Early on in my attempts to deepen my ability to converse in the Sindhi language, I learned a new idiom for “dying,” which is similar to the English “to pass on.”  I decided to use it while conversing with an acquaintance and said casually, “When I pass on…”  He started and a look of amused disgust came over his face.  I immediately stopped the conversation and asked, “Did I not use that idiom correctly?”  “No,” he replied, “That idiom is never used when speaking of yourself, only of others.  When you referred to your own death in that way, it implied that you considered yourself an important person.”  In other words, rather than being a casual reference to my death, I had communicated an arrogant and self-important attitude.

Similarly, but with a different effect, consider the following illustration:

[An ESL (English as second language) student] learned an idiom “kick the bucket.” It had nothing to do with “kick” or “bucket.” She learned that it meant somebody is dead. She also learned that idioms have the potential to shorten interpersonal distance. The next day, she was told that her president’s father just passed away. When the president walked into the general office, [she] made a point to approach him saying, “I am so sorry that your father just kicked the bucket!”¹

there are skills that can be learned

Such amusing and embarrassing examples that result from a misunderstanding of the impact and mood of idioms cause much grief for ESL speakers.  But they also provide a challenge for churches in multi-ethnic communities here in Canada who wish to reach across cultural boundaries to talk about spiritual issues with those who have a limited grasp of English. In cross-cultural evangelism, significant discomfort comes from the inability to connect and converse well with people who are from a different background.  Potential embarrassment and a sense of inadequacy to handle the inevitable misunderstandings cause people to shy away from conversation with ESL speakers. In addition, the ESL speaker can quickly become confused and embarrassed due to their unfamiliarity with idiomatic English. As a result, they feel overwhelmed and incapable of responding adequately.  Fortunately, there are skills that can be learned that will overcome these difficulties and allow for comfortable and productive conversations with second language English speakers.

Communication Skills = Effective Ministry

As British Columbia becomes increasingly multi-cultural and multi-lingual, churches will need to develop English communication skills in order to minister effectively to immigrants and others with ESL limitations. A previous article encouraged our churches to learn each other’s cultural “language of respect.”  In this article I would like to describe different, but equally necessary, conversation skills for mother tongue English speakers that will enable them to converse effectively with those who have limited ability in English.  This is accomplished by developing sensitivity to our use of idioms that can cause confusion and embarrassment.  When we provide a safe and comfortable speaking environment, ESL speakers will be more inclined to engage in conversation, rather than withdrawing to protect their dignity.

In an insightful and helpful article, Wen-Shu Lee explains the impact of idioms and also outlines steps that native English speakers can take in order to bridge the gap of understanding for ESL speakers.² The development and use of the skills outlined below will create a comfortable conversational environment for all participants.

The nature of Idioms

Idioms are colorful shortcuts that communicate on an emotive as well as intellectual level.  They determine the mood of the conversation and are exclusive in nature.  That is, they refer to common narratives within a culture and they relate to the values and perspectives that are the given assumptions within the broader community.  For example, the figurative meanings of the following idioms, “bought the farm,” “get your feet wet,” “get your hands dirty,” and “a wild goose chase,”³ cannot be comprehended by an outsider without explanation.

But on an even more complicated level, idioms have a “relational meaning.”⁴ There are certain contexts in which their use is appropriate, and other contexts in which their use is out of place.  The two illustrations at the beginning of the article clearly demonstrate this reality.  Understanding the meaning of the idioms does not equip a person to the subtle nuances that guide their acceptable use.

As a further dynamic of idioms, they function as a key to “interpersonal closeness.”⁵ The use of idioms among friends is an indication and affirmation of the individuals’ identity and connectedness as a group.  Idioms refer to common values and experiences that constantly reaffirm that the participants are legitimate insiders of the group.  A lack of use, misuse, or confusion of idioms marks the speaker as an outsider.

The father of a friend of ours was dying.  She commented sadly, “He is so weak.  He is just bones and skin.”  We knew what she meant, but her error indicated that she was an outsider to our cultural context.

Skills to help ESL speakers feel wanted and comfortable

Lee provides four steps that English speakers can take to establish productive and comfortable conversational relationships with ESL speakers:

Step 1: Establish a New Conversational Decorum⁶

cultural sensitivity and candid discussion

As pointed out in the article on learning another’s language of respect, “Success in navigating intercultural relationships is dependent upon the practice of hearing and speaking the other’s language of respect.”⁷ As one application of this principle, it is important to establish mutually acceptable ways to address the errors that arise in conversation.  This requires cultural sensitivity and candid discussion. Talk openly and in general terms about how and when ESL speakers would like pronunciation and grammar corrected, as well as when to provide correction concerning the use of idioms.  Beware of how you indicate mistakes when they occur. Pointing out errors in some cultures is insulting unless done in the correct manner.  Laughter and light-hearted comments can inadvertently sting.  Watch for, and address, signs of withdrawal from the conversation and sensitivity to correction that may indicate hurt feelings or embarrassment.

Step 2: Differentiate Goal-Oriented Talk from Metatalk⁸

By goal-oriented talk, Lee is referring to ordinary conversation where the interaction is comfortable and unproblematic so that the participants only need to focus on the topic.  Metatalk, on the other hand, occurs when the participants step back from the topic and discuss the way the conversation is being conducted.  This occurs on two levels linguistic metatalk and relational metatalk.  Linguistic metatalk focuses on the meaning of a word or idiom, while relational metatalk addresses the appropriate context in which the word or idiom can be used.

In the “kicking the bucket” illustration, goal-oriented talk would occur if the president responded to the content of the student’s comment, either by ignoring the inappropriate idiom and thanking her, or with indignation to the implied callousness.  Linguistic metatalk would occur if they discussed the different idioms that could be used to describe someone dying.  Relational metatalk addresses the scenarios in which such idioms can be appropriately used.

Step 3: The Principle of Double/ Multiple Description⁹

This step requires English speakers to be aware of the idioms they are using and the references they are making that may be obscure to an ESL speaker.  They then provide additional descriptions that orient the hearer to the meaning of their statement.  This added effort is a concession to the reality that ESL speakers do not have sufficient familiarity with the Canadian context that would allow them to comprehend the singular meaning intended.  The ESL speaker generally requires additional cues in order to direct them to focus on the meaning intended.

For example, if at night I say to my wife, Karen, “toothbrush?” the familiarity of the context and our common experience causes her to respond, “yes, please,” with the expectation that I will bring her toothbrush to her.  If, on the other hand, I was to turn to her on one of our walks during the day and say, “toothbrush?” she would look at me blankly because the contextual cues do not provide enough information for that cryptic statement to have meaning.  Similarly ESL speakers struggle to identify the contextual cues and make the connection between the comments made and the Canadian context.  In order for a conversation to continue with a sense of control and comfort, it in incumbent upon the English speaker to provide that connection for the ESL speaker by using double or multiple descriptions.

In the “kicking the bucket” example above, the person who introduced the student to the phrase would have done well to clarify the focus of the comment, how it relates emotionally, the context it is used in, and what it says about our relationship to the hearer.  For example, “This phrase is used when there is no emotional attachment to the person who died and never used with those who know the person.  It is used when the death of the person is spoken of in a disrespectful or light-hearted, rather than serious, manner.”

Step 4: Find Relevance in ESL Speakers’ Cultural Context¹⁰

The final step helps ESL speakers relate the idiom to their own context.  By exploring various scenarios of death in their culture and the significance of the relationship with those who died, parallel situations may be discovered that will give the ESL speaker a “feel” for when the idiom can be used appropriately.  For example, a reference to the death of a respected grandfather will require a different attitude and perspective than the death of an ornery mule on the farm.  The former requires a more formal “passed away,” whereas “kicked the bucket” is appropriate for the latter.

These four steps can also be used as a method of contextualizing the gospel cross-culturally.  In the next article we will consider an example of how to help someone from another culture understand how Jesus as redeemer relates to their life by using these four steps.

Mark spends part of his time assisting churches in developing significant cross-cultural relationships.  If you are interested, please contact him via the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________




• 1 Lee, Wen-Shu 2000. That’s Greek to Me: Between a Rock and a Hard Place in Intercultural Encounters in Intercultural Communication: A Reader. 9^th Ed. Samovar, Larry A. and Porter, Richard E. Eds. Belmont: Wadworth Pub, 220.
• 2 ibid., 217-224.
• 3 ibid., 217
• 4 ibid., 218.
• 5 ibid.
• 6 ibid.
• 7 Naylor, M. Resolving Intercultural Tensions 3: Speaking Another’s Language of Respect. http://impact.nbseminary.com/archives/115
• 8 Lee, That’s Greek to Me, 218.
• 9 ibid., 220.
• 10 ibid., 221.

The Pool of Meaning

In their book Crucial Conversations, Patterson et al. claim that “at the core of every successful conversation lies the free flow of relevant information. People openly and honestly express their opinions, share their feelings, and articulate their theories. They willingly and capably share their views, even when their ideas are controversial or unpopular.”¹ The essence of Significant Conversations lies in developing the awareness and skills that turn a potential clash of opinions into a genuine dialogue that allows both sides to freely express their values and beliefs.  This “free flow of relevant information” is also called the “pool of shared meaning.” People skilled in dialogue are able to address controversial and uncomfortable subjects in such a way that other views are respected, heard and appreciated.  Everyone is invited to put their thoughts into the pool of meaning. “People who are skilled at dialogue do their best to make it safe for everyone to add their meaning to the shared pool-even ideas that at first glance appear controversial, wrong, or at odds with their own beliefs. Now, obviously they don’t agree with every idea; they simply do their best to ensure that all ideas find their way into the open.”²

This parallels E. Stanley Jones’ methodology of holding round table dialogues.  Jones was a Methodist missionary in India during first half of the 20^th century who promoted and facilitated forums in which people were encouraged to express their faith.  The focus was on religious experience and how that related to their faith; relational truth as opposed to a philosophical discussion of theology and doctrine.  Everyone expected to learn and everyone expected to be heard.  Those who “knew Christ were testifying to something redemptively at work at the heart of life.”³ Because we trust that truth is permanent and lies have a short life-span, we encourage people to put their thoughts into the pool of shared meaning where they can be examined and tested.

What are some of these tools that can help us become facilitators of Significant Conversations?  There are more principles in the Crucial Conversations book than can be shared in this article, but we will examine three tools that provide an sampling of what can be done to create conversational space that leads to positive interactions.

1. Be a “Vigilent Self-Monitor”⁴

The key to successful dialogue is not having clever answers or quick comebacks.  Rather, as Patterson et al. insist, it “starts with the heart.”⁵ Those who are capable of providing an environment in which constructive dialogue occurs are aware of more than the content of the conversation.  In particular, they are able to monitor their own reactions, notice when they are tempted to act improperly, and take steps to correct their conversation style.

When our values and beliefs are challenged, we begin to feel unsafe and as a result may react in unhelpful ways.  Rather than respectful responses and attentive listening we resort to tactics in order to either control or “win” the conversation. We may use sarcasm or claim support for our ideas in a way that is dismissive of others.⁶

Those good at dialogue recognize when they are feeling defensive or unsafe and take steps to address it.  A number of steps are helpful:

1. Discover your own default style under stress so that you can identify it.  Patterson et al. have a free online test that will help you do this.

2. Step out of the conversation⁷ and be transparent.  Say, “Can we pause the conversation a moment?  I’m feeling a bit uncomfortable, and I don’t want either of us to feel attacked or dismissed.  I would like to hear what you have to say, and for you to hear my thoughts.”

3. Remind yourself of what you really want for yourself and your conversation partner.⁸ If you catch yourself striving to win at the other’s expense, acknowledge it, apologize and move away from that desire. If you can maintain a posture of two friends examining an issue, albeit from different viewpoints, both of you will continue to be encouraged to put your views into the pool of meaning.

Furthermore, good dialogue monitors are aware when others feel threatened or uncomfortable and take steps to make it safe for others to talk constructively.

2. Make it Safe to Talk

Make it safe

Patterson et al. point out that those who are skilled at holding crucial conversations are sensitive to both their own feelings and the defensive reactions of others.  They recognize the tensions and emotions that get in the way of healthy dialogue, step out of the content of the conversation to address those emotions, and then, when the participants feel safe, return to the topic of concern.⁹ This requires honesty, transparency and clarity of purpose.  Rather than the content, we need to focus on the conversation partner.

This skill resonates well with our goal as Christ’s followers to exhibit grace and love when relating to others.  Concern for the person needs to trump any desire we have to state our opinion or win an argument, and when we communicate that priority as we deal with others, trust is developed.  This does not mean that we shy away from speaking the truth if we think people may be offended.  Rather, I am suggesting that there are steps we can take to make it safe for all to contribute to the pool of meaning in such a way that when we do speak God’s truth, it can be heard without provoking unnecessarily defensive postures that drive others away.  We are actually creating an environment in which the truth can be spoken and listened to.

For example, instead of jumping into a conversation by addressing a topic that someone has raised, ask permission to engage the person in conversation.  Rather than stating, “I think it is wrong for people to…,” say “I have a different opinion about that.  I would like to discuss that more with you.”  This not only prepares the person for your alternate viewpoint, but also communicates that you want to have a respectful discussion, rather than issue a challenge.

Another way to create safety is to use contrasting statements.¹⁰ If, during the conversation, you sense that the participants are becoming defensive and emotional because of something you have said, step out of the conversation and state what you don’t intend, and also what you do intend.   “I don’t mean to insinuate that you don’t care about…. What I do want to point out is how we have different priorities and values concerning….”  By talking about the conversation, safety can be restored.

For example, abortion is a very sensitive topic.  A strong pro-life stance can make people very defensive so they respond with an emotional attack.  Rather than retreating (silence) or reacting in kind (violence), a possible approach could be the following: “I don’t mean to insinuate that you do not have a respect for the sacredness of life.  Your concern for the well-being of the mother demonstrates your desire for her best.  We have different priorities and values concerning what is best in this situation.  I think it would be helpful for us both to better understand each other.  I would be interested in hearing your concerns.  Would you be interested in hearing where I’m coming from?”

3. Recognize and Interpret Stories

My oldest son knows how to push my buttons.  I can ask an innocent question, and he will respond in a way that irritates me.  What is going on?  Do I really have buttons so that when someone says a particular sentence, I will be irritated?  No.  The reality is that my son and I have a long history of conflict.  When he makes a particular statement, I immediately relate it to incidents in the past and interpret the statement to mean more than is immediately evident in the words.  That is, I immediately make up a story about what he truly means.  Patterson et al. inform us that the best at dialogue recognize that behind our reaction to a comment made in conversation is a story that we have invented which interprets the person’s statement.¹¹ If someone laughs or rolls their eyes when we are saying something that is important to us, we can react with hurt or anger because we have told ourselves a story about why the person laughed or rolled their eyes.  The tendency is then to respond to that story we have told ourselves even though the reality may be very different.

However, if we want to be good at dialogue, we will “take control of our stories.”  We need to “retrace our path” that led to the emotional response.  Crucial Conversations provides four steps:

• (Act) Notice your behavior. Ask: Am I in some form of silence or violence?
• (Feel) Get in touch with your feelings: What emotions are encouraging me to act this way?
• (Tell story) Analyze your stories: What story is creating these emotions?
• (See/hear) Get back to the facts: What evidence do I have to support this story?¹²

One of the fears we have as Christians (or at least I have) is that we will be ridiculed for our faith.  Although this is seldom the case, it is very easy to interpret people’s responses to our comments as a personal rejection or snub.  When we feel rejected, we need to step out of the content of the conversation and go through the four steps.  Once we recognize the story we are telling ourselves, we can learn to tell ourselves a different story, or at least discover if the story we are telling is the correct one.

The Goal of Significant Conversations

Those involved in Significant Conversations seek “influence without apology or attack”.¹³ Posterski points out that our Canadian sensitivity to political correctness in conversation tends “to pre-empt open discussion which might contain or imply anything negative about feminism, gay rights, aboriginal peoples, other minorities, or other world religions. The informal social policy pronounced by political correctness seems to elevate social sensitivity above truthfulness. A more discerning approach would propose that all views should be subject to scrutiny, including the ‘politically correct’ agenda.”¹⁴ As Christians, there is no need for the existence of different views to cause us to keep our opinions to ourselves, or, alternatively, to get into a fight about who is right. There is an important third way of dialogue in which differing views can be heard by all participants. Furthermore, within that “pool of shared meaning” there will be room for the gospel.  But it requires an intentional and skilled approach, supported by the prayer and encouragement of other believers, to develop an environment in which such discussions can be held with respect and effectiveness.

Mark spends part of his time coaching churches in Significant Conversations.  If you are interested in this method of evangelism, please contact him via the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________




• 1 Patterson, K Grenny, J McMillan, R and Switzler A 2002. Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High. New York: McGraw-Hill, 20.
• 2 ibid., 21.
• 3 A good evaluation of Jones’ approach is found in “Witness in the Midst of Religious Plurality: The Model of E. Stanley Jones”  by Mary Lou Codman-Wilson in Confident Witness – Changing World: Rediscovering the Gospel in North America, Editor Craig Van Gelder. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. See also CCI Article 81.
• 4 Patterson et al., 56.
• 5 ibid., 27.
• 6 ibid., 53.
• 7 ibid., 66.
• 8 ibid., 32.
• 9 ibid., 67-68.
• 10 ibid., 76-82.
• 11 ibid., 100.
• 12 ibid., 101-102.
• 13 Posterski D 1995. True to you: Living our faith in our Multi-minded World, Winfield: Wood Lake Books Inc, 172.
• 14 ibid., 166.

Going Beyond Fight or Flight

The setting was Pakistan in the early 90s.  I was having a problem with our visas and went to the capital city, Islamabad, to sort out the difficulty.  As I entered the government office, I was taken aback to find it crowded with close to 10 North American young people.  They had obviously been on some type of spiritual quest and had embraced the practices of an eastern mystic.  Rather than using the chairs they were sitting cross-legged on the floor, playing instruments and chanting. The office staff was doing their best to ignore them, but they did not seem terribly pleased at the abrasive stance and non-conformist actions of the young people.  One of the young women studied me for a bit and concluded, correctly, that I was a western missionary.  She then loudly commented to one of her comrades, “Christians are so hypocritical.  The Bible says, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ but they ignore that command and kill cows and eat them.”

She was obviously throwing out a challenge that was directed at me.  I considered the dilemma: Should I respond and correct the misunderstanding evident in her remark, or should I remain silent? I concluded that she was looking for an argument and, therefore, any response to address her error would only result in conflict and a verbal battle.  As a result, I remained silent and let the statement pass unchallenged.  But were these the only two options at my disposal?  Was there a third way of addressing the challenge that could have led to constructive and healthy dialogue?

Canadian Christians live in an environment in which many of our values and beliefs are contradicted and challenged. All of us have been faced with similar dilemmas while talking to colleagues and friends, when values and beliefs are expressed that we view as destructive and false.  Do we challenge what is said and risk alienating people, or do we keep silent?  Fortunately, there is another option.  Rather than viewing such expressions as challenges to our faith or as errors to be corrected, we can develop skills that allow us to use these incidents as invitations to dialogue and opportunities to engage in Significant Conversations.  Rather than a defensive posture that results in flight (silence) or fight (contradiction and argument),¹ there is a third way that leads to constructive, enjoyable and open conversations in which all participants can express their views in an atmosphere of respect.  But this doesn’t happen by accident.  Skills need to be learned and practiced.

Developing Skills to Talk about Significant Issues

In their book Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High, Patterson et al. provide both the theory and practical application required to engage in effective and relationship-strengthening conversations when “opinions vary, stakes are high and emotions run strong.”² Their book is based on years of research during which they discovered the skills used by influential people who are able to speak into volatile situations so that respectful and positive dialogue results.  In this article, I will apply some of those key principles and skills to the uncomfortable arena of conflicting values and beliefs. By learning how to face such challenges with grace and confidence, they can be transformed into positive and significant conversations, conversations in which our faith in Christ becomes evident.

The phrase “opinions vary, stakes are high and emotions run strong,” is an appropriate description of the tension and conflict that can arise when we face issues (such as current sexual practices) that are in stark contrast with our convictions.  In this case “opinions vary” refers to a clash in values.  When an uncomfortable value challenges our belief system and the way we live our lives, then the “stakes are high,” and we are prompted to defend our perspective.  However, confronting the issue can result in “strong emotions” that threaten existing relationships and lead to defensiveness and heated arguments.

conflicting values and beliefs [are] invitations

Patterson et al. point out that in such situations we can do one of three things: “we can avoid them, we can face them and handle them poorly, or we can face them and handle them well.”³ Avoidance means that we will lose the opportunity to develop a relationship on a deeper level. Handling these situations poorly is probably even more harmful than avoidance because of the damage done to relationships.  However, if we recognize these situations as invitations that can lead to non-threatening and thoughtful conversations, and then respond with the right skills, we can encourage positive dialogue that will lead to, not only hearing the concerns of others, but sharing our own Christian perspective.

The following example outlines one of the skills from Crucial Conversations that can be used to generate healthy and effective dialogue.

The ABCs of generating positive dialogue

I have a tendency to express disagreement with comments that I don’t think are right.  This is not helpful when the goal is to stimulate dialogue.  By immediately disagreeing (and I am trying hard to overcome this obnoxious habit), the conversation becomes defined as an argument in which one person wins and the other loses.  Fortunately, there is a healthier approach to expressions of values and beliefs that we disagree with.  Patterson et al. provide us with the ABCs⁴ of discussing conflicting opinions without conflict:

• Agree: Rather than immediately addressing the point of disagreement, it is more profitable to discipline ourselves to find the areas of agreement.  By finding common ground we become cohorts rather than sparring partners.
• Build. Even if we strongly disagree with the value expressed, it is better to phrase our view as a further development based on the area of agreement, rather than a contradiction of the other point of view.
• Compare and contrast. Even when pointing out the difference between our view and the view of our conversation partner, it is helpful not to contradict them. Rather than stating that the other person is wrong, suggest that we differ and compare the two views.  This allows both conversation partners to explore the two views together, rather than attacking each other’s perspective.

As an illustration of how a conversation of values can lead to a witness of our faith, suppose a colleague mentions that their daughter is shacking up with her boyfriend, and seems to consider that appropriate behavior.  The two tendencies that do not allow the relationship with our colleague to deepen are either silence (not addressing the issue) or violence (indicating disapproval which communicates condemnation).  By following the ABC process, a positive outcome is possible:

Agree: “It is true that people living together before marriage is common these days.  That is far different than it was a generation ago….”  In this way there is agreement, not about the moral issue, but concerning facts that are common to the situation.  The topic is introduced in a non-threatening way.

Build: “Even though some of the relationships do develop to the point of marriage, it worries me that this often leads to weaker relationships and broken homes for children….”  This brings out an unspoken issue that may be a concern of the colleague as well.

Compare: “I think we differ in our perspective.   You have a pragmatic outlook and hope for the best and want to affirm them in their relationship so that it can be as good as possible.  On the other hand, I hold to the sacredness of the marriage covenant as something given to us by God that is essential for a relationship to develop into all that it is intended to be….”⁵

The Discipline of Dialogue

Developing conversational skills that lead to effective dialogue requires discipline, practice and a willingness to leave the comfort zone of our natural and comfortable response patterns.  But when we recognize the potential of these conversations to introduce people to Christ and deepen our own faith, the struggle is worth it.  In the following article, skills to control our own emotions as well as practical steps to make a conversation safe for others will be discussed.

Mark spends part of his time coaching churches in Significant Conversations.  If you are interested in this method of evangelism, please contact him via the Contact Me form. If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________







• 1 Patterson, K Grenny, J McMillan, R and Switzler A 2002. Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High. New York: McGraw-Hill, 29.
• 2 ibid., 1-2.
• 3 ibid., 3.
• 4 ibid., 156-158.
• 5 If you have other examples of how this ABC method can be used to stimulate positive dialogue, please let me know via the ‘Click here to comment’ link at the bottom of this article.

Canadians don’t talk about religion

At a meeting on developing multi-ethnic churches, I had opportunity to share the concept of Significant Conversations with a couple of young pastors.  They were excited about the potential of this approach to evangelism and proceeded to introduce it to their congregation.  One of the pastors wrote me:

“Last night I led a group through the 5 things we need to change about the way we approach evangelism from one of your webpages. It really made an impact and both [of us] felt it was the  message our people were ready for and needed to hear. It generated a lot of really thoughtful questions and at the same time excited them! It really is a significant paradigm shift we are guiding them through.”¹

However, within a couple of months, they informed me that their congregation was not ready for this shift.  They first needed to have significant conversations among themselves before they would be ready to speak about spiritual things to those outside the church.

This unwillingness – even embarrassment – to talk about spiritual issues is common in Canada, but it is a cultural, not a universal phenomenon.  In Pakistan, where we served among the Sindhi people for a number of years, conversations about religion are common and natural. I would bring Sindhi booklets with me while traveling on the bus.  As I sat and read them, curious onlookers would ask me about the booklets and I would respond by explaining that they were about Jesus and the Bible.  Inevitably, people would ask for copies and some of them would come to visit me so that we could talk more about spiritual things.

it is easier to be tolerant when we do not discuss our differences

There are many reasons for the reluctance to talk about religion and spiritual matters in Canada:  (1) Faith and belief are considered a private matter, and there is a sense of impropriety that cautions us against probing into someone else’s personal spiritual space.  (2) While some people thrive on controversy, the rest of us would rather not face the discomfort of a disagreement. (3) Tolerance is one of our values, and it is easier to be tolerant when we do not discuss our differences.  In fact, disagreements are often considered in bad taste and evidence of a lack of tolerance.  (4) Furthermore, for those who “live with fear of the world, they are convinced that rather than being an influence, they will be influenced.”² It is disconcerting to have our security undermined by ideas that challenge our assumptions.

Dialogue: presenting an exclusive religion in an open system

for a belief to be welcomed in a pluralistic setting, it must be presented within a context of options

It is also curious that in our society, there seems to be less tolerance for Christian ideas than for other belief systems.  There are a couple of reasons for this.  First, Christianity is considered the dominant belief that has enjoyed a privileged position over the years.  A backlash to a perceived unfair advantage is not unexpected in such an environment.  But there is also a secondary issue with respect to the nature of Christianity as an exclusive religion within a context of openness and relativity. “By its very nature, a pluralistic society is open to new influences. As soon as a society endorses a ‘multiplicity’ of options rather than pouring life into a ‘one way’ mold, an open system is created. In contrast to a closed system that resists the introduction of anything new, an open system welcomes what has not yet been discovered or experienced.”³ Posterski’s insight is very important.  A key reason why Christianity is quickly rejected as an option in some quarters is because it is perceived as a closed system that resists new thoughts.  In order for a belief to be welcomed in a pluralistic setting, it must be presented within a context of options, rather than as a faith that can only be entertained by rejecting all others.

Is it possible to talk about the exclusive claims of Christ within an open system?  The answer is “yes,” if Jesus is presented as one option among many, one who is worthy to be explored. This approach need not compromise the requirement for eventual commitment and dedication to Christ, but to gain a hearing there must be openness to entertain other faith systems on a level playing field.

Creating a culture of dialogue

the prevailing opinion [is] that no belief should receive preferential treatment

The vision of Significant Conversations is to reshape our cultural context from one in which religious topics are private and considered inappropriate in day-to-day conversation, to a environment in which diverse ideas are expressed in a spirit of acceptance and courtesy. Dialogue acknowledges the reality that many opposing beliefs are at play in our Canadian context, and it conforms to the prevailing opinion that no belief should receive preferential treatment.  Rather than declaring up front that our belief is the only one that is legitimate and true because it is from God, a dialogical approach treats all beliefs systems with respect and listens to them; this allows our belief to be granted similar treatment. “When we impose maps on people and prescribe how they should believe, we step across the line. Rather than offering clarity, we convey superiority.”⁴ Proclamation says, “This is true, you must conform to this.”  Dialogue says, “In my opinion, this is true. Let’s compare it with what you believe.” Proclamation focuses on the exclusivity of the Christian faith, whereas dialogue allows for the discussion of our faith in the broader context of a plurality of beliefs.

Is Dialogue “selling out” to cultural pressures?

But is this approach legitimate, or are we selling out to cultural pressures?  By choosing the route of Significant Conversations because it is more comfortable and natural for us in our pluralist society, does this mean we are neglecting our call to proclaim the gospel?  Are we in danger of “watering down the gospel” by presenting it as only one of many beliefs? Apart from the important clarification that this approach does not claim to replace proclamation, there are a number of reasons why dialogue represents an appropriate contextualization of evangelism that fits with our cultural “language” and mood, rather than an inappropriate capitulation to societal pressures.

1. Presentation does not compromise the message

The dialogical approach does not jeopardize the message; it focuses on a presentation that resonates with our Canadian values. Acknowledging the reality that there are competing beliefs and demonstrating respect towards those who hold to those beliefs does not mean that we affirm, approve of or endorse those beliefs.  Neither does dialogue imply compromise. “Compromise involves making concessions at the cost of personal integrity. Compromise requires that people surrender their principles to the ways of others. In contrast, giving permission [for others to speak] simply secures cultural space for other people.”⁵

dialogue does not undermine our beliefs, rather it causes us to evaluate our attitude

Furthermore, because dialogue replaces the concept of competition (I am right, you are wrong), with that of contrast (this is how we differ), it actually encourages the exchange of ideas in an environment that allows for friendly interaction and ongoing conversation. Posterski affirms that “the dynamics of life dictate that people who give permission also get permission. Mutuality is necessary to make life work in a society where diversity reigns. Those who give permission to others end up getting permission for themselves.”⁶ Thus, dialogue does not undermine our beliefs, rather it causes us to evaluate our attitude.  Posterski affirms that when we “distinguish attitudes from beliefs…, it is possible to alter one’s attitudes without changing one’s beliefs…. When attitudes develop conviction but also engender empathy, they foster relationships and open the door to interpersonal influence.”⁷ Posterski affirms the same principle in the statement that “when acceptance is the attitude and when appreciation for what is good in people is expressed, followers of Jesus are in a position to influence those who have not yet accepted Christ and his teachings.”⁸

2. Dialogue is Missional

Dialogue is a missional approach to evangelism.  In missions, the missionary enters a context in which the gospel is considered foreign.  No priority is granted for the message of Jesus; a hearing for the gospel must be won.  Furthermore, the message itself must be shaped (contextualized) in a manner that is relevant for the recipient people group.  This requires an attitude of engagement and interaction with the people through which the missionary listens and comes to value how these people make sense of their world.  Only when the context is appreciated and respected can the gospel message be presented in a way that resonates with the culture. Similarly, in Significant Conversations the goal is to present the gospel as one of several competing beliefs, but in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect. As participants engage the gospel and contrast it with other beliefs, the hope and expectation, as was experienced in E. Stanley Jones’ round table discussions,⁹ is that Jesus will shine.

Rather than opposing “the principles that govern a pluralistist [sic] society: acceptance of diversity . . . , appreciation of options. . . , and interaction with alternatives,”¹⁰ a contextualized approach embraces these parameters and works within them to provide an approach that resonates.

3. Dialogue is a subjective rather than objective approach

In our Canadian context, the task of determining the true faith among all the available options through the use of logic is impossible.  If the gospel is proclaimed in an objective propositional manner, the implication is that it can be verified against a normative standard through a rational and logical process.  The response in our Canadian context is to challenge absolute declarations and to question normative standards.  When this happens, the task shifts from proclamation to an attempt to verify absolute claims and to defend norms.  This very quickly becomes unwieldy. Not only is the information that needs to be evaluated too vast to process (think of trying to sort out the internet!), but the assumptions that determine which facts should take priority cannot be proven by a logical process.  Unless both parties are committed to a long academic and potentially tedious process of collecting the facts and challenging assumptions, the discussion is usually unhelpful, resulting in stalemate and frustration.  Because the presenter of the gospel is required to be an expert in providing objective proofs in this model, it is one reason why many Christians shy away from sharing their faith.

dialogue conforms to the prevailing cultural mood of judging the validity of a belief by its fruit

On the other hand, dialogue conforms to the prevailing cultural mood of judging the validity of a belief by its fruit: if it works for you, it is true for you.  It narrows the context of discussion to the subjective experience of the dialogue partners, rather than appealing to an objective absolute. To declare one way right and the other wrong invites contradiction and argumentation.  However, expressions of beliefs that relate to personal experience invite comparison and contrast rather than competition.  It is less threatening for the presenter because they only need to know why they believe and bear witness to what they have found; proofs for an objective truth to satisfy a critical listener are not required. Scripture provides support for this subjective view: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander” (1 Peter 3:15,16).

In our society we treasure free speech and thus protection for the expression of personal beliefs is a high value.  Because of this, contradicting is seen as arrogant and offensive, while differing is not.  This fits with our position as followers of Christ, because he calls us to be witnesses (Acts 1:8), not lawyers.  Through dialogue we create a safe environment in which all participants are comfortable to share their ideas.  As witnesses we do not convict people of the truth of the gospel, that is left to the Holy Spirit.  Instead, we listen to the views of others, express our own thoughts, and then compare and contrast the ideas so that people understand the distinction and the uniqueness of Christ’s message.

4. Dialogue avoids arrogance and arguments

While counter-intuitive, the reality is that the less firmly we express our opinions, the better they are received.¹¹ Why is this?  It is because within our Canadian context, we abhor arrogance and we are taught from an early age to resist and find weaknesses in arguments.  Challenge is met with opposition.  However, if we do not put people into a situation where they feel threatened, and instead provide our perspective as a personal view (“this is what I believe”), then people will be more willing to try it on for size.

We need to ask ourselves “what do we really want?”  If we want to win and be proved right and others proved wrong, then a powerful proclamation may be called for.  However, if the goal is to see people come to Christ, then it should be recognized that in our cultural setting the way of dialogue will often result in a greater willingness to explore the gospel message.  At the very least, it provides a means by which the discussion of spiritual issues can be brought into the public forum in a way that frees Christians to express their beliefs without needing a philosophical or theological education to prove the truth of the gospel.

There is a common parable about a contest between the sun and the wind.  The wind challenged the sun to see who could remove the hat off of a man’s head.  No matter how hard the wind blew, the man clutched his hat tightly and kept it on his head.  When the sun had his turn, he warmed the man to the extent that the man willingly removed the hat of his own volition.  Dialogue does not view evangelism as competition or challenge, but as an opportunity to create space so that people can exchange their views in a non-threatening environment.

Moving to the “how”

In the next article, we will explore some of the skills needed for successful dialogue.

Mark spends part of his time coaching churches in Significant Conversations.  If you are interested in this method of evangelism, please contact him via the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________
• 1 Personal Communication.
• 2 Posterski, D 1989. Reinventing Evangelism: New Strategies for Presenting Christ in Today’s World. IVP, 78. Posterski is specifically referring to Christians in this quote, but it is also relevant for those of other faiths.
• 3 ibid., 77.
• 4 Posterski D 1995. True to you: Living our faith in our Multi-minded World, Winfield: Wood Lake Books Inc, 182.
• 5 ibid., 162.
• 6 ibid., 164.
• 7 ibid., 203-204.
• 8 Posterski 1989, 77.
• 9 A good evaluation of Jones’ approach is found in “Witness in the Midst of Religious Plurality: The Model of E. Stanley Jones”  by Mary Lou Codman-Wilson in Confident Witness – Changing World: Rediscovering the Gospel in North America, Editor Craig Van Gelder. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
• 10 Posterski 1989, 168-169.
• 11 Patterson, K Grenny, J McMillan, R and Switzler A 2002. Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High. New York: McGraw-Hill, 132.

I. Moving from Proclamation to Dialogue

Evangelism is traditionally thought of as proclamation.  Because we have a message, the message, that the world needs to hear, we are encouraged to tell the world the story of Jesus.  This approach has a strong history, from Paul’s declaration on Mars hill (Acts 17) through to Billy Graham’s gospel meetings.  Most evangelical churches consider preaching from the pulpit an important aspect of spreading the message.  There are also many programs that encourage Christians to memorize key verses, produce creative diagrams and use provocative questions to communicate the gospel message.  This article does not intend to undermine the value of these methods when used in the right context, nor suggest that we should not communicate the message of Jesus to others.  I have spent many productive years in ministry focusing on proclamation and appreciate this activity.  However, my experience tells me that, in our Canadian context, expressions of superior knowledge, certainty and exclusivity usually result in opposition and rejection.  People are hardened against exclusive proclamations of the gospel message, and to avoid uncomfortable and potentially disastrous confrontations, many Christians leave attempts to talk about the gospel to those who have a “gift” of evangelism.

I still remember my first experience of evangelism while in Bible college, fresh out of high school.  A fellow student invited me to join him at a park to present the gospel to people on a Saturday afternoon.  I thought I would learn the ropes from him, but soon discovered that he was as green as I was.  When we approached people to hand out a tract or talk to them, we were quickly rebuffed and stared at suspiciously by others passing by.  Upon our return (feeling wounded and bloodied!), I vowed that I would never do that again; such attempts must be only for the “gifted.”

II. Avoiding both Capitulation and Control

Open dialogue … with the goal of encouraging a cross-fertilization of ideas and beliefs

Fortunately, there is another way of being witnesses to the message of salvation, an approach that resonates rather than clashes with our pluralistic and postmodern culture, but which is seldom taught or discussed in our evangelical churches.  Open dialogue with those of differing belief systems is a method that encourages a respectful free-flow of meaning and is one of the few acceptable ways values and beliefs can be presented within our cultural context.  We can engage in conversation with the goal of encouraging a cross-fertilization of ideas and beliefs, rather than focusing on a one-way attempt to present a message. In this way an environment is cultivated in which our faith in Christ, along with other alternative beliefs, can be expressed and heard. Respectful dialogue creates a non-threatening, comfortable atmosphere that facilitates a mutual desire for conversations about the significant issues of life.

Dialogue requires tolerance towards and acceptance of the conversation partner while holding firm to personal beliefs and values.  Dialogue helps us avoid capitulation on the one hand – keeping silent and letting other’s opinions rule the day – and aggressive control on the other hand, in which only one view, our “correct” perspective, is presented. Instead, in dialogue mutual and transparent input of meaning by all participants with appreciation for each other’s beliefs and values is made possible.  The key to this approach is to avoid dogmatic assertion while providing a safe environment for all to clearly express their beliefs.

III. The failure to engage in Dialogue

culturally appropriate conversational etiquette

The bad news is that many Christians fail to take advantage of opportunities to engage in significant conversations, and when they do, they tend to slip into defensive or confrontational modes of speaking that stifle, rather than encourage the engagement of ideas.  The good news is that culturally appropriate conversational etiquette can be learned and, with an adjustment to our attitude and approach together with a little practice in conversational skills, enjoyable, stimulating and significant conversations can take place.

One young woman related the following incident to my wife, Karen.  She was working at Starbucks and commented to a customer who was heading to a Halloween program with her young children, “I don’t believe in Halloween.”  The response was immediate, aggressive and abrupt, “Well, I do!”  There was an uncomfortable pause until the drink was finally ready and handed over.  Such interactions are far from uncommon.  Unfortunately, rather than working out an alternative style that could lead to more productive conversations, such approaches are often justified with comments such as, “Well, maybe it will cause her to think about it.”

III. Going beyond the “sucker’s choice” of “Silence or Violence”²

As noted in the article Significant Conversations: Onion model of Culture, conversations become significant when people begin to express their values about what they believe is right or wrong, appropriate or improper. Conversations can develop to an even deeper level when the reason behind those value statements is explored.  The “why” of a value reveals a person’s belief.  For example, if a person points out to a clerk that they have been undercharged and makes sure that the difference is paid, they have lived by a value of honesty.  The reason why that value is important to them is their belief (e.g., people should be treated with justice and fairness). Furthermore, to go even deeper, the reason why they hold to that belief is their worldview (e.g., people are created in the image of God and are therefore sacred and not to be taken advantage of).

Unfortunately, when a friend or co-worker expresses a value that is contrary to Christian beliefs, we are often incapable of recognizing this as an opportunity, perhaps even an invitation, for a significant conversation. Even if we do notice the opportunity to develop the relationship on a deeper level, most of us lack the tools to engage the topic in a constructive and enjoyable way.  We either keep silent and the opportunity is lost, or the conversation degenerates quickly into an uncomfortable and damaging argument.  In such a scenario, it is the better part of wisdom to let such expressions of values pass without comment.

A third way beyond “silence” or “violence”

Our emphasis on proclamation has played a role in reinforcing two common reactions when we are confronted with values and beliefs that oppose our conviction. Either we refuse to address the value or belief out of a fear of damaging a relationship or from a sense of cultural propriety and “political correctness” (silence), or we challenge the speaker, contradict their view and proclaim our belief in contrast to what has been said (violence).  I would like to suggest a third way, a way that can empower the people within our churches.  We need to learn how to address the contrasting views in our society without resorting to either “fight or flight.”  We need to learn how to hear a value that contradicts what we believe is right and explore it in such a way that a respectful, stimulating and significant conversation results.  The end result should be that all the participants leave the conversation with their dignity intact, increased respect for each other and a greater appreciation for the other’s viewpoint.  If this occurs, not only will the door will be open for further conversation, but our role as salt and light in this world will not be obscured by defensive or emotional reactions.

IV. Developing Dialogue Skills

In the following articles, I will develop two aspects of evangelism as dialogue.  The next article will provide a theoretical basis of contextualization within our Canadian culture following both the principles of Significant Conversations as well as Donald Posterski’s reflections on becoming a “meaning maker” within a pluralistic society.³ We will consider the possible objection that choosing dialogue over proclamation is a “sell-out” to cultural values, and provide evidence that this is a legitimate and effective expression of an evangelistic method that does not undermine the message.

The final article will outline key dialogue skills taught in the Significant Conversations coaching sessions.  These skills are an application of the patterns of effective engagement described by Patterson et al. in their book Crucial Conversations. The practices outlined in the book are gleaned from years of study of people who function effectively when “opinions vary, stakes are high and emotions are strong.”⁴ This is the scenario we face when a value is expressed that contradicts our Christian faith.  How we handle that opportunity will determine if a person is drawn to the gospel or repelled.

Mark spends part of his time coaching churches in Significant Conversations.  If you are interested in this method of evangelism, please contact him via the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________
• 1 This is a deliberate play on the title of L. Newbigin’s classic, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.
• 2 Patterson, K Grenny, J McMillan, R and Switzler A 2002. Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High. New York: McGraw-Hill, 24.
• 3 Posterski, D 1989. Reinventing Evangelism: New Strategies for Presenting Christ in Today’s World. IVP, 143
• 4 Patterson, K Grenny, J McMillan, R and Switzler A 2002. Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1-2.

I think there is a critical need in a larger theological/ missiological sense to rethink what we mean by church. There is a growing understanding that the church is much bigger than the local congregation, and that the church is a much more multi-faceted reality. Mission agencies and the business community should not be conceived as separate entities but as a part of the church. What we are seeing emerge are affinity groups—like the business community—that don’t capture the full orbed expression of the church, but neither does the local congregation at the corner of State and Main.¹

The implication is that local congregations,² while being important expressions of the body of Christ, cannot claim exclusive rights as the only organization that fulfills the biblical description of church.  Moreover, missions agencies and other “parachurch” Christian organizations, while not calling themselves “church,” provide important and legitimate expressions of what it means to be the people of God.  This moves away from a traditional identification of “church” according to organizational criteria – constitutions, positions of leadership, buildings, etc. – to embrace a more functional view of “church” in which believers come together for Jesus’ kingdom purposes.

The trend of fluid connections to church

In his book, Revolution,³ research guru George Barna observes that many young believers are experiencing “church” in a variety of non-traditional ways.  There appears to be a pendulum shift away from the denominational and church loyalties of a few decades ago. The local congregation is no longer the default expression of “church,” but one of a number of options. The evangelical ecumenical movement has not only resulted in believers moving comfortably from church to church, but also with many living as fulfilled believers outside of traditional church organizations. Loyalties are not directed towards a particular organization, but towards a group of friends with whom they relate on a spiritual level for worship, teaching or service.

they view relationships as their church

We have seen this trend within our own home. Our daughter and youngest son are involved in Young Life Canada, a parachurch organization focused on building relationships with teens who do not know Christ as well as mentoring young people into leadership positions.  At the same time, they take advantage of opportunities for significant relationships and worship experiences in other venues apart from Young Life.  The important point is that they view these relationships as their “church” and do not sense a need to commit to a traditional expression of church.

Why fluid connections are good – and bad

This trend is both unsettling and liberating. It is liberating because many believers are looking for significant expressions of their faith beyond those commonly available through the local church.  An assumption among many loyal church goers is that true believers should belong to a traditional expression of church.  But if Shaukat and Barna are correct, that is not the only option. While many still gravitate to the traditional local church (our oldest son is an example), there are still others who find connections with believers in a variety of contexts that provide them with significance, discipleship and Christian service in God’s kingdom.  Even if someone does identify with a local congregation, they may be more committed to other ministries and organizations because of the perceived significance of what is being accomplished, and this limits their participation in their local church.

But it is unsettling because when those involved in “parachurch” ministries need to transition into other expressions of church that fit with their changing orientation and position in life, they may fail to do so.  Many of these organizations are focused on a particular age or interest group and this leads to temporary rather than permanent participation. The individual covenant to Christ continues, but the identification with a particular group can be short-lived. Once involvement in an organization is finished, they may not transition to another ministry or a local congregation.  Friends of our daughter are an example of this perspective: while both are committed followers of Christ, their sporadic visits to church services only reinforce their belief that this expression of church has little relevance to their lives.

Focus on significance, not obligation

I would suggest that a solution to the question of what determines a legitimate church is not to argue for one exclusive expression as the true church, nor to claim that the local congregation as commonly experienced has a privileged position, but to accept all expressions of church as part of what Jesus is doing to build up his followers.  That is, rather than promote one paradigm as supreme or primary, it would be better to recognize that no expression can be complete in itself.  We need each other. This perspective would lead to a level playing field in which membership in a local congregation is considered a second order concern in order for a person to be fulfilled as a follower of Christ.   Rather than promoted as an obligatory step in one’s faith journey, the step is taken because of the significance that particular connection can have for the believer.  This is not self-serving but, as Myers notes, a self-identifying quest that “comes from a deep desire to live beyond one’s self.”⁴ The criteria for choosing one’s level of involvement are based on strategic and significant purposes, rather than obligation. It is of secondary importance whether this “deep desire” is fulfilled through a local congregation or through another form of Christian ministry.

Furthermore, such an attitude can lead to partnerships by acknowledging how each expression of church complements rather than competes with the other.  For local churches, this would mean recognizing that they are not a complete expression of church in and of themselves, but that they play one role in building up the people of God. Dialogue with other ministries that leads to a refocus of priorities and a reallocation of resources may be required. By partnering with such ministries and celebrating church members’ participation in these ministries, local congregations can develop a synergy through which their purpose and vision is strengthened.  The local congregation need not become redundant or marginalized if it defines itself in a way that provides complementary spiritual support, identity and continuity for those who participate in other ministries.

Christian ministries operating apart from local congregation oversight can also embrace the reality that they are an expression of church, albeit limited. By taking this role seriously, they will look to local congregations and other organizations to help people develop a full expression of what it means to be a follower of Christ.

“Expressions of Church” and Missions

Tim Lewis speaks of missions as the energy of the church “beyond the edges of the kingdom.”⁵ Such an enterprise demands the partnership of God’s people as they are involved in a variety of organizations, not just local congregations. Apart from a few notable exceptions, local congregations are not equipped to think strategically beyond their local context.  Validating other ministries as legitimate expressions of church and partnering with them provides local churches with a mission beyond that which they can accomplish alone.  The mission arm of the Fellowship, FEBInternational, works with local congregations as that “expression of church” which participates in God’s global mission.

As someone deeply committed to participating in God’s global mission with a desire to see churches established, I find this concept of “expressions of church” particularly helpful when thinking about cross-cultural gospel impact.  When dealing with cultures that have little Christian influence, the question of what forms “church” should have is of utmost importance.  Not only do they need to be significant for worship, discipleship and service but they must also be sustainable and reproducible.

an expression of church was born

When I was visiting a people group in which there was no indigenous church, I had a visit from a young father who was the head of a “household church.”  His four year son, David, was with him and during the visit David was encouraged to tell us Bible stories and pray for us.  The joy of listening to this child speak of Jesus and pray in his name was not just because of the faith evident in that family, but because of what it represented in terms of ongoing impact.  Their “church” was not an organization that was formed by Christians gathering together to initiate a local congregation.  Instead, the organization of this man’s extended family existed before they became believers.  When Jesus became lord of their household, this man took on spiritual leadership and an expression of church was born.  It is sustainable, because it is based on a structure of the extended family that continues from generation to generation, and his child’s recitation is evidence of that potential. It is also reproducible within other families in that culture because it conforms to cultural norms.  This is not the only expression of church needed in that people group, but it is encouraging to see the missiological priority on significance and function in building up the people of God, rather than elevating one organizational form as “church.”

If you would like to contact Mark please use the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________




• 1 Peter Shaukat in an interview by Ellen Livingood in Catalyst Interchange Postings April 2009 Vol 4 Issue 4 Business as Missions: How Do Church and Agency Connect? P. 1.
• 2 For clarity, this article uses “traditional church” or follows Shaukat’s terminology of using “local congregation” for the popular understanding of “church” in the Canadian context, while employing “expressions of church” to include other organizations, eg. “parachurch” organizations, that also demonstrate aspects of fellowship, service and discipleship.
• 3 Barna, G. 2005. Revolution:
  Finding Vibrant Faith Beyond the Walls of the Sanctuary. Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale.
• 4 Myers, J. 2007. Organic Community: creating a place where people naturally connect. Grand Rapids: Baker. P. 62.  Also see further explanation in The Pastor as Spiritual Coach II.
• 5 Tim Lewis quoted in Kim, Chong. Going ‘beyond the edges of the kingdom’ in Mission Frontiers March-April 2009 p. 7

I recently gave a message from the book of Ruth focusing on the meaning of the Hebrew concept of go’el, the “kinsman–redeemer” (NIV), which is one of the key themes of the book.  While struggling to find the best way to communicate the reality that the meaning of the term is dependent upon the underlying cultural context, I realized that a comparison of Bible versions provided a means to that end, while also revealing the difficulties of the task of Bible translation.  The diversity between the translations also underscores the importance of comparing translations when studying the Bible in order to come to a fuller understanding.  The translations used are Today’s New International Version (TNIV), Today’s English Version (TEV) and the English Standard Version (ESV).  Exegetical and cultural analysis is used to demonstrate how the underlying context determines the meaning of the verse.  The examples also serve to illustrate the contrast between the translation principles used by these versions.

Naomi’s Intention – Ruth 3:1

One day Naomi, Ruth’s mother-in-law, said to her, “My daughter, I must find a home for you, where you will be well provided for. (TNIV)

Some time later Naomi said to Ruth, “I must find a husband for you, so that you will have a home of your own. (TEV)

Then Naomi her mother-in-law said to her, “My daughter, should I not seek rest for you, that it may be well with you? (ESV)

All three translations communicate the basic idea that Naomi’s concern is to secure Ruth’s future. The translation of “rest” (ESV) comes from the idea of “resting place,” or a permanent residence, thus the translation of “home” in the TNIV and TEV.  The translation of the ESV connects the underlying Hebrew word to other references, such as Deut 28:65, which refers to a “resting place for the sole of your foot,” a Hebrew idiom for a permanent residence.¹ A key theme of the Old Testament and of Ruth is the “land,” and the identity and security that comes from having a recognized family or tribal plot.  The strength of the ESV translation is the theme of “rest,” which resonates strongly with the nation of Israel’s history as a people in search of a place to call their own (Deut 26:5, Heb 11:9).  The weakness is that the meaning of the idiom does not carry over clearly to the modern English reader.  A natural understanding of Ruth 3:1 from the ESV would be that Naomi is concerned about how hard Ruth is working gleaning the crops, as described in chapter 2.  She would rather Ruth “rest the sole of her foot” by sitting down and relaxing.  However, that would be a misreading of the text.

The meaning of Naomi’s statement… is the intent to provide Ruth with a husband

On the other hand, the TEV picks up on the broader theme of patriarchy.  Security and identity (ie. the essence of the concern for “rest”) for the women in that culture depended upon their relationship with the male members of their family.  Without that connection, there was no future or meaning to a woman’s life.  Naomi could not even redeem the land that was in her husband’s name (Ruth 4).  This is the point of chapter one in which Naomi’s disaster of losing all her immediate male relatives is recorded.  It is the reason for her insistence that Orpah and Ruth return to their Moabite families.  Patriarchy, as a defining aspect of the culture of that day, is illustrated well by the description given in Deuteronomy 23 that only adult male Israelites were counted as citizens of the nation. Thus, Naomi’s concern for security and identity for her daughter-in-law in this verse is ultimately dependent upon Ruth’s relationship to a man.  The meaning of Naomi’s statement, which is evident from the following events, is the intent to provide Ruth with a husband.

the meaning of any text does not primarily reside in the individual words

These versions illustrate well the reality that the meaning of any text does not primarily reside in the individual words, nor even in the syntax that relates the words to each other, but in the underlying culture.  Language is a window onto the relationships, values, beliefs and worldview of a people group, but without an appropriate level of understanding of the cultural context, the meaning of any given text cannot be understood.  However, once the original context is understood, translators are able to present the meaning as related text in another language and context.  In particular, the TEV, by recognizing that the meaning of Naomi’s statement is highly dependent upon the context within which she speaks to Ruth, is able to communicate the intent of the passage cross-culturally in a way that is clear to the modern English reader.

Ruth’s Intention – Ruth 3:9

“I am your servant Ruth,” she said. “Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a family guardian.” (TNIV)

“It’s Ruth, sir,” she answered. “Because you are a close relative, you are responsible for taking care of me. So please marry me.” (TEV)

“I am Ruth, your servant. Spread your wings over your servant, for you are a redeemer.” (ESV)

In this verse, the ESV and the TNIV have chosen different vowel markings to determine the translation of “wings” or “garment.”² The phrase is a Hebrew idiom without natural correspondence in the receptor English language, and so the TEV provides the meaning as “taking care of me.”  Moreover, in order to clarify the meaning as it relates to the cultural drama being played out in this passage, the TEV explicitly states: “please marry me.”  For the modern English audience, the scenario of a woman secretly coming to a man in the middle of the night can be easily misunderstood. In placing herself in a vulnerable and potentially disastrous situation, Ruth was not being sexually provocative (a la Hollywood).  Her intention was to cast herself upon the mercy of a patriarch in hopes that he would take the one action that would provide her with the status and identity that gave meaning and security to women in that culture – as a wife. Once again, the full meaning of the Ruth’s plea is tied to the context in which the words are said.

The term translated as “family guardian” (TNIV), “close relative” (TEV) or “redeemer” (ESV) proved to be an extremely difficult concept to represent in our Sindhi Bible translation, and we spent hours trying to shape the text in a way that would do it justice.  The problem is that this concept is absent in both Sindhi and English cultures.  No one word or phrase can carry the weight of meaning represented by four Hebrew letters (go’el). Furthermore, the meaning of the word is, as with the examples above, revealed only through an understanding of the cultural dynamic.  The male members of the Israelite community of that time had all the rights and powers.  Even as the branches of a tree only remain green when attached to the trunk, so women and children were totally dependent upon the patriarch of the family.  Only the patriarch had the power to rescue the female members of the family and raise them to a position of honor and security.  This function of the patriarch was so crucial to the life of the Israelites that they had a separate term (go’el) to describe it.

this phrase does not plumb the depth of meaning and significance the concept held for Naomi

ESV’s “redeemer” captures the power to ransom, but does not communicate the important family aspect.  TEV’s “close relative” provides the family connection, but does not communicate the power of the patriarch that makes this relationship significant.  TNIV is perhaps the best by providing a phrase that communicates both sides of the concept with “family guardian.”  But even this phrase does not plumb the depth of meaning and significance the concept held for Naomi in Ruth 2:20 when she first holds out hope of deliverance, or for Ruth in Ruth 3:9 when she uses the term to ensure her actions are put in the right context.  It is the importance and significance of that patriarchal role that allowed Ruth to make such a high stakes gamble upon the redeemer.

Boaz’s Intention – Ruth 3:10

3:10 “The LORD bless you, my daughter,” he replied. “This kindness is greater than that which you showed earlier: You have not run after the younger men, whether rich or poor. (TNIV)

“The Lord bless you,” he said. “You are showing even greater family loyalty in what you are doing now than in what you did for your mother-in-law. You might have gone looking for a young man, either rich or poor, but you haven’t. (TEV)

And he said, “May you be blessed by the LORD, my daughter. You have made this last kindness greater than the first in that you have not gone after young men, whether poor or rich. (ESV)

Family Loyalty

The word translated as “kindness” (ESV, TNIV) and “family loyalty” (TEV) is another term that refuses easy interlingual transference of meaning.  Similar to the previous examples, this is a concept dependent upon the relationships and values of that culture.  The Hebrew word is chesed and refers to love expressed by loyalty and “faithfulness to a promise or a covenant,”³ despite the cost to oneself.  It goes deeper than kindness by being an action that faithfully affirms, supports and builds up the community.  Thus David’s common plea in the Psalms for God to save him for “the sake of your steadfast love” (Ps 6:4 – ESV), which is an appeal based on God’s mercy and faithfulness towards the people that he has chosen for his own.

Naomi and Ruth live in a communally oriented society and the value of faithfulness and personal sacrifice for others in the clan is greatly appreciated by Boaz.  The “first” (ESV) or “earlier” (TNIV) kindness refers to the “family loyalty” shown to Naomi (as made clear in the TEV).  That is, Boaz is not praising Ruth for being kind to her mother-in-law, so much as he is affirming her decision and action to maintain family loyalty.⁴ It is this value that he praises her for when she approaches him.  Because her husband had been a close relative of Boaz, marriage to Ruth and the resulting progeny would allow the name of the father to continue on.  The sensitivity of Ruth to hold this as a worthy value to live by is what gives her actions the meaning and impact that propelled Boaz to action.

“Family loyalty,” which is expressed through marriage to a deceased husband’s relative, is not a western value.  Yet it is integral to the cultural dynamic of this story of the interaction between Ruth and Boaz. It provides the meaning and significance both to their dialogue and to their actions. Thus, it is incumbent upon the Bible translator, whose goal is communication, to provide appropriate clues within the forms of the receptor language that will enable the reader to comprehend those cultural aspects from which the biblical text derives its meaning.

The Language of Culture

Culture is, in and of itself, a language

Culture is, in and of itself, a language.  It is a communication of order and significance that define the relationships we experience, whether with our environment or with each other.  Any written text that provides a description of relationships, beliefs or narrative is one expression of the deeper and fuller sense that resides within the culture itself.  Communication, and thus Bible translation, is dependent upon clarity concerning cultural dynamics, for that is where meaning ultimately lies.  God speaks his word in and through the medium that provides meaning and significance to those being addressed. That medium is their culture.

For further articles on Bible translation, see the CCI Archives.

For information on Mark’s Bible translation in the Sindhi Language see Sindhi Bible Translation.

If you would like to contact Mark please use the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________




• 1 Bratcher, R.G. and Hatton, H.A. 2000. A Handbook on Deuteronomy. New York: United Bible Societies. Deu. 28:65. (Unicode version).
• 2 The original Hebrew does not contain vowel markings, which can determine the meaning of a word.
• 3 Bratcher, R.G. and Reyburn, W.D. 1991. A Handbook on The Book of Psalms. New York: United Bible Societies. Ps. 5:7. (Unicode version).
• 4 deWaard, J. and Nida, E.A. 1992, 1978. A Handbook on Ruth. New York: United Bible Societies. Ruth 3:10. (Unicode version).

From Programs to Contextualization

Who is to blame: the Congregation or the Leadership?

In my responsibility of providing outreach and missions resources to churches, I have come across a curious phenomenon. My experience is that there are a number of people in church leadership who do not have a positive view of the spiritual maturity and commitment of their congregation.  Comments such as “a mile wide and an inch deep,” “20% do 80% of the work,” “half an hour after the sermon is over they don’t remember it, let alone apply it,”  “they don’t take advantage of opportunities to go deeper,” and “they don’t know their Bibles” have been expressed in my hearing.  Why this is curious is that my experience with the people of God in our churches has given me quite the opposite opinion.  I have been constantly impressed, motivated and encouraged by the level of spiritual maturity and commitment to Christ in the people I meet.

I have an uncomfortable suspicion that a significant part of this negative view of congregations stems from an inadequate approach to ministry by the leadership.  The average church organization, whether labeled traditional, seeker sensitive or missional, has a leadership-driven program which members of the church are encouraged to support.  The response by the congregation tends to be less than expected, especially if support has been indicated by a congregational vote.¹ Priorities of attendance, giving and evangelistic participation are not at the level the leadership considers appropriate, and so the congregation is judged to be lacking in spiritual maturity. However, involvement in church organized activities is unlikely to prove to be a good measurement of spiritual maturity.

An alternate approach to ministry

A couple of months ago, Karen and I proposed to our church an approach to ministry that focuses on the visions and desires of the individuals in the congregation.  Rather than developing a church wide vision and unified program in which all are expected to participate, the pastor acts as spiritual coach to empower believers in their desire to become intentional and authentic followers of Christ within their day-to-day lives.  Instead of encouraging people to “get involved in the church program,” the focus becomes “how can I be a support to you as you serve Jesus in your daily life?” The role of the spiritual coach is to help believers develop spiritually synergistic relationships with people both inside and outside of the church, as opposed to a posture of attending church events or participating in church programs. Instead of approaching people with the call to “join our team,” the pastor asks, “How can I be a part of your ministry?” I believe that such a change in focus would alter the perspective of pastors as they witness people’s concerns, prayers and struggles in their God given role of being salt and light.

Organic Community

help them become more intentional Christians within their current life setting

There are a number of writers who view the church in a similar way.  In his excellent book, Organic Community,² Joseph Myers encourages leaders to make “the shift from programmer (master planner) to environmentalist (one who follows the principles of organic order to create and shape environments)” (34).  Rather than adopting “models and programs that force prescriptive patterns onto our congregations, … [o]rganic order suggests there are many patterns we can use to connect to God and others.” (40-41).  People are already living according to patterns and rhythms that make sense to them.  Instead of calling them out of a context that defines their life so that they can serve in an organization driven program, it would be more satisfying and impacting to help them become more intentional Christians within their current life setting and relationships.  Myers says, “[A] master plan tries to manufacture life, whereas organic order is an invitation to live.” (28) There is wisdom in encouraging church leadership to start where individual people live, and discover the ways that God is working in and through them. Synergy is created when people are encouraged and guided in the tasks they have initiated themselves, whereas pulling people into a centralized structure can result in frustration.  In this organic dynamic, the scorecard is not attendance at events, but people’s stories.  “Story is the measurement tool of community” (80).  It is the narratives of those who have been impacted through their relationship with people in the church that measures the life of the community.

Another complaint I have come across from church leadership is that a major weakness of the congregation is that people are self-centered.  The claim is that they come to church events with a clientele mentality looking to have their needs met.   However, from my experience, I would agree with Myers that this perspective is a  “misunderstanding that people generally operate from a position of ‘What’s in it for me?’”  He further states that he does not find the presumption to be true, “Most people are not primarily selfish or self-serving.” When people are asked to participate in a project,

I do not see that people are asking, “What’s in it for me?” Instead, they want to know, “Why me?” This is not a self-serving question. It is a self-identifying, individual question.

People participate as individuals. They are interested in why they – specifically – are being asked.  They want to know that you have chosen them first and foremost because of who they are, not to fulfill a strategic master plan.

‘Why me?’ comes from a deep desire to live beyond one’s self. A person wants to contribute in concrete ways, possibly in ways that only he or she could.” (62)

I believe that the reason many believers do not participate in the programs of their church is not that they are ignoring their responsibility, but because they are not convinced that those ministries are God’s calling for them. Imagine a ministry mentality that begins and ends with the dreams and visions of the individual members.  Rather than searching for gifted people in the congregation to fulfill the needs of an overall church program, the focus is to create connections and provide support that guides believers to discover the calling of God in their lives.

Missional Renaissance

The reluctance of believers to serve church programs is not an indication that they are spiritual immature

Reggie McNeal has one helpful chapter in his book, Missional Renaissance,³ that deals with this congregation-focused orientation.  He begins with a personal anecdote during his days as the leader of a programmatic church.  One day he asked himself, “Are people better off for being a part of this church, or are they just tireder (sic) and poorer?” He realized that he did not know. He “could tell how busy people were with church but not how their lives were going” (89).  In a major shift from this pattern of ministry, he calls leadership to recognize and conform their ministry to the fact that people do not want to fit their lives into the program of the church (96).  The reluctance of believers to serve church programs is not an indication that they are spiritually immature or selfish.  Instead, he claims that “God has created a cultural milieu where people are clamoring to grow…. [So] get out of the church business and into the people business.” (111).  In praising one pastor who has changed from a program director to someone who empowers and releases the people in the congregation, McNeal says,

He plays the essential part of empowering leaders to pursue their callings and passions. He strengthens others’ obedience by creating a culture where they can say yes to the Spirit…. [All] the ministries he told me about happened away from the church. This same pastor went on to say, “I wouldn’t have a clue how to do what they do.” The very thought that clergy could preside over these kingdom expressions is ludicrous. Yet many congregational leaders do not trust people to minister out of their sight. (140)

Spiritual Coaching Description

Steve Ogne and Tim Roehl provide a good definition for the spiritual coaching of leaders that pastors can use to create the kind of environment that Myers and McNeal are promoting, “Coaches help people develop their God-given potential so that they grow personally and make a valuable contribution to the kingdom of God.” Ogne goes on to underscore the essential principles (with alterations to emphasize the application to the pastor as spiritual coach),

1. “Coaches help people.” Coaching is a relationship…, not a program. It is focused on the [believer], not the program. You coach a [believer], not his or her ministry….
2. “[D]evelop their God-given potential.” The potential comes from God, not the coach. A coach helps draw out the vision, values, gifts, calling, and passion God has already placed in the [believer].
3. “[S]o that they grow personally.” Like mentoring, coaching is concerned with the personal (including … family), spiritual, and professional growth….
4. “[M]ake a valuable contribution” Coaches help [believers] accomplish something for God. Coaches help [believers] identify and fulfill their specific calling and contribution.
5. “[T]he kingdom of God. ” The kingdom of God is far greater than any one congregation…. [A pastor as spiritual coach will] ultimately equip individuals within their faith communities to engage and transform the culture as representatives of the kingdom of God.⁴

Spiritual Coaching as a means of Contextualization

The kind of thinking that promotes spiritual coaching resonates with missiological principles.  The temptation of leaders is to take control of the ministry and make decisions that bring immediate results. Programs are implemented that exhibit characteristics the church leadership wants to promote in the church.  The longer and more difficult road, which treats the people and environment being ministered to with respect, is to listen, discover and respond to the rhythms and networks that already exist as a natural part of people’s lives.  This is an important application of the principle of contextualization, an essential methodology for the cross-cultural minister. A problem arises in the North American church sub-culture when this principle is ignored.  Rather than altering the well-known traditional patterns of doing church to fit the ever changing rhythms of life of the community, the response of leadership can be to blame those who refuse to break their rhythms for the sake of a programmatic approach to ministry.  But many believers are not being lazy or spiritually immature.  Instead, they are seeking ways to bring Christ into their lives, rather than sacrificing activities that are fulfilling for the sake of a master plan that does not satisfy their spiritual hunger.

Mark spends part of his time coaching churches for evangelism and missions.  If you would like to contact him please use the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________
• 1 For a description of the 4 meanings of a “yes” vote see The Pastor as Spiritual Coach (part I).
• 2 Myers, J. 2007. Organic Community: creating a place where people naturally connect. Grand Rapids: Baker.
• 3 McNeal, R. 2009. Missional Renaissance: Changing the Scorecard for the Church. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss
• 4 Ogne, S. & Roehl, T. 2008. Transformissional Coaching: Empowering Leaders in a Changing Ministry World. Nashville: B&H Pub., pp. 26-27.

In one section of a popular book on globalization, The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman explores the impact of globalization on the Arab-Muslim world and how this relates to the rise of Muslim based terrorism.

[Arab-Muslim] youth, particularly those living in Europe, can and do look around and see that the Arab-Muslim world, in too many cases, has fallen behind the rest of the planet. It is not living as prosperously or democratically as other civilizations. How can that be? these young Arabs and Muslims must ask themselves. If we have the superior faith, and if our faith is all encompassing of religion, politics, and economics, why are others living so much better?

This is a source of real cognitive dissonance for many Arab-Muslim youth – the sort of dissonance, and loss of self-esteem, that sparks rage, and leads some of them to join violent groups and lash out at the world.¹

Friedman goes on to quote Theodore Dalrymple,

a physician and psychiatrist who practices in England and writes a column for the London Spectator. He wrote an essay in City Journal, the urban policy magazine (Spring 2004), about what he learned from his contacts with Muslim youth in British prisons. Dalrymple noted that most schools of Islam today treat the Qu’ran as a divinely inspired text that is not open to any literary criticism or creative reinterpretation. It is a sacred book to be memorized, not adapted to the demands and opportunities of modern life. But without a culture that encourages, and creates space for, such creative reinterpretation, critical thought and original thinking tend to whither. This may explain why so few world-class scientific papers cited by other scholars come out of the Arab-Muslim universities.

If the West had made Shakespeare “the sole object of our study and the sole guide of our lives,” said Dalrymple, “we would soon enough fall into backwardness and stagnation. And the problem is that so many Muslims want both stagnation and power: they want a return to the perfection of the seventh century and to dominate the twenty-first, as they believe is the birthright of their doctrine, the last testament of God to man. If they were content to exist in a seventh-century backwater, secure in a quietist philosophy, there would be no problem for them or us; their problem, and ours, is that they want the power that free inquiry confers, without either the free inquiry or the philosophy and institutions that guarantee that free inquiry. They are faced with a dilemma: either they abandon their cherished religion, or they remain forever in the rear of human technical advance. Neither alternative is very appealing, and the tension between their desire for power and success in the modern world on the one hand, and their desire not to abandon their religion on the other, is resolvable for some only by exploding themselves as bombs. People grow angry when faced with an intractable dilemma; they lash out.²

The attraction of becoming the avenging hand of God

For the most part this is a helpful analysis and corresponds with some of the emotions and “cognitive dissonance” I observed during our years in Pakistan.³ However, I think that Friedman’s and Dalrymple’s conclusion that terrorism is primarily a frustrated “lashing out” is misplaced. It does not provide a sufficient reason for the modern phenomenon of the suicide bomber, any more than anger or despair would be a sufficient analysis to explain the motive behind the kamikaze pilots of WWII. Anger undoubtedly plays a role in the suicide bomber’s journey towards their act of violence, but it is an insufficient reason for their motive.

lashing out … is an insufficient reason for their motive

Even interpreting suicide bombings as a desperate cry for help, “a message, a plea, a scream of anguish and anger for the larger society to do something”⁴ underestimates the ideological faith that drives terrorists to commit these crimes.  To attribute terrorism to a “lashing out” of anger is to ignore the powerful conviction on the part of the perpetrators that their ultimate “martyrdom” is tied to the will of God.  Evil actions that many, even in the midst of severe anger, refuse to contemplate because of a conviction of right and wrong, others will do in a calm and calculating way.  They act not because of an emotional imbalance due to a lack of moral compass and a sense of helpless frustration, but because they are a convinced of the absolute rightness of their action.  It is not an abandonment of what they know to be right  (as the concept of “lashing out” would imply) but a fulfillment or demonstration of their faith. They have adopted a moral compass – reinforced by a community that affirms and promotes the ideology – that provides the conviction and motivation to be the avenging hand of God in an evil world.

A contrast of convictions: Sunni and Shia

The two major sects in Islam are Sunni and Shia.  An underlying Sunni conviction is that God blesses those who follow the right path of Islam (sunnah).  Therefore, if Sunni Muslims believe they are missing out on blessings that others enjoy, this can be interpreted as evidence that they must not be as dedicated or as passionate as God requires.  Some translate this conviction into greater personal piety and dedication to religious practices.  Others follow a more fundamentalist doctrine and believe that God calls them to be channels of his punishment on those who are not living righteously or who are deceiving the righteous.  In this case, it is not mere anger –  “lashing out” – but a corrective to the problem of dissonance between God’s blessing and their experience.

Shias are highly influenced by the themes of suffering and martyrdom. Beginning with the deaths of Ali, the cousin of the prophet of Islam, and Ali’s son, Hussein, they celebrate the memory of the righteous vindicated through martyrdom. Dying for the right cause results in God’s favor.  Although they suffer, their endurance is part of being on God’s side.  When people brought up with such strong religious images come under the influence of radical Islamists, they may become convinced that they are also called to follow in the steps of the martyrs.

The proposal of “lashing out” as the primary motive for suicide bombers is insufficient. It suggests that frustration and anger are being expressed in a manner that the perpetrator, in a calmer frame of mind, would consider inappropriate.  If “lashing out” is the main motive that drives Muslim suicide bombers, the prevention of this would involve anger management so that the person can be brought into their “right mind.”  It also suggests that if people would channel their emotions into more productive activities, their sense of helplessness would be overcome and they would not commit this act of cruelty. It implies that if their low self-esteem can be corrected, then they will not seek a path of violence.  However, if the problem has ideological roots, then this approach would only circumvent the heart of the matter.  That is, if in their “right mind,” they view suicide bombing as a logical and beneficial action, anger management will not correct the problem.

Ideological solution

Ideological problems require ideological solutions

Ideological problems require ideological solutions.  That is, the solution is not psychological, requiring emotional stability and change of action within their current belief system, but a fundamental change to their belief system.  They need to come to a different view of God.  As it is, their reactions are a logical outcome of their view of God, a view that needs correcting. All of us act according to the perspective of the absolute that we believe in, whether that is a personal God or an impersonal force.  Therefore, for the radicalized Muslim, when the understanding of God is altered, the drive towards suicide bombs and terrorism is addressed.

As a follower of Christ, I propose that Jesus is the best antidote to religious terrorism.  The way of Christ is a way of suffering that takes on the pain of others, not one that inflicts pain.  It is act of redemption in which one dies for others, not in order to bring death to others.  This is a picture of God who makes things right by absorbing the pain, not by inflicting pain; who brings transcendence, not revenge; who says, “Forgive them,” not “Damn them.”  The New Testament view of Jesus addresses the Sunni concern to live righteously, as well as providing a theology of suffering for the Shia that transcends death to bring redemption.

Jesus as the antidote needs to be distinguished from the religion of Christianity, however, for there are and have been religious expressions that deviate from Jesus’ revelation of God. The New Testament presents Jesus, not a religious system, as the ultimate picture of God, an exact representation of the divine nature (Heb. 1:3).  If Jesus is what God is like and we are committed to pleasing him, then we will live like him.  Jesus’ refusal to resort to evil in the face of evil becomes the moral compass and ideology that guides the actions of his followers. Those who recognize God as the loving father in the person of Christ will maintain that image as their internal orientation and be kept from the temptation to bring harm to others.  Their anger may tell them to “lash out,” but their ideology will guide them into a less destructive path.

If you would like to contact Mark please use the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________




• 1 Friedman, T. 2005. The World is Flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p. 397 italics added.
• 2 ibid. p. 399 italics added.
• 3 Mark served with FEBInternational in Pakistan for 14 years.
• 4 Hall, Edward T. 1977. Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Press / Doubleday p. 94.  Hall is not specifically referring to suicide bombings, but his comment reflects another possible interpretation.

This past week I had a discussion with a couple of fellow believers who had had a significant conversation with an elderly person who was in the last days of his life.  They were talking to him of the grace and forgiveness offered by God.  His response was, “I have cheated and lied.  I have not treated people properly.  God will not let me into heaven.”  They did not know how to respond.

What would your response be?  How would you carry on this conversation?

I will give a possible response from my perspective at the end of the article, but at this point I would like to propose that people in our churches are having significant conversations like this in many different forums (hospitals, schools, work, playing sports) and with a variety of people (friends, family, acquaintances).  What we require is support from other believers to discover how to continue the conversation.

Significant Conversations

Significant Conversations is designed to help believers as we talk with the people in our lives about the important issues of life. Coaching for churches encourages the development of a culture of prayer and mutual support that further strengthens the impact of significant conversations in our lives.  The purpose statement for coaching Significant Conversations is to equip groups of “champions” in local churches for the role of initiating, supporting and encouraging other believers as they engage those outside the church in significant conversations.  This includes:

• Praying with believers that God will provide opportunities for them to engage in significant conversations
• Creating forums to discuss the challenges, questions and difficulties that arise from significant conversations
• Providing means to celebrate what God is doing through these relationships

The goal is to provide a support network in the church that will enable believers to be intentional Christians in their day-to-day relationships.  This process is a form of contextualization in which we learn how to engage the common opinions and beliefs of those around us from the perspective of our own convictions and view on life.  Because we are followers of Christ, our perspective on life will be centered on our faith in him.

Most of us stumble in knowing how make a relevant, comfortable and significant connection between what is important to us and the contrasting expressions of values and beliefs we encounter each day.  We may fail to listen to and validate an opposing view, and we fumble the opportunities we do get to speak authentically about the basis for our life choices.  Significant Conversations proposes a way to establish a network of support within churches so that when we engage others in what is significant in life, we are not doing it on our own.

What Drives Significant Conversations (the basic principles)

1. Bringing people into the kingdom is God’s mission, not ours.  This concept of missio dei¹ assumes that God is active, even where the church is not involved.  The Holy Spirit is at work in people’s lives and it is he who challenges assumptions and brings a longing in their hearts.  Our relationship with others is, first and foremost, an act of God as he exposes them to kingdom living.  But we are not responsible for their redemption; that is role of Jesus alone. Like parents who are responsible to keep their children safe, so it is God as father who brings people to himself.  Our responsibility is to engage others with love, authenticity and transparency.

   The orientation of missio dei erases the guilt that is often generated by the idea that if we do not witness, people will go to hell.  This burden of eternal judgment is not ours to bear. God is not limited by our actions and his grace is sufficient even in spite of our clumsy, distracted and insensitive words and deeds.  At the same time, God invites us to take part in the greatest adventure of all – knowing him.  Part of that adventure is found in our significant interactions with others during which Jesus shines through.  When we are with Jesus, we are automatically salt and light.

2. Impacting people with the reality of knowing God through Jesus needs to be a communal, rather than individual effort.  Rather than limiting the work of the church to ministry plans, church programs and worship services, consider the primary impact and essential life of the church to consist of the daily interactions of the believers outside of formal programs.  If interactions focusing on the significant issues of life become the main concern of how church is lived out in the broader community, then people will not be left on their own, but will experience support and networking within their daily calling as disciples.
3. Rather than creating events to bring church people into contact with strangers, focus on where people are already living their lives. Every week people have dozens of conversations, many of them significant.  Begin with those who are already involved and enhance their impact by providing encouragement and prayer support.
4. Develop a culture of prayer and interaction.  The point here is to move significant conversations out of the realm of individual initiatives and into the realm of corporate prayer.  Leaders (“champions”) pray with people in the church for opportunities to be engaged in conversation about what is important in life.  These prayer times can be both formal and informal: during a meeting or after talking to someone in a coffee shop, over the phone or in the foyer after church.  We want to develop a culture that takes advantage of any opportunity to pray with others. In order to be sustainable and effective, this needs to move beyond a program and become an expression of the life of the church.  That is, it becomes a natural and common occurrence to ask about those people with whom our brothers and sisters in Christ have impacting relationships.  Creating a culture means that it is natural to pray with our fellow believers about significant conversations.  It becomes natural to talk about our own conversations and to ask for prayer that we would have opportunity to engage others in exploring the significant aspects of life.
5. Pray for opportunities to be invited into God’s mission.  This is not just prayer for God to act by bringing salvation, a change of heart, or transforming events into people’s lives.  Instead it is prayer that specifically asks God to give opportunities for significant conversations.  This is not prayer for God to work apart from us, but prayer to action.  Furthermore, it is not asking God to bless our plans to action, but a prayer for God to include us, through significant conversation, in the work of his Spirit that is already occurring in the lives of others.
6. Intentionally look for the opportunities that have been asked for in prayer and respond.  Respond to others first with a desire to listen, learn and care.  Then, because it is a conversation, we are free to add our own perspectives and beliefs that are relevant to the topic. There is no need to practice or produce a memorized speech and, in fact, that would likely be counterproductive.
7. Significant conversations must be authentic.  The goal is not to discover a segue through which someone can be invited to church or through which a testimony or a gospel presentation can be given. Rather authentic and honest conversation demands that what is said truly reflects our own perspective; why we believe and act the way we do, our witness to what we have experienced and what drives us.  If Jesus is not revealed when we talk about our lives, then something is wrong inside of us.  The solution is not to master someone else’s evangelistic approach, but to center our lives on Christ.
8. Learning how to communicate the gospel relevantly happens in the context of significant conversations.  Rather than first learning a gospel message in an academic environment or Bible study and then, once prepared, stepping out to give the message, Significant Conversations suggests that a “dance” needs to occur between our immediate situation and the gospel.  The message of Christ must take shape through its engagement with our life and beliefs. Such contextualization takes place over a long period of time as we discover how the gospel is relevant for another person and we learn to communicate that relevance.  Ongoing significant conversations thus serve as a stimulus for believers to seek biblical depth and support in prayer so that they can respond well.
9. Significant conversations should be ongoing.  If the goal is to “give the gospel,” the tendency is to focus on the message rather than the relationship. In that case, once the message is given, the conversation is over.  However, for significant conversations the goal is to maintain a conversation that continues on whenever the opportunity arises.  Unfinished threads of thought dropped in one exchange can be taken up as the situation warrants with the goal of going deeper and hearing each other more clearly. We do not fear to listen to another’s convictions, for, as E. Stanley Jones claims, no matter the company, Jesus shines².
10. Forums to talk together about issues that we are facing and to explore how Jesus relates to the questions people are asking today are important.  Through significant conversations the questions, issues and concerns of the day are revealed.  These can be discussed within the context of biblical teaching to discover how the Bible is relevant.  The goal, however, is not to find the perfect answer in order to “win” a debate or to convince an unbeliever.  Rather, as the conversation continues, we want to be so confident of the gospel inside us that, when we talk, Jesus comes out naturally, as part of who we are.
11. Significant conversations can lead to messy discussions in the church.  If the church provides support for conversations with people outside the church, then forums to discuss the ideas presented are required.  The questions, doubts and skepticism of the world need to be faced honestly. People outside the church base their life-style choices and beliefs on a different foundation than those in the kingdom.  Therefore, the engagement that occurs through significant conversations will be awkward and even frightening at times.  The temptation will be to provide answers in a defensive posture or to cut off the conversation prematurely.  The leaders’ role is not to provide definitive answers that will end the conversation, but instead help people learn how to maintain the conversation and navigate the differences in a way that strengthens and equips the believer.
12. Celebrate what God is doing and the impact being made.  Rather than focusing exclusively on commitment to Christ as the one step worth celebrating (which it is!), we need to rejoice in all the steps people make towards faith in Christ.

“God will not let me into Heaven”

So how could the conversation be continued when someone declares, “God will not let me into Heaven”?  If this question was brought up for discussion in a significant conversations forum, I would probably add my thoughts to the exchange in the following way.

This comment is an open invitation to explore the fears, concerns and struggles this man is wrestling with.  I would want to explore what he actually meant, rather than taking it at face value.  Questions are called for, not lectures: “What is God like, that he would refuse you entrance?” or “Suppose you could live life again, would you do it differently? Why?”  “Do you think God cares about your change in attitude?” “Do you think God wants you to suffer for what you have done?” “Do you think you should suffer for what you have done? What good would that do?”

People bowed down by guilt do not want a “get out of jail free card.”

I doubt if the man was arguing against the mercy of God, so assurances of God’s grace would be amiss.  Rather, I suspect this was a positive step towards recognizing the evil in his life and a refusal to let that guilt be dismissed cavalierly.  People bowed down by guilt do not want a “get out of jail free card.”  They recognize that this would not be an act of justice. To live consequence free is not appropriate, but neither do they want to have an eternity of guilt on their conscience by not suffering for their wrongdoing.  If “saying sorry” means they will be granted a free ticket into heaven, they know instinctively that all that is right and good in the universe would be appalled.  Asking questions provides opportunities for such thoughts to be expressed, rather than squelching the opportunity with a distracting comment or unhelpful platitude.

If this situation was discussed in a Significant Conversations forum, the following response would provide a different perspective on the question and could help us learn how to provide an authentic witness in our half of the conversation: “Maybe God isn’t concerned about whether or not we get into heaven. Maybe that is not the point. In fact, I think that when I stand before God I will be totally naked: physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually.  All the thoughts and actions of my whole life will be laid out before us.  In his light nothing will be hidden.  And then God will look at me in all my nakedness and he will say, ‘I love you.’  How could I not respond to that?”

Jesus didn’t come to earth in order to get us into heaven

I may also explain, “Jesus didn’t come to earth in order to get us into heaven.  He came to make us right.  He came to rescue us from the evil that we have done, not the consequences for what we have done.  That is a by-product!  He came to heal us from the cancer of our life.  He came to give us life.  He came to bring us into the fiery presence of God so that all that is wrong and twisted can be burned out of us.  Nothing we have done can be changed, and there are consequences. Nonetheless, God is bigger than that, and Jesus can make it right. But it will cost us our life. We must surrender it all.  We cannot fix ourselves, and living forever in hell isn’t going to make it right for all those people we have hurt.  But God loves us and wants to make us right.  He is not in the business of excusing our sin and giving us a free ride to heaven.  He is in the business of ripping that evil out of our life.  He is like a true father that will not excuse his child for even the smallest character flaw, and will suffer all things so that the child will become a true and mature adult.  God wants to live with us, like the father in the parable who welcomed the return of the prodigal son, but we must deny ourselves.  We even have to deny ourselves the pleasure of feeling that our suffering from guilt means anything.  It is God in Christ who suffered, not us.”

Such discussions are not intended to produce clever answers that can be memorized, but to articulate and internalize the truth we live by.  When believers meet together to pray about their involvement in God’s mission and to discuss the questions and concerns that have been raised in their conversations, then there is a sense of excitement towards our participation in what God is doing.   Such forums provide needed encouragement, direction and support for the conversations in our lives.

If you would like to contact Mark please use the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________










• 1 Bosch, D.J. 1991. Transforming Mission. Paradigm shifts in theology of mission. Maryknoll: Orbis, p. 389.
• 2 Jones, E. Stanley. 1926. The Christ of the Indian Road. McClelland & Stewart: Toronto,  p. 168.