Transposing The Gospel

In an attempt to effectively communicate the gospel message in the modern age, I have often heard people suggest that we need to make the gospel more relevant.  While the intention is to make the gospel more accessible, this suggestion can infer that the gospel is no longer adequate or compromise the integrity of the message.

I hold a strong conviction that the gospel is always relevant and entirely adequate with its message transcending time and culture for all generations!  The only inadequacy it faces is our ability or inability to communicate it effectively.  This is the space where the relevance of the method often gets confused with the truth of the message.

We can attempt to translate the message, which runs the risk of changing its form and altering its original meaning and intention.

We can attempt to transfigure the message, which runs the risk of embelishing parts to appear more attractive or palatable to our audience.

or...

We can attempt to transpose the message, which transfers it to a different place or context without changing its original state.

The word transpose is most often used in the context of music to describe the process of changing the key or the sound of the music while remaining true to the structure of the original score.  A thoughtful transposition of a piece of music preserves the integrity of the original compositon, compliments the gifts of the musicians performing the arrangement, and makes a meaningful connection with the target audience.

When it comes to effectively communicating the gospel today, the idea of transposing the message, like with a piece of music, seems to fit well and resolves the conflict between the message and the method; preserving the integrity of the former while promoting the innovation of the latter. 

Art Of Conversation

Isn't it interesting that we live in a time when communication couldn't be easier or more accessible through the medium of smart phones, social networks, email, Skype and other forms of technology, yet actual face-to-face conversation seems to be a diminishing art form?

In my leadership and ministry role, I get to converse with a variety of people from diverse backgrounds and I have noticed four types of people who engage in conversations...

1. Those who aren't fully there
2. Those who over share
3. Those who constantly compare
4. Those who don't care

As I observe and engage in all sorts of conversations I have also noticed some conversation killers common to these four groups of people.  These observations are not only of others but of myself, as I am a passionate, talkative and opinionated person who is often guilty of perpetrating these conversation killers in my own conversations!   

What are they, you may ask?  

Let me answer by offering six conversation cultivators that seek to remove the conversation killers and restore the art of conversation...

1. TUNE IN - Be fully present in your conversations.  Put your phone away, remove distactions and look people in the eye when you talk to them.  Let them know that they have your undivided attention.
2. TEST INTEREST - Give a snapshot or summary before telling the whole story.  Don't assume others will be as interested in a detailed account as you are.  Share enough information for them to want to hear more.
3. TAKE A BREATH - Provide escape routes.  There are a variety of reasons why a person may want or need to exit a conversation.  Also, give them a chance to engage in dialogue, not just listen to a monologue.
4. TALK LESS - Don't forget to listen!  Active listening often speaks louder than our words.  It says that you want to hear as much as you want to be heard.  It fosters mutual interest in each others stories.
5. TRANSLATE SIGNS - Observe body language and emotions.  It is said that communication is only 7% of the words we use and the rest is made up by our tone and non-verbal indicators.
6. TRY NOT TO COMPARE - Avoid counter-stories.  You may identify with a story or have a similar experience, but the quickest way to kill a conversation is to divert attention to yourself and risk making the conversation all about you.

Effective communication is essential to all relationships and face-to-face conversation remains the foundation to all human interaction.  Avoiding conversation killers will enable us to rediscover and restore the art of conversation.

Leadership Lament

There is a tension in my spirit as I write this post because I do not want to come across as self righteous or unfairly judgmental.  However, I am struggling to reconcile a form of leadership I witnessed this week with everything I know to be right and honourable about leaders.  The more I learn about empowering leadership, the deeper my discontentment grows with anything less!

It is not appropriate for me to discuss the circumstances of the observations I am referring to in this forum, but there are lessons to be learned and shared to perpetuate the sort of leadership that builds people up, not tears them down. The following are brief reflections on some fundamental leadership principles that I have seen violated, yet ought to be foundational to any leadership relationship or context.

Whenever there is a COMMUNICATION breakdown between two leaders it is usually related to unmet expectations from one or both parties.  Relational intelligence would suggest the moment you detect that expectations are not being met you would seek dialogue with the offending party to redefine those expectations.  I believe the earlier this is done, the risk of resentment creeping into the relationship is minimized and the likelihood of respect growing in the relationship is maximized. It is unproductive to avoid these conversations or to abdicate them because they are uncomfortable.

There is something inherent about CONFLICT that causes insecure leaders to avoid it or manifest it in a destructive manner.  Conflict in any working relationship is not only inevitable, but is essential to wrestling with the issues that matter to what and whom you are leading.  Rather than managing out or suppressing conflict, it needs to be encouraged and embraced in a healthy manner (read Embrace The Conflict for further discussion).  We need people on our teams who will disagree with us and we need to make it safe for them to do so if we are going to be effective and empowering leaders.

It is the responsibility of any leader at any level of an organisation to COACH the people on their team to lift the lid of their leadership to a higher level.  In the absence of intentional leadership development opportunities within a team, the team leader, in part, is accountable for the poor performance of team members.  We seem to have little problem applying this principle to a sporting club when the coach is sacked for the poor performance of the team, but paradoxically the reverse usually applies in the workplace.

John Maxwell often quotes, "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you CARE."  Leaders who devalue the personal lives of those they lead while trying to uphold the interests of the organisation find themselves in a self-defeating cycle.  Nurturing people through personal challenges will evoke a loyalty and commitment to an organisation that cannot be bought.  Leaders who demonstrate genuine care and concern (not just give lip service), find a greater responsiveness when the need for correction of performance issues arises.

I find it indefensible that these basic leadership principles are not only violated, but justified, to maintain image, manage risk or mitigate problems.  It grieves me to see potential leaders discouraged and competent leaders disillusioned by a dis-empowering style of leadership.  Yet, it strengthens my resolve to "equip the people of God for the work of the ministry to build up the body of Christ."  

The level of discontentment I felt this week is not only a sober reminder of the dark side of leadership, but a summons to reflect the character of Christ and to continue to develop and grow as an empowering leader.

Missionary Challenge

"The Church's missionary challenge in the West today is complicated by the fact that most western populations have been exposed to some distorted or diluted expression of Christianity that inoculates people against the real thing."
George G. Hunter III, How to Reach Secular People, 1992

Hunter's provokative quote highlights a recurring theme I am finding in my recent and current study about culture, mission and Trinitarian theology.  It seems that in the Church's attempt to evangelise the lost, instead of attracting people, we find ourselves increasingly alienating people from the Church.  If Bill Hybel's conviction that the "local church is the hope of the world" is true (which I believe it to be), then something has gone seriously wrong in the delivery of the message!  

I find myself getting frustrated and even angry at times when I see the gospel get hidden within a form of 'churchianity' that presents a "distorted or diluted expression of Christianity."  Theologian Clarke Pinnock goes as far as suggesting that atheists are “not rejecting the God of the Bible – they haven’t even heard of him!”  I think there is a confronting truth that the Church needs to explore if we are going strip away our religious cultural baggage that inhibits our ability to effectively communicate a life transforming message in a culturally appropriate way.

The missionary challenge is to preserve the integrity of the gospel message so that the people we are reaching have an encounter with the biblical God through Jesus Christ, not a pop-version of God who is formed in our own image.  Hunter warns against a "hash" form of Christianity that is a concoction of "patriotism, moralism, cultural values like materialism and the quest for the perfect 'high', with some wisdom from celebrities, mixed with selected bible verses."

Maybe we need to rediscover Jesus in our churches so that He may be revealed through our lives in a way that invites people to ask, "we want to hear you again on this subject" (Acts 17:32).

Do You Speak My Language?

While attending a Disaster Relief training conference in Hong Kong a few years ago with The Salvation Amy, I found myself in a very challenging learning environment.  I was one of three English speaking western delegates amongst representatives from every Asian country in the South Pacific East Asia zone. The trainer was from England and the course was presented in English, but the class discussion and workshop participation took on the flavour of the diverse language groups represented.  

Despite having a clear advantage of speaking the same language as the trainer, I became very aware that I represented a minority culture in this context and faced my own language barriers in processing and contextually applying the knowledge learnt when participating in small group discussion.  Most of the other delegates spoke multiple languages and connected easily with the dominant Asian culture (despite the diversity within the dominant culture), yet struggled to present back what they had processed in their familiar language groups in a clear and coherent manner through the unfamiliar language of English.  However, what the trainer did next was one of the most culturally intelligient things I had seen in such an environment.  She invited each participant to present to the class in their native language.  Even though she could not understand their language of origin, she observed a sudden change in their body language and confidence as they "organised their thoughts" and "constructed their knowledge" in the "language they dream in" (Trudgen). 

Trudgen's article, "What Language Do You Dream In?", helps us to make sense of the linguistic challenges of cross-cultural communication.  I am currently trying to learn bahasa Indonesia and have discovered that even though I have a growing vocabulary of words, sentence structure and phrasing is very different to English.  I recognise many words in conversations with my Indonesian friends, but have to work hard at trying to construct my thoughts in a very unfamiliar language structure.  In a small way, I identify with the frustration illustrated by Trudgen," English makes me tired" when people from non-English cultures (including indigenous Australians) are attempting to communicate in a second language.

We need to take language seriously if we want to effectively bridge the linguistic gap in communicating the Gospel cross-culturally.