I've been thinking creatively, trying to work out a deeper understanding of the interchange, interplay, and exchange between communicator and audience. In a book I'm currently reading, "Communicating for a Change," it teaches that the number one goal should be to prompt change in the congregation, which in turn brings everybody closer to God.
I say, good starting point, and a number of other things in the book are helpful as well. However, I find myself uneasy and left wanting. I've been spurred onto deeper thinking along these lines the past two days to put my finger better on the issue. I naively thought in the past all a preacher needs to do is to preach the Bible, and as long as he exegeted the Bible properly, and threw in some good modern day hermeneutical offshoot applications, job well done. However, I've come to realize that is woefully not enough. I could go on about this, but there is a larger issue I need to address.
Where is the modern day error in successful communication? Further on down the line we can find part of the answer simply by watching successful communicators. Part of the answer lays in audience engagement. This is where you see the communicator thinking, and when you look into the eyes of the audience, you see the audience tracking and thinking exactly along the same lines. This is crucial, they are thinking together! A perfect communicator-audience connection. They are thinking through the topic together. The communicator then is charged with guiding and directing the group's thoughts as the move through the journey together. Unfortunately for many communicators today, we fail not just in getting the audience to think with us, but we actually fail in getting the audience to think at all!!
Alas, I digress. The point, ah yes, the point. Now that I have you engaged I can tell you the point. The reason for failure in communicating for change or action is because we do not yet have a thorough understanding of what causes a human to act. If our goal is to elicit action from our audience, we first must have an understanding of what shapes the way in which they choose to act, and then play on this as we think through the topic together with our audience. We'll be hit and miss in our communicating if we don't understand the root issue of the process of human decision making.
We can't communicate for action effectively when we don't know what causes action. Tell me what is involved and what goes in a person's mind, body, and soul in the process leading up to action, and then I can start being able to communicate with the goal being action. But as it stands now we still cannot figure out why humans decide to do what they do. What is a robust theory of action? I'm out on the horizon looking for a philosophy of action, and I still can't find one. What causes humans to change, or to act in a particular manner.?
Do we act in a certain way when we become rationally convinced? Are we creatures of reason? Experience should definitely rule out this possibility for Christians. I say this because we as Christians sin a ton, and we know rationally this is the most absurd thing to do! Reason dictates that to sin against God is far from being smart. Yet, we still do it! Christians, therefore, are certainly not foremost creatures of reason, because if we were, we would never sin again. Therefore, a sound, logical, convincing argument alone usually will not serve to spur change or cause action. And a sinning preacher should realize this if he gives purely intellectual messages, because his very sinful lifestyle proves a sound Biblical rational message isn't the ultimate key in causing appropriate holy action and noteworthy change.
On the flip side of us building rational connectivity with our audience, is us building emotional connectivity. This line follows, if I can get you to feel a certain way, I can get you to act in a certain way. But is this true? Alas, I'm stumped and tired. Therefore, my action is now to stop. ;) (So what just exactly caused this action?)
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Excellent thoughts; this is a great challenge. Initially, I think there are two things to keep in mind.
One, God is the author of change. As I reflect on my own life and changes that actually have taken place. It has taken time and a tender heart to God. I think it is easy to rationally ascent to trusting God as the One who alone can bring change. But to actually submit and trust Him to bring change in ourselves and others can be a whole different story. I think this requires a humility. As someone who has spoken in front of a couple gatherings, I find my pride struggling to take the credit in wanting to deliver a powerful message instead of trusting God to use the words. I hope this is not too cliche. I think a byproduct of humility is that the audience will sense your genuineness and feel that they are in the same boat. Instead of feeling that someone is speaking to them, they feel that someone is speaking with them. Does this make sense?
Two, change is a process which innately takes time. As someone who is trying to communicate a message, I find myself jumping to find the product. It could be related to 1 Cor. and Paul as he discusses those who sow vs. those who harvest and water. We are prone to want to see the product of our efforts. If we are faithful to deliver God's Word in a manner that honors Him, I think that will bring a fruit in His time. This is however, not to counteract what you're striving for in finding a better way to bring about action. Rather, I think it supplements it.
I think you are right on in pointing out that rationality alone doesn't bring change. I think this is affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 15. He comments from Isaiah, "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me." And in verses 18-19, he points out that it is out of the heart that evil actions come. So, it is here, in the heart that we find the source of action. Where does the "heart" exist in a human? Is it the seat of our being? Can it be a conglomeration of our mind, emotions, will? Wherever it may be, Jesus enlightens us. The heart must be the place where change takes place. So, in communicating, I would say it takes each of the elements you talked about. It can't be devoid of either intellect or emotion. Do you think there is one, true answer to getting action from an audience?
This is an excellent topic for discussion. Thanks for sharing.
Mature thoughts.
I appreciate your comments.
Nick,
I just finished reading that book as well for my intro to preaching class.
What strikes me as I think about communication and the preacher/teacher's role in it, is how little dialogue exists in a modern church. Think about it...the very thing we're doing right now, dialoguing about communication, is probably the most effective way to really change the way that we think and act. It's probably more effective than having me just tell you what you need to know about communication, at least.
I haven't done a whole lot of study on it, but as I think about it, it seems as though Jesus didn't "preach" (at least in the modern sense of the word) very often. Instead, a lot of his teaching came in the context of questions and concerns that people had. There was a genuine two-way dialogue taking place, instead of Jesus simply sitting up on a stage telling people good things from God's word.
I could be wrong, and of course many a sermon has stirred my heart, but I have to believe there's something that we're missing out on when nobody dares to ask the pastor exactly what he/she means on a certain topic during a "sermon".
Food for thought...what do you think?
I think you are spot on.
Whatever the topic "how to better communicate" or something else that a person wants to put on the table, the most effective method I think you are right. It isn't through a book exactly, because that's only a one-way street. As Jesus models, and as our churches today need to better model, is that in order to grasp a topic, a two-way street needs to be in place to facilitate communication, comprehension, and ownership, among other things. Funny and ironic that, in order to better understand how to communicate more effectively, this can only be met by starting up the communication!
Obviously, your point about no one questioning the pulpit in our culture is due to the unhealthy trend in our culture to avoid confrontation at all costs. You and I are the types because of our personalities that can handle that better, but for others it's only seen as "scary" and therefore they cannot see the positive growth that could take place from such a format.
Post a Comment