New Emphasis⤒🔗

There is in our time much emphasis on effective communication. For this reason our already elaborate systems of communication are constantly being redesigned, refined, and expanded. The General Assembly of the United Nations, for example, recognizing the necessity of increased communication among the nations, has designated the year 1983 as “The Year of Communication.” The International Telecommunications Union (ITU), one of the specialized organizations within the UN, plans to undertake many extra projects, paying special attention to the installation of telephone systems in underdeveloped areas. It is clear that greater communication, brought about by new technological advances, is seen as a basic requirement for better understanding among men. More and better communication is a must if man is to survive, and so the science of communication has become for many the science of the future.

In this “Year of Communication” it should be of interest to note that contemporary church leaders and Bible scholars have already since long emphasized the importance of effective communication. Since it is the task of the Church to communicate the Gospel, this interest in the theories and techniques of modern communication is understandable and even laudable. Whenever necessary and possible, the Church must always improve its skills in communicating the Good News. If new theories and techniques of communication can be of valuable help, these should indeed be employed. The main question is, however, whether these new theories of communication and their practical application are in keeping with the basic Biblical directives and principles regarding the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It should be noted that the new emphasis among churchmen on greater and better communication first developed more along theoretical or philosophical lines. Lately we are increasingly being confronted with more practical results and proposals. Evidence of this is found clearly in the various ministries of the Church: worship, preaching, counseling, and mission. In this article we cannot touch on all these aspects of the one ministry (diakonia) of the Church. What is done in one area, however, generally also applies to others.¹ We wish to concentrate, for our part, on the ministry of the Word, on communication and preaching, to see how modern theories of communication deeply affect the preaching of the Gospel.

The Influence of Karl Jaspers←⤒🔗

We cannot understand the idea of communication in modern theology, if we do not first go back to its secular roots. The urgent plea for renewed communication among men did not come first from the circle of theologians, but from a German philosopher, Karl Jaspers (1883-1969). Faced with the terrible destruction brought about by the Second World War and envisioning even greater ravages by the potential of nuclear arms, Jaspers pleaded with men to reopen the necessary lines of total communication in an unending dialogue of love.

Jaspers had his own specific ideas as to what “communication” was all about. In order for any dialogue or communication to be successful, he argued, all men must come to realize that there is no fixed truth or dogma which can be contained within any (holy) scriptures or creeds. Prerequisite for all communication, according to Jaspers, is complete openness and full tolerance. Since truth is relative, never to be fixed but always to be found, people are called to recognize each other's viewpoints as being equally legitimate and of the same worth. No one may claim to have an exclusive handle on “the Truth,” for such an intolerant position only destroys true communication. So we can understand that Jaspers relentlessly fought against all absolutism, dogmatism, and propaganda. With the above in mind, one also easily understands Jaspers' utter scorn for the high pretenses of the Christian faith.²

One will readily understand that Jaspers' viewpoint sounds the death knell for what may be called “traditional preaching.” Preaching may be defined as the authoritative, official proclamation of the Word of God to which the hearers must respond with faith and repentance. But if truth is relative and if the Gospel is not exclusive (as claimed in the apostolic preaching, Acts 4:12), from where does the preaching derive its authority? Preaching is then, in Jaspers' terms, not true communication, not a real dialogical happening, but a dull and perverse monologue, a matter of absolutistic propaganda!

Emphasis on Dialogue←⤒🔗

Through Jaspers' efforts, the theme “communication” became recognized as a major new direction for human thinking and science. Soon theologians of name also began to occupy themselves thematically and systematically with the idea of communication. It is not without significance that the well-known mission specialist, Dr. Hendrik Kraemer, in his Laidlaw Lectures in Toronto in 1956, introduced the theme of communication to the field of theology with an explicit reference to Karl Jaspers!³ Instead of confronting non-Christians with the true Gospel, Christians were urged to enter into a meaningful dialogue with non-Christians and to recognize the relative truths in the other world religions.

Kraemer warned against the “idolizing of preaching” in Protestant circles – preaching as monologue was certainly not the only way to communicate the Gospel – and pleaded for receptiveness to other forms of communication. At mission conferences the idea of dialogue has definitely replaced the notion of evangelical confrontation.

Similar ideas found their way into the churches themselves. The idea began to grow that more room should be given in the worship services to rituals and sacraments and that less emphasis should be laid on “preaching.” From a “one-man show,” the worship service should be restored to a more complete congregational affair. There should be less monologue from the pulpit, and more dialogue, in the form of increased response and participation from the pew.

It is possible that with the rise of a dead orthodoxy (during the last centuries) one-sided emphasis was placed on the preaching or the sermon in worship and that the part of the congregation was undermined. It is more likely, however, that in the now-established trend the importance of the preaching, as central moment in the worship service, and the true participation of the congregation, are being grossly misunderstood. We see this especially in subsequent developments.

Bible and Communication←⤒🔗

Traditional preaching, in the sense of the Reformation, was based on the belief that the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God, “and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein” (Belgic Confession, Article 7). Therefore a preacher, expounding the Word, could say, “Thus says the Lord.” Preaching is then not the passing on of human opinions, but a “normative address,” ⁴ a powerful means by which the Holy Spirit works faith (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 25).

If one, however, following the theories of Bible-critical scholars, no longer sees the Holy Scriptures as containing God's infallible Word about Himself – His Self-revelation! – but only as a time-bound expression of man's ideas about God, preaching may take its starting point in a Biblical text, but it can never be a normative address. Former ideas and experiences concerning God (as laid down in the Bible) may then be of interest, but these cannot be binding in any way for people who live today! Since our world today differs so much from Biblical times, we must – at most starting out from the Bible – find our own way in the complexities of modern society. The Biblical text then functions only as a reference (with which one might, or might not, agree), while the real “text” for the sermon is man himself and the “context” is the society in which he lives. This is the so-called “social context” or “situation” which is stressed in modern homiletics.

We have seen that, following Jaspers, the modern idea of communication will not admit to any fixation of the Truth, also not in the Scriptures. At most the Bible is seen as an expression of former communication with which man today may enter into a dialogue. The modern preacher, not bound to the Scriptures, may therefore not engage in absolutes, but may only suggest possibilities and alternatives which may be of help to the hearer in his present social context. His suggestions, however, are always open for discussion and constructive criticism. The “sermon” is to be an open dialogue, an unfinished symphony which may never harbor even the slightest notion of finality.

The modern, dialogical sermon is not delivered in the conviction that it is the Lord who speaks in His Word to His people, but it is presented in the hope that former ideas (expressed in the Bible) may inspire us to find new truths in a complex society. Preaching has become, instead of a normative address, and adventurous experimenting with ideas. Hopefully in this way new insights may be gained, but every conclusion is temporary and every suggestion remains indefinite. The preacher does not proclaim Truth, but the preacher and the congregation are together en route to discovering Truth.

Here we come to the basic fault in modern homiletics. If one denies the infallibility of the Scriptures, one has lost the ability to preach. The Reformers, like Luther and Calvin, rightly saw the Scriptures as the Word of God which had to be proclaimed; therefore they regarded the preaching highly. Modern communicators disregard the Scriptures; therefore they have little use for the preaching. Preachers begin to doubt the sense and value of the preaching once they have allowed doubt with respect to the Word that is to be preached. The simple and powerful preaching of the Word of God, which was restored to the Church in the age of the Reformation, is now, in the so-called age of communication, being lost to the churches.

Searching for New Forms←⤒🔗

It is against this background that we understand much of the agitation against “traditional” preaching, against the sermon as “normative address.” There is presently more concern about the form of the sermon than its contents. Most of the research done with respect to preaching is a matter of formal homiletics. The connection is obvious: if the traditional content of the sermon is seen as antiquated, the traditional form is also outdated.

The German theologian, H.D. Bastian, has compared the sermon to an oil lamp in a time of advanced electrical lighting techniques. The oil lamp, useful in former times, may shed some light, but compared to the newer techniques it is hardly worth its salt today. It is evident, then, that the old sermon has to go.

The objections to the “traditional” sermon as verbal monologue can be easily listed.⁵ The sermon, we are told, is an antiquated means of communication. Preaching – formerly an important source of information – has been supplanted by the mass media, such as radio and especially television. Verbal communication is directed only to one of the human senses (hearing) while television, for example, approaches man in the totality of his being. Consequently, it has been measured, preaching today has little effect. Only few people remember a sermon after returning from church and even fewer people are really touched by the sermon. If real communication is a “two-way street” (the essence of dialogue!), preaching, which is a one-way street, is doomed to fail from the onset as a communicative process. Besides, it is argued, modern life is too complex to be treated in sermons. Man today has arrived at a high level of maturity and sophistication, and needs to react, to interact, and so receive all the necessary information. This is simply not possible in a sermon which is often limited by the preacher's own viewpoint and preferences. Thus the traditional sermon not only becomes a dull, ineffective, and uninspiring affair, but is actually, as a form, somewhat insulting to modern man. This is the reason, scholars suggest, why many people stay at home and why church attendance is rapidly decreasing in our age. The final conclusion must then inevitably be: since traditional preaching does not measure up to the standards of the modern science of communication, it must swiftly be done away with.

The question may now be asked, “What new forms are being proposed to replace the traditional sermon?” The answers to this question are many and varied. If one retains some semblance of a sermon, its length must be drastically reduced, its contents more socially and politically oriented (to suit the changing role of the church in society!), and its monological structure altered. There should be congregational input before the service (the so-called “sermon discussion group” begins to emerge), while allowance should be made for response afterwards. The congregation should be given more opportunity throughout to seek clarification, voice agreement, or express disagreement. Actually, the whole structure of the worship service must be changed to permit more congregational involvement. Sometimes two preachers could be invited to discuss a certain topic, the one arguing from the clerical view and the other representing the laity. In any case, the worship service must lose its doctrinal emphasis and become much more of a liturgical experience.

Recently scholars have begun to develop what is called a “communicative theology,” wherein all aspects of the modern theories of communication have been incorporated and are being studied.⁶ The possible value of applied cybernetics and media techniques is being explored for use in worship and Christian communication. New models, based on the idea of a “transmitter” and a “receiver” which reciprocally influence each other through “feedback,” are being tested. There is no end to the experiments. The question is: What kind of communication technique is most effective and yet still morally acceptable?

Back to Preaching←⤒🔗

Undoubtedly Reformed Christians can learn from the above-described developments. We may staunchly uphold the necessity and right of the “traditional sermon,” but the question must be asked, “What effect does the preaching still have in our lives?” The living preaching of the Word of God may indeed not degenerate into a dull monologue filled with commonplaces which the congregation hardly remembers when it rises from the pews. The Word of God must be proclaimed in a sincere, energetic, and even bold fashion, in such a way that old and new treasures are constantly brought forth (cf. Matthew 13:52). This presents a tremendous challenge to every preacher, every week again. That same Word of God must be received joyfully and obediently by those who hear it, “not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God…” (1 Thessalonians 2:13). Preaching is not an easy task, and it requires much training and effort, but at the same time listening to the preaching also involves maximum participation!

We need not excuse the fact that the sermon is essentially a monologue. K. Runia, for example, almost apologizes for the fact that we cannot get around the monological structure of the sermon.⁷ But when the Word of God is faithfully proclaimed, it is God alone who speaks to His people. Certainly, we may try to achieve and maintain a “dialogical style,” as Henry Eggold has pointed out.⁸ By all means, liven up the delivery and let the preaching be fully relevant and finely persuasive. Let the preacher indeed “be vividly conscious of the barriers to communication both in himself and in his hearers” and “try to overcome them.”⁹ If that is what is meant by “dialogical preaching,” I have no quarrel with it. There is something to be learned from modern techniques, and we should not relinquish the idea of communication simply because of the way it is misused.

But preaching remains the official proclamation of the authoritative Word of God. It is through the faithful preaching of the Word that God communicates Himself to us in Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit. Even if the sermon has a monological structure, we should remember that it takes place within a purely dialogical framework! For is the worship service not a covenantal meeting between the Lord and His people, wherein the two respond fully to one another? Rather than seek new forms, the congregation should learn to appreciate the tremendous involvement it already has: to respond in praise, prayer, and offerings to the wondrous Word of God.

This does not mean that, perhaps, congregational participation cannot be enhanced. Specific prayers (e.g. the Lord's Prayer) and creeds could be said in unison.¹⁰ Such practices were apparently not uncommon in the early and later Christian Church. But whatever changes are brought about, innovations or not, the preaching of God's Word remains the central and constituting element in the worship of the Church. It is the Word of the living God, who remains ever faithful and whose promises and demands remain true even in the complex society of today. The Church will always have to find its strength at the only source, the Word of God, which is the greatest communication of all times and by which all true communication alone can be restored between God and man and among men.

Churches do not run empty because God's Word is preached. They run empty when the Word is not preached or when it is preached wrongly. That is the testimony of the Scriptures themselves.

But how are men to call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.Romans 10:14ff.