Research into the process of communication provides an interesting insight into how we communicate the gospel . . .
Because human beings have always communicated with each other, one might be forgiven for supposing that we know by now how communication works.
In fact, what we now know is that the process is intensely complex. The war of 1939-45 stimulated increasing research into the subject. Propaganda was being recognised as a new and useful weapon of war. It became important to find out how to communicate most effectively.
Communication is a social process - it is people who communicate with each other. But people vary in character, background, age, experience, education, class, religious belief and in other ways too. The early ideas of how communication works were quickly perceived to be inadequate.
Bullet theory
It had been supposed that people were sitting targets, passively receiving any information that was shot at them: say it often enough and loudly enough, and they will be persuaded! That was referred to as the 'bullet theory'. But far too often those who were being hit with bullets of information refused to fall over. Audiences were clearly not to be thought of as groups of defenceless clones. The phrase 'the obstinate audience' was coined by an American psychologist to express his frustration.
Experiments actually began to show that communication which took the form of a stream of bullets fired repeatedly and loudly not only failed to persuade, but often produced the reverse effect - a growing belligerence and resistance to what was being said. (Are we not familiar with what is sometimes called 'gospel hardening'?) Many political party broadcasts on radio or TV serve only to confirm sympathetic listeners in their existing views, rather than to convert listeners from one political alignment to another. Human minds have a skilful selection mechanism which scans information being received, choosing what they will receive according to what they wish to make of it. In any democratic situation, audiences are active not passive; free, not captive.
Category theory
By the middle of the 1950s a 'category theory' was being developed. This took into account the differences among people and required an approach by the communicator which took note of the category of person being addressed. People of any one type or group, it was argued, would all respond identically to what was expected to be normal for that group. Identify your group, adapt your communication to the norms of that group, then 'bingo!' - you have communicated. So you advertise your Rolls Royce for sale in The Times or The Daily Telegraph, not in The Sun or The Star. Yet even this theory had too many exceptions to be reliable.
It began to look as if the 'mass media' were not really so 'mass effective' after all. Communication was evidently a 'buyer's market'. Mass media could provide the means for persuasion and change but were not the cause of it. Audiences are composed of people differing types and are not to be thought of en masse, or even in watertight categories. Evidently some people had an irritating habit of acting, and reacting, contrary to the norm expected for their group. They could be affected by influences from outside instead of conforming to the expected norms of their group. The category theory was still too simple to be an adequate explanation of what makes a communication successful.
Relationship theory
So thinking moved to a third position which might be called the 'relationship theory'. Instead of regarding a communication as something put into people, it is to be thought of as information that is shared between people. The closer the relationship between the communicator and the receiver the more likely it is that the process will be successful. Enemies misunderstand each other so easily; to an observer it sometimes seem incredible just how much a lack of trust between two people can distort the messages which pass between them. Long-time sweethearts, on the other hand, can often 'read' the mind of their partner almost before words are spoken. A relationship which creates trust is the highway for successful communication.
There are different kinds of relationships within which communication commonly takes place in our human experience. And in each relationship certain things are required to be true, for both the communicator and the receptor, if the communication is to be a success. Each relationship must be built on a basis of trust.
For example, there is a relationship for instruction and the imparting of information. In this the teacher is expected to give useful information which proves to be accurate and true: the teacher must be credible. The student must be able to see the use of what is taught and have a willingness to learn: he must be teachable.
In a second example, there is a relationship designed to bring about some change by persuasion. Here the salesman needs to have a good grasp of the receptors' environment (including their culture) to be able to demonstrate the need for them to receive what he has to offer. He has to be confident of his product and the receptors have to be willing to hear the arguments for change and see the long-term benefit which would accrue to them. They need to realise their loss if they refuse what is being presented.
(Incidentally, the likelihood of any change being brought about in this relationship can be estimated by the following formula: Likelihood of change = perceived reward minus perceived loss divided by perceived expenditure of effort. Therefore, if the amount of loss for not changing exceeds the amount of reward for making the change and the effort required to make the change is not too great, then change is likely to occur. That might be an interesting formula against which to test the sermon or the open-air talk!)
Thirdly, there is an entertainment relationship. In this case the communicator is expected to bring about a sense of enjoyment and sometimes to stimulate the quest for further knowledge. The 'entertainer' is expected to be a skilled performer. The receptor may be required to 'suspend' disbelief, temporarily regarding the entertainment as reality and not fiction (in drama, for instance) and to respond by an immediate emotional feeling of satisfaction.
In all these communication relationships there must be some mutual respect between the communicator and the receptor. An atmosphere of disrespect (for whatever reason) will distort the message or cause the hearer's selection mechanism to reject what is being heard. There must always be an element of trust present. If the situation is one in which trust can grow into deep appreciation, then that closeness makes misunderstanding or outright rejection of the communication even less likely.
Communicating the gospel
For the Christian communicator, there ought to be something of each 'relationship contracts' in any presentation of the gospel message. The credibility of the messenger, the reward of receiving the message and the possibility of a sense of joy from the message, are all essential ingredients necessary to the communicating of the gospel. Disrespect, or hostility of any degree, blocks a favourable reception of the communication. Peter isn't likely to get the right message over to Malchus after chopping off his ear! Nor is Malchus's relative very keen to hear Peter expound the gospel message after watching him 'communicate' with Malchus.
But if our Christian communicator goes to someone who is ignorant of the gospel and sees no immediate need to hear its message, how is the relationship to be established in which the message can be placed? Gospel bullets fired vigorously or even the subtlest right-for-this-category-of-person message can both fail, as we have seen. The vital context for the message must be an attitude of trust which has grown from a sense of Christian love between communicator and receptor.
That context of loving understanding will be a means of informing the communicator of the needs of the receptor and will cultivate in the receptor a sense of respect for the communicator. Thus a bridge is built across which the message can travel. But even apart from that practical point, the gospel message is surely about a God who is described as possessing a nature of holy love. How can anyone represent him adequately if there is no evidence of love?
Context of love
This need for a context of Christian love brings with it the need to have some regular contact with those whom we would like to reach with the gospel. We are more likely to be able to put the gospel message into the context of people with whom we regularly mix than complete strangers. Our Lord himself had more 'success' with those few men and women who were with him continuously than with the many he met and healed in brief contacts. This is not to suggest that God never uses the briefest of contacts. Especially in times of revival even the casual contact has been fruitful.. Those are God's special sovereign moments - we long for them. But meanwhile there is the matter of our responsibility - the need to build bridges of Christian love so that by all the means we can devise, some might be saved.
John Appleby
