The title itself accents the apprehension sometimes expressed by preachers who are encouraged to use communication principles in preaching. Ever since that ancient but inevitable marriage between “sacred preaching” and “worldly rhetoric,” numerous ministers have feared that the preached word would eventually be the mate prostituted. On the basis of this assumption, today’s apostles often struggle with the misgiving that the bride from Jerusalem and the rhetorician from Athens are still unequally yoked together. Afraid to acknowledge the offspring of the marriage, many a sincere preacher, in Spurgeon’s descriptive word, goes “tearing along like a wild horse with a hornet in its ear,”^[1]James S. Stewart, Heralds of God (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons 1946), p. 183. hoping to utter an effective word for the Lord—even if by accident.

Bro. Johnny, representative of today’s preacher, should relax and remember that many eminent preachers of the early church were themselves skilled rhetoricians. Others were taught by the best communication teachers of the day. The apostate emperor Julian (A.D. 331-363) recognized the robust effect of grammar, rhetoric, and Christian preaching: He forbade Christian educators even to teach others their grammatical and rhetorical skills.^[2]John A. Broadus, Lectures on the History of Preaching, new ed. (New York: Sheldon & Co., 1889), pp. 86-88. Preacher Augustine, himself a rhetorician, wrote what one contemporary has called “probably the best work on preaching that has ever been written.”^[3]James C. Mccroskey, An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication: The Theory and Practice of Public Speaking (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), p. 11. It is indeed unfortunate that such significant theologians as Barth, Tillich, Ritschl, and Kraemer have expressed negative viewpoints about using rhetorical principles to enhance preaching. Theirs are sincere attempts to protect the integrity of preaching, but it is honest to recognize that whenever today’s preaching contains more of New York than Nazareth, the preacher himself is likely more to be blamed than are a set of communication principles. Nevertheless, preachers often maintain their suspicions about “worldly communication studies.” What are the likely obstacles that cause Bro. Johnny to resist preaching values that might be gained by using contemporary communication principles in preaching? First, since most preachers possess the “gift of talking,” they feel certain they know something about communication. They communicate three times each week. Interestingly enough some of them are also bad golfers—three times each week! In golf or in preaching, a little learning is a dangerous thing. Second, some preachers may feel threatened that the study and use of communication techniques might demand the strength to change their preaching. Third, the concept of “communication principles” sounds somewhat academic and technical to many of us. On some levels it might be. Several years ago, for instance, one communicologist, attempting to define the single term “communication,” discovered fifteen different definitions involving fifteen different concepts!^[4]Frank E. X. Dance, “Concept of Communication,” Journal of Communication 20 (June 1970):201-10. Yet what preachers require from communication data need not be technical and detailed. Let the preacher use only what he needs. Fourth, some preachers resist communication study, feeling that it could lead to their unworthy manipulation of the congregation. Actually, research indicates that manipulation of today’s listener is not as easy as it may appear. It is also true that, while manipulation may be undesirable, persuasion (from per suasio, “through sweetness”) is desirable to the preacher. Communication principles will enable preachers to utilize the best approach in persuading others to obey God’s will. Finally, some preachers seem to fear a tarnished “success” purchased by human “gimmicks” rather than by the convicting power of God’s Spirit. The fallacy of this “knowledge equals success” assumption is only too sadly known to the coaches of Slippery Rock University’s football team, regretfully discovering year after year that awareness of the game’s rules does not automatically secure national football championships.

A helpful word of advice for Bro. Johnny comes from one who struggled with “Theology vs. Communication Theories.” Ronald Sleeth has reminded that ”All abilities need to be laid on the altar to be dedicated to God. One should no more be ashamed of delivery dedicated to God than theology dedicated to God.”^[5]Ronald E. Sleeth, “Theology vs. Communication Theories,” Religion in Life 32 (Autumn 1963):552. Why shouldn’t Bro. Johnny believe this? It seems both foolish and morally wrong that in today’s world

The theologians are lined up on one side of a gaping chasm, the communicators are lined up on the other side, and both are throwing stones at one another. The theologians insist upon the necessity of preaching, complain about “gimmickry” and Madison Avenue “tricks” and shout across the chasm, “We are preaching the Gospel not selling soap and cars.” The communicators shout back, “Take a look around. We are selling soap and cars a whole lot better than you are ‘selling’ the Gospel.”^[6]Michael Bell, “Preaching in Our Mass Media Environment,” Preaching 4 (January-February 1969):5.

Why shouldn’t Bro. Johnny preach the Gospel more effectively? Perhaps he has yet one more unsolved riddle that prevents him from seriously considering rhetorical insights for his pulpit.

 

Do You Think Jesus Worried about “Communication Principles”?

Likely not. Remember, however, that Bro. Johnny is not Jesus. At the same time note that, while Jesus did not “worry” about communication principles, he proved himself to be a master communicator. He knew how to effectively communicate. He knew when to stand and read, sit and speak, and otherwise how to “deliver the goods.” Worry? No. Knowledge? Absolutely! If only we could do as well. Communication principles can help us.

How can we motivate Bro. Johnny in communication and preaching? Let us look with him at the idea from five different angles: pragmatically, theologically, historically, existentially, and practically. First, a pragmatic question is in order: Should the relationship be stated “communication in preaching” or “preaching in communication”? Both statements are equally true. Preaching is “in” communication. Pastors recognize that God’s message is often effectively communicated through the multi-mediated channels of musicals, dramas, books and tracts, Christian films, and most comfortably, through the preaching event. While preaching is “in” -a part of -communication, the preaching channel alone cannot handle the varied needs of today’s Christian communication. At the same time, communication must be “in” preaching, else the preaching event is little different from speaking to trees or flowers. Preaching is intended to communicate. Bro. Johnny knows well that he may communicate the gospel without preaching, BUT he may forget that he can also preach the gospel without communicating. Preaching those thirty minute Sunday morning sermons to 250 people will use over two years of someone’s daily working time alone. This is too much time to waste in preaching not concerned with effective communication. Effective ministers use communication for more effective preaching.

Second, consider communication and preaching theologically. “The God of the Christian faith is a communicating God.”^[7]Jesse J. Northcutt, “Proclamation: The Theological Imperative,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 7 (Spring 1966):7. His Son, entering the world, was called, not “the existential Ground of all being, “but “the Word.” His gospel was penned in language common man. His preacher himself declares that God has “called” him to communicate the Word. Surely Bro. Johnny cannot miss the theological implications for effectively communicating the gospel.

An awareness of the historical relationships be­ tween communication principles and homiletics will also be enlightening to Bro. Johnny. E. C. Dargan, in a 1922 work on this subject, stated that homiletical theory from inception to reformation “historically and naturally related to general rhetoric as the art or science of oratory.”^[8]Edwin Charles Dargan, The Art of Preaching in the Light of its History (Nashville: Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1922), p. 120. Although the Old and New Testaments were not intended as rhetorical textbooks, the ties between preaching and communication trends are easily perceived in schools of prophets, speaker training, and rhetorical abilities of prophet and preacher. In the early church Origen the allegorizer “was the first Christian scholar to give attention to textual criticism . . . . He did more exegetical work than any other single individual prior to the Reformation.”^[9]H. E. Dana, Searching the Scriptures: A Handbook of New Testament Hermeneutics (New Orleans: Bible Institute Memorial Press, 1936), p. 40. Equally significant, Origen gave the “sermon” a distinct role in Christian worship. His use of a message in worship shoved the sermon from synagogue conversations to a more formal oratorical approach. Later, rhetorician-turned-preacher Augustine published his De Doctrina Christiana, the fourth part of which was the first treatise on the theory of Christian preaching.^[10]Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, trans. and intro. D. W. Robertson, Jr. (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1958). For a condensed review of Augustine’s work see Ray C. Petry, Preaching in the Great Tradition (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1950).

In medieval days when teaching of communication principles almost vanished, preaching also settled to one of its lowest points in history. The prereformation days also demonstrated that neglect of communication principles was paralleled by weak biblical preaching. Instead, there was dependence on homilarians as Johann von Werden’s “Dormi Secure” (the “Sleep-at-Ease Sermons “), designed especially for Saturday’s midnight “servant of the Word.” (One wonders today if the possibility of a similar relationship is implied in the copious books of sermon outlines on the shelves of our preachers who desire a “really quick” word from the Almighty.) The Reformation gave new life both to studies in classical rhetoric and biblical preaching. In that time of strong preaching the communication principles of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian were studied and taught with renewed vigor.

Seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth-century preaching reflected unique communication forms of those days. “Exhorters” arose on the American frontier. While not considered “real” preaching, exhortation supplied “speakers” in the absence of frontier preachers and provided training for numerous ones who later became preachers.^[11]Jerry L. Tarver, “A Lost Form of Pulpit Address,” Southern Speech Journal 31 (Spring 1966):181-95. Nineteenth-century preaching particularly demanded more practicality. It also reflected the diminishing authority given “the parson” (person) in the community.^[12]Rollin W. Quimby, “The Changing Image of the Ministry and Its Influence on Sermons,” Southern Speech Journal 35 (Summer 1970):306-10. Although the twentieth century may be too close for abjective analysis, the study of communication principles has stressed congregational analysis, social awareness, psychological insights, authority changes, and the effects of mass media on preaching. The emphasis on communication principles for today’s pulpit is here. Bro. Johnny should learn from history to use it—or lose it.

It is helpful also to look to communication and preaching existentially. What effect does communication have in today’s society? One obvious impact is seen in communication’s role as a change agent upon the very church that now evaluates it. Consider dimensions in the use of satellites, videotapes, forthcoming church production studios, as well as the innumerable religious TV programs invading American homes.^[13]See Robert G. Ethridge, “Future Trends in Communications,” Search 10 (Winter 1980):47-54; and Lyle E. Schaller, “The Impact of the Eighties,” Search 10 (Spring 1980):52-59. Both articles demonstrate the effects mass media are having on today’s church. As significant, although not so obvious, is the current communication impact upon people who listen to sermons. More than ten years ago, we heard that the average eighteen year old American youth had seen more hours of movies and TV than he had spent in schooling from kindergarten through high school.^[14]Merrill R. Abbey, Communication in Pulpit and Parish (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973), p. 67. Today’s reports reveal that the same child will have watched 350,000 commercials during the same period. That glass eye of the TV set in the average American home blinks six hours daily. During 1982, American adults viewed this “all-seeing eye” for two hours and fifty-one minutes daily. If you think those people were the uneducated, forget it! The college­ educated viewer watched TV only twenty-three minutes less.^[15]Raymond Bailey, “The Mass Media and the Church, ” Review and Expositor 81 (Winter 1984):11 (hereafter cited as “Media”). Preachers must face the fact that media have captured the mentality of America. How tightly those media tentacles bind is seen in New York law: Legal procedure cannot deny a person his family, house, OR THE USE OF HIS TV SET!^[16]Edmund V. Sullivan, “Mass Media and Religious Values,” Religious Education 78 (Winter 1983):15. If Bro. Johnny expects to communicate effectively, he must understand that his listeners are at least remotely controlled by communication images and effects. If he does not “tune in,” he may be “tuned out.”

Finally, Bro. Johnny might recognize the numerous practical values he may gain in his study of communication principles. Estimating that his forty-year ministry of speaking thrice weekly—perhaps weakly—will provide sermons filling more books than the combined volumes of W. A. Criswell, Herschel Ford, and Harry Emerson Fosdick -more than five hundred books – Bro. Johnny will make the effort to study to show himself approved as a worker that is not ashamed. His communication study and preparation need not demand technical or historical data. He will bless his people little in learning that (1) The oldest essay in rhetorical communication was written about 3,000 B.C. to tell a pharaoh’s son how to speak effectively; that (2) Corax and Tisias completed the first Greek rhetorical studies; or that (3) The Roman Cicero apparently mediated a style somewhere between the florid style of the Asiatics and the plain style of the Atticists. He will, however, profit from learning how bad grammar impedes effective preaching, how speaker credibility can be elevated in a society where he is no longer “the parson,”^[17]Barnett Pearce and Forrest Conklin, “Nonverbal Vocalic Com­munication and Perceptions of a Speaker,” Speech Monographs 38 (August 1971):235-41; and Bradley S. Greenberg and Gerald R. Miller, “The Effects of Low Credible Sources on Message Acceptance,” Speech Monographs 33 (June 1966):127-26. how good eye contact will assist him, or how to more beneficially structure the arrangement of his materials. Such learning will enhance any speaking ministry. Hear commentator Edward R. Murrow’s statement many years ago to a group discussing responsibility in TV: A speaker will be remembered (1) if he knows what he is talking about,(2) if he has “fire in his belly,” (3) if he is able to communicate.^[18]Edward R. Murrow, “The Responsibilities of Television,” The Press and the People 8-9, p. 4. Research and study will help Bro. Johnny communicate. He can begin by learning from these studies that his congregation talks back to him during every sermon.

 

Feedback: When It is As Blessed to Receive As to Give

Those who have studied today’s listeners report that they are anxious to participate in communication involving them. The informed preacher knows that he cannot and must not offer his people a “one-way-only communication.” The preaching event is not a directed argument but an exciting episode involving the entire congregation. Naisbitt’s Megatrends recently mused about why the Home Box Office TV movie did not eliminate movie theaters. It reminded us that “You do not go to a movie just to see a movie. You go to a movie to cry or laugh with 200 other people. It is an event.”^[19]John Naisbitt, Megatrends: Ten New Directions for Transforming our Lives (New York, N. Y.: Warner Books, Inc., 1982), p. 45 (hereafter cited as Megatrends). The sermon also is an event. Something is intended to happen. In Reid’s The Empty Pulpit he noted experimentation showing that a congregation denied the opportunity for feedback actually turns hostile.^[20]Clyde Reid, The Empty Pulpit: A Study in Preaching as Com­munication (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), pp. 79-80. Most experienced speakers have learned to identify this feedback and respond to it. Less experienced speakers need not rush to purchase Elwood Kretsinger’s “Electronic Wiggle Meter ” if only they will carefully observe eye contact, body movement, and other listener signals. Most feedback comes less through vocal responses than through body responses as smiling and nodding the head^[21]John A. Blubaugh, “Effects of Positive and Negative Audience Feedback on Selected Variables of Speech Behavior,” Speech Monographs 37 (August 1970):207-10. –hopefully not in sleep. Communication studies note that even relatively untrained speakers are capable of interpreting such basic signs as attentiveness, acceptance, receptivity, and involvement.^[22]Keith Jensen, “The Concept of Informative Feedback: A Descriptive Approach, ” Speech Monographs 37 (March 1970):73-77.

It is true that a few contemporary writers complain that today’s traditional preaching offers the possibility for zero feedback from hearers. This is likely a gross oversimplification. Congregations have always responded in some manner. Their response might have been negative acts of disagreeing, disbelieving, or disappearing. These might have been more satisfying to the speaker: ”Amen!,” attention, and continued attendance. Hearers cannot “not communicate” any more than the preacher cannot “not communicate.” The golden­ tongued preacher John Chrysostom discovered this in­evitable feedback phenomenon in the early church. His hearers responded by cheering and clapping. Chrysostom, thinking this was not particularly healthy in worship, preached eloquently that they must no longer applaud and cheer the sermon. Their feedback? The house was brought down with a cheering round of applause for his eloquence.^[23]Clyde E. Fant, Jr., and William M. Pinson, Jr. 20 Centuries of Great Preaching, 13 vols. (Waco: Word Books, 1971), 1:59. Applause may not be Bro. Johnny’s problem but if he desires to communicate effectively today, he will learn to respond to the sea of raised eyebrows and waves of wrinkled foreheads. The field of feedback is definitely a communication function where one learns it is as blessed to receive as to give.

 

The World Where Eyes and Ears Are Kings: The Congregation

Some years ago in a religious meeting, I could not believe what I was hearing. The stateside guest preacher, perhaps a co-worker of Bro. Johnny, was preaching his nightly sermon to a Philippine Baptist Convention of pastors and leaders – an evangelistic sermon! Sadly, each night he preached similar sermons and gave evangelistic invitations. Obviously, he had given not a single thought to his congregation. He was “just preaching.” He would have as effectively delivered his sermon on “Choosing Your Life’s Vocation” to retired folks at the rest home or shared his “Christian Parenthood” to our monastery’s local priests. He totally missed his congregation, a costly sin for any preacher. While Bro. Johnny or his colleague may question the theorist who proclaimed that “the audience . . . is the single most important element for the speaker to consider in the public speaking process,”^[24]William D. Brooks, Speech Communication, 2d ed. (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown, 1974), p. 257. they both likely agree that the congregation must be at least one of the most important elements. In reality, the hearers are the ones to determine whether they will listen to Bro. Johnny at all. The congregation is the one site on world maps where eyes and ears are kings. If the preacher does not know where his hearers are -spiritually, mentally, emotionally- his chances of reaching them are virtually nil regardless of how appealing he may be or how well structured his message.

Studies in communication may help Bro. Johnny know how to match his message to the frame of reference of his people. These frames of reference will vary from young to old and location to location. The need for a speaker to “shift images” is perhaps more obvious to those of us forced to do cross-cultural preaching. For instance, preaching to the Burmese, one might more appropriately consider asking Jesus to come “into your liver” than “into your heart.” In various parts of Africa, a preacher could not speak of Jesus as the one who “knocks at the door,” since friends simply stand outside and call out the name. Only a thief knocks at the door to see if anyone responds. A little understanding of the mental eyes and ears in the congregation might prevent an inappropriate image of the seeking Christ.

Thus, effective preachers take the time to do a careful analysis of congregations and speaking contexts. It is true that at times this analysis produces only limited values, but usually it is quite helpful to determine in advance if one is speaking to youth, women, traditionally oriented people, educated folk, skeptics, or those of other general variables. Considering that women are usually more persuadable,^[25]Thomas M. Scheidel, “Sex and Persuasibility,” Speech Monographs 30 (November 1963):353-58. or that overweight and underweight people tend to be more responsive,^[26]David C. Glass et. al, “Obesity and Persuasibility, ” Journal of Personality 37 (September 1969):407-14. or that slight distractions may help rather than hinder effective communication (since they may force people to listen more intensely)^[27]Gordon A. Haaland and M. Venkatesan, “Resistance to Per­suasive Communications: An Examination of the Distraction Hypotheses,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9 (May 1968):167-70. – what value is this to the preacher who does not have the option of preaching consistently to a congregation of skinny female high school students sitting around listening to Bach? Yet when the same preacher speaks to a special group composed entirely of those high school girls, he will be prudent if he considers his approach before beginning to speak. This advance consideration of communication conditions and needs of the listeners has sometimes been called “feedforward.” Before his message is prepared, the preacher must consider his listeners by asking, “How can I best communicate to this particular group?” Feed­ forward will insure a better feedback. So, while Bro. Johnny provides the mouthpiece for the sermon, the eyes and ears are the kings. Every communication student knows that; so should every preacher.

 

Head and Shoulders, Knees and Toes: Nonverbal Communication

Many preachers are totally unconscious that nonverbal communication takes place at all. Nevertheless, sixty­ five percent of what is perceived is communicated in this manner. One writer stated that a speaker may demonstrate maturity or immaturity in his body language.^[28]Julius Fast, Body Language (New York: Evans & Co., 1970), 167. Think briefly about how much is communicated non-verbally.

The preacher who fails to establish good eye contact will pay a costly toll. It has been determined that the times of lowest attention in a worship service are the same times of the preacher’s lowest eye contact. Usually this happens during the reading of Scripture. Listeners also report in communication studies that they do not feel communication has even started until the preacher has established his eye contact. They not only listen more attentively to the preacher with good eye contact; they might mistrust the one without it.^[29]Alan H. Monroe and Douglas Ehninger, Principles of Speech Communication, 6th brief ed. (Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1969), p. 18. Eye contact even affects the listener’s comprehension.^[30]Charles E. Petrie, Jr., “Informative Speaking: A Summary and Bibliography of Related Research,” Speech Monographs 30 (June 1963), p. 82. Actually, some people feel that the eye is the single most important part of the body to communicate information. In Bro. Johnny’s sermon he must insure that “the eyes have it!”

Of equal communication importance is the preacher’s face. Granted, Bro. Johnny cannot change his face but he should know that his facial expression alone provides at least fifty-five percent of the impression made on the hearer. (Vocal sounds account for thirty-eight percent while nouns and verbs account for only seven percent.)^[31]Albert Mehrabian and M. Wiener, “Decoding of Inconsistent Communications,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6 (May 1967):109-14. This might imply that a preacher who concentrates his delivery on the seven percent of verbage in his manuscript has a ninety-three percent odds against communicating effectively. One expert declares the face capable of 250,000 different expressions. Although there is little need to “try them out” in a single sermon, the preacher must know that whenever his facial expression differs from verbal content, he is in deep trouble: The hearers accept the message of the face. That red-faced­ clinched-fist sermon on “Loving Your Neighbor” will only make most hearers wonder, “What’s Bro. Johnny mad about today?” It is important to understand that the face says more than half of what is communicated. Good preachers face up to that fact.

Paramessage signals in vocal qualities exercise the same persuasive effects as the face. When vocal tone differs from verb, the hearer accepts the tone feeling as authentic. Loud volume implies anger, contempt, or pomposity as well as emphasis. Hearers are also affected by other oft-neglected qualities as pronunciation and articulation. What you are speaks louder than what you say. You must be sure that you truly mean what you are communicating.

The most emphasized nonverbal element is the hand gesture. Bro. Johnny’s hand is said to be 20,000 times more versatile than his mouth.^[32]Ralph L. Lewis, Speech for Persuasive Preaching (Berne, Ind.: Economy Printing Concern, 1968), p. 62. Hand gestures have been so historically important that the Greeks placed the entire field of elocution under chironomy, the management of the hand. While Bro. Johnny will discover about all he needs to know in general speech books discussing planes, purposes, and powers of hand gestures, he should normally not attempt to practice gestures for his sermon. His best course of action is to let them come naturally from the “unconscious intent” he feels about his message. Since the preacher himself is his first audience, he had better be serious about his message. Communication studies will remind Bro. Johnny that what really counts is not just a matter of moving his lips – but his head and shoulders, knees and toes.

 

Being in Style

Style is as important in a preacher’s sermon as in his wife’s new dress. Unfortunately, it is usually easier to recognize bad style than good style when it comes to preaching. The preacher’s style is seen in words he chooses and how he puts expressions together. He may be scholarly, down-to-earth, bombastic, conversational, reserved, dynamic, or whatever. Mostly, as Buffoon said years ago, the style is the man himself. Perhaps that is why listeners say of some preachers, “He communicates!” Numerous delivery factors dress the preacher in his own style. Both homileticians and communication writers underscore those of interest, clarity, relevance, and force. What does communication study say?

Consider interest. While dullness may not be a sin against the Holy Spirit, for a preacher it could be a sin unto death. Various communication research may be of value to Bro. Johnny in his preaching: (1) Interest and attention cannot be “secured.” While it is true that those three or four introductory minutes determine whether they follow his thoughts, or their own, illustrations and introductions cannot “capture” attention. They do help attract attention momentarily but they will not secure it. In fact, researchers disagree as to whether attention spans last only a few seconds or as “long” as forty-five seconds. (2) Inattention is not the opposite of attention. It falls somewhere in the middle of attention and actual rejection.^[33]Paul Ekman, “Differential Communication of Effects by Head and Body Cues, ” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2 (November 1965):726-35. A dull preacher may be more than a bore. Communication study should remind Bro. Johnny that he flirts not with boredom but with betrayal of God’s purpose in preaching. Preaching is serious business. (3) Preachers do not deserve to “get” attention but their ideas do. Only immature preachers engage in sensationalism that focuses attention upon themselves rather than upon their message. Interest that is tangential or sensational may actually hinder the communicative effect of the message itself. Shock may be helpful in mental health therapy but it is also used to kill people. Bro. Johnny must be discerning as to which he is doing. He may get interest at the expense of killing his subject.

Clarity is as stylistic as interest. In Phelp’s classic work on style, he mentioned the German philosopher who rewrote part of his manuscript simply because people could understand it. One wonders about some of today’s preachers. Centuries ago, rhetorician-preacher Augustine wrote that expositors should not themselves require expositors. Nevertheless, it appears today that some preachers call upon a trinity of evil spirits to overcome potential sermon clarity. (1) Ambiguity is an over­ worked archenemy of clarity. Research demonstrates that when a message is ambiguous listeners use the ambiguity to make the message agree with their own ideas. The sermon is no place for an unknown tongue. Bro. Johnny might note that his discussion of “The Eschatology of St. Paul” is only slightly less ambiguous than a discussion of an unknown “thing-a-ma-jig.” (2) Sermon overload is also a dangerous adversary of clarity. Communication research implies that congregations cannot handle too many different ideas at once. In the same vein, R. W. Dale years ago affirmed that “We should all preach more effectively if, instead of tasking our intellectual resources to say a great many things in the same sermon, we tried to say a very few things in a great many ways.”^[34]R. W. Dale, Nine Lectures on Preaching (London: Hodder & Stoutton, 1890), p. 150. (3) A final rival of sermon clarity is the care­ less employment of inappropriate words and phrases. Mark Twain reminded that “the difference between the right word and almost the right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.”^[35]Webb B. Garrison, The Preacher and His Audience (Westwood, J.: Flemming H. Revell Co., 1954), p. 106. Perhaps Bro. Johnny needs a sign in his study: “ESCHEW OBFUSCATION!”

Relevance is a third element of effective style. In a recent study examining preaching in fifteen Roman Catholic parishes, two key qualities that impressed listeners were clarity and relevance.^[36]Kenneth I. Pargament and William H. Sliverman, “Exploring Some Correlates of Sermon Impact on Catholic Parishioners,” Review of Religious Research 24 (September 1982):33-39.

One wonders a little about Bernard of Clairvaux (A.D. 1090-1153), who preached eighteen years in the intriguing Song of Solomon—only to reach chapter three, verse one! To­ day’s listener is not prone to spend eighteen years replaying that melody. Neither does he wish to spend even eighteen minutes listening to Bro. Johnny talk about ”Abraham getting out of Ur of Chaldees ” when he is frantically struggling to get out of his own mess. His thirty-minute masterpiece on “The Pneumatology of St. Paul in First Corinthians” will also not leave many spell­ bound. Communication studies underscore that the more relevant the subject, the more natural interest the listener will give the preacher. To be relevant is simply to be in good style.

Finally, there is the matter of force in good style. Some preachers errantly believe that force means “stomping their toes.” Not so. William Malcomson accentuated listeners’ feelings about this misguided view of force stating, “I do not want the preacher to attack me. He has no right to do that—even if he speaks in God’s name. . . . If the preacher is sick, let him attack his psychiatrist.”^[37]William L. Malcomson, The Preaching Event (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), pp. 34-35. Too, if force is not ministerial assault and battery, neither is it a matter of simple emotional appeal. Tears dry too quickly to be forceful. Instead, force comes as the natural fire within the preacher’s spirit. Orator Quintilian asserted that “if you ever want to set anyone on fire, you will need to burn a little yourself!”^[38]Paul Scherer, For WeHave This ‘.lreasure (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1944), p. 204. One cannot artificially or superficially kindle that type of fire at 11:00 A.M. Sunday morning—but everyone will know if it is not there. It is simply a matter of preaching with good style.

 

Getting in Shape

Messages need bodies as surely as messengers need bodies. Somewhere along the path to effective communication a sermon body must be physically born. Historically, God’s message was always presented in forms appropriate to its own day: a prophetic Ezekiel lying 390 days on his left side, an apocalyptic Revelation for stormy days, or seashore proverbs by the Master Preacher. Much later the patron saint of detailed preachers, Antony of Padua, was among the first preachers to make careful sermonic divisions. One wonders if Antony’s homiletical grandchildren today might not more effectively leave their outmoded, scholastic, and detailed sermons in their biblical encyclopedias or chain-reference Bibles. The weekly parading of these many-headed beasts verbally stalking from today’s pulpits may have travelled too far from the simple parables of Jesus. In fact, some men today question whether the whole matter of sermon structure itself is not carried too far. Bartlett, in his Audacity of Preaching, had the audacity to suggest that “in a world in which half the population is starving and the other half can blow the rest into eternal oblivion, it makes little difference whether . . . climax order or anticlimax order is sometimes somewhat more or sometimes somewhat less effective.”^[39]Gene E. Bartlett, The Audacity of Preaching (New York: Harper & Bros., 1962) p. 50. Of course, he is correct! Yet every sermon must be structured somewhere on a scale between “Limp Jelly-fish” and “Bony Skeleton.” Ministerial generalizations and three-point sermons not with-standing, no one structure has yet proven “better” than any other structure. Research indicates that message structure or lack of structure poses no serious problem for hearers unless there is an obvious disorganization and lack of movement.^[40]Wayne N. Thompson, Quantitative Research in Public Address and Communication (New York: Random House, 1967), p. 68. It is equally researched, however, that message structure can provide help for the preacher by according an increased speaker ethos and greater listener comprehension.^[41]James C. Mccroskey and R. Samuel Mehrley, “The Effects of Disorganization and Nonfluency on Attitude Change and Source Credibility,” Speech Monographs 36 (March 1969):13-21; and Ernest Thompson, “Some Effects on Message Structure on Listeners’ Com­prehension,” Speech Monographs 34 (March 1967):51-57.

Before Bro. Johnny rushes out to read up on “primacy effects” or “recency effects” (whether strongest materials best come early in the sermon or late—although never in the middle), let him better use his time to ask what factors he may more easily consider in getting his sermon into shape. There are at least four such factors. (1) There is the communicator himself. Oftentimes, a preacher is so rigidly trained to think and speak in particular forms as to be unable to do anything different. How many preachers use only three points with or without poem? Remember, though, that nothing will ruin a good one-point sermon so quickly as three points! The preacher himself must determine if he has the capacity to experiment with dramatic monologue sermons or symphonic sermons. He may feel himself unable to do anything other than what comes naturally.

(2) The content of the text will often automatically dictate his structure. A text dealing with contrasts between light and darkness will likely suggest a two-point structure rather than a fourteen-point structure. (3) The context of his preaching environment sometimes determines what one can and will do with the sermon structure. The campfire sermon to local church youth might be entirely restructured when preached from behind a comfortable pulpit. Too, a mission sermon translated by an African interpreter may be planned knowing that it must be preached twice. This is not so unusual. Early apostolic preaching itself was shaped by its context. At first rather formless, the “message” was introduced to a Grecian influence that was intrigued by all types of forms, whether in buildings, people, or sermons. The sermon form grew from that context. It may also change today. (4) A fourth structural molder is the congregation. Research verifies that some listeners actually demand the use of particular structures.^[42]Dominic A. Infante, “Cognitive Structure as a Predictor of Post Speech Attitude Change,” Speech Monographs 39 (March 1972):55-61. By way of example, consider that a typical American congregation might easily follow a linear, analytical form of sermon direction. The same text preached in Southeast Asia may likely demand a non-linear structure. Some cultures are inculcated with an entirely different thought pattern totally inappropriate for utilizing a linear sermon. At times, this consideration of congregational thought patterns has escaped the attention even of missionary preachers who have felt that it was sufficient merely to change their illustrations for their particular country. The medium of presentation itself may be the message. It is likely that in forthcoming years this congregational­ cultural-structural consideration will add a new dimension to what seminary homiletics teachers MUST teach in basic stateside preaching classes. When one recognizes that the Mexican population of Los Angeles is second only to Mexico City; that Miami is already two-thirds Cuban; and that by 1990, America’s largest ethnic group will likely be Spanish speaking,^[43]Naisbitt, Megatrends, pp. 244-46. the logical conclusion is obvious: American preaching teachers may be forced to emphasize non-linear sermon forms as a standard part of the existing traditional stockpiles. This will likely be brought about by the sole factor of cultural change within the American congregation.

While body structure remains important to preachers, some ultra-contemporary homileticians are now humming an old tune descriptive of their sermon philosophy: “I Ain’t Got No Body.” Such preachers emphatically state that the traditional sermon body is dead and must be buried and forgotten. They imply that God speaks differently to Dallas than to Damascus. Seeking to find the creative, bright, and new experience, they offer unusual new structural forms for their non­traditional sermons. Thus, one hears of churches using interpretive dance portraying parables, dramas, movies, and other forms for the biblical message. They appear in all sizes and shapes. Multi-media presentation of “secular” messages, dialogue discussions, chalk-talks, ventriloquism, and some that Bro. Johnny will not believe. One leading advocate of experimental sermons, John Killinger, declared that “Ministers in our seminar sessions often expressed amazement after ‘lubrication’ exercises: They didn’t know they could feel so good, or that the body could become a part of preaching.”^[44]John Killinger, comp., Experimental Preaching (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973), p. 24. The effects are mind-boggling to Bro. Johnny. He and numerous other bewildered preacher friends shake their heads and moan,

It is almost as though you feel you need to apologize for not having a dialogue sermon. You feel you should say something like, “Tonight, try to go along with this. I am not going to read Joan Baez or Dan Berragan, I just intend to read the Scripture. Would that be all right—just as an exception: Would that be OK tonight?^[45]William Toohey, “Preaching in the 70s: Does it Have a Chance?” Preaching 5 (November-December 1970):36.

If these innovations, these new bodies, catch on, they may come slowly—especially within the more traditional South and Southwest. The “Bible Belt” is worn more tightly than we know.

At the same time, while the sermon must have a body, it must also have a spirit. Communicators have taught that the true spirit of good communication, particularly preaching, is dialogical. While “dialogue” has usually referred to a body form such as the dialogue sermon approach, it more significantly refers to the spirit in which any sermon should be preached. There is a communicative “give-and-take” involved in its presentation. It nevertheless remains easier for homileticians to teach a student various dialogical patterns than to teach him a dialogical spirit. The preacher himself must determine if his sermons will offer a spirit that communes with his congregation. Since the term “communication” itself implies the presence of such a spirit, it is likely that a preacher who cannot communicate dialogically will be unaided by any amount of preplanned structure. Bro. Johnny can swaddle his sermon in ornate buildings, dynamic Gaither solos, and uplifting choir anthems, but he will discover that two monological points communicate no better than twenty monological points. They simply pass more quickly. Better that his spirit be willing even if his flesh be weak where a dialogical attitude is involved.

 

Conclusion

Every church pastored by Bro. Johnny deserves effective, strong, communicative, biblical preaching. The issue is whether Bro. Johnny is responsible enough to pay whatever this will demand. In a world where advertisers will pay $180,000 for a thirty-second commercial on the Sunday afternoon National Football League telecast and almost three times that amount for thirty seconds on the 1985 Super Bowl slot,^[46]Bailey, “Media,” p. 6. it would seem that all Bro. Johnnys would gladly sacrifice for the privilege of better communicating Christ’s Gospel. If they will, their church members may gladly say, “Now Heerreesss . . . Brother Johnny!”

If they don’t, they may switch the TV remote control to channel 12 and hear Ed McMahon say instead, “NOW HEERREESSS . . . JOHNNY!” It is all a matter of communication and preaching. What you learn from communication study will be worth it, Bro. Johnny.