From The God Who is There (pgs. 130-131):
A further language barrier comes as we try to talk to people of a very different social background from ourselves, for example those in the deep slums.
In none of these cases do the language problems solve themselves automatically. If we wish to communicate, then we must take time and trouble to learn our hearers use of language so that they understand what we intend to convey. This is particularly difficult today for us as Christians when we want to use a word like God or guilt in a strictly defined sense rather than as a connotation word, because the concepts of these words have been changed universally.
In a case like this, either we must try to find a synonymous word without a false connotation, or else we have to define the word at length when we use it, so that we make sure our hearer understand as fully as possible what we are conveying. In this latter case we are no longer using the word as a technical word, in the sense that we assume a common definition.
I suggest that if the word (or phrase) we are in the habit of using is not more than an orthodox evangelical cliché which has become a technical term among Christians, then we should be willing to give it up when we step outside our own narrow circle and talk to the people around us.
If, on the other hand, the word is indispensable, such as the word God, then we should talk at sufficient length to make ourselves clear. Technical words, if they are used without sufficient explanation, may mean that outsiders really do not hear the Christian message at all and that we ourselves, in our churches and missions have become an introverted and isolated language group.
As we turn to consider in more detail how we may speak to people of the twentieth century, we must emphasize first of all that we cannot apply mechanical rules. We, of all people, should realize this, for as Christians we believe that personality really does exist and is important. We can lay down some general principles, but there can be no automatic application.
If we are truly personal, as created by God, then each individual will differ from everyone else. Therefore each person must be dealt with as an individual, not as a case or statistic or machine. If we would work with these people, we cannot apply the things we have dealt with in this book mechanically. We must look to the Lord in prayer, adnd to the work of the Holy Spirit, for the effective use of these things.
Furthermore, we must remember that the person to whom we are talking, however far from the Christian faith he may be, is an image-bearer of God. He has great value and our communication to him must be in genuine love. Love is not an easy thing; it is not just an emotional urge, but an attempt to move over and sit in the other person’s place and see how his problems look to him. Love is a genuine concern for the individual.
As Jesus Christ reminds us, we are to love that individual “as ourselves.” This is the place to begin.
Therefore, to be engaged in personal “witness” as a duty or because our Christian circle exerts a social pressure on us, is to miss the whole point. The reason we do it is that the person before us is an image-bearer of God, and he is an individual who is unique in the world.
This kind of communication is not cheap. To understand and speak to sincere but utterly confused twentieth-century people is costly. It is tiring; it will open you to temptations and pressures. Genuine love, in the last analysis, means a willingness to be entirely exposed to the person to whom we are talking.
Enjoy this post? Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.
Consider sharing this post
