The role of persuasion in evangelism
I read recently chapter 6 in Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally, titled "Why Do Missionaries Communicate?" His main point is that we communicate to persuade. We do more than simply communicate truth. "Whatever else the missionary is, he is a persuaded man persuading others" (87).
Now it is obvious that this doesn't settle well with modern man. It’s OK to hang out your shingle and disinterestedly inform those willing to step into your cubicle of your particular view of things. But to "persuade" is to "propagandize" and what could be more evil?
In a brochure prepared for the French press by the FEF, Alain Stamp writes,
However, the second (and better) option is for him to "humbly but determinedly accept his commission and bend every effort to be an effective Christian persuader. Strangely enough, modern communication theory will assist him if he chooses the latter course!" (88).
DH points out that modern communication theorists insist that it is "the very nature of communication to be persuasive"; that "language is never neutral" that "if there is meaning there is persuasion"; that "no statements can be said to be nonpersuasive"; and that "in short, we communicate to influence--to affect with intent."
DH summarizes: "We are all ‘missionaries"! It is only a matter of degree and direction! And the more one is persuaded himself, the more intent he becomes, and the greater the barriers he is willing to cross in order [to] influence others. Its’ as simple as that!"
The conclusion DH draws is that missionaries cannot be content to think they have accomplished their mission when they have delivered a faithful message--that nothing more is required than that God’s Word be declared. We must have a purpose. "One reason why Paul was an effective missionary was that his purpose coincided with that of the Holy Spirit" (90). The missionary should not only know his specific purpose(s) but also have "some method of measuring audience response" (90).
DH acknowledges that there is a danger in thinking that only measurable responses are meaningful. "But all the reasons he may adduce in support of the uniqueness of his task do not excuse him from setting goals and measuring results insofar as this is possible" (91). DH further acknowledges that the Holy Spirit is the "secret persuader" and the determining factor.
I believe that DH offers a necessary emphasis that helps balance our understanding of our role in evangelism. Donald Whitney, in his book on spiritual disciplines, relates evangelism more to the deliverer than to the respondent. He compares evangelism with mail delivery and says that successful evangelism is like a successfully delivered letter. What the respondent does with the "letter" is up to him (or more importantly the Holy Spirit) but "successful evangelism" has taken place regardless.
Perhaps a synthesis of these two ideas would be best. I'm not saying that the two authors are necessarily in disagreement. However, there are two ways to approach "true evangelism." One focuses on the delivery/deliverer the other on the response/responder. On the one hand, we must acknowledge that evangelism involves more than mere "modeling" or simple "proclamation."
DH has some helpful categories:
On the other hand, we must not confuse the act of persuading (source focused) with the act of persuasion (respondent focused). Paul "persuaded" (2 Corinthians 5:11), but all were not necessarily "persuaded" (Acts 17:32, 34).
A missionary is "a persuaded man persuading others." However, there is the possibility that he can persuade without man being persuaded. The missionary needs to keep his focus.
Now it is obvious that this doesn't settle well with modern man. It’s OK to hang out your shingle and disinterestedly inform those willing to step into your cubicle of your particular view of things. But to "persuade" is to "propagandize" and what could be more evil?
In a brochure prepared for the French press by the FEF, Alain Stamp writes,
"Le mot « prosélytisme » est devenu aujourd’hui franchement péjoratif et même abusivement synonyme de « racolage ». Ce terme évoque une propagandereligieuse massive comportant des éléments de pression, de harcèlement, de conditionnement psychologique et s’apparente à l’intégrisme."He then defines evangelism:
"L’évangélisation est la proclamation publique de l’Évangile. Elle est destinée à informer nos contemporains afin de leur donner l’occasion d’établir un contact personnel avec Dieu. L’évangélisation est une offre spirituelle ouverte. Elle fait appel à la liberté de conscience de chacun. L’invitation qu’elle adresse vise la conviction intérieure, la foi de chacun."This seems to be the first of two options that Hesselgrave (hereafter DH) mentions, the first option being that "he can retreat from biblical and existential reality and hang up the shingle of a ‘teacher only’ (or some other more acceptable professional)."
However, the second (and better) option is for him to "humbly but determinedly accept his commission and bend every effort to be an effective Christian persuader. Strangely enough, modern communication theory will assist him if he chooses the latter course!" (88).
DH points out that modern communication theorists insist that it is "the very nature of communication to be persuasive"; that "language is never neutral" that "if there is meaning there is persuasion"; that "no statements can be said to be nonpersuasive"; and that "in short, we communicate to influence--to affect with intent."
DH summarizes: "We are all ‘missionaries"! It is only a matter of degree and direction! And the more one is persuaded himself, the more intent he becomes, and the greater the barriers he is willing to cross in order [to] influence others. Its’ as simple as that!"
The conclusion DH draws is that missionaries cannot be content to think they have accomplished their mission when they have delivered a faithful message--that nothing more is required than that God’s Word be declared. We must have a purpose. "One reason why Paul was an effective missionary was that his purpose coincided with that of the Holy Spirit" (90). The missionary should not only know his specific purpose(s) but also have "some method of measuring audience response" (90).
DH acknowledges that there is a danger in thinking that only measurable responses are meaningful. "But all the reasons he may adduce in support of the uniqueness of his task do not excuse him from setting goals and measuring results insofar as this is possible" (91). DH further acknowledges that the Holy Spirit is the "secret persuader" and the determining factor.
I believe that DH offers a necessary emphasis that helps balance our understanding of our role in evangelism. Donald Whitney, in his book on spiritual disciplines, relates evangelism more to the deliverer than to the respondent. He compares evangelism with mail delivery and says that successful evangelism is like a successfully delivered letter. What the respondent does with the "letter" is up to him (or more importantly the Holy Spirit) but "successful evangelism" has taken place regardless.
Perhaps a synthesis of these two ideas would be best. I'm not saying that the two authors are necessarily in disagreement. However, there are two ways to approach "true evangelism." One focuses on the delivery/deliverer the other on the response/responder. On the one hand, we must acknowledge that evangelism involves more than mere "modeling" or simple "proclamation."
DH has some helpful categories:
- Presence evangelism (modeling the gospel)
- Proclamation evangelism (speaking forth the gospel)
- Persuasion evangelism (pressing for a verdict) (81)
On the other hand, we must not confuse the act of persuading (source focused) with the act of persuasion (respondent focused). Paul "persuaded" (2 Corinthians 5:11), but all were not necessarily "persuaded" (Acts 17:32, 34).
A missionary is "a persuaded man persuading others." However, there is the possibility that he can persuade without man being persuaded. The missionary needs to keep his focus.
Labels: Tim reading
posted by TimBix | 2:29 PM
|
4 comments
