Orality Reality: Implications for Theological Education in Romania and Beyond

Abstract

Orality, generally defined as the preference for the spoken over the written word, is an academic discipline that has only recently received attention from the missiological community. The reality of widespread oral preference, also known as “secondary orality,” is no less true in Europe. In this article, the author focuses on the Romanian context. Using qualitative research gleaned from interviews with nine university-educated Romanians, patterns are developed that display how “secondary oral learners” choose to learn and retain new information. Specific attention is given to theologically-related material. Six implications for theological education are advanced in the areas of (1) hermeneutics, (2) preaching, (3) evangelism, (4) discipleship, (5) church planting, and (6) leadership development. Paths forward for ministry in oral preference cultures like Romania are developed. The author concludes that the implementation of such suggestions could lead to more holistic ministry and is potentially transferrable to similar contexts.

Keywords

Orality secondary orality Romania theological education learning preference

In the film Saint Ralph (2004), set in 1950s Ontario, a teenage Ralph Walker (played by Adam Butcher) comes to believe that God will miraculously spare his terminally-ill mother if he can win the Boston Marathon. Yet one does not go from zero to marathon overnight, and so Walker must learn to become a runner. The first stop: the library to pore over and digest a book on how to run a marathon. Much of the film then follows Walker's meticulous and life-altering training in order to successfully compete in one of the world's greatest modern footraces.

Digesting a book on marathoning started Ralph Walker on his journey, yet it was the consistent, focused coaching that ultimately pushed him to the Boston Marathon start line. Or, to use terms coined by scholars of orality theory, Ralph Walker used both “literate” and “oral” learning methods in pursuit of his marathon dream. Books and reading plus spoken and modeled coaching.

People who can read but incorporate and often prefer oral means are “secondary oral learners.” In what follows, I present the evidence of such secondary orality in use among modern Romanians. I first chronicle the rise of orality as both an academic discipline and the attention to orality given by the missiological community. The Romanian context is then discussed, giving an introduction into the qualitative research design and methodology used in this study. The latter half of the article develops key implications for theological education institutions.

From Primary to Secondary: The Rise of Orality

Orality is generally defined as the reliance on the spoken over the written word (Lovejoy, 2012). The orality discussion began to be taken seriously in scholarly circles in the field of classical literature. Milman Perry and Albert Lord suggested in the early 1900s that Homer was in fact a semi-literate “master-poet” who brilliantly wove together multiple oral legends into epic poems like the Odyssey and the Illiad (Lord, 1960). Lord (1960) declared that oral peoples, such as the subjects of their study in southern Yugoslavia, are concerned more with content preservation and delivery than word-for-word reiteration. This thesis was most notably developed by Ong (1982), who proposed that oral societies think differently about the world around them than highly literate societies. Ong's (1982) definitions of primary and secondary orality doubtless mark a permanent starting point for modern orality discussions:

I style the orality of a culture totally untouched by any knowledge of writing or print, ‘primary orality.’ It is ‘primary’ by contrast with the ‘secondary orality’ of present-day high-technology culture, in which a new orality is sustained by telephone, radio, television, and other electronic devices that depend for their existence on writing and print. (Location 4721)

Ong's original dichotomy has since rightly been challenged. Critics counter it is both impossible and demeaning to label a culture either oral or literate. Olson (1994) wrote that “the classification of people as primitive or modern, oral or literate, concrete or abstract, or as biased to the eye or the ear” is untenable (p. xv). Instead, cultures should be studied as though along an oral-literate continuum (Finnegan, 2007). Further, Furniss (2004) has shown that even societies with a “literate bias” inevitably depend on the oral, since every text should be taken as though the author is “talking to me” (p. 15). The question is whether or not readers “hear” the message.

In a recent work, Steffen (2018) told the story of how orality was introduced to the evangelical missions community and now has grown into a full-scale movement. Interestingly, Steffen (2018) provided multiple historical examples to show the use of oral-specific methods, such as storytelling and drama, was common practice from the beginning centuries of Christianity. For example, Augustine is quoted to show that the catechism of new believers, using mainly oral methods, was “woven into” the biblical metanarrative (Steffen, 2018, Location 911).

Other scholarly attempts to expose ancient literacy levels display high regard for oral transmission of information, with levels in even the most cultured cities like Athens never exceeding 15 percent (Harris, 1991). Yet early Christianity was by no means an “illiterate” movement (Gamble, 1995). Both oral and literate teaching and learning methods existed in tandem, and have likewise remained to this day.

Lovejoy (2012) estimated that 80 percent of the modern global population are primary or secondary oral learners, meaning either they cannot read or prefer to learn using non-literate means. Story, song, drama, and visual methods make a stronger impression than asking a learner to read a text. Such statistics have shocked evangelical missions communities, wherein over 90 percent of personnel are trained in highly literate methodologies (International Orality Network and Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, 2005). To summarize the global impact of the orality movement, Payne (2013) places orality as one of twelve “pressure points” that will change the future contours of the Christian Church. Payne (2013) mused, “We will have to learn to function as translators – filtering the biblical truths through our literate framework and into the world of the oral learner” (p. 140). Payne is right.

The phenomenon of secondary orality, then, merits attention. Scholars and practitioners must take secondary orality seriously. Yet response can and should vary according to context. For this article's purpose, that context is Romania.

Surveying Secondary Orality in Romania

Official literacy rates for Eastern European countries are high, with Romania showing 97% (UNESCO, 2013). The uniting factor for each of these nations is, of course, their 60+ year history of Communism. Communist parties depended on propaganda that was largely of a written nature (books, posters, etc.) in order to sway the masses. Largescale literacy campaigns, then, became a strong focus in these nations. In History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness (Boia, 1997), the tale is recounted of how Romanian history was effectively rewritten in order to advance Communist ideals, and those on this side of the 1989 Revolution are now left to sort the pieces.

Prior to the Communist period, Drace-Francis (2012) maintained that Romania was mostly “illiterate” until the late nineteenth century and therefore dependent on oral tradition. Only after its newly created monarchy began investing in high culture artisans, such as poets and intellectuals, did the masses begin adopting the printed medium (pp. 3–4). Historians, then, consider the first decades of the twentieth century to be Romania's “golden age” (Djuvara, 2014, Hitchins, 2014). The propaganda of the Communist era, Djuvara (2014) argued, “destroyed our soul” (p. 342, emphasis his).

The path set forth for Romanian intellectualism and learning by the artisans at the end of the nineteenth century, meant to turn an illiterate mass into a cultured society patterned after Western ideals, was indeed usurped by a single, socialist ideology patterned after the Communist USSR. Djuvara (2014) again:

This collective mentality is now the single most crucial impediment we face in our attempt to integrate into a new world. The evil seems to have gone so deep and become so generalized, that the generation of young people today may not be able to eradicate it. For a tarnished morality is more difficult to mend than old factories. (pp. 342–343)

Distrust of authority and establishment, an unfortunate heirloom passed down to Romanians, manifests itself in multiple ways. Being told what and how to think has largely left Romanians disenchanted with current practice, both at local and national levels. In the education sphere, rote styles descended from traditional models are the norm, yet admittedly not desired practice (Ciobanu, 2012; Kapanadze and Eilks, 2014; Kállay, 2012; Marga, 2002).

Manifestations of Secondary Orality

Several factors support the conclusion that educational preferences for methodologies beyond literate models are desirable among Romanians. In this section, two overarching realities are mentioned: Eastern Orthodoxy and the growing research calling for “interactionist” educational methods.

Nearly 90 percent of Romanians label themselves Eastern Orthodox, according to the 2011 census (National Institute of Statistics Romania, 2013). A recent study by the Pew Research Center (2017) indicates that, although few Romanians consider themselves “practicing” Orthodox Christians, there is still a strong cultural sense of “belonging” that comes with the religious label. To be Romanian, in many people's minds, is to be Orthodox.

Interestingly, Eastern Orthodoxy teaches its adherents primarily through means other than reading. Such “education” happens through the engagement of the five senses: hearing the priest's chanting, smelling the burning incense, tasting the icons through the brushing of the lips, visualizing the beauty and grandeur of cathedrals, and feeling the touch of the priest as he absolves one's sin (Clendenen, 2012; Letham, 2007; Spann, 2001; St. Athanasius Orthodox Academy, 1993). A mystical experience is thus created during Orthodox services. Priests do encourage the Orthodox faithful to read, yet often emphasis is placed on internal spiritual formation using traditional prayers or the writings of Church Fathers or Romanian Orthodox Church patriarchs (Sonea, 2018). It is no surprise, then, that most Romanian Orthodox Christians I have met tend to not reference passages from the Bible when speaking of their understanding of Christianity. Instead, biblical understanding is generated from what was felt, heard, or seen in Orthodox services and celebrations.

A second area within Romanian culture and education studies that displays concern for secondary orality implications is newer education research. Now over 30 years since the Revolution, education theorists in Romania are calling for approaches that involve greater discussion, interaction, and group involvement. As mentioned above, the tendency toward rote learning is common. While this practice often places Romanian students among the top scholars in recall subjects such as math and science, subjects that involve critical interaction with texts score far lower in comprehension exams (Ciobanu, 2013). In the early 2000s, reports from the Ministry of Education declared that little achievement growth could be measured after more than a decade of democracy (Kallay, 2002). Though bureaucrats appear open to newer educational theories that call for diversified educational techniques, hardly any changes have been implemented (Dumitrescu et al., 2013). Education professor Ezechil (2015) writes, “Although teachers assimilated the new pedagogical theories, their behavior in the classroom remained – in many respects – unchanged” (p. 561). In her final analysis, Ezechil (2015) calls for Romanian educators to embrace a more “interactionist” approach that calls for students and teachers to learn together, instead of the top-down, teacher-oriented model.

Using these pedagogical examples, one from the older, ecclesiastic sphere and the other from the academy, it may be concluded that the implications of secondary orality are both a reality and a potential desire for Romanians. This is not to say that print-based learning should ever be discarded or downplayed. The question remains as to how education models that move beyond the highly literate realm may be perceived as effective tools for memory, comprehension, and new-knowledge creation.

Research Gap

Specific research is needed in the area of secondary orality in Romania and Eastern Europe. Oral tradition abounds in these cultures (Painca, 2017), but to what degree that affects current education processes is debatable. To date, I have not found any sources dealing explicitly with this subject beyond my own research (Armstrong, 2020). As mentioned above, however, cultural manifestations suggest that Romanians may respond to pedagogical methods that target secondary oral learners. The current study intends to fill this gap.

Research Design

As stated above, this study uses qualitative research. As opposed to quantitative or mixed methods studies, qualitative research gathers primarily verbal data from participants in order to understand their perceptions, meanings, and interpretations of a phenomenon (Charmaz, 2014; Creswell, 2013, 2014). Creswell (2013) provides an appropriately robust definition of qualitative research:

Qualitative research begins with the assumptions and the use of interpretive/theoretical frameworks that inform the study of research problems addressing the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. To study this problem, qualitative researchers use an emerging qualitative approach to inquiry, the collection of data in a natural setting sensitive to the people and places under study, and data analysis that is both inductive and deductive and establishes patterns or themes. The final written report or presentation includes the voices of participants, the reflexivity of the researcher, a complex description and interpretation of the problem, and its contribution to the literature or a call for change. (p. 44)

Data Collection

To achieve such qualitative goals, I interviewed nine Romanian university students. Four “focus group” style interviews were conducted, with a maximum of four students participating in an interview. Both Charmaz (2014) and Creswell (2013) note that focus groups provide a unique setting that is more conversational, as participants respond and add to verbal data delivered by their colleagues.

Participants were recruited voluntarily from a local ministry that works with university students. The nine university students attend several different universities in Bucharest. Only one student identifies as evangelical; the rest identify as either Orthodox Christian or agnostic.

Upon meeting for the focus group interviews, I gathered signed informed consent documents. Such forms give me as the researcher the right to audibly record the interviews and ensuring that pseudonyms will be used in the write-up. Interviews were recorded on my iPhone 6 using the Voice Memo application.

Data Analysis

Each interview lasted roughly 15 to 30 min, in which I used a set of open-ended, semi-structured questions. Interviews were conducted in either Romanian or English, depending on the participant's desire and fluency. A Romanian research assistant transcribed the interviews into Romanian and English, and then immediately sent the transcriptions to me.

Transcriptions were then coded in NVivo 11 Pro, a premier qualitative research software that enables researchers to categorize and sort data. According to qualitative research experts, researchers seek to achieve “theoretical saturation,” defined by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) as “when continued data collection produces no new information or insights into the phenomenon you are studying” (Location 4098). The theoretical categories generated from these interviews represent overarching themes. These themes are developed below and are intended to give an “interpretive framework” (Charmaz, 2014) for how Romanian university students prefer to learn new concepts, especially concepts that are theological in nature.

Limitations

It must be reiterated that the following theoretical categories are bounded by several limitations. Most significantly, participants are all university students whose ages range from 18–25. While few of these participants are originally from Bucharest, all are students at universities within Bucharest. To provide a wider understanding of secondary orality on a national scale, further research is needed in how Romanians of other age groups prefer to learn.

Romanian Ways of Learning

As stated above, interviews were conducted to discover patterns and meanings among Romanian university students’ understanding of how they learn new concepts, applying this information also to their knowledge of God and Christian theology. As the interviews progressed, three overarching themes surfaced: (1) preference for combined audio-visual learning mediums; (2) viewing God as a moral example, rather than doctrinally-based; and (3) valuing multiple perspectives in how others speak about God and truth. These three themes are discussed below.

Audio-Visual Aids

When asked about the last time they desired to learn something new, and how they went about learning it, each participant referred to two mediums: asking advice from a trusted friend and searching the internet for video explanations. Especially when the material to be learned is highly theoretical, such as website encryption or HTML script, Romanian students look beyond the classroom for help. One student named Viorel relayed, “For me, the visual helps me more than what is taught [in class].”

According to the participants, Romanian university students are taught mostly theory, yet are expected to be able to apply such theories for homework assignments, laboratories, and exams. Where do they go? Interestingly, every participant quickly pointed to YouTube, the mass downloading site that contains millions of videos. Adrian, who studies theology but is also interested in construction, aptly summarized:

I think it is more convenient to watch a video because it is easier. I mean, a lot of people make a video and post the video on YouTube to help others, and also they want to teach the others, and they bought them on YouTube because it's popular and a lot of people watch YouTube videos. And also it's easier to watch a video than to spend four or five or six hours reading some pages in a book when you can watch a video for an hour and it's the same information. And probably the video is more structured and you’ll understand easier.

Adrian's response does not negate the use of books entirely, although in his opinion, short videos contain “the same information” as books.

When asked how students find such videos, the participants noted a common process of asking for advice from friends or classmates and then testing the first few minutes of videos to see their practicality. One student, named Adriana, claimed that videos help “put the pieces together.” Between the theoretical information delivered in the classroom and the short videos students watch on their own, a more complete picture of the “puzzle” comes into view. In short, videos must be practical, credible, and succinct. Such videos will be recommended among classmates to complement taught material.

God as Moral Example

Applying the learning of new information to the specific realm of theology, participants spoke of how they prefer to think about God. As mentioned above, only one of the nine university students considers themselves an evangelical Christian. The other eight are either Orthodox Christian or agnostic.

Despite these differences, none of the students believe literally in biblical descriptions of concepts such as God, angels, demons, and hell. Doctrinal fidelity is less important that exemplary lifestyles. “People should see God and the Church like an example,” notes Aura, going on to say, “I think God gave us some rules, or actually some advice for how to reach a peaceful state of mind. I’m more like a spiritual person than a religious person.” This idea of “spiritual but not religious” continued to surface in the interviews. All participants claim a sense of spirituality, yet not necessarily one that derives from the Bible.

When pressed to describe how they came to their current understanding of God, the Church, and Christianity, every participant harkened back to childhood memories with family members. Family members most responsible for religious upbringing, according to the participants, were grandmothers and sometimes mothers. Nelu, a third-year university student in economics, recalled:

I come from a Christian family too, and also when I was a kid I was going with my mom and my grandmother to church. My grandmother used to tell me a lot of stories from the Bible, but when I grew up I lost interest in God and I have never been to church again.

It is safe to claim, then, that current understandings of God, the Church, and Christian teaching do not usually stem from one's reading of the Bible or theology texts. Advice and the example of friends and especially family have a greater impact on how Romanians of a university age respond to a presentation about God. This thought leads to the third and final interview theme.

Perspectives on Evangelism

As stated above in the section on Eastern Orthodoxy, Romanians consider themselves Orthodox but generally do not trust the Orthodox Church as an institution due to perceived excesses of corruption. For example, when I began asking about theological issues, most of the interview participants visibly bristled at the thought of speaking about the Orthodox Church. Emanuel, a student at the construction university, claimed:

The majority of Romanians no longer believe in [the Church], because the priests are very hypocritical. They only want money and they tell the masses to keep giving money to the Church, while at the same time they have expensive cars and clothes sown with gold.

Viorel then added:

I think that many priests, even those from my hometown, think of themselves as superior. As far as examples I’ve seen, the head of the Church dressed in clothes made with gold, he holds a golden scepter, and he is not at all humble and is often involved in politics.

With such views, it is easy to see why Romanian university students are often turned off by attempts to speak about God. Ways of learning about God and the Church often come not from reading about the Godhead, because those that hold such teachings are considered corrupt, elusive, and superior.

A better way, according to participants, is for Christians to learn to ask other's opinions, listen to diverse perspectives, and relate biblical doctrine to real life. Emanuel, identifying as agnostic, said, “A good way to begin talking about God is to ask questions, and if they do not have a response to give you, give them something to think about and question themselves.” Applying biblical texts or doctrine to real-life situations, either through the use of examples or stories, appears to be a better route than speaking directly about sin, hell, and condemnation.

Each student echoed the belief that, in general, Romanians do not care to hear that there is only one way to God. Instead, according to the participants, Romanians should be asked about their perspectives and personal spiritual journeys. Hearing multiple perspectives, either in spoken or visual form, are more acceptable, especially if opportunities for interactive discussion follow.

To summarize, Romanians of university age are seeking audio and visual complements to theoretical teaching. When conceptual theories are taught, especially in formal classroom settings, Romanian university students will ask friends for help in finding visual resources like YouTube to augment their studies. In terms of religion, Romanian students distrust the Church as an institution but are open to spiritual discussions that offer, examine, and analyze multiple perspectives and worldviews. Anyone working with university-age Romanians will do well to note these trends, but especially men and women seeking to reach such a population with the biblical message. I contend that such insights propose multiple implications for theological educators.

Implications for Theological Education

Having thus examined the context of secondary orality in Romania, and coupling such information with data given by Romanians themselves, the study now turns to potential implications for future theological education. In other words, if secondary orality is on the rise in Romania, how might theological education institutions respond? If the vast majority of theological education uses only highly literate means (International Orality Network and Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, 2005), how could methods and models adjust to an oral preference shift? In this section, implications for theological education are offered for the following six areas: (1) hermeneutics, (2) preaching, (3) evangelism, (4) discipleship, (5) church planting, and (6) leadership development.

Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics, the first stop for preachers and Bible teachers, is the study of ancient texts; specifically the Bible (Kaiser and Silva, 2007). By such a definition, it would appear, then, impossible to speak of hermeneutical study without the use of text-based sources. Evangelicals have traditionally maintained the belief in a fixed biblical canon since the time of the Church Fathers, claiming the Bible to be divinely inspired and infallible (Allison, 2011; Hannah, 1984). Engaging in hermeneutics involves analyzing, exegeting, and exposing the meanings of a biblical text, both to its intended original audience and its contemporary one (Osborne, 2010). Yet such a task is not always easy. As Kaiser and Silva (2007) caution, “the more difficult a passage is, the more attention we need to pay to the context of the whole document” (p. 176). Interpretation should be done in light of a text's immediate context (chapter and book) and canonical context (position within Scripture's metanarrative).

Such a brief overview of the hermeneutical task relies heavily on one's ability to read and comprehend the Bible and extra-biblical materials, such as theological commentaries. Secondary oral learners, however, prefer audio and visual learning mediums. Looking beyond traditional text-based teaching methods, professors and Bible teachers could consider implementing video clips from theologically sound sources that show a book's placement within the overarching narrative of Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration. How one defines a “theologically sound source” will vary depending on their theological pedigree. One example is The Bible Project (https://thebibleproject.com), which offers a multitude of interactive videos that overview chapters, books, and even the entire Old and New Testaments. Videos from The Bible Project are free and may be found easily on YouTube. To date, The Bible Project videos are available in English, Spanish, German, Indonesian, Mandarin, Cantonese, Arabic, Vietnamese, and Russian. Unfortunately, Romanian translations do not yet exist.

Theological education institutions should consider creating interactive videos like those from The Bible Project, employing artists and teachers from within the national church. Romania is well-known for its technological prowess, possessing some of the world's best IT workers and feared hackers (Gillet, 2017). Romanian Christians are capable of producing solid material for the building up of the Church, especially since such videos would not need to be translated and would be produced by cultural insiders. Theological colleges and seminaries may begin with videos outlining the Bible's metanarrative of Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration, then moving to passages within these grand movements.

Like all theological study, hermeneutics should be rightly understood as an ongoing task. Never has a student of Scripture ever officially “arrived” at a final answer for how a text may be applied. As missiologists Steffen and Bjoraker (2019 [forthcoming]) remind, the biblical world pushes for an “oral hermeneutic” that is constantly speaking, learning, and interpreting in a cyclical fashion. Through the use of story and character analysis, which may be accomplished via spoken, audio, or visual presentation, further theological application is made by allowing for a more “imaginative” approach to Bible study. Despite reservations that an “oral hermeneutic” may negate long-held convictions concerning the Bible's trustworthiness, such conversations assist theology students not to hold too tightly to one's theological system. Or, as Fee (1987) aptly states, “Once one's theology is properly in hand, it is especially tempting to use it as a club on others” (p. 369). Until students of the Scriptures value hermeneutics as a constant conversation between the sacred text and themselves, theological clubs will continue to bludgeon fellow believers.

Preaching

Preaching is itself an inherently oral task, as preachers seek to interpret the Scriptures to a watching world. Nehemiah 8 displays an arresting scene from post-exilic Israel, in which the Levitical priests “read from the Book of the Law of God and clearly explained the meaning of what was being read, helping the people understand each passage” (Ne. 8:8 NLT). Other translations render the task as “giving the meaning” (NIV), “giving the sense” (NASB; ESV; KJV), “explaining and giving insight” (Berean), and “translating” (HCSB). In the New Testament, Jesus and his apostles understood their primary mission was to preach the good news of the kingdom of God and the repentance of sins (Mt. 4:17; Mk. 1:14; Jn. 13:13; Ac. 6:4; 2 Tm. 4:1-2).

Steffen (2018) documents the manifold use of narrative-style preaching throughout the Bible. One example is perhaps Jesus’ favorite preaching style, the use of parables. Parables embed theological truth within a real-world story. Modern critiques of the use of narrative in preaching find themselves in good company, as the Bible documents that even the disciples could not understand why Jesus did not use a more direct preaching approach. The dialogue is fascinating:

The disciples came to [Jesus] and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?

He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah. (Mt. 13: 10–14)

The late scholar Kenneth Bailey (2008, 2011), whose work among villagers in the Middle East sheds much needed light on how stories and parables are developed and processed, notes that Jesus’ preaching style was quite familiar, and even preferable, to the original audience. The use of story draws listeners in and invites imagination, as the tale plays out picturesquely in their minds. Individuals will also likely find application and interest among different characters, portions, or scenes. A quick survey through the Gospel accounts further displays that, especially when non-disciples were among his listeners, Jesus did not often preach plainly, but made the people think critically to apprehend spiritual principles (Jn. 16:29).

In his classic work on preaching, Stott (1982) claims that preaching is like building a bridge between the biblical and the contemporary worlds. To reach the busy, modern world with the biblical message, preachers must be well-versed in contemporary issues, both local and national, and assist the people around them to consider a full-orbed, biblical response. Stott (1982) writes, “Whatever is dull, drab, dowdy, slow, or monotonous cannot compete in the television age. Television challenges preachers to make our presentation of the truth attractive through variety, color, illustration, humor, and fast-flowing movement” (p. 51). Interestingly, Stott (1982) encourages the use of interactive activities during sermons, such as mini-discussions in smaller congregations and the notation of questions to be answered upon a sermon's conclusion (pp. 52–53). Especially if a preacher's end goal is to reach the lost and assist Christians in the church to think Christianly, perhaps the inclusion of interactive approaches merit discussion. How much more so if one's congregation is filled with oral preference learners?

Evangelism

In one sentence, evangelism is the proclamation of the good news that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to earth to save sinners by living a sinless life, dying sacrificially on the cross, and rising to life on the third day, thereby restoring the broken relationship between God, humanity, and the created order. As mentioned above, the Bible follows a grand storyline of Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration. This means that proclaiming the biblical message is, in fact, storytelling, since the good news is set within an overall context. In the words of Spurgeon (1963), who preferred the term “soul winning,” evangelism is directed to those not yet in Christ's fold, and involves both instruction in the gospel and making a case for listeners to respond and accept its veracity. Echoing such sentiments, the Lausanne Covenant (1974) defines evangelism as “the proclamation of the historical, biblical Christ as Savior and Lord, with a view to persuading people to come to him personally and so be reconciled to God.”

If it is true, however, that Romanians of university age prefer to listen to multiple perspectives about God and discuss applications and implications, then evangelism materials ought to accent the art of theological conversation. Few Christians claim an on-the-spot conversion based on a one-time evangelistic encounter; for most there is a process of conversation, confrontation with gospel truths, and a period of wrestling with how one ought to respond in faith. Conversationalist approaches value the opinions of both the evangelist and the “non-believer” (Geisler and Geisler, 2009). In God Space, Pollock (2009) offers ten “spiritual conversation killers” that shut down potential gospel conversations, and then develops how to remedy the situations through listening, asking good questions, and sharing personal and biblical stories. Pollock (2009) calls such stories “spiritual appetizers” that are only a few minutes in length but are designed to whet the appetite for more spiritual conversation.

During our years in Romania, I served as a professor of evangelism in an evangelical Bucharest seminary. As such, the responses given by the Romanian participants in the interviews concerning positive and negative experiences with people speaking about God mirror previous statements by seminary students. Several years ago, I adapted a “spiritual survey” to closer align with the Bucharest context. The survey is reproduced below:

Bucharest Spiritual Surveys

We are doing a short survey to learn what people think about spiritual things.

Can I ask you a couple of quick questions?

On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rank spirituality in your life? _______

Which would most closely describe you spiritually? __________________________

Examples could be: Atheist, Buddhist, Christian-Orthodox, Christian-Catholic, Christian-Protestant, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, or non-religious

What things lead you to think about spiritual things? __________________________

Do you have any spiritual questions that you are seeking answers to?

Can I share with you about my spiritual journey?

Contact information for further conversations:

Name/Phone Number: ______________________________

Students, who are also Romanian, are asked to complete two spiritual surveys each semester with someone they believe does not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Response to the survey thus far has been quite positive, with many students even training others to use the tool. Questions are obviously meant to be open-ended conversation starters that will hopefully lead to further conversations.

A second potential tool is the sharing of Bible stories, either orally or visually, within the context of spiritual conversations. I have also trained multiple Romanian evangelicals to use this method. For example, upon conclusion of one of the interviews, a Romanian student named Cristina brought up again how Romanians often view Orthodox priests as “corrupt and out of touch” with the general population. I then transitioned with, “That reminds me of a story Jesus once told…” Cristina had never heard Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and tax collector (Lk. 18:9-14). Cristina's response: “I guess God cares more about what is in our heart than the outside things we do.”

Discipleship

Discipleship, which may be defined as continually becoming a mature and ministering follower of Jesus, is a lifelong process that begins immediately following one's conversion. It is an “infinite journey” or an “infinite chase” (Davis, 2013; Leiderbach, 2017). When Jesus first called the apostles, the Bible says, “He appointed twelve … so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach and have authority to cast out demons” (Mk. 3:14-15 ESV). Disciples of Jesus, then, are first called to a role of being; that is, being with Jesus. Second, disciples are called to roles of doing, whereby they preach the gospel and dismantle the kingdom of Satan with Christ's power and under Christ's authority. The closer we come to Jesus, the more we are propelled to his mission of seeing a lost world redeemed (Wright, 2006).

Inherent to discipleship is learning in biblical community, whereby Christians learn, live, and grow together how to display God's glory in their context (Bonhoeffer, 1954). Although, such discipleship is beautiful in its communality, lifestyles that contrast the status quo entail sometimes significant social and physical danger. “Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple,” Jesus declared (Lk. 14:27). In a world of oral preference learners, who often prefer free-for-all conversations instead of lectures and YouTube clips over prolonged theoretical discourse, it is not the call to discipleship has changed. Methods change based on time and context.

One potential discipleship method for oral preference learners like university-age Romanians, which is actually not new at all, is an emphasis on mentoring. Mentoring can be either formal, assigning specific times, dates, and evaluation criterion, or informal, organically forming “as-you-go” relationships that come and go for different lengths of time (Reid and Robinson, 2016). In terms of mentoring in the Romanian context, I proposed elsewhere a mentoring model for pastoral theology students that is centered on regular conversations between pastors and theology students (Armstrong, 2018). However mentoring relationships develop, mentoring is an invaluable opportunity to provide face-to-face opportunity for training and discussion in modeling and practicing spiritual disciplines for the purpose of growing in Christlikeness (Whitney, 1991, 2001).

A second possible method that may cater to oral preference learners is the use of short videos to assist disciples to think Christianly. For example, my brother is a creative Presbyterian pastor in South Dakota. This pastor regularly asks his congregation to send him challenging questions concerning how to apply biblical teaching to everyday life. Every month, the pastor answers these questions via videos posted on Facebook that are no more than five minutes long. Each video also suggests potential resources for church members to receive further training. Videos are also used for special announcements to the community, such as changes in service locations and how to prepare mentally and spiritually for corporate worship.

Church Planting

In a world where secondary orality is on the rise, gathering new disciples into new churches ought to reflect the learning preferences of its people. True, “church planting” is not directly mentioned in the Bible. Yet, contrary to the arguments of those that balk at church planting (Hooper, 2013), the planting and replanting of churches among the unreached peoples of the world ought to play a central role in missionary endeavors.

In his first book on church planting, Steffen (1997) maintained that church planting teams should begin with the end in sight, especially when considering how best to teach theological truths. Because so much of the global population prefers oral and visual communication, church planters should feel confident integrating such approaches with the literate ones they were taught in Bible college or seminary:

Church planters will find that the combination will enable earlier and more effective phase-out. Many comfortable with oral communication will gain competence in using their gifts in literacy for church planting and development, and vice versa. In other words, the oral and the print mediums should be integrated. (Steffen, 1997: 124).

For the church in postmodern Europe, broad suggestions are made to address church planting challenges. Within one volume concerning this topic, a church planter in France named Brown (2015) posited that European church plants should neither opt for a formal or informal model, but instead one that is “integrated into culture” and yet “vitally different” from that culture (p. 146). Churches must do their homework, therefore, in using forms and teaching styles comfortable to the host culture but yet radically devoted to ongoing contextualization. Learning, or perhaps relearning, how to teach biblical doctrines based on one's target group's learning preferences is a step in this direction.

Telling and discussing Bible stories, whether using oral or visual means, produces effective evangelists, disciples, and churches (Armstrong, 2013). Insomuch as Bible stories remain tethered to the Scriptures where they are found, objections to oral strategies in evangelism and church planting do not hold. For example, I have elsewhere discussed seven common objections to the use of Bible storying in church planting contexts (Armstrong, 2014). Two of the most significant objections to oral ministry models such as Bible storying charge that (1) disciples made using Bible storying cannot apprehend systematically the full-orbed nature of God and the Bible, and (2) orality strategies never incorporate literate methods. I answer both objections briefly below.

First, the objection that oral strategies cannot teach deep theology is unfounded. Besides the historical use of orally teaching the Bible through story, song, drama, and other art forms (Steffen, 2018), the objection presumes both a flawless and hierarchical understanding of theology and theological method. One notable example is Piper (2005), who stated his concerns in a blog post that questioned the “convictions about the Bible” held by Christians using orality strategies. Piper (2005) is clearly concerned that an inability to read God's word for oneself will not produce mature, theologically-sound believers.

In response, I refer to an instance recorded in the important book Making Disciples of Oral Learners (International Orality Network and Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, 2005). A group of seventeen North African church planters from a primary oral tribe were taught over a course of two years to tell 135 biblical stories. For each story, the evangelists were also asked to compose a song. After the two years’ time, a North American seminary professor administered a systematic theology exam (nature of God, nature of the Bible, Christology, etc.). Using the 135 stories and songs they had learned, the African evangelists passed the exam with flying colors (pp. 46–47). There is no reason to believe that the disciples made and churches planted by these evangelists were not biblically sound.

The second objection I will answer here is that orality strategies do not seek to work with or toward literate ones. There are multiple examples to the contrary, but here I provide two. The first example comes from my own personal life. When first introduced to orality and the use of “Bible storying” in seminary seven years ago, I decided to test the method himself. At the time, I was counseling the boyfriends of pregnant teenage girls in a crisis pregnancy center, and that night he was scheduled to meet with a high school dropout named Drew. After the normal introductory questions, I orally told and retold the story of the first sin, and then asked Drew to retell the story as best as possible. Drew retold the story beautifully, then asked, “Was Adam really with her?” When I answered affirmatively, Drew grabbed one of the untouched Bibles from a shelf and excitedly read the story for himself.

Drew's response is not unique. Writing from the Thai context, Dinkins (2013) wrote, “Our experience is that when an oral person becomes excited about Bible narratives, they often show a hunger for more stories. At that point they realize that literacy is a means to gain access to more of God's Word and their interest in reading and education is heightened” (p. 13). It is, therefore, a natural process for orality strategies to stir up a hunger for literate methods. Instead of the either-or dichotomy, orality strategists must incorporate both ends of the spectrum, especially if target group is composed of secondary oral learners.

Leadership Development

Theological education is leadership development. It is the comprehensive goal and final sum of the parts. The aim is developing church leaders who are qualified both intellectually and spiritually to guide God's people in better understanding how to live out God's word in God's world. For the theological training of church leaders, it is important to note the qualifications for an elder (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). Even a cursory listing of these qualifications will note that only one (perhaps two) abilities are given: the ability to teach (“give instruction in sound doctrine and rebuke those who contradict it”). The rest of Paul's qualifications concern the elder's character, a number that may be as high as 12 (not arrogant, hospitable, etc.). Churches, then, are to be led by elders who understand and teach the biblical gospel, marked by character traits that confirm their teaching and point to Christ.

Based on readings of biblical texts like Titus, I believe theological education ought to aim at character formation based on the truths of the gospel for the glory of God and the spiritual health of the Church. Theological education, then, is meant to be tested and refined in local churches among God's people (Dockery, 2017). Although the history of theological education is largely the story of how pastoral training moved from its ecclesiastic roots to become an academic pursuit, shaping the character and minds of future church leaders remains central (Banks, 1999; Gonzalez, 2015; Kelsey, 1993).

A significant question for theological educators in Eastern Europe is how to contextualize theology that has largely been written by and for Westerners. Hungarian theologians Kovacs and Schwab (2014) explain:

Many of the younger generation of Eastern European theologians earned their PhDs in prestigious Western European universities. This certainly helps them to join cutting edge international academic discussions, but, at the same time, presents a serious question: how to apply their knowledge, attained in the West, to the particular concerns of post-Communist Europe.” (p. 2)

Romanian church leaders working with oral preference learners must rise to such a challenge using increasingly non-literate means. Romanian theological educators should ask, What kind of leaders are we attempting to form in our churches and institutions? Will these leaders be able to train others in their cities, towns, and villages using these same methods? What is the need of the hour for the Romanian evangelical church? I contend that asking such questions could lead to fruitful evaluation, especially when coupled with the reality of a growing oral preference among the younger generations.

In a fascinating work called Leading with Story, Sessoms (2016) argued for a “story-centric” approach to leadership development. “Story-centric” learners can be found in every culture, yet increasingly so in those considered traditionally literate like North America and Europe, and especially among the “millennial generation.” According to Sessoms (2016), “Today's emerging leaders gravitate toward story not because they are less intelligent but because of their preferred learning preference” (Location 1037). It is highly likely, then, that secondary orality and oral preference is here to stay.

Summary and Conclusion

Significant challenges are raised when considering the rise of secondary orality, how to define good teaching and evaluate understanding. This article has examined a few noteworthy challenges for theological educators; those men and women tasked with forming leaders for churches around the world who will train others how to love, honor, and think about God. Looking specifically at the Romanian context, research points to a growing preference for oral and visual means of learning of both religious and non-religious content. I argue that such insights merit, at the very least, a reevaluation of theological education methods that are highly literate in nature. Moreover, insights are potentially transferrable to similar contexts. Through the use of oral means such as open-ended discussion and story, and visual means such as video clips, theological education could be better tailored to secondary oral learners.

Today's Romanian university student holding an iPhone and watching a video on building websites is a far cry from Saint Ralph (2004) holding a book on marathoning in 1950s Ontario. If the two could hold a conversation, Ralph would probably remain speechless as the Romanian student explained, “I hold in my pocket a device that can access all knowledge instantly.” Would Ralph's interest be piqued? Would Ralph put down his book?

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the research assistant, Eduard Narciș Dogaru, for his hard work.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Cameron D. Armstrong

Author biography

Cameron D. Armstrong (PhD, Biola University), International Mission Board, Program Director of ThM/PhD Orality Studies, Asia Graduate School of Theology - Philippines, Quezon City. Before moving to the Philippines in March 2022, Cameron and his family served in Bucharest, Romania, for ten years.

References

Allison

(2011) Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Armstrong

(2013) The efficiency of storying. Evangelical Missions Quarterly 49(3): 322–326.

Armstrong

(2014) Contextualization, biblical inerrancy, and the orality movement. Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics 7(1): 244–304.

Armstrong

(2018) Listening between the Lines: Thinking Missiologically about ROMANIAN culture. Targu Mures, Romania: FaithVenture Media.

Armstrong CD (2020) Finding yourself in stories: Romanian theology students' experience of oral-based teaching methods. PhD Dissertation. Biola University. La Mirada, CA.

Bailey

(2008) Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Bailey

(2011) Paul through Mediterranean eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Banks

(1999) Reenvisioning Theological Education: Exploring a Missional Alternative to Current Models. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Kindle edition.

Boia

(1997) History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness. Budapest, Hungary: Central European University Press.

10.

Bonhoeffer

(1954) Life Together: The Classic Exploration of Christian Community. Harper & Row: New York, NY.

11.

Brown

(2015) What kind of church for postmodern Europeans? In: Van de Poll

Appleton

(eds) Church Planting in Europe: Connecting to Society, Learning from Experience. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, pp.137–147.

12.

Charmaz

(2014) Constructing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

13.

Ciobanu

(2013) The role of student services in the improving of student experience in higher education. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 92: 169–173.

14.

Ciobanu

(2012) Do Romanian schools produce idiots? The Economist. Available at: http://www.lilianaciobanu.com/?portfolio=do-romanian-schools-produce-idiots (accessed 24 October 2018).

15.

Clendenen

(2012) Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

16.

Creswell

(2013) Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Creswell

(2014) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18.

Davis

(2013) An Infinite Journey: Growing toward CHRISTLIKENESS. Greenville, SC: Ambassador International.

19.

Dinkins

(2013) Objections and benefits of an oral strategy for Bible study and teaching. William Carey International Development Journal 2(2): 11–17.

20.

Djuvara

(2014) A Brief Illustrated History of Romania. Bucharest, Romania: Humanitas.

21.

Dockery

(ed) (2017) Theology, Church, and Ministry: A Handbook for Theological Education. Nashville, TN: B & H Academic. Kindle edition.

22.

Drace-Francis

(2012) The Making of Modern Romanian Culture: Literacy and the Development of National Identity. New York: I. B. Tauris & Co.

23.

Dumitrescu

Toma

Badita

, et al. (2013) A comparison between learning style preferences of undergraduate students from three different Romanian faculties – using VARK. In: ICERI2013 Proceedings, pp.3571–3577.

24.

Ezechil

(2015) The necessity of a pedagogical reform in the pre-university education in Romania. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 180(1): 559–564.

25.

Fee

(1987) The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

26.

Finnegan

(2007) The Oral and Beyond: Doing Things with Words in Africa. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

27.

Furniss

(2004) Orality: The Power of the Spoken Word. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

28.

Gamble

(1995) Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

29.

Geisler

(2009) Conversational Evangelism: Connecting with People to Share Jesus. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers.

30.

Gillet

(2017) Romania shrugs off label of Europe’s poor man as economy booms. The Guardian . October 14, 2017. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/14/romania-economy-booming (accessed 12 December 2017).

31.

Gonzalez

(2015) The History of Theological Education. Nashville, TN: Abingdon. Kindle edition.

32.

Hannah

(1984) Inerrancy and the Church. Chicago, IL: Moody Press.

33.

Harris

(1991) Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

34.

Hitchins

(2014) A Concise History of Romania. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

35.

Hooper

(2013) Why is planting churches not biblical? Missions Resource Network. Available at: https://www.google.ro/amp/s/missionsresourcenetwork.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/why-is-planting-churches-not-biblical/amp/ (accessed 13 December 2018).

36.

Kaiser

Jr. Silva

(2007) Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

37.

Kállay

(2012) Learning strategies and metacognitive awareness as predictors of academic achievement in a sample of Romanian second-year students. Cognitie, Creier, Comportament/Cognition, Brain, Behavior 16(3): 369–385.

38.

Kapanadze

Eilks

(2014) Supporting reform in science education in Central and Eastern Europe - reflections and perspectives from the project TEMPUS-SALiS. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education 10(1): 47–58.

39.

Kelsey

(1993) Between Athens and Berlin: The Theological Education Debate. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.

40.

Kovacs

Schwab

(2014) In Academia for the Church: Eastern and Central European Perspectives. Carlisle, UK: Langham Partnership.

41.

International Orality Network and Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (2005) Making disciples of oral learners. Lima, NY: Elim Publishing.

42.

Leiderbach

(2017) Chasing Infinity: Discipleship as the Pursuit of Infinite Treasure. Orlando, FL: CruPress.

43.

Letham

(2007) Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy, a Reformed Perspective. Geanies House, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, Ltd.

44.

Lord

(1960) The Singer of Tales. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

45.

Lovejoy

(2012) The extent of orality: 2012 update. Orality Journal 1(1): 11–39.

46.

Marga

(2002) Reform of education in Romania in the 1990s: a retrospective. Higher Education in Europe 27(1/2): 123–135.

47.

Merriam

Tisdell

(2016) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation, 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

48.

National Institute of Statistics Romania (2013) What Does the 2011 Census Tell Us About Religion in Romania? Bucharest, Romania: National Institute of Statistics Romania.

49.

Olson

(1994) The World on Paper: The Conceptual and Cognitive Implications of Writing and Reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

50.

Ong

(1982) Orality and Literacy. New York, NY: Routledge 1982. Kindle edition.

51.

Osborne

(2010) The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

52.

Painca

(2017) Characteristics of orality in translation repetitions in oral history interviews on Romanian communism. Finnish Journal for Romanian Studies 1(3): 41–55.

53.

Payne

(2013) Pressure Points: Twelve Global Issues Shaping the Face of the Church. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

54.

Pew Research Center (2017) Religious Belief and National Belonging in Central and Eastern Europe. Pew Research Center Report. May 10, 2017. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/05/10/religious-belief-and-national-belonging-in-central-and-eastern-europe/ (accessed 7 October 2022).

55.

Piper

(2005) Missions, orality, and the Bible: thoughts on pre-, less- and post- literate cultures. Desiring God . Available at: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/missions-orality-and-the-bible (accessed 29 October 2018).

56.

Pollock

(2009) God Space: Where Spiritual Conversations Happen Naturally. United States: Group.

57.

Reid

Robinson

(2016) With: A Practical Guide to Informal Mentoring and Intentional Disciple Making. Nashville, TN: Rainer Publishing.

58.

Saint Ralph (2004) Directed by Michael McGowan [Film]. Toronto, Canada: Alliance Atlantis Communications.

59.

Sessoms

(2016) Leading with Story: Cultivating Christ-Centered Leaders in a Storycentric Generation. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library. Kindle Edition.

60.

Sonea

(2018) The missionary formation in the eastern orthodox theological education in present day Romania. Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic Mission Studies 35(3): 146–155.

61.

Spann

(2001) Witnessing to people of Eastern Orthodox background: turning barriers of Belief into bridges to personal faith . PhD Dissertation. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, TX.

62.

Spurgeon

(1963) The Soul Winner. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

63.

St. Athanasius Orthodox Academy (1993) The Orthodox Study Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

64.

Steffen

(1997) Passing the Baton: Church Planting that Empowers. La Habra, CA: Center for Organizational & Ministry Development.

65.

Steffen

(2018) Worldview-based storying: The Integration of Symbol, Story, and Ritual in the Orality Movement. Richmond, VA: Orality Resources International.

66.

Steffen

Bjoraker

(2019) The Return of Oral Hermeneutics. Richmond, VA: Orality Resources International.

67.

Stott

(1982) Between Two Worlds: The Challenge of Preaching Today. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

68.

The Bible Project: Visual storytelling meets the Bible. Available at: https://thebibleproject.com (accessed 7 December 2018).

69.

The Lausanne Covenant (1974) Lausanne Movement. Available at: https://www.lausanne.org/content/covenant/lausanne-covenant (accessed 9 December 2018).

70.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2013) Adult and youth literacy: national, regional and global trends, 1985-2015 (UIS Information Paper). Available at: http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/literacy-statistics-trends-1985-2015.pdf (accessed 24 October 2018).

71.

Whitney

(1991) Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

72.

Whitney

(2001) Ten Questions to Diagnose Your Spiritual Health. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

73.

Wright

(2006) The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible's Grand Narrative. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.