“Recommunicate” is a tough word for me in this case… can you explain?

Recommunicate

RECOMMU’NICATE, v.i. [re and communicate.] To communicate again.

Great question, it’s about knowing the listener, her context and communicating in a way that can be heard and understood. For example, much of the world would connect with truth unveiled in a story more than a 3 point propositional outline. . .similarly to how Jesus shared a story after someone asked who is my neighbor. The art of adapting the means/vehicle to express the message is critical in conversation. We contextually communicate more naturally when it comes to foreign language acquisition but not when it comes to sub cultures within a majority cultural milieu.

Dave, I appreciate the opportunity to dialogue about this directly with you

I think when you say “recommunicate” you really mean “recontextualize.” In this sense you imply that each generation needs to “re-think” the Gospel in order to make it relevant.

I guess that is where I say that it is “a tough word” in this context. To help you hear where I am coming from, I am a minister and a licensed counselor. I have worked with addicted people for several years and definitely know about contextualization. I have never been into drugs, in fact I have never even smoked a cigarette! It was quite a challenge starting with that population. Yet I never felt compelled to visit a drug dealer, smoke pot, or shoot heroin so I could be relevant to those who I was talking to. I know it is a stark example, but do you see what I am getting at?

If what we have is a life-changing… well, let’s face it an “eternity-changing” message, then doesn’t that make it relevant in and of itself? How relevant can we make the message before it is no longer the same message?

Thanks for the feedback.

Actually, recommunicate or recontextualize were interchangeable in what I wrote. . . can’t you recontextualize by recommunicating? But one may not be recontextualizing if one just recommunicates what they said before! so there can be a shade of difference fo’ sure. Language is so much fun!

And from whose perspective of relevance? I have some friends who are KJV only and read the Scriptures in the Old King james 1611 style. If I was relevant to them I would use my 1611 KJV when I speak to them or their congregants. I guess to me, esp. when it comes to language and communication their needs to be a sensitivity in how you communicate as much as WHAT you communicate. (eg.. Eph. 4–speak the truth in love. Jesus’ incarnation.) Missionaries do it all the time. You probably understand as you communicate it’s not just about your words it’s communicating in a way your audience can understand.

I would think you also would talk to a child much differently than you would an adult in your counseling or when your giving a homily, sermon, talk, reflection, devotional or speech. Otherwise we all best pull out our Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts for the “relevant” rendering and not listen to these interpreters of the ancient writings. Yeah, i guess when i talk of recomm. or recontext. one doesn’t have to compromise convictions or do what others do. It’s more of an argument from a missiological communication perspective. It’s much like you would when you would go to another sub culture in your city or globally. You learn their language, idioms, tone, etc. I think the more one does cross cultural life, the more you see the need for artful adaptation in communication to connect with the one you’re in dialogue. Okay, i mean recontextualizing too .