In every good movement and cultural shift, there are words that signal these changes. However, just as quickly, the word gets picked up and used so frequently that it begins to mean absolutely nothing.
“Conversation” has become a buzzword of this present cultural moment. I heard Hillary Clinton invite listeners to join the conversation in the launch of her presidential campaign. Emergent/missional church leaders use the phrase.
Originally, the word signalled the change from hostile fights focusing on declaring the TRUTH of one’s position to that of dialogue and discussion, of understanding others rather than labeling them. Sounds good. But labeling and stereotyping others is a part of what it means to be human this side of heaven. And so, “join the conversation” quickly morphs into “join our conversation if you want what we want”. Pride and arrogance kill most catch phrases. WWJD (a phrase I never really liked anyway) may have had value to some but it also became meaningless to most.
My school uses the phrase and I think it is a good thing for seminaries to find ways to enter the world of those they serve. If we do it well, it looks like conversation (read John 4). And if we do it well, we learn so much from other cultural perspectives. But, I find myself not wanting to use the term because it sounds so superficial and bland.
Not sure what I’d replace it with given that any good catch phrase will have the same problem.
Musings on Faith and Psychology 
Thanks for expressing a shared sentiment, about the general and the particular. The words “conversation” and “dialog” used in conjunction with phrases which indicate a desire on the part of one party in a dispute to remain engaged in the dispute are part of a larger problem tearing many church families apart. I think it may have sprung from an earlier recognition that the antagonists really had not been properly heard or understood. Undoubtedly the last fifty years have been about an opening up and discussion between traditional, conservative views and the newer unconventional and liberal views. Either approach is not bad in itself, especially when we realize that bad ideas, whether old or new, should neither be defended or promoted. As we near the end of the first decade of the new millennium such phrases have become abused as political ploys to refuse to accept when another party has said simply “no, I disagree and cannot endorse…” It is a refusal to accept “no” to an agenda of change that has been rejected. The use of it is carefully crafted to arouse a sense of fairness and desire to be open minded, but it presumes continually that the other hasn’t been so – it is an attempt to be shaming.
I’ve seen this kind of language played out over the past six years in different denominations concerning different issues with the same results. No progress is made toward resolving anything, people become hurt and separated from each other, church bodies split and start anew, good ideas are held suspect and bad ideas are dressed up, popularized, excused, normalized and pushed without question. After all, free men can discuss all ideas freely without worry of injuring anyone, or so the question is begged. What this all proves is that there really is a time to let a person’s “yes” mean “yes”, and their “no” mean “no”. End of discussion. It is not a sin, a failing, or anything else pejorative to to walk away agreeing to disagree, and yet knowing that one party will likely be wrong as witnessed in huge failure and calamity.
Jody, thanks for your comments. I do think that some of the urge to “stay in the conversation” is due to the previous generation being unwilling to even consider alternate thoughts and being quick brand the other as heretic. However, you are right that sometimes the folks who use the dialogue language want to take the “high road” and in doing so shame those who are unwilling. I do think that even when we articulate our positions that we ought to remain open to continuing to talk with others, to hear, to disagree, etc. It is easy to walk away early. However, there is a time to agree to disagree and move on, much as Paul did regarding Mark. The fruit of our walking away ought to show that we continue to love our brothers and sisters and do not disparage them.