Reconciliation as Impetus and Frame for Faith Integration in Intercultural Communication
By John Hatch, CCSN Senior Fellow
Among courses commonly required for Communication Studies majors, Intercultural Communication presents distinctive challenges and opportunities for faith integration. While secular approaches assume cultural relativism, a Christian approach recognizes that all cultures have both gifts and besetting sins relative to a holy Creator; and God became human to reconcile them all. I have found reconciliation to be a consummate frame for integrating faith in the course.
I taught Intercultural Communication almost every year for two decades until retirement, both at the University of Dubuque (2003-2011) and Eastern University (2012-2022). The ethos at each of these Christian institutions, combined with my scholarly research on racial/ethnic reconciliation, helped shape my approach to faith-learning integration. Initially, UD’s focus on character education led me to frame the course in terms of developing good intercultural character and competence. Later, EU’s motto of “Faith, Reason, and Justice” suggested three frames, which loosely correspond with the major approaches to studying culture and communication: interpretive, social-scientific, and critical, respectively. As it happens, the primary textbook I was using—Martin and Nakayama’s Intercultural Communication in Contexts—organizes theories and findings for each topic according to these three approaches.[1] Thus, to integrate Eastern’s faith commitment with the textbook’s secular framework, I decided to frame course content in terms of faith, reason, and justice—culminating in reconciliation, which ties them together and serves as a master frame. Below, I clarify these four frames, then show how I’ve applied them to selected intercultural communication topics.
Framing Assumptions
Faith. In every culture, humans live by faith. We trust that the universe (and our place in it) is meaningful, and we act on assumptions and values taken on faith. Different cultures have developed different worlds of meaning; and one cannot properly understand a culture without taking seriously its faith in certain assumed realities and values. Christian faith is one such world of meaning, emerging out of the cultures of the ancient Near East yet testifying to the incarnate Logos who redeems and reconciles all cultures. Although the wider academy tends to marginalize faith as a lens on human behavior, the interpretive approach to studying cultures requires us to suspend disbelief and enter into their faith-world to understand them. Christians place their ultimate faith in the grace of a loving God who took on flesh and offered his life to redeem us from sin and injustice. This grace paves the way for the work of reconciliation, reintegrating truth, justice, and peace in a broken world.
Reason. God endowed us with reason to discern and discover truth, and we can understand much about cultural behavior through rational investigation. Quantitative social science identifies variables and patterns of cultural/intercultural behavior and develops theories to explain human behavior in terms of these variables. Such theories highlight relatively universal aspects of human nature expressed in and through cultural differences. This perspective loosely comports with the biblical understanding of humans as created beings.
Justice. Biblical faith is infused with particular concern for the poor, marginalized, and downtrodden. This concern is motivated not only by mercy but also by God’s passion for justice. Some of the laws given to ancient Israel were designed to ensure that the poor would not remain perpetually impoverished and dependent on others’ charity.[2] In the fullness of time, Christ came, proclaiming and embodying the justice of God, which exposes sin, punctures pride, and upends oppressive hierarchies.[3] This creates a point of conversation with cultural-critical approaches to intercultural communication, as they are invested in exposing and correcting discursive and systemic injustices that keep some culture groups in perpetual disadvantage. (The “Culture Study – 3 Approaches” PowerPoint linked at the end of this article shows how I introduce the frames Faith, Reason, and Justice to students early in the semester.)
Reconciliation. Christ is the eternal Logos through whom all things exist and are reconciled. As St. Paul writes, “in him all things were created . . . and in him all things hold together . . . . God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things . . . making peace through his blood, shed on the cross” (Colossians 1:16-17, 19-20, NIV). This peace is not a mere absence of conflict, but the presence of harmony and wholeness, or shalom. Although sin alienates us from God and one another, Christ redeems us from sin and restores these relationships, breaking down even the thickest dividing walls (Jew vs. Gentile, Black vs. White, male vs. female, etc.).[4] At the cross, Christ redeems and reintegrates all aspects of God’s broken world. In him, faith, reason, and justice find ultimate fulfillment, as his Spirit weaves grace, truth, justice, and peace in and through us, creating a tapestry of shalom.[5] Jesus commissioned us to carry this gospel of reconciliation to all peoples.[6] (I unpack this topic at length in the second half of the semester, as described below with accompanying materials.)
Examples of Faith-Learning Integration in Intercultural Communication
The faith-integration framework outlined above readily applies to intercultural communication. For example, it has strongly shaped my approach to such topics as intercultural imperatives, DIE, communication accommodation, and confronting injustice between groups.
The Gospel (Reconciliation) Imperative
In the first chapter of Intercultural Communication in Contexts, students encounter six “imperatives”—reasons why it is essential to develop intercultural communication competence: demographic changes, global interconnectedness through technology, a globalized economy, ethical challenges, the need for cultural self-awareness, and the lack of peace in the world.[7] After discussing these primarily reason- and justice-oriented imperatives in class, I ask my students if Christian faith gives us any other reason to pursue intercultural competence. I then assign an essay titled “The Living God Is a Missionary God,”[8] in which theologian John Stott emphasizes that Yahweh’s covenant God with Abraham consummates in a global promise: “through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed” (Genesis 22:18, NIV). Stott explains that this covenant finds fulfillment in the numberless throng of people redeemed by Christ “from every nation, tribe, people and language” (Revelation 7:9, NIV). Thus, “We need to become global Christians with a global vision, for we have a global God.”[9] After students discuss this reading in class, I suggest that we add a faith-oriented imperative to our original six: the gospel imperative, which could also be called the reconciliation imperative since the gospel heals the divide not only between humans and God but also between peoples—and believers have been entrusted with this ministry of reconciliation.[10]
Called to DIE
After establishing the need to develop intercultural competence, we unpack what that entails: intercultural motivation, knowledge, attitudes, and skills.[11] The most important and broadly applicable skill for intercultural communication is DIE, which stands for Description, Interpretation, Evaluation.[12] DIE applies attitudes essential to intercultural competence: suspend judgment (i.e., practice non-judgmentalism) so that we can give full attention to another culture’s behavior apart from our cultural boxes (tolerate ambiguity), then learn where and how the phenomenon fits within their world of meaning (empathy), and only then evaluate the behavior vis-à-vis their norms and values.[13] In effect, this skill applies the interpretive approach to everyday intercultural interactions.
After introducing “DIE” as a secular heuristic, I relate it to Christian faith, noting that this practice involves dying to our cultural assumptions and prejudices so that new understandings can be born. I remind students that Christ calls his followers to “come and die,”[14] while St. Paul speaks of “dying” daily to the sinful impulses and habits ingrained in our “flesh” so we can live instead by the Spirit of Christ.[15] I then cite social scientific research showing that cultural stereotypes/prejudices are lodged in our brains and cannot simply be eradicated; they can only be brought to consciousness, released, and counteracted with better understandings.[16] Thus, we can readily integrate reason with faith by viewing DIE as a mindful practice of dying to our sinful nature as we relate to people of different backgrounds, much as Christ died in order to reconcile all peoples to God and one another.[17]
Communication Accommodation
A major social scientific concept introduced in intercultural communication courses is communication accommodation. According to Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT), people converge verbal and nonverbal elements of their communication with those of their conversation partners when they want to reduce the social distance between them or be clearly understood.[18] In Christian faith, the epitome of convergence is the Incarnation, in which the divine, eternal Word became human and lived among us, taking on the language, culture, and experiences of the people with whom God wanted to communicate.[19] One implication is that Christ-followers should emulate this convergence as much as possible, wherever they go as agents of reconciliation.[20] As an example, I talk about the importance of translating Scripture into the first language of every people and tribe because God wants to meet us in our own world of meaning. I also assign readings about Christian missionaries who have discovered redemptive analogies already present within cultures far removed from the Judeo-Christian world, and how they used those cultural stories/symbols/practices to frame the gospel message.[21] Here again, students can see how reason and faith work hand-in-hand to promote better intercultural communication.
Reconciliation as Restorative Justice
Histories between cultures inevitably impact intercultural relations in the present. Critical scholarship spotlights ways in which some groups have long dominated and abused others for their own gain, creating a legacy of injustice. The question is, how can we face such history and redress the injustice without becoming further divided in the present?
The robust solution offered by our faith is the ministry of reconciliation. The grace of God in Christ confronts us with the truth of our sin, restores us to just standing and character before God through faith, and makes peace between us and our heavenly Father. The Spirit of Christ does the same in our relations with human outsiders/enemies. Parallel to these theological truths, my research has found that robust intergroup reconciliation efforts bring grace (e.g., willingness to forgive and/or creatively redress wrongs), truth, justice, and peace to bear on one another, working to restore moral wholeness in group relations.[22]
To introduce students to public reconciliation between cultures, I use my book Speaking to Reconciliation: Voices of Faith Addressing Racial and Cultural Divides, a student-friendly anthology of speeches delivered by political, civic, and religious leaders from several nations and religious backgrounds. Growing out of my scholarship, the introduction offers an ecumenical yet biblically rooted framework for restoring justice in the context of reconciliation. Most of the speeches in the anthology draw upon various themes and principles of reconciliation found in Scripture and Christian theology, while modeling how to integrate one’s faith into advocacy and leadership in secular contexts. Class sessions during the reconciliation unit explore examples of truth commissions, collective reparations, public forgiveness, and representative apologies for group or institutional wrongdoing. Students then research a self-selected reconciliation artifact, analyzing and assessing it in terms of the framework they’ve learned. Deeply examining reconciliation initiatives can help them to expand their moral imagination on how to deal with historic injustice, informed by their faith. (For more detail, see the “Reconciliation Frameworks” PowerPoint and reconciliation paper assignment materials linked at the end of this article.)
Conclusion
Teaching Intercultural Communication provides an ideal opportunity to highlight the relevance of biblical faith, since our faith consummately fulfills concepts and principles already present in intercultural communication studies. (Other such concepts, not discussed here, include human identity, collective/structural sin, and racism as one expression of original sin.) Although “Faith, Reason, and Justice” happens to be the motto of an institution where I taught, Christian faculty could use these three dimensions to frame intercultural communication wherever they teach. Even at secular institutions, instructors might discuss how the interpretive approach requires us to respect the role of faith, broadly understood. Reconciliation as a master frame joins these dimensions to form a holistic picture of human brokenness and offers depth perception for finding our way toward wholeness. Christian academics can readily reconcile faith and their discipline, because the Logos who became flesh and lived among us is the source, sustainer, and reconciler of all, including “every nation, tribe, people and language” (Revelation 7:9, NIV). In him, all things are re-integrated.
Reconciliation Paper – Student Example
Reconciliation Paper – Speech-Act Options
Reconciliation Paper – Guidelines
Notes
[1] Judith N. Martin and Thomas K. Nakayama, Intercultural Communication in Contexts, 8th ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 2021).
[2] See Chapter 2 in Timothy Keller, Generous Justice: How God’s Grace Makes Us Just (New York: Penguin, 2012).
[3] Luke 1:39-53, 3:1-17, 4:14-21; Matthew 19:23-30.
[4] Ephesians 2; Galatians 3:26-28.
[5] Psalm 85:10.
[6] Matthew 28:18-20; 2 Corinthians 5:17-19.
[7] Martin and Nakayama, Intercultural Communication in Contexts.
[8] John R. W. Stott, “The Living God Is a Missionary God,” in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader, rev. ed., ed. Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1992), pp. A10-A18.
[9] Stott, “The Living God Is a Missionary God,” p. A18.
[10] 2 Corinthians 5:18; Ephesians 2:11-16.
[11] See Martin and Nakayama, Intercultural Communication in Contexts, ch. 12.
[12] Jon R. Wendt, “D.I.E.: A Way to Improve Communication,” Communication Education, 33 (1984), pp. 397-401. Earlier editions of Martin and Nakayama’s text (up to the 7th ed.) included a paragraph on using DIE in intercultural communication.
[13] Believing in a moral universe created by God, Christians should also humbly consider values that transcend cultural difference. See Clifford Christians and Michael Traber, eds., Communication Ethics and Universal Values (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1997).
[14] This paraphrase of “take up your cross and follow me” comes from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (New York: Touchstone, 2018), p. 89.
[15] See Colossians 3:1-11, Romans 8:1-14.
[16] For an accessible overview of such research, see Chapter 4 in Shankar Vedantam, The Hidden Brain: How Our Unconscious Minds Elect Presidents, Control Markets, Wage Wars, and Save Our Lives (New York, Spiegel & Grau, 2010).
[17] Ephesians 2:11-16.
[18] See Howard Giles and Jordan Soliz, “Communication Accommodation Theory: A Situated Framework for Relational, Family, and Intergroup Dynamics, in Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives, 2nd ed., ed. Dawn O. Braithwaite and Paul Schrodt (SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2015), pp. 161-73.
[19] John 1:14.
[20] In missiology, this is often referred to as contextualizing the gospel. See David J. Hesselgrave, “World-view and Contextualization,” in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader, rev. ed., ed. Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1992), C42-C53.
[21] Don Richardson, “Pachacutec’s Mini-Reformation,” in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader, rev. ed., ed. Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1992), C54-C58; Don Richardson, “Concept Fulfillment, in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader, rev. ed., ed. Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1992), C59-C63.
[22] For an overview, see John B. Hatch, Speaking to Reconciliation: Voices of Faith Addressing Racial and Cultural Divides (New York: Peter Lang, 2020), 13-19.