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:
Aug. 1,2007 I read this yesterday but wanted to read it first in my copy, before commenting but for the life of me I can’t find it. I’ve had it out recently and read from it. Anyway his and your comments were excellent. Those three categories help. As he said, these are present in every presentation of the gospel. The Christian's knowledge of the Word and his relationship to the lord would determine the direction and the degree to which that is so.
• Presence evangelism (modeling the gospel)
• Proclamation evangelism (speaking forth the gospel)
• Persuasion evangelism (pressing for a verdict) (81)
The more the missionary is convinced the more persuasive his presence, proclamation, and presentation will be – conscious or unconscious. God help us.
I’m curious about that statement that all speech is persuasive. I’d have to think that one through more. Agreed, no speech is neutral as to producing some effect on the listener, and therefore influencing him one way or another. But whether speech out of a speaker’s mouth is intrinsically persuasive, I don’t see. Influential, yes. Is mere chit chat persuasive? Or is a wooden presentation of the gospel, coming from the lips of a missionary necessarily persuasive, unless, of course, the Holy Spirit intervenes, which he often does, but that is an added element to speaking.
"Whatever else the missionary is, he is a persuaded man persuading others."
That is certainly the ideal, but sometimes I wonder if that is always the case with me. Often out in the world I take the Alan Stamp approach, and give a wooden presentation of my “beliefs” so as not to come across as proselytizing. In reality I’m afraid it is just cowardice, under the cover of “tactfulness.” I doubt that there is much persuasiveness there.
Those are excellent thoughts, and when I find my book I’ll read that chapter again, with new insight. Thanks much, Tim.
P.s. where did you get Stamp’s quote?
DAD
Thanks for the comments.
I got the Stamp article from Kristi Colas who got it from Mark Nelson. I'll send it to you.
You said you thought all speech was "influential" but not necessarily persuasive. I wonder what you see as the difference between "influencing" and "persuading" unless it be simply different degrees on the same spectrum. I think the statement “all speech is persuasive” simply means that speech is intended to “move” others in one direction or another.
If I’m chit chatting with you and I say something that you reject as fictitious, or share an opinion that you throw out as ridiculous, I’m offended. Why? Because you considered my statements of fact or opinion to be unpersuasive. Thus, speech is by nature “persuasive” though it does not always result in the desired “persuasion.”
Gotcha
I found my book, but it must be an earlier edition than yours, or even another book, written 25 years ago. Mine is “Planting Churches Cross-Culturally, A Guide for Home and Foreign Missions,” published by Baker Books House Copyright 1980, 4th Edition 1984.
In chapter 10, page 205 he says, “…all communication can basically be reduced to three, perhaps four types:
Entertaining communication
Instructive communication
Persuasive communication
Expressive communication
He says, “…Some experts insist that all communication is in some sense persuasive, even the common greeting “how are you,” motivated “not so much by the desire to gain information as the desire to persuade you that the speaker is a tolerably cordial and jolly fellow.” …“When it comes right down to it, persuasion does seem to be what communication is all about.”
He then concedes, “Since human intent is involved, perhaps the debate as to whether all communication is persuasive will never be resolved. But that debate is instructive nonetheless.”
Your book might be new with over 20 years of added maturity and reflexion.
How ‘bout if you said. “all speech (except mindless speech) is intended to evoke a response.” Would that be correct, and maybe a clearer (or less clear) way of saying “persuasive?”
Dad
I'm pretty sure it's two different books. You'll have to ask Bob.
Good point about evoking response.
Post a Comment
<< Home