline deliver a decent punchline? Yes, no, maybe?

I never know what attempted jokes, cleverness, or profundities resonate with people until long after I’ve written them. I get no real-time feedback and no chance to adjust mid-article based on audience reaction.

See, this Substack is an exercise in monologue.

Even when I do get comments from readers, it’s in the form of their own mini-monologue, to which I enjoy replying with yet another mini-monologue. And so on, and so on.

I do my best to respond to what each Commenter shared (and I’ve noticed that Commenters afford the same courtesy to me!), but it’s still remotely transmitted, alternating-monologue … “turtles” all the way down.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and the technology that enables it is astounding! I don’t want to abandon communicating via electronic/digital platforms. And I acknowledge I’m reasonably well-suited for the modern wordscape of the aforementioned “turtles.”

But I do see the need to supplement it with something: encounter and dialogue.

Substack AI-generated image

Are encounter and dialogue demeaned in mainstream culture?

Real, active-listening encounter and dialogue offer the chance to negotiate differences and develop cognitive empathy with an efficiency and effectiveness not typically found in monologue.

And this brings us to well-known interviewer Tucker Carlson and current Russian president Vladimir Putin, who seemed to have a reasonable, voluntary, face-to-face conversation recently.

While it’s wise for people to contend with the substance of the interview, it’s disappointing to see so much denouncing that the conversation occurred in the first place, with much of the backlash even before the interview was released!

Sadly, this is unsurprising in a pop culture where politicized “debate” is often people talking past each other and/or serially interrupting one another.

I get it: Encounter and real dialogue are difficult. It’s nerve-wracking to be in someone’s presence and to communicate without being able to go back and edit things. Refusing to engage can avoid this uncomfortableness, but it also forgoes the benefits.

Lessons from Jesus’ approach

During my appearance on the Feb. 17 episode of “The Bob Murphy Show” (available on the show’s website, Spotify, YouTube), the host and I grappled — often very philosophically — with the themes in my book, Good Neighbor, Bad Citizen (Amazon, Barnes&Noble, Lulu).

One helpful tangent we traveled is the forms in which the Gospel manifests. I said:

Jesus doesn’t do any writing of manuscripts. …

We take that for granted nowadays because we’re such a remote culture, but the first form of the Gospel is lived in the person of Christ and encountered directly.

The second form of the Gospel is preached … in that direct encounter.

It’s only the third form of the Gospel … that is transmitted remotely, where somebody can write it down and someone can read it without having someone else actually present it to them. …

So, we live in a remote-first culture. But the Gospel, of course, is remote-third.

Writing and recording messages are important, but so are personal encounters and real dialogue. And Jesus — as recorded in writing later by His friends — consistently embraces the chance to encounter people where they are, and to give them His attention.

These kinds of interactions — including those that disturb our comfort zones — are especially important to good neighborliness and its attendant political anarchism/voluntarism. As I said later:

If we’re going to be good neighbors and insist that it’s possible to have consent-based, voluntary interactions in society, then we should lead by example. …

Let’s be peers and approach each other in good faith, and speak up when we think we have something to say, and be active listeners when someone takes the time to engage us.

‘Turtle’ time?

Yes, I know the Comments section of a website isn’t in-person encounter and dialogue, but it’s still pretty cool! I’ve found that thoughtful people can successfully scaffold on each other’s written positions — and grapple and refine their own thinking and beliefs! — even if it’s not a real-time exchange.

Do you like the culture of texting and writing and recording? Do you like real-time conversations (even electronically aided ones, like phone and video calls)? Both? Neither?

Would you have gone out and encountered Jesus and His Apostles in-person? Do you attend Church or a similar form of religious, in-person gathering?

Was Tucker Carlson right or wrong to speak with Vladimir Putin? Did you hear the interview? Any impressions?

Leave me your best “turtle” about anything that got your attention …