nuance

Day 3: Wednesday PM Sessions

After lunch we headed into the final stretch - one more talk from Driscoll and one more from Keller, along with a double-trouble Q&A immediately thereafter.

Tragically, I lost my notes from Driscoll’s session. Thankfully, there are notes up all over the web, not least of which these over at Off the Wire. This talk was essentially a hop-skip through the book of Nehemiah as a model for church planting, hearkening back to Mark’s legendary “city within the city” sermon series. Here’s the video from the first sermon in that series:

While my memory is not great, one thing I do remember from Mark’s talk was a “test” he proposed about the church planter’s heart. He asked us what our reaction is when we drive past the churches in our city and observe the dire lack of real Jesus-worshipping congregations. Are we grieved? Are we inspired to do something about it? Are we angry enough to act - to come to the aid of our city, in this sense? (That is, of course, a very paraphrased paraphrase, but you get the idea.)

Session 9: Tim Keller
Tim’s second talk pertained to “Persuasion,” an art which may again indicate the central point of departure between the old evangelism/proclamation approach (just preach the gospel, and let the chips fall) and true contextualization which takes into consideration the method, style, and form in which the gospel is presented to certain types of hearers. If I may, I would identify persuasion as the mark of missional preaching and evangelism. One notices that this is slightly (and remarkably) different from the mark of the emergent church, that is, conversation.

I like to think that persuasion includes conversation and occurs conversationally and contextually but does not abandon the mandate that we are attempting to convince and convert, not merely to converse.

Ah yes, the notes.

1. Paul on persuasion and the cross. Keller began with a rebuttal of an anti-persuasion interpretation of 1 Cor. 2:1ff. He called on 2 Cor. 5 for backup. In the former, in lieu of the latter, Paul must not be saying that he uses no strategy for changing people’s minds. The Greek is helpful in identifying that by ‘eloquence’, ’superior wisdom’, etc., Paul is rejecting a) verbal bullying and super confident demagoguery, b) applause generating rhetoric, and c) manipulative stories.

2. A basic model for persuasion.

• Listeners (receptors) automatically interpret communication from the perspective of their own context. It is tiring (if not impossible) to understand communication that does not exist within your frame of reference.
• There are two basic approaches to communication: sender-oriented and receptor-oriented. If it the message is sender-oriented, it requires a huge effort from the listener to grasp it; if it is receptor-oriented, the communicator does the work of understanding the listener’s frame of reference, which allows for true two-way conversation.
• God’s communication approach: receptor-oriented. God speaks through human prophets; he communicates through incarnation. Paul practiced this approach by using the words, ideas, and citations that his listeners would relate to. God’s progressive revelation in Scripture is receptor-oriented.
• We must nevertheless be ‘message-centered’ not ‘context-centered’. The message can be adapted but not changed.

Keller then expounded on the last point by presenting a four-square chart which shows the proper balance: If you are sender-oriented and message-centered, you are a Traditionalist, because you present truth but only in your own context; if you are sender-oriented and context-centered you are a Manipulator because you use any message to achieve your own goals; if you are receptor-oriented and context-centered you are an Accommodator because you only tell them what they want to hear; and finally, if you are receptor-oriented and message-centered you are a Preacher because you believe in truth and bring it in the listener’s frame of reference.

Conservatives may be equivalent to Traditionalists, while Liberals are equivalent to Accommodators.

The truth doesn’t change, but our communication of it must change constantly. Evangelicals must avoid becoming wooden Traditionalists.

3. Practice.

• Listen to feedback. Become vulnerable, listen (even to unspoken cues like interest level), adapt.
• Recognize three basic kinds of vehicles (”codes”) for communication: Logos (words, language), Pathos (emotion, non-verbal codes), Ethos (the communicator himself, his modeled values/attributes).
• Identify their frame of reference by identifying commitment levels.
• Gain credibility by entering the frame of reference. Speak their language, verbally and non-verbally; affirm their beliefs that are consonant with Christianity; express the aspirations, hopes, anxieties, etc. that arise from their beliefs.
• Finally, challenge their frame of reference. Show the inconsistency in their system of belief. Then reestablish equilibrium by showing the fruits of a framework-change, and show them as outweighing the costs of such a change.

Reflections:

• At the risk of ending this on a totally lame note: I also lost my notes on the Q&A. So, go to Wireman’s blog again for an awesome record.
• The end of the conference was relatively uneventful. Kalen and I said some goodbyes and then walked a bit. We sat on a park bench and talked about our feelings regarding a possible Burlington church plant. This conference was, and is, the beginning of this plant as more than a potentiality. We are now committed to attempting it for real.
• That means we are getting ready to step out in faith and trust that God will help us in our attempt to bring Jesus to our city in an authentic and understandable way.
• I praise God for this conference and all that we learned.