Contextualization is Inevitable

A 10 year old Canadian boy squats by the bank of a river in Borneo and watches the Prayer Man of the Dayak tribal group prepare the Beranyut ceremony.  The son of missionaries to the Dayak people, Loren Warkentin¹ was filled with curiosity about this ritual that these tribal animists performed once a year to drive sin and sickness from their village. Into an ornately carved piece of palm tree that was tied with bamboo to form a raft, the Prayer Man placed a burning lamp and two 3-day-old chicks, one alive and one dead.  He then slaughtered a dog or chicken and collected the blood, sprinkling some of the blood on the raft and spreading some on the doorposts and lintel of a nearby house.  He then turned and threw some blood on the surrounding people.  Loren quickly moved back out of the range of the blood and kept himself at a safe distance.

The goal of this series of articles is to propose a way to introduce the gospel into another cultural setting recognizing that some biblical metaphors are more appropriate than others, depending on the context.  This does not mean that other biblical images or metaphors are to be ignored or dismissed.  What it does mean is that in the process of contextualizing the gospel, we are searching for an expression or description of the gospel shaped in the cultural language of the people that communicates the significance of the cross in a way that connects with the hearers; it is receptor oriented. The cross-cultural communicator needs to identify metaphors present within the culture that can be used to reveal the message of the cross so that it makes an impact. The desire is that people will recognize the importance of the cross for them personally and begin a spiritual walk with Jesus. Their understanding of the gospel will expand over time and become multifaceted through the exploration of other biblical images.  But initially, there needs to be the bridge of an image of the atonement that speaks to the people within their cultural imagination and perspectives.

Don Richardson’s Peace Child² is one impacting illustration that demonstrates how a cultural image can connect with a biblical picture of the cross so that there is relevant cross-cultural communication. As Richardson recounted the story of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus to the Sawi people of New Guinea, he was horrified by their reaction.  Due to a value of betrayal in that culture, Judas became the hero.  He was a friend of Jesus for 3 years and then betrayed the Lord to his death. The Sawi elders were thrilled with Judas’ cleverness.  Richardson despaired of the possibility of communicating the gospel message in such a setting.  But then he discovered the concept of the “peace child.”  In order to secure reconciliation with another tribe, a baby was given by the chief of one tribe to the chief of the other.  As long as the baby was alive and well and brought up as a child of the chief in the other tribe, there would be peace between the tribes.  In such a transaction any betrayal was viewed as a great evil.  Richardson used this tradition as a reconciliation metaphor of the gospel: Jesus was the “peace child” given by God to reconcile us to himself.  Jesus was betrayed, rejected and killed.  But in his victory over death, he has conquered all that separates us from the Father – sin, evil spirits and death.  This contextualization of the gospel used an impacting image of the culture to communicate the biblical metaphors of reconciliation and victory in the cross.³

Contextualization is inevitable

Contextualization is inevitable in cross-cultural communication.  We cannot understand anything unless it is communicated in a way that fits the patterns of thinking with which we are familiar.  This is most obvious in the nature of language. When I show people in Canada the Sindhi Old Testament in Arabic script, a comment I often hear is, “That just looks like scribbles!”  And it is not just the physical script, but also images, words, symbols, concepts and metaphors used in language that are the windows through which communication occurs.  The Bible is both the word of God and a culturally shaped text.  It is God’s word because God has revealed his character and his will.  It is culturally shaped because that revelation comes through the forms, concepts and symbols used by a people group located within a particular historical, geographical and cultural setting.

In particular, the gospel message originates with God and is communicated through his word, but the medium of communication is the culture of the hearers.  To communicate the meaning of the cross to the first century believers, many everyday metaphors, familiar to them, were used: sacrificial images, redemption / ransom pictures, salvation / deliverance metaphors, judicial / forensic language, concepts of forgiveness.  Many of these connected with the action of God in the history of Israel (e.g., concepts of salvation, redemption and sacrifice) while others drew on common social structures of the time (e.g., familial, slavery and judicial images). Contextualization takes place when cross-cultural communication of the message of the cross reveals the biblical message through common images within the language, concepts and imagination of the receptor audience (such as in Richardson’s example).  This method of communication, evident within Scripture, is a necessary pattern for the cross-cultural communicator.

Metaphors reveal the truth

The Prayer Man began to pray a lengthy and largely incomprehensible prayer. The people gathered round exuded a sense of excitement and anticipation, along with some apprehension, as the ceremony progressed.  One word in the prayer stood out, “Salamat,” the Dayat word for “salvation.” The prayer ended and, with further cries of “salamat,” some men picked up the raft and deposited it into the river. Beranyut in the Dayak language means “to float away,” and the people continued to shout as the raft began to move off downstream, leaving behind in their hearts a hope for a year of relief from the forces of evil that controlled their lives.  Loren followed as they moved with the raft downstream, watched as they released it from a tangle of branches in the water, and walked with them back to the village after they were assured that the raft had finally been set on fire by the lamp.  For another year, a propitiation had been made to the spirits in the hope of deliverance from fear, sickness and death.

metaphor is the best way to communicate the truth of the gospel

There is an important assumption lying behind this approach to contextualization that needs to be examined: metaphor is the best way to communicate the truth of the gospel. The goal of contextualization is not to “unpack” the metaphor or describe the truth “behind” the metaphor, as if the metaphor somehow obscures the reality or is less than what we can know about the truth.  Instead, the metaphor is itself the channel through which we come into the closest contact possible with the truth of the cross. The rational reduction of the metaphor into propositional statements does not take us deeper into truth. That approach merely uses a different, and often less helpful or complete, form of conceptual and cultural images to describe the truth. “To understand atonement, then, is to explore metaphors that open windows onto the act of God”.⁴

The goal of contextualization is not to construct a “mechanical” understanding of how atonement works and then use that as the basis of communicating the gospel across cultures. Attempts to peel away the “husk” of the metaphor to identify the “kernel” of propositional truth, rather than exposing reality, actually serves to take us farther from the significance of the cross.  Instead, the goal of cross-cultural communication is to discover the metaphors already present within the culture that resonate with the images of the cross provided for us within Scripture.  This resonance can then be enhanced, developed and deepened through the addition of other metaphors of the cross to obtain a number of facets or perspectives on the cross.

For example, a number of Muslim guests that I entertained in Pakistan would express disagreement over the concept of calling God “Father.”  Their arguments were logical, based on literal and biological assumptions: “God is Spirit, a father must have a body” and “To be a father, a person needs to have physical relationships with a woman,” and “We are creations of God, not his physical offspring.”  Because of their rational critique they were unable to enter into a relationship with God as father; they failed to embrace the metaphor in the way it was intended.  However, once reality is seen as relational and atonement is welcomed as reconciliation⁵ (one biblical metaphor), then the role of Jesus as the older brother bringing us back to the father has impact. As illustrated in the article Making the Gospel Understandable, it is not the analysis of the God as father that is important, but the act and experience of relating to God as father.

George MacDonald gets to the heart of matter by claiming that it is the “outside of things,” not the analysis of things that brings us closest to the truth:

The show of things is that for which God cares most, for their show is the face of far deeper things than they; we see in them, in a distant way, as in a glass darkly, the face of the unseen. It is through their show, not through their analysis, that we enter into their deepest truths. What they say to the childlike soul is the truest thing to be gathered of them. To know a primrose is a higher thing than to know all the botany of it.⁶

The truth of the flower is, not the facts about it, be they correct as ideal science itself, but the shining, glowing, gladdening, patient thing throned on its stalk – the compeller of smile and tear from child and prophet…. The idea of God is the flower; his idea is not the botany of the flower. Its botany is but a thing of ways and means – of canvas and colour and brush in relation to the picture in the painter’s brain.⁷

For me to know my family is far more important than to know about them. To know God is incomparable to knowing about him. Metaphors, far more than explanations, lead us into a relationship with and experience of God.

Contextualization functions on the assumption that it is not the analysis of metaphor or reducing biblical expressions to mere “illustrations” of facts that allows one to communicate, but the recognition that the metaphor becomes the door through which our hearers experience the reality of the atonement.  When they hear the message and connect the significance of the cross to experiences and relationships within their own context, then, and only then, Jesus’ death and resurrection becomes relevant and attractive to them.  The effective cross-cultural communicator, therefore, seeks for those images within the culture that connect people to the metaphors of the Bible with resonance and impact.

Contextualizing the gospel through resonating metaphors

In his book, Eternity in Their Hearts,⁸ Richardson documents many “redemptive analogies” that connect the gospel message to people groups around the world.  The Beranyut ceremony of the Dayak people, even though it was not used as an initial bridge to the gospel, did become a significant point of resonance for some Dayak believers in later years in ways that unveiled the truth of what Jesus had done for them:

• Because Jesus died “once for all,” they were freed from the once a year atonement that required an animal sacrifice (cf. Heb 10:10-14), a sacrifice that could not redeem (cf Heb 10:4).
• The blood sprinkled on the people and the doorposts parallels the Old Testament rituals of covenantal cleansing (Ex 24:8, cf. Heb 9:19,20) and the passing over of the angel of death (Ex 12:7). These Old Testament images are fulfilled through the blood of the perfect Lamb of God (Heb 9:23-26).
• The two chicks, one dead and one alive, call to mind the two goats used on the day of Atonement recorded in Leviticus 16.  While one goat is killed for the sins of the people, the high priest is instructed to “lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites—all their sins—and put them on the goat’s head. He shall send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task. The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man shall release it in the desert” (Lev 16:21,22 TNIV).
• Living among continual fear and sickness, the Prayer Man year after year pleaded for redemption from horrors inflicted by the spirits. Now Dayak believers rejoice in a sinless high priest who died for them once for all (Heb 7:26,27) and intercedes for them continually (Heb 7:25) to provide them with a daily experience of deliverance from sin, fear and death (cf. Heb 9:25-26).

In one sense, the cross of Christ cannot be comprehended and we only have glimpses of what it means.  The Gospel of John is a theological treatise on the nature of Christ that is like a welcome splash of cool water that provides a hint of the ocean. Angels continually ponder the implications of this central act of history (1 Peter 1:12).  Yet, at the same time, like the metaphor of “father,” God has provided us the opportunity and ability to use concepts and images of our own culture to grasp the meaning of salvation in Jesus.  It is the intersection of biblical teaching with cultural metaphors that provide the most fruitful results for people to appreciate and experience the gospel.

Contextualization for the cross-cultural worker needs to have the same orientation as Jesus had when he explained the kingdom of God.  He constantly drew images from daily life, images that resonated with the people, and said, “the kingdom of God is like…” so that they would understand and begin to grasp some of the basic realities of the kingdom.  Similarly, we have a number of different pictures given to us concerning the atonement in the Bible.  These are pictures common to the people’s daily life and experience.  Such images are both cultural and a true representation of reality.  As with the kingdom God, the only way to provide a true picture of the cross is by connecting a biblical metaphor to what is known in the culture of the receptor audience.  This is the skill that needs to be developed by the cross-cultural worker: to take the images present within the context and use them to reveal the meaning of the cross.  How can this be accomplished?  The next article provides one model that has proved helpful.

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 about this article, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________




• 1 Loren is my colleague at Northwest Baptist Seminary and he related this story to me.
• 2 Richardson, D. Peace Child. Ventura: Regal, 1974.
• 3 For passages on the metaphor of victory over evil see Colossians 2:15, Hebrews  2:14-15.
• 4 McKnight, S. A Community Called Atonement. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007, p. 39.
• 5 ibid., p. 16.
• 6 G. MacDonald, Unspoken Sermons Series II, The Voice of Job, p. 350.
• 7 G. MacDonald, Unspoken Sermons Series III, The Truth, p. 465-466.
• 8 Richardson, D. Eternity in Their Hearts. Ventura: Regal, 1984.

“Give me my share of the inheritance” (Luke 15:11). With one small phrase the son callously declares that his Father is more valuable to him dead than alive.¹ He dishonors his father, disregards his family, abandons his community and treats his religion with disdain.  In the Muslim Sindhi society,² a shame-honor context, there is no redemption for such shameful actions.  The Jewish society of Jesus’ time was similar.³

How can we communicate the gospel cross-culturally? As we struggled with this task among the Sindhi people of Pakistan, my wife, Karen, insightfully noted that “the goal is not to make Sindhis understand the gospel (i.e., in terms of one specific model), but to make the gospel understandable.” The Bible provides us with a number of metaphors (salvation, justification, sacrifice, etc.) that reveal the meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus. These metaphors were contextually sensitive to the first century audience, drawing on the experiences and concepts familiar to those readers. Explaining the gospel cross-culturally in our age requires us to discover suitable metaphors already present within a people group that will communicate the meaning of the cross in a way that both resonates with cultural understanding and is faithful to the message of the Bible.

The danger for the cross-cultural minister is to consider one biblical metaphor, such as justification – a forensic term used by the apostle Paul to mean that through Jesus’ death God has declared us righteous – and develop it exclusively as the foundational understanding of the gospel.  Such a narrow focus runs the danger of ignoring other biblical images that may connect more clearly and relevantly with the concerns and perspectives of the people group.  In the initial article of this series I referred to my own experience in making this mistake. When presenting the gospel to the Sindhi people of Pakistan, I used one particular metaphor of a court scene that drew on the concept of justification.  I came to realize that this image did not resonate with the perspective of the people with whom I was conversing.  In order to correct this, I developed a different approach based on other biblical metaphors of the gospel.  This article provides further detail about the picture of the gospel I began to use that connected with the way the Sindhi people view the world.

A good friend of mine was troubled with my response to the guest who challenged the court metaphor I was using.  A part of my article is copied below with the objectionable phrases underlined:

To present the gospel, I would often use an illustration of a judge in order to communicate the need for Jesus’ death and resurrection.  My argument was that if someone commits a crime, a just judge can’t forgive wrongdoing based on past good deeds; he must punish the crime.  By implication, God cannot forgive our sins without payment or intervention from someone who can pay the price.

I had presented this scenario to my Muslim visitor.  After thinking for a few minutes he said, “It is true that a judge must be just, but a just judge can also be merciful.  Mercy need not be in conflict with justice, and God is a merciful God. God can forgive without undermining justice.”  I had been long enough in the country to realize the implication of this statement and I was struck silent for a time.  I finally replied, “You are right. I will need to think about this.”

My friend summarized the interchange as follows, which revealed his concern:

You: God cannot forgive sin without payment or intervention.
Guest: God can forgive sin without payment or intervention.
You: You are right.

this particular image … was not communicating

By putting it in this point form I see why he was disturbed, because such a rendering could imply that Jesus’ death is not necessary for salvation!  This was not my intent. Rather, my response was a recognition that this particular image of the meaning of the cross was not communicating in a significant or appropriate manner. It was an “aha” moment for me that initiated the search for a metaphor that would make sense to Sindhi ears.

Identifying the Sindhi Perspective

Living apart from his father, his family and his community, the son has no one to help him in desperate times.  He knows that he cannot return.  He has burned his bridges. But then he has an idea, “Not as a son, nor even as a servant in the house, but maybe as a hired worker! I can earn my living and even start to pay back what has been lost.⁴ Perhaps the mercy of the father will extend that far.”  He begins the journey home.

I began my ministry in the Sindh with the assumption that the Sindhi people approached salvation from a theology of works. That is, their hope was in their own ability to do more good deeds than bad and thus be able to enter heaven. The criteria for salvation was a simple accounting algorithm: When good – bad = +ve, then heaven is the reward. My use of the penal substitution imagery addressed this view by demonstrating that good deeds cannot mitigate the wrong that we have done.  Our only hope is if someone will take our punishment for us.  What I did not realize, until my conversation with my guest, was that I was addressing the wrong assumption.  Due to the influence of Sufism (the mystical side of Islam), the majority of Sindhis with whom I was communicating were neither denying the seriousness of their sin, nor attempting to accumulate credits from good deeds to be applied against the wrong that they had done.  Instead, their hope for salvation lay in the mercy of God to forgive.

their hope for salvation was in the mercy of God to forgive

Thus, when I said, “You are right,” I did not mean “God can forgive sin without payment or intervention.”  What I meant was “You are right.  This explanation of salvation does not adequately address your trust in God’s mercy.”  I also meant, “You are right. In human courts a just judge can forgive without punishing.” When it is obvious that a person’s character has changed and they have repented from their sin, the judge can decide that this “new” person should no longer be identified with the past sin, and therefore say, “I do not condemn you.  Go and sin no more.”  And this would be just, because true justice makes things right. Because the person’s orientation has changed, they do not require punishment (although restitution may be another issue). We understand this as parents and refrain from punishing children who show genuine remorse.  The goal is the restoration and correct orientation of the child to what is good, not a legalistic conformity to a sin / punishment paradigm.

A Resonating Image: Jesus as the Mercy of God

Even before the son could begin his speech of repentance, before he can articulate his plan of being hired and working his way back into the community, the father has come running -  RUNNING! To the shock of all, he abandoned the dignity and pride of the patriarchal position in order to embrace the son who had shamed and humiliated them all.⁵ The father calls for his best robe to cover the rags, his signet ring to restore the son’s position and shoes to remove the shame.  In the Sindhi culture, the feet are the place of shame.  One of the greatest insults is to remove your shoe and show the bottom of it to another person.  In a series of swift commands the consequences of the son’s sin are swallowed up by the father’s mercy.  With no regard for the shame, pain or loss that he suffers from this act, the father removes the obstacles between him and his son and calls for a celebration. Forgiveness is never free, someone always suffers.

Because of my new understanding of the Sindhi context, I realized that I needed a different picture of the cross that would address their perspective.  They don’t need to be told that they are sinners; they know that already.  They don’t need to be taught that good deeds don’t outweigh the bad; they are aware of their inability to attain that assurance.  They don’t need to be taught that God is merciful because that truth is repeated continuously throughout the day. One of the most common Arabic phrases I heard during my time in the Sindh was bismallah, a rahman, a raheem – in the name of God, the most merciful, the most gracious.

Jesus is the mercy of God

Through the interaction with my visitor I came to realize that what Sindhis need is an explanation of how Jesus is the mercy of God; how Jesus is the way to that “new birth,” to becoming holy, to becoming a “new creature.”  They need a picture of salvation in which Jesus becomes sin for us by entering into our separation from God on the cross so that we can access that mercy.  He became one with us – the Word became human (Jn 1:14) – and that incarnation was completed on the cross when he cried, “My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34). While on earth Jesus was never totally one with us until the cross.  He was sinless, his relationship with the Father was not broken, until the cross.  But on the cross he took our sin, our death, our hell, on himself so that we could live. Jesus is the way that the mercy of God is realized in our lives.  Now those who do repent and humbly turn to Jesus are “in Christ” and therefore become alive to God.  He became one with us in our separation from God so that we could become one with him in union with God.  God freely forgives, because of what it cost Jesus.

God freely forgives, because of what it cost Jesus

This image resonates with the Sindhi worldview and perspective of God as merciful and forgiving.  The problem with the metaphor of the court setting was that it communicated to Sindhi ears that God could not be merciful. He needed to punish someone because of a legal difficulty that he could not set aside.  That is, the court metaphor created a contrast between God’s mercy and his punishment, and in this way miscommunicated the gospel as if God’s need to punish took precedent over his mercy.  What they needed was a realization that the work of Christ in taking the punishment was God’s way to pour out his mercy.  What I needed to contextualize the gospel was an image of salvation that affirmed what they already believed about the mercy of God, but put it squarely in the context of Jesus’ work of salvation, his substitutionary atonement on the cross. Because Jesus died – as an expression of God’s mercy rather than a focus on punishment – we do not.  George MacDonald’s quote resonates well with the Sindhi context: “It satisfied love to suffer for another, but it does not satisfy justice that the innocent should be punished for the guilty.”

The True Older Brother

Forgiveness is never free, someone always suffers

The older son is furious.  He does not appreciate the father’s love and mercy.  Nor does he value the father’s concern for relationship.  His heart, like the younger son’s, is focused on the benefits he gained from the father, not on the father himself.⁶ In shame-honor cultures mediation is the norm rather than direct confrontation, and it is often the older brother’s responsibility to seek out and restore those family members who have gone wrong.  This is true for the Sindhi context. In the story, the older brother not only neglected this role, but is now furious when his brother is restored.  However, there is another older brother implied by this scenario who needs be mentioned.  Jesus is the older brother who responds in stark contrast to the older brother in the story.⁷ He is the one who did come to seek and save, who did come to suffer and die, who did come to bring life to the dead. Such mercy is costly.  Forgiveness is never free, someone always suffers.

There is an appealing Islamic saying told to me by the leader of a Islamic group in Canada, “God has given 1% of his mercy to the earth, and reserved 99% for the day of judgment.”  It is appealing for it grasps the grandeur of God’s graciousness and love towards human beings.  But it is not Christian.  The message of the cross proclaims that God has reserved none of his mercy for a later time, but has poured it all out on the cross.  Jesus is the mercy of God.  “In Christ” we experience the full mercy of God.

In the next article I will address the inevitability of using metaphors to communicate the gospel and the importance of choosing culturally sensitive metaphors. In a further article I hope to demonstrate the value of holding as the heart of the gospel Alistair McGrath’s phrase “the saving action of God toward mankind in Jesus Christ,”⁸ when seeking contextually relevant metaphors.

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 about this article, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________
• 1 Bailey, K The Pursuing Father at http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/2367.htm, see also Bailey, K 1976 (1983 combined Ed). Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 162 and Keller, T 2008. The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith. New York: Dutton, p. 18.
• 2 Mark and his wife, Karen, worked among the Sindhi people for 14 years.
• 3Malina, BJ 1981. The New Testament World: Insights from cultural Anthropology. Louisville: John Knox Press, pp 25-50.
• 4 Keller 2008. p. 21.
• 5 Bailey 1976, pp. 181-182. See also Rohrbaugh, RL 1997. A Dysfunctional Family and Its Neighbours in Jesus and his Parables: Interpreting the Parables of Jesus Today, V. George Shillington (Ed). Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 141-164, p. 158.
• 6 Keller 2008, pp. 49-50,53-56,58-59,62. See also Nouwen, HJM 1992. The Return of the Prodigal Son: A Story of Homecoming. New York: Doubleday. pp. 20-21.
• 7 Keller 2008. pp. 80-81.
• 8 McGrath, A 1986. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification from 1500 to the Present Day. Cambridge University Press, pp. 1:2-3.

“Don’t talk to him.  He has a demon!”

It was a fairly cool day in the Sindh, Pakistan when I sat down on the cot in the courtyard of Nathaniel’s¹ house to chat with him.  I noticed another man in the corner of the courtyard, sitting by himself.  I asked Nathaniel who he was.  “He is my uncle,” he replied.  “But don’t talk to him.  He has a demon.”  I was somewhat taken aback by this and rehearsed in my mind any teaching or training I had received in Canada that would have equipped me to deal with a demon.  I came up with a blank and so took Nathaniel’s advice.

each culture’s reading and experience of the world is vastly different

While living in Pakistan we came to the realization that the stories of Jesus’ authority over demons had a far different impact for Sindhis than the stories had for Canadians.  While Sindhis welcome the possibility of overcoming a very real fear in their lives, Canadians tend to be puzzled about the lack of demons in the world and discuss how “demons” should be understood.  The contexts determine the significance of the story.  Because each culture’s reading and experience of the world is vastly different, people’s responses to the stories are different as well.  Similarly, some expressions of the gospel message that are impacting in Canada do not connect with the Sindhi people.

The Main Question

Some people assume that there is one particular understanding of the significance of the cross that is “real,” all other biblical descriptions or images are considered mere metaphors of that one perspective.  But is this so? Or are all the images equally true and “real” expressions of the atonement?  In particular, is the “penal substitution” description of the meaning of the cross, i.e., that “Jesus satisfies the wrath of God by enduring the punishment we deserved on account of our sins,”² the essence of the gospel message, or is it one expression out of several, albeit one that helps those understand the gospel who have a particular worldview?

I propose that the “penal substitution” picture is a true and valid explanation of the gospel that, along with other equally valid metaphors, helps us understand and experience the reality of Christ’s work on the cross.  It is a picture that connects well in a culture that values the rule of law and sees justice as a leading principle. However, it is not the only valid image.  Other cultural contexts require different or additional descriptions to appropriately grasp the enormity of the gospel message. Due to the nature of the gospel, multiple images are required to do justice to the universe-altering impact of Jesus’ death and resurrection; and, due to the nature of cultures, multiple images are required to speak to the diversity of worldviews and experiences of reality.

What I am NOT saying

When I speak of an “image” or “picture” of the gospel, I am not suggesting that it is less than, or other than, the gospel. Rather, the use of images and metaphors is a necessary form of communication that allows us to comprehend the gospel by using symbols and concepts familiar to us.  It can be compared to the image of God as “father” in the New Testament.  This description of God used by Jesus is a contextualization of an absolute truth; it is an aspect of God’s character that constitutes reality. Jesus uses a cultural symbol and metaphor (“father”) so that we may grasp the relationship that God desires to have with us. The depth of God’s love for us is revealed through our experiences of familial love in our human contexts.  In the same way, proper contextualization of Christ’s death on the cross draws on appropriate and impacting images from the cultural setting in order to communicate in a way that resonates with that culture.  By “resonates,” I mean that it connects in a meaningful and relevant way so that lives are transformed.

When I suggest that a contextualization of the gospel will use a different metaphor for salvation than “penal substitution,” this should not be construed as a denial of the truth of that description.  A judicial or legal perspective of our standing before God is a biblical picture. Perhaps the clearest imagery used to support this view comes, not from the New Testament, but from the suffering servant in Isaiah 53:

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all (NIV, verses 5,6).

This understanding of the meaning of the cross recognizes that God cannot overlook sin, and the consequence of sin is God’s wrath, i.e., death (Rom 6:23).  Furthermore, it emphasizes substitution, the need for Jesus to die so that we can live.  “Either we die or he dies.”³ “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8).

Many Images, One Gospel

These are important truths that cannot be lost, but more than one explanation can accommodate them. Moreover, it is important for the sake of communication of the gospel into other cultural contexts that we do not to elevate one concept, such as “penal substitution,” above the other images of atonement given to us in the Bible in order to communicate these realities.  If we assume that the “penal substitution” scenario, in which we are acquitted of punishment because Jesus pays the price through his death, is the one and only true description of the work of the cross, then all the other images – redemption, ransom, propitiation, sacrifice, forgiveness, deliverance, etc., – become “mere” metaphors pointing to the one penal substitution truth.  In contrast, contextualization assumes that all the biblical descriptions of the death and resurrection of Jesus can be used to bring people to faith in Christ, and their emphasis and expression will depend on the context.

There are a number of reasons why teaching penal substitution as the only true and real understanding of the significance of the cross is problematic:

• First, it undermines the impact of the other biblical images, which are also true and real descriptions of the cross of Christ, by attempting to make them “fit” into a penal substitution model.
• Second, when it is considered the only “real” description of the meaning of the cross, people attempt to answer all questions about the atonement according to that one picture. The result is that the logical implication of the metaphor can be pushed too far leading to a perversion of the gospel message.  For example, I have talked to a number of people who have abandoned their faith because this expression was interpreted as “divine child abuse” or a cruel manipulation.
• Third, it fails to recognize that a worldview grid that emphasizes law and justice makes this particular image resonate in a western culture.  As a result, it is sometimes used as the default explanation within cross-cultural contexts even though other biblical images would have a better impact and communicate a clearer message of the cross.

The Core of the Gospel message

There are aspects of the gospel message that must not be lost, no matter what image is used to communicate the gospel.  The core is that Jesus’ death and resurrection accomplishes our deliverance from sin (1 Cor 15:3,4).  The images used to communicate that reality will depend on the context of the audience and will require the message to be shaped in a way that speaks to them in their cultural forms and language.  The following article will explain why contextualization is inevitable, and provide the beginning of a theology of culture to support the claim that any and all explanations of the cross are culturally shaped.  A future article will provide one particular model of the atonement that facilitates the contextualization of the gospel in other cultures.

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 about this article, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________




• 1 Not his real name.
  
• 2 Green, J & Baker, M 2000. Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in the New Testament and Contemporary Contexts. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 13.
• 3 Morris, L. 1955, 1983. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 213.

There was a pause in the conversation.  My visitor considered seriously the illustration I had presented to him.  He then spoke words that became a critical turning point in my ministry in Pakistan – he challenged my understanding of salvation.  To present the gospel, I would often use an illustration of a judge in order to communicate the need for Jesus’ death and resurrection.  My argument was that if someone commits a crime, a just judge can’t forgive wrongdoing based on past good deeds; he must punish the crime.  By implication, God cannot forgive our sins without payment or intervention from someone who can pay the price.

I had presented this scenario to my Muslim visitor.  After thinking for a few minutes he said, “It is true that a judge must be just, but a just judge can also be merciful.  Mercy need not be in conflict with justice, and God is a merciful God. God can forgive without undermining justice.”  I had been long enough in the country to realize the implication of this statement and I was struck silent for a time.  I finally replied, “You are right.  I will need to think about this.”

This was a crisis point for me and I realized that the judicial view of salvation that I had been teaching, based on Paul’s forensic metaphors in Romans, did not resonate in this Muslim setting.  My assumption was that people were depending on their good works for forgiveness, but this was not necessarily the case.  Their hope was in the mercy of a God who knows our weakness and is willing to forgo punishment.  In Canada, we live in a guilt-innocence culture; sin is doing wrong against a moral code and we have a high regard for the rule of law. On the other hand, Pakistani Muslims live in a shame-honor culture.¹ Forgiveness is always possible when a command is broken, but a person who dishonors their family faces disastrous consequences, often without the hope of redemption.  I set aside a couple of days to wrestle with this question and discovered a perspective on the salvation of Christ that connects more closely with their felt need for a savior: through bearing the cross of shame (Gal 3:13), Jesus joins us in our separation from God. Because his relation to the Father has not been broken and he is alive with God, we can have a restored relationship with God by becoming “in Christ” (to use Paul’s phrase, eg. Rom 8:1).

Through this experience I realized that people with a history, culture and traditions unlike ours need to hear the message of salvation in a way that is relevant to them, a way that resonates with their sense of brokenness and need.  The way we understand Jesus’ salvation in our setting may not connect with the view of reality in another setting. Effective communication means that the hearer understands within the categories they use to make sense of the world.  By using words and concepts that they are familiar with, we are able to contextualize the gospel message.

Contextualization in Canada

Marie² took a break from her emotionally taxing work at a charity in downtown Victoria to visit a family friend who made a comment about her spiritual search by means of an eastern meditation technique.  Marie responded by asking, “Does that satisfy you?”  The colleague was silent for a moment and then said, “Actually, no.  It doesn’t.”  The honesty of Marie’s friend has opened the door to further significant conversations, but where does she go from here? Would a description of the death and resurrection of Christ be accepted as the fulfillment of her colleague’s spiritual search?  How is Marie to discover and communicate how the message of the gospel resonates with her colleague’s yearning?

When a Christian believer interacts with a person with different beliefs there are a number of barriers that must be crossed in order for them to converse intelligently about their respective faiths.  Furthermore, intercultural encounters require lengthy and elaborate communication to facilitate reciprocal understanding.  For example, an outline of the gospel that makes sense to the Christian will be met with incomprehension from a Muslim:

Christian: “Because Jesus died, we can be forgiven.”

Muslim: “But is not God free to forgive whomever he wants?”

This gap of understanding needs to be bridged by discovering how the cross of Christ resonates with the spiritual need of those who do not know Jesus.

Steps to Discover Gospel Resonance

Fortunately, there are steps that can be taken by the believer to make the gospel message comprehensible to a friend whose allegiance is with another faith.  In Learning to talk ENGLISH, we considered four steps provided by Wen-Shu Lee that can help an English speaker converse comfortably with an ESL (English as second language) speaker.³ These same steps can be adapted to provide a process through which the gospel message can be shaped in a way that resonates with others.

Step 1. Establish a Conversational Etiquette that facilitates open dialogue about faith.

Younas sighed and looked ruefully at the end of his burning cigarette.  He had given up drinking “bhung,” a narcotic, he had quit chewing betel nut, but he couldn’t give up smoking. Whenever I meet with Younas, we share our faith journeys with each other and through the drifting smoke we discussed some Sufi sayings that he found significant (Sufism is a mystical expression of Islam popular among the Sindhi people). On this occasion one of the sayings reminded me of a lesson from the Sermon on the Mount, and I showed him the Scripture passage.  Laughing, he replied, “Every time I tell you a Sufi teaching, you are able to show me something similar that Jesus said.”  I concurred and explained, “In the Bible it says that Jesus is the Word of God.  He is the source of truth and all truth originates in him.”  Our established conversational etiquette permitted us to be open with each other about our faiths.

As emphasized in the articles on Significant Conversations, a conversation is not a battle to be won, but a pleasant interchange of ideas and experiences.  The purpose should not be to establish superiority of belief.  Such a stance will damage the relationship by initiating arguments, not conversations, about faith. Instead seek to establish an environment in which both faiths can be discussed, and be respected even in their differences.  There are a number of actions that will ensure this:

• Listen to understand your friend’s faith, not to find weaknesses or inconsistencies.
• Articulate your friend’s faith back to them so that they are convinced that you not only understand what they believe, but appreciate this intimate part of their lives.
• Communicate your own faith with the goal of transparency so your relationship with your friend can deepen.
• Follow the ABC process: Agree, Build and Contrast (See article: Tools for Talking about Jesus).
• Don’t spend time developing arguments about why your faith is true, except where such concepts shape your life.  Tell stories about how Jesus makes a difference in your life.

(For further discussion on ways to hold Significant Conversations see “God will not let me not into heaven”)

Step 2. Differentiate between explanations about faith and stories of personal faith

Joanne was adjusting her chair so she could better view the other members of the committee around the table when one of her colleagues declared, “I am a very spiritual person.”  My friend was taken aback and interpreted this as arrogance and an expression of superiority, which is how it would be understood in our Christian or churched culture. She only realized later that her colleague was referring to a sensitivity to and interest in a reality beyond the material needs of life. Metatalk is important when conversing with people of other faiths in order to avoid misattribution: judging someone’s actions according to incorrect assumptions.⁴

When discussing faith, communication needs to take place on two levels.  The most important level is sharing stories of personal faith experiences.  When we talk about what moves us spiritually, whether a passage of Scripture, appreciation for salvation in Christ or the intimacy of prayer, we are being transparent and vulnerable about who we are.  This is what it means to be a “witness” to our faith.

However, a second level of metatalk is critical when speaking to someone of another faith. Metatalk happens when we step back from the content of the conversation and ensure that communication is actually occurring.  Linguistic Metatalk occurs when we discuss the meaning of vocabulary and concepts to ensure a common understanding.  A colleague related her frustration as a missionary in Latin America while dialoguing with nominal Catholics.  Although the religious terminology was the same, the assumed meaning of the words was different which hampered communication.  I have started to develop a new vocabulary to avoid using Christian words that tend to be misunderstood in the Canadian context.  For example:

Instead of…             I say…

Fear of God =         don’t be careless with God

Sin =                         telling God “we can do better for ourselves than by following your way.”

Redemption =        “there is a way to be good again”⁵

Relational metatalk happens when we talk about the appropriate respect expected by each other when discussing spiritual things.  For example, in Islam the physical Scriptures are sacred, not just the message, and must not be placed on the floor.  The prophets’ names require titles of respect.  The way God’s name is used needs clarification.  A friend was talking to a Muslim woman who had learned English and was using the phrase, “Oh my God!”  When he questioned her, she was devastated to learn that in many western contexts the expression is used as an expletive rather than a sincere reference to God.  In her Islamic context, God’s name is constantly invoked with respect so that his presence is acknowledged.  Metatalk provides a means to prevent inadvertent offense and discomfort.

Step 3. Identify the spiritual yearnings of your friend.

a whole new doorway of understanding about how salvation can be communicated

Abdul Ali leaned towards me intently and responded to the story of Jesus washing the disciples feet.  He said, “Jesus’ meaning, as far as I understand, is this.  He was a prophet of God.  According to this book and according to our faith, he was a beloved prophet of God.  God gave him all knowledge to know who was true to him and who deceived him.  So God gave him the wisdom to know how to make his followers holy.  This means that there was a message here that Jesus said he would wash their feet and make them holy, that is, draw them towards him.  With his hands he would wash the feet, make the person holy and so draw the person towards him.”⁶

I had never heard the washing of Jesus’ feet explained in this way, but at this point in our discussion the correct interpretation of the passage was not the point.  I was discovering an aspect of the Sindhi culture that would open up a whole new doorway of understanding about how salvation can be communicated.

The way Jesus fulfills my spiritual longings will not necessarily reflect the way my friend finds Jesus relevant to his life.  We cannot assume that what makes sense to us about salvation will resonate with those from another religious tradition.  This was the primary discovery of the research project, Towards Contextualized Bible Storying: Cultural factors which influence impact in a Sindhi context.  We need to first understand how people hear scripture from within their different culture setting in order to shape the gospel message in a way that connects with their worldview.

This is accomplished by listening carefully to our friends when they describe their faith.  What are the spiritual yearnings that they hope will be fulfilled through the practice of their faith?  How does their faith make a difference in their life? It is important at this stage to listen well to discover the stories, images and concepts that express their spiritual concern.

The concepts of “clean” and “unclean” as spiritual issues are lacking in our western society. In another story, when Jesus heals a woman of her constant bleeding (Lu 8:43-48), we are impressed with Jesus’ power and compassion.  But the impact of Jesus reaching out his hand, touching the unclean and making them clean, is, for us, a minor part of the miracle. However, for those living in a culture like the Sindh, the state of being constantly unclean gives impact to the story.  A woman in the Muslim Sindhi culture is not permitted to touch a holy book during her period.  She cannot come into the presence of God because she is unclean, unfit for the holiness of God.  Imagine 12 continuous years of separation from God!  For the Sindhi reader, Jesus did not just heal a woman from a daily discomfort and medical distress, but released her from spiritual bondage and set her free to come into God’s presence.  The concept of  “unclean” for a Sindhi Muslim woman can reflect a deep spiritual longing that, when discovered, opens the door to the gospel.

Step 4. Demonstrate how Jesus addresses your friend’s spiritual desires

Manzoor raised his voice against the rattle of traffic outside the door as he related to me an expression of his faith in Jesus.  He had recently donated one of his kidneys to his brother who had suffered kidney failure.  After the operation, a number of people came up to him and said, “Because of that great sacrifice you are surely destined for heaven!”  His reply was that his action was not the reflection of a desire for heaven, nor was it fit as credit for paradise.  Instead, the action demonstrated his faith in Jesus.  Jesus showed the way of giving up his life for the sake of others.  Jesus’ death on the cross intersects with Manzoor’s life.  Jesus’ sacrifice resonates with that expression of his faith.  This powerful connection of the gospel with real life illustrates one way the gospel message has been contextualized into the Sindhi setting.

The final step to shape the gospel message in a way that fits the perspectives of others is to connect God’s word with the spiritual desires that have been identified in their lives.  As we provide stories and examples of teaching from Scripture that connect with these desires, we illustrate how Jesus is relevant to them.  Furthermore, illustrations from our friends’ own cultural context, such as in Manzoor’s example, can also reveal Biblical values. Discovering such stories will provide a clear connection between their spiritual yearnings and the Gospel message.

For the Sindhi Muslim, there are many connections between their lives and the gospel message: the sacrificial system, a concern for ritual purity, respect for God’s word, the importance of obedience and submission, the role of prayer in their relationship with God.  Similar connections exist in Canada.  Contextualization, whether in Pakistan or here in Canada, demands that we discover and understand the spiritual hungers that people have and then do the hard work of discovering how the gospel message can be communicated so that it resonates with those hungers.

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 about this article, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________
• 1 Roland Muller proposes that each culture is influenced in different degrees by three dichotomies: Shame-honor, Guilt-innocence and Fear-power. See Muller, R 2000. Honor and Shame: Unlocking the Door. USA: Xlibris.
• 2 The names used in this article have been changed.
• 3 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, 222.
• 4 Patty Lane helpfully elaborates on misattribution and how it can be overcome in her book A Beginner’s Guide to Crossing Cultures: Making Friends in a multi-cultural world. IVP: Downers Grove, 27-30.
• 5 Husseini, K 2003. The Kite Runner. Canada: Random House, 2.
• 6 Naylor, M. 2004. Towards Contextualized Bible Storying: Cultural factors which influence impact in a Sindhi context. Unpublished: 68-69.

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