Narratives in evangelism

Spreading the good news to people outside the church, I believe, is best done by example. One cannot (should not) go out to rope people in. Having said that, we now need to look at the examples we are setting. Faith is something deeply personal and people typically come to a faith in times of personal turmoil. Telling personal stories works well in these circumstances.

Bible stories as public narratives are often today only half-understood. People are no longer familiar with Bible stories, or worse, they have some unfavourable interpretations in their heads and have never had the opportunity to inquire about it. I found that may people are dead set to not believe in this God they have heard about, even when told that what they have heard is not quite right. There is a lot of opportunity for re-telling the stories. 

Communal narratives seem to be very much neglected. Especially in New Zealand communities may be reluctant to talk about what they are doing (out of modesty). Our Christian background also encourages us not to talk about the good deeds, so many stories remain untold that could give outsiders a perspective of what a community is all about. 

"Visual messages are deeply personal" (pg 466)

Do you remember the controversy about the Danish cartoons of Muhammed? It enraged some Muslims to the point of violence. Their understanding of the images used in the cartoon was deeply personal – it touched the very core of their beliefs. Christians may get similarly upset about other images. Thus our reaction depends on our personal context and expectations.

The same way the people react differently to images from outside the church, members of a congregation build their own mental models for visual images within the church. An example is our reaction to the image of the priest raising the communion wafer and chalice with wine. On Sunday, we may all see the same image but its meaning probably subtly differs for each of us. A congregation is always a group of individuals that appear similar only to an outsider.

On the other hand, a congregation behaves like single person with own context and memory. Images have different meanings for different congregations and trigger different reactions (as I found out when praying the `stations of the cross’ amidst a Catholic congregation).  

Belonging to a group (congregation) is often defined by the shared meaning of images.

Is it my story or yours?

We need to embrace that there is nothing we can do about the fact that stories mean different things to different people. The meaning of a story, as for any piece of art, is created in the observer/listener’s head. Sometimes these images (meanings) for listeners coincide, but often they will not.

Translated onto Biblical stories, Stanley Fish wrote a seminal book called: „Is There A Text In This Class“. He introduces the concept of interpretative communities and describes how each reader comes with their own bias (set of beliefs and circumstances), thus influencing the way they read7hear a particular story. We know similar concepts from communication theory, where we hear with four different ‚ears’ (a concept by Schulz von Thun): on the levels of relationship, appeal, self-revelation, and objective. The least used
ear is the objective one!

A preacher’s story as well as its interpretation will be listened to with a personal bias. In general, ‘obvious’ stories should not be explained. However, the preacher needs to know the congregation well to make this decision. If we are to embrace the different interpretations in people’s heads, stories can be taken as good starting points for discussions and intended dialogue.

installations and icons

Art (installations) are a good way of communicating with people of different stages of faith. The images here are from the Stations of the Cross in Hamilton: an art installation that is created anew every evening of Holy Week in the Hamilton Gardens and again taken down every night after midnight.


It is a whole body experience for everyone. For the artists in keeping it running while getting more and more tired every evening and for the visitors who walk through the gardens with torches, encountering images, installations, film, and a hot chocolate at the end. Nothing is prescribed and everyone is free to react and interact differently to/with the installation. Everyone can take their time and engage as much as they feel safe. It offers active participation with open ended interpretation; room to move physically and cognitively. Creating the artwork is worship and communication as well.

I feel, however, that art installations and mystic experiences work particularly well for the early stages of faith (0 to 2) and again at the later stages (5+6). At stage 3 and 4, the looming loss of conformity may make it too scary to venture out into the unknown. Then, imagery such as icons may be perceived as safer because they are sanctioned by tradition.

-----
*Some of my points here have been addressed in much more detail in “The Prodigal Project” by Mike Riddell, Mark Pierson and Cathy Kirkpatrick (SPCK), all three of them from New Zealand (including the big West Island)!

** Icon is “The Holy Family” by Janet McKenzie, copyright 2007. www.janetmckenzie.com, Collection of Loyola School, New York, NY

safe space in a sermon

Looking at things I would not want to experience in a sermon, these would be: not being laughed about, shamed, made fun of, or left alone. For me it boils down to: not being first invited and then rejected.

For example, to be invited to think about something and then (just when one starts thinking) to be told how and what to think are forms of rejection of one’s contribution. Being invited to respond, but not leaving time (by continuing to talk or by providing an answer) is a rejection and a dishonouring.

It is important to leave room for people to move into and to honour that space as precious. A sermon does not stand on its own. Safe space is an attitude not a technique.

The honouring of people and the space a sermon may open for them has to go beyond the sermon. The conduct of the whole person counts: parishioners need to know that their contributions count and are held dear.

One can never know what rooms get opened for listeners. After a sermon, in treating the people with dignity we have to tread softly, because we may tread on their dreams, hopes or fears.

church but not as you know it (dialog in preaching)

Dialogue in preaching means starting a conversation. One form of encouraging people to actively engage in a dialogue is a group discussion. Part of the priest’s sermon has to give way to people’s contributions. That is, the `sermon’ may set the stage, pose questions or offer unusual ways to think about an issue by playing with expectations. The priest does not offer definitive answers but invites people into the shared space and triggers their responses.

At our church, we do this in a small informal service that gathers people in the sanctuary. There is, of course, some anxiety as one cannot script where this is going to take us. We have to sit though periods of silence while we listen to our inner voices responding to the questions that arise. Then, hopefully, some of these voices will be externalized and shared. Many voices are heard that normally may go unnoticed (or even unvoiced). The informal setting invites exploration and unusual ideas. Laughter often frees from constraints and worries of conformity.

The discussions are often continued in the local café. Church mingles with life. `Café churches’ are an interesting way to engage people and to invite them as a whole person.

I heard it through the grapevine…

How we see the role of grapevines in churches depends on whether we understand the church as a hierarchical structure controlled by priests, or a community of people.

Open grapevines work for fast communication in emergencies without formalities. They sometimes go wrong (see Julie's post). In community-oriented churches, priests do not need to know everything. However, they may want to ensure that people know when to check with them before running off with a good idea.

Secretive grapevines hide information. They indicate failing official communication within the church and highlight trust issues. I have seen priests in hierarchical churches trying to control by shaming and prohibiting talk. Secretive or controlling behaviour by a priest fertilises secretive grapevines.

Congregations have something to offer but may need guidance. To influence a grapevine, priests need to acknowledge its existence. Ignoring this communication and its validity, they may end up being disconnected from their parish. To dismiss the grapevine merely as "gossiping" may dismiss people's anxieties, hopes and needs.

A priest can open secretive grapevines and build trust by participating in low-key communication, such as sharing personal stories in small groups. Even for a priest it will take courage to let go of control.