We (the MO Guys) have recently been appointed adjunct professors in the Master of Arts Program in Missional Leadership at Northwest Nazarene University in Boise, Idaho. This innovative online program seeks to equip leaders to effectively do ministry in our twenty-first century by taking ministry outside the walls of the church.
The first course on tap is titled “Communicating Visually”. It runs eight weeks beginning Monday October 22. Each week of the course has a topical emphasis. As a service to the larger community of those seeking effective ministry in this time, and as a glimpse into what the students are learning, we will publish the course’s weekly online lecture in this space.
In the interest of continuing education, we’d love to see your reactions in the comments below. Enjoy.
Note: Click on the image above to advance to the next one.
This online lecture is available for purchase as a PowerPoint file and is ideal for presentation to a church committee or group on the value of communication in ministry. For more information, CLICK HERE.
The MO Guys said,
Wrote on November 13, 2007 @ 9:20 am
What do you think? Leave a message if you have something to say about this article. No registration is required to post a comment, but we will moderate for spam and obscene language, so your comment will be delayed in posting until we clear it.
Don Johnson said,
Wrote on November 13, 2007 @ 10:48 am
I think this was a good message for this point in the series. Metaphors can be a very powerful figure of speech, and can be just as useful as many other figures of speech.
I think your point here about the object of your metaphor, or anchor, if you will, is one that needs strong emphasis. By anchoring your metaphor to an archaic cultural point (like “Born Again” for example), it reduces your metaphor to a similar cliche. In the same vein, though, we need to be careful that we are not anchoring our metaphorical elements to something that may be “in” today, but could easily become passe tomorrow. As an example, your illustration using the keys and locks is something that I don’t see going away or becoming cliche in the near future, and it is something that easily relates to all generations.
A danger for which we need to be alert is in the creating of a visual metaphor that is so obscure that it takes more effort to explain than the original point would take. Yes, Jesus did express his “public” message through parables, but the anchor of the parables was understood by most of the listeners, even if they couldn’t put the whole thing together. The technologically advanced people of today can get caught in finding the “just right” image that hits the mark in their mind, but misses the cultural or societal anchor of the viewer.
Thanks for another great segment! I would love to show these to some in our church who just aren’t getting the point about good presentations!
Bob Almond said,
Wrote on November 14, 2007 @ 3:11 am
You say ‘Jesus used parables…so he could communicate with effectiveness’ – but that isn’t Jesus explanation of why he used parables. He said that he used them (some believe) in order to remain ambiguous!
This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
Might be good to hear you respond to that. But that’s not the main point I wanted to make. Metaphors carry with them baggage, as you rightly point out. Do you think that all well-chosen metaphors are as good as each other; or do those which Scripture has already chosen have extra value? I think they do – there is something about ‘shepherd’ that ‘coach’ doesn’t match; something about ‘Father’ or ‘The Vine’ or even being ‘Born Again’ that isn’t quite covered by our alternatives.
So – I agree with what you have writen, and we do need to find contemporary analogues of Scriptural metaphors; but as metaphors that shed light on our understanding of the Scriptural ones, not as replacements. So one time we will seek to understand being ‘born again’ through the metaphor of the restored car; another time we’ll use the language of recovering from addiction, and so on. The original metaphors are more than Jesus’ random choice of an illustration; they have a significance we have yet to exhaust.
I know you already implied this – as you spoke about working together with the original text – but I wanted to take it a step further.
The MO Guys said,
Wrote on November 14, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
Bob,
Thanks for writing again. You’re keeping it lively here.
Two responses to your two points:
One, have you read our book Digital Storytellers? In there we talk about ambiguity as one of the seven “Digital DNA” of our culture. And how the current higher tolerance of mystery and the unknown contrasts with the modern era’s need for facts and scientific method but fits nicely with Jesus’ approach to teaching. So, yes, we’d agree that the parables are full of ambiguity. The modern era approach to a sermon is more like a television sitcom, where everything is tied into a neat little bow. The approach we advocate, like any good art, is not afraid to raise questions and leave them unanswered.
Maybe our statement needs clarifying. There’s a difference between “communicating with effectiveness” and leaving people with something to think about. Jesus was purposely ambiguous, but his goal was not to befuddle people. In the very next verse, Jesus is frustrated with the disciples for their lack of understanding of his use of metaphor. In verse 33, Mark writes, ?ÄúWith many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything?Äù. So his goal wasn’t to confuse, but to illuminate. The ambiguity was an opportunity for exploration and reflection on a truth.
Obviously the bigger picture of the gospel is something that, until one becomes a believer, won?Äôt fully be understood. It is only through the process of becoming a disciple that many of our common Christian messages begin to make more sense. Until then, a non-believer may be ever seeing, but not fully perceiving and ever hearing, but not understanding.
Of course, if the message is never heard and understood in a way that makes any sense to the non-believer, he/she is likely to leave and never come back. That?Äôs why metaphor is so powerful. It has the ability to connect believers and non-believers alike. The same metaphors take on new meanings/perceptions/understandings when one becomes a believer and has new eyes to see and ears to hear.
We would agree with AW Tozer that, much like the Pharisees, in spite of our religiosity, we have trained our ears not to hear. God communicates truth with many voices and many methods. Without getting into a further theological discussion of Isaiah 6 and Mark 4, suffice it to say we would argue with any theology that states Jesus was purposely trying to keep people from the kingdom of God.
Two, You ask about biblical/first century metaphors compared to the power of contemporary metaphors. There is power in the metaphors present in scripture, but we don?Äôt believe them to have ?Äúextra power?Äù, or to be more effective than metaphors from today?Äôs culture. In fact, the point of the lecture was to say that many of them close to the door in this time. Jesus took common objects and situations and gave them meaning through his teaching.
Yes, Shepherd has different connotations than Coach. Each metaphor is unique. If organized team sports had the kind of presence in Jesus?Äô culture as they do today, you might be fighting to keep the Coach metaphor more ?Äúsacred?Äù or ?Äúholy?Äù than other metaphors from our time. Do you say that if Jesus was here today he would use shepherd? This may cause you to rip your garments, Bob, but we would say no. Every metaphor Jesus chose was ubiquitous to his culture. We truly believe if he were ministering on Earth today, he would do likewise, and pick images that are common to this culture. Whether it?Äôs a restored car, or a sheep, or a seed, or a movie theatre- the truth of the gospel is most important, and the metaphor is the vehicle by which we can compare it to something known and understood.
?ÄúNeither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.” (Matt 9:17) Contemporary metaphors are new wineskins. If you put the new wine of truth into the old first century skins, they are likely to breakdown before the truth can be ingested.
And, yes, as you said, we do advise working contemporary metaphors together with the original text.
Peace.
Lori Fast said,
Wrote on November 14, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
I would add to the above comments by the MO guys that in order to truly understand a metaphor like “shepherd,” and why Jesus used it, you need to dive into the culture of his day and time to really get why shepherd was such a powerful image to the people of his day. And then that leads to the discussion of what metaphors in today’s world have that same emotional impact. We in the church see a shepherd as important to us, because we have been taught that Jesus is the Good Shepherd, and that in that role he protects us and guides us. But to a generic person off the street who hasn’t even ever seen a live sheep up close, a shepherd metaphor won’t mean much.