In recent weeks, I have become a student of preaching. At some point while at seminary I will take at least one preaching course, but I have become much more attentive to preaching style and technique. In the past week, I have heard two sermons which followed very different approaches to Scripture. Both tackled difficult passages in profoundly opposite ways.
As a competitor on Hillsdale College's forensics team for 4 years, I am aware of how persuasive people can be after years of rhetorical study. I was amazed at Pastor Eric's faith in Scripture. His sermon expressed a conviction that Scripture is sufficient. The Bible does not need extra help from a persuasive pastor. The preacher of the gospel does not need to use all the tricks of an orator.
In contrast to Pastor Eric's approach, I heard a second sermon this week. This speaker had impeccable credentials reflecting years of spiritual education and experience. He, however, employed an opposite method. His text was Genesis 38, possibly the most difficult passage in Genesis. This story involves Judah fathering a child on his daughter-in-law after she married three of his sons successively following the custom of Levirate marriage. The preacher spent the first section of his sermon establishing the context and reading the passage. He then transitioned into a hermaneutical discussion about authorial intent, and how we should read this passage as a contrast between Judah and Joseph. To explain how we should not be quick to judge Judah as bad and Jospeh as good, he spent 15 minutes telling the story of a German Jew who first developed the process of nitrogen soil enrichment but later invented mustard gas for the Germans during WWI. The preacher's point was that we cannot simply declare this man good or bad, since he had both positive and negative contributions to the modern world. He then concluded his message by pointing out that Christ came from the tribe of Judah.
As my recounting of his sermon may reveal, I was underimpressed with his handling of a difficult passage. What I want to emphasize, however, is his presentation. Throughout his sermon, this preacher used impeccable poise, gestures, voice inflection, and emphasis. He had the entire chapel enthralled with his emotional stories, and is the only preacher I have yet witnessed at Southeastern to sit down to fervent applause. His treatment of Scripture, however, was not thoroughly gospel-centric. He did not, in my opinion, do justice to the difficuly of this passage. His use of rhetoric, however, covered for superficial analysis. I walked away from his message understanding more about how mustard gas came to exist than how Genesis 38 ties into the overall narrative of the gospel.
In these two different messages, I see two opposite approaches to preaching Scripture. The first preacher made a conscious effort to preach difficult doctrines and let them stand on their own. He did not cover them in sermon illustrations but rather created an environment where the Bible could speak for itself. The second preacher chose a difficult passage, and his credentials formed an expectation that he would offer a deep analysis of a problematic passage. His sermon is memorable not for the scripture he preached but for his emotional illustrations and excellent rhetoric. As I train to someday pastor a church, it is my hope that I will be remembered for preaching scripture, and not for my own rhetorical skill.
While home in Hampton Roads this past weekend to register my wife's car with the DMV, I heard Dr. Eric Thomas preach from John 6:41-58, where Jesus describes himself as the Bread from Heaven come down to satisfy men's souls eternally. This passage contains some very difficult doctrinal statements, including Jesus' statement that "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." Pastor Eric preached one of the most blunt sermons I have ever heard from him. Towards the end of his message, he told us that he intentionally did not employ any specific rhetorical devices to improve his persuasion. As a PhD with over 25 years of preaching experience, Pastor Eric can preach persuasively. With this message, however, he wanted to let the text speak for itself. He presented the gospel of Christ as Scripture did, illuminating the doctrines of election, eternal security, depravity, and grace as they were found in the text. If people felt compelled to respond, they could. He did not want anyone to make a decision about the call of Christ because of clever rhetorical tricks.
As a competitor on Hillsdale College's forensics team for 4 years, I am aware of how persuasive people can be after years of rhetorical study. I was amazed at Pastor Eric's faith in Scripture. His sermon expressed a conviction that Scripture is sufficient. The Bible does not need extra help from a persuasive pastor. The preacher of the gospel does not need to use all the tricks of an orator.
In contrast to Pastor Eric's approach, I heard a second sermon this week. This speaker had impeccable credentials reflecting years of spiritual education and experience. He, however, employed an opposite method. His text was Genesis 38, possibly the most difficult passage in Genesis. This story involves Judah fathering a child on his daughter-in-law after she married three of his sons successively following the custom of Levirate marriage. The preacher spent the first section of his sermon establishing the context and reading the passage. He then transitioned into a hermaneutical discussion about authorial intent, and how we should read this passage as a contrast between Judah and Joseph. To explain how we should not be quick to judge Judah as bad and Jospeh as good, he spent 15 minutes telling the story of a German Jew who first developed the process of nitrogen soil enrichment but later invented mustard gas for the Germans during WWI. The preacher's point was that we cannot simply declare this man good or bad, since he had both positive and negative contributions to the modern world. He then concluded his message by pointing out that Christ came from the tribe of Judah.
As my recounting of his sermon may reveal, I was underimpressed with his handling of a difficult passage. What I want to emphasize, however, is his presentation. Throughout his sermon, this preacher used impeccable poise, gestures, voice inflection, and emphasis. He had the entire chapel enthralled with his emotional stories, and is the only preacher I have yet witnessed at Southeastern to sit down to fervent applause. His treatment of Scripture, however, was not thoroughly gospel-centric. He did not, in my opinion, do justice to the difficuly of this passage. His use of rhetoric, however, covered for superficial analysis. I walked away from his message understanding more about how mustard gas came to exist than how Genesis 38 ties into the overall narrative of the gospel.
In these two different messages, I see two opposite approaches to preaching Scripture. The first preacher made a conscious effort to preach difficult doctrines and let them stand on their own. He did not cover them in sermon illustrations but rather created an environment where the Bible could speak for itself. The second preacher chose a difficult passage, and his credentials formed an expectation that he would offer a deep analysis of a problematic passage. His sermon is memorable not for the scripture he preached but for his emotional illustrations and excellent rhetoric. As I train to someday pastor a church, it is my hope that I will be remembered for preaching scripture, and not for my own rhetorical skill.
This was very interesting, Josh. I've become increasing suspicious over the past yearish that almost every I've won has been won not by evidence but by rhetoric. This seemed to me to be fairly universally true of the debates that I witnessed at our college. It's disheartening, though I will say that I've found discussions and debates in graduate school to be of a much more serious nature.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I have serious doubts that rhetoric is separable from literary analysis, especially when applied to sacred texts. I don't know that the point of literature, or even of Scripture, is to convey propositional content. If that were the case, then rhetoric would simply be a obscuring addition. But if the point of literature is to incarnate an alternate vision of the world or to induce the discovery of meaning, then I think rhetoric is necessary.
I say "induce the discovery of meaning" because I take meaning to be a subjective event. This no doubt shows my different perspective on interpretation, but I think I can justify it more or less with a couple examples. First, I think all of us have had the experience of an "aha" moment: I remember this happening to me a lot when I was younger and learning math, but as I've gotten older I experience it more rarely and mostly when considering philosophy or literature. It's not enough to know only 2+2=4 or that Frodo goes to Mordor to destroy the Ring because he cares about his friends. You can explain it in as much detail as you like, but the person doesn't really understand what either of those things means unless he really feels them himself.
There's a famous paradox in ancient philosophy that Augustine deals with at length: that it appears to be impossible to teach someone something unless they already know it, at least in parts. There are easy and fancy ways around this, but I think it gets at the heart of what I'm trying to say. That personal knowledge, that "aha" moment can't be given to you. As Plato admits, you can lead a person to the truth, but you can't give it to them.
But maybe I'm being incoherent.
Genesis 38 is a very very interesting passage, with one of the best explanations I heard being a combination of education and political calling found in Judah (also, note the connection between Gen 38 and the book of Ruth, both in story arch as well as Ruth's specific reference to Gen 38 in chapter 4).
ReplyDeleteThere are three commentators who I have read that, I think, help make this difficult passage more manageable.
Sachs Commentary on Genesis (though Sachs is, as far as I can tell, not a believer, he does a close reading).
Victor Hamilton's two book commentary on Genesis is very good and his take on Genesis 38 is fair.
Bruce Waltke and Cathi Fredricks commentary is a good combination of Evangelical understanding with a literary analysis of much of Genesis.
P.s. This is Nick... but Anita is our blogger, so her name appear.
I'm glad you posted on this Josh, because it is an important issue. I agree with Theo though that rhetoric and literary analysis are not entirely separable. You've essentially created a false dichotomy.
ReplyDeleteEven the most blunt, straightforward, or "non-rhetorical" speaker still uses rhetoric. The fact that the speaker said he was purposefully not using rhetorical devices is, in itself, a statement which effects how the audience understands his sermon...ie. a statement with rhetorical effect. Additionally, the cadence of his words, how he reads the Scripture, what he emphasizes, what he doesn't emphasize, what he chooses to read, what he doesn't chose to read, how much context he provides or leaves out, the order of his information, the types of arguments he chooses to make and not make, the volume of his words, are ALL rhetorical decisions. I don't think I have to point out the 5 canons of rhetoric, but every speaker makes decisions which fall under these categories and don't just let a text "speak for itself".
Further, if a text could "speak for itself", then the preacher should just read the Scripture, nay, have the audience read the Scripture word for word and go home. Clearly, since the text seems to have inherent understanding bursting forth from its sentences, no mediator of understanding is necessary. Preaching is obsolete.
Since I'm sure you don't mean to go to the extent of making preachers obsolete, the real conflict we are dealing with is not "rhetoric vs. literary analysis", but "bad preaching vs. good preaching" or "bad rhetoric vs. good rhetoric". For this discussion to take place, we have to establish what the end of a sermon is or should be, and whether the preacher effectively and appropriately achieves that end.
It's fine to critique bad preaching or speaking, but don't blame the art of preaching/speaking for terrible practitioners. I can point to plenty of terrible historians, writers, theologians, scientists etc., but those bad practitioners do not inherently indicate their disciplines are worthless.
Many thinkers, Augustine among them, looked at rhetoric as an appropriate means for Christian preaching. Further, Old Testament writers, Paul, and Christ himself all used a plethora of rhetorical devices, which you call "tricks", to persuade and illustrate the truth to the masses. In fact, we have far more records of Christ telling stories or parables than we do of him giving "literary analysis" in the abstract and removed way that you use the term. If we are to take any pointers from Christ's actions or to mimic him in any regard, these observations seem to run completely counter to what you are advocating.
Thanks for the post. I've also competed in Forensics for 4 years, and I see the sophistry you are talking about. That just means we have to work all the more to speak the right way which doesn't just convince people for the sake of power, but for the sake of the truth.