Centered-Set Communication in a Globalized World / Vince Brackett (Chicago, IL)

I spent this past weekend at a conference focusing on Christian-Muslim conversations hosted by my home church.  We got to hear from some really fantastic people whose names are quite big in the realm of cross-cultural service in the Muslim world.  I was struck by the paradigm that one of them shared  with us about communication in a globalized world called “3-D.”  Though it was developed with the Muslim World in mind, the model is applicable in any context and I think it has a heck of a lot to say about centered-set living in Secular America. 

His pitch is that increased globalization has fundamentally changed the nature of the world’s communication and this poses a challenge to those in ministry in the Muslim World (or Secular America, or anywhere).
Pre-globalization can be represented by a model of three separate, isolated circles:  Muslim, Christian, and Secular.  In the pre-globalized world, one ministering in the Muslim World can communicate something different about himself in each of the three contexts of his life—a “missionary” in his Christian context, a “worker” in his Muslim context, and a “peacemaker” in his Secular context—and everybody is happy.

However, a globalized world can be represented by a model of the same three circles no longer separate but overlapping like a Venn Diagram.   “In this [globalized] world—whenever we describe who we are, what we do, and why we do it—our words are likely to reach beyond our primary audience and enter the global marketplace of ideas.”  With the perceived “culture wars” and the poor connotations of words like “missionary”, our communication may offend some in a global audience even though it makes our primary audience happy.

This so-called 3-D approach to communication addresses the challenges of globalization by steering the focus away from fringe issues or terms or identifications that may help with our communication in one specific context and toward what he calls core message, core mandate, and core identity that are accessible regardless of context.  In the globalized world model, these are represented by the space shared by all three circles.

For those in ministry to the Muslim World, a core message, mandate, and identity allows for honest and productive communication in all three of the major contexts in their lives—Muslim, Christian, and Secular—because the understandings and worldviews of each have been considered.  And for us in ministry in multi-cultural, post-Christian, American culture-centers, the case can be the same with a consideration of the major contexts in our lives (which, to me, seems like the real kicker since I’d say there are at least 5 or 6 major contexts I have to consider where I am in Chicago).

I think the 3-D approach to communication can teach us a lot about centered-set living.  In our society that conceives of relationship as conversation, but that also is perhaps the epitome globalization with media saturation and Google and YouTube where every published or publicly spoken word is watched and re-watched and critiqued, thoughtful communication that focuses on essentials rather than peripherals is so important.

Comments

[Ryan NYC]

Here, here! I wish I had read this blog or heard that message before moving to NYC, from CO. What a rude awakening I had when words/terms/classifications I had been accustomed to using in discussions (or even in ways to describe myself), were all of a sudden thrown back at me with all sorts of underlying connotations that I neither intended, nor espoused. By using one specific word or phrase, I was automatically being pigeonholed for a catalogue of items that were completely independent of me, my life or my beliefs. I learned that this concept is real, not only b/c of globalization, but b/c of the wide variety of backgrounds and experiences that one can come across in a place like NY.

I think this message is HIGHLY useful to either learn or experience, because it forces one to really, truly determine what that 'core' is (first thing's first, as I recall from a previous blog). For me, moving to NYC, I began to examine what it is that I have to say (or refrain from saying) in order to correctly communicate what I intend to communicate, and/or to project an identity that is congruent with the actual me. That, in turn, caused me to be more granular in my inspection and redefine what my core is.

Personally, gone are the days where I say that I am a 'Christian' b/c I don't want to be classified based on what that means to most people that I talk with. I’ll be pigeonholed for ‘Jesus’ but not ‘Christianity’.

I believe this whole concept is absolutely crucial to understand and apply in secular (or whatever ‘other world’) communication. Thanks for sharing, Vince, b/c I think this further articulates the importance of center-set living for me. It’s definitely given me more food for thought.

[Dave Thom]

Hi Vince, Thanks for the column. Question: you made the point that "the poor connotations of words like missionary...may offend some in a global audience even though it makes our primary audience happy..." So since certain terms or words or titles don't serve us well, but you stressed that this is about communication, what terms or titles or phrases are you using to communicate message, mandate, and identity? I'm not trying to be a s-a, I'm just asking how you solve(d) the issue. Like Ryan, I too find it difficult to use the word "Christian" because it's now politically loaded. Parenthetically, I use the term "chaplain" on campus because it hasn't been co-opted by either the left or right wing of the church yet. But when it is, I'll ditch it too. Then rather than say I'm a Christian chaplain I just say that I serve both Protestant and Catholic interests. Seems like "throw-back" terms work better than trying to stay hip. What have you found?

[Vinceation]

Dave T, thanks for the question... If you're asking about the Muslim World, I'm not the person to ask. I am basically re-packaging other people's excellent thought in this post. I do know that most mission organizations use the term "cross-cultural worker" now instead of "missionary" which seems really productive to me.

If you're asking about my globalized world, Chicago, I've only had this paradigm since last weekend so I'm in the process of rethinking a lot of approaches. But I can look back at some attempts my friends and I have made in the past through the lens of this paradigm and say we've done a decent job from time to time...
A couple examples that people from many contexts have connected with: We try to term things in the positive using phrases like "life to the full" to refer to the life Jesus offers us rather than "life free from sin". Or we often talk about "health" which is a very accessible word and can double for a number of less accessible words like "purity", "sin", or "good Christian" (as in "good Christian marriage").

[Laura]

"Sin" is a loaded term, but I feel that it's an important concept that people outside the church do connect with: the stuff I do that hurts me and hurts others but I keep doing anyway. If you want health, you have to deal with your disease as disease, I think.

I really like the way Jon Acuff talks about it in his wonderful "Stuff Christians Like" blog:

http://stufffchristianslike.blogspot.com/2009/02/494-sin-synonyms-pretty-ways-to-say.html (read the whole thing)

"When Christ died on the cross He didn't do so because He wanted to shift my paradigm. He didn't come to help me realize my full potential and unpack my baggage. He died because my sin was so great it separated me from God. He died so that my sin would die too. The big ugly, gross pile of sin, sin, sin, I was carrying around. Sin is one of those words intricately tied to my salvation and I don't want to mute it in a sea of spin off ideas.

"I don't think it's a big deal to use synonyms. I think God gives us a wide, colorful vocabulary to express our gratitude and that as communicators we have to constantly be conscious of the way we reach people. But if I'm using my words to look better than I really am or trying to be someone I'm really not, that's not cool. That's junk or baggage or maybe even sin."

[Ryan NYC]

Dave - I’m not really sure, to be honest, if I’ve found certain terms better than others. Not for lack of success, but for lack of trying. Your “throw-back” idea is definitely a good one, so I’ll give that consideration for sure. I have typically just resorted to explaining (as briefly as possible) the function of the term, if the term is a roadblock.

In Laura’s example, if I’m talking to someone about ‘sin’ and they react to that word in terms of me judging them, that I believe they are going to hell or that they are a ‘bad person,’ then I’d opt to lose the word and simply explain “the stuff I do that hurts me and hurts others…” Then, hopefully, we’re working on a common ground of understanding and can progress from there.

[DJ Sybear]

3 thoughts

What I like about the idea: Sure, it's a good idea to centralize the ways we communicate in the public arena, and even to spend more of our efforts on shared values with those in our secular or other religious spheres. The places where we overlap generally with our society are where we have the most contact and opportunity. So, as we've pointed out, some vocabulary choices are better than others. Interestingly, a great word in my context would be the term "partner", as in "partner in the gospel".

What I'm iffy about regarding this idea: Pretty quickly our idea of what the appropriate shared lingo might be starts to break down. Now, perhaps that's because we are all commenters from different parts of the country. Maybe so. But I wonder if it's because our relational contexts are so variable. What works with my friends and my professional sphere may not work in yours. So I'm not sure there's a lot of universal statements to be made about our American contexts, because our sub-cultures are so varied. To my earlier example, "partner" is probably useless to half the people reading this. "Sin" is probably very contextual as well. I'm also dubious on the value of talking about identity at the points of overlap. Identity strikes me as fairly bounded-set, and I wonder if it reinforces, rather than diminishes, our differences.

All that said, I think this model has some value on a personal or community basis, but I wonder if centered-set models are more critical in the long run.