Preaching, the Holy Spirit, and Emerging Technology

Printer-Friendly Version  

Rev. Zachary Eswine
Assistant Professor of Homiletics/Director for the Doctor of Ministry
Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri

The purpose of this paper resides in examining the question, “what relevance has that old idea of ‘unction’ from the Holy Spirit for a preaching landscape filled with emerging technological epistemes and options?’ With implications for preaching theory and practice, the author asserts the necessary, primary, and continuing role of pneumatology if preaching is to be both, powerful and relevant, amid an increasingly digital landscape.

Masking a Vacuum

Divine unction is the one distinguishing feature that separates true gospel preaching from all other methods of presenting truth. It backs and interpenetrates the revealed truth with all the force of God . . . without unction on the preacher, the gospel has no more power to propagate itself than any other system of truth. (Bounds, 2001, 1)

Historically, the best of Evangelical preachers have asserted a necessary dependence upon the Holy Spirit for pulpit relevance and power. In his classic work, On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, John Broadus stated that, “the ultimate requisite for the effective preacher is complete dependence upon the Holy Spirit (Broadus, 1979, 16).” Similarly, Haddon Robinson, in his Biblical Preaching, quotes William Barclay saying, “true preaching comes when the loving heart and the disciplined mind are laid at the disposal of the Holy Spirit (Robinson, 1980, 25).” Robinson’s own definition of preaching asserts the Holy Spirit as the necessary one who applies the Word of God, both to the preacher and to the hearer (Robinson, 1980, 20).” More recently, Bryan Chapell has stated that the Biblical description of the Spirit of God’s work with the Word of God challenges, “all preachers to approach their task with a deep sense of dependence upon the Spirit of God (Chapell, 1994, 24).” In fact, “the conviction that the Holy Spirit gave the Word should yield a commitment to seek his leading and the courage to speak more what he wants said than what we or our congregations fancy (Chapell, 1994, 62).”

With this heritage of thought in view, it is Charles Spurgeon who insightfully connects the loss of power in preaching with the neglect of this same Spirit of God. He says, “Is it not to be feared that we have lost a great deal of power in our lives, because we have not been sufficiently mindful of the power of the Spirit of God? (Spurgeon, 1888, Vol 35).” “What is a sermon,” Spurgeon says, “if there is no unction in it (Spurgeon, 57, 1887)?” Elsewhere, Spurgeon gives exhortation to the people of God saying, “Church of God thou art powerless; thou hast no strength, no might to convert a single soul apart from the Spirit of God (Spurgeon, 861, 1860).”

Why would this idea of Spirit-dependence need to be stated to modern Evangelical preachers who readily embrace such sentiments unless there exists among such preachers, a tendency to forget? John Broadus recognizes such forgetfulness among preachers saying, “The preacher who learns homiletical skills may forget his need of the Holy Spirit (Broadus, 1979, 16).” This forgetful tendency among homileticians may find no greater relevance than this present and televisual age. The present Evangelical preacher may wonder how his Word-oriented and oral pulpit-message can demonstrate power amid so many varying modes of visual communication saturating the souls of his people. In light of such competing modes of communication, one may begin to legitimately question whether we, who are evangelical preachers today, would say, amid our felt absence of power and relevance, that our greatest and present problem with preaching is too little attention to the Spirit of God. However, it does seem reasonable that present Evangelical preaching concerns for power and relevance could increasingly locate themselves in the realms of technology. Some might argue that the likes of Spurgeon could speak of a void in Spirit-dependence as the cause of powerless preaching because he did not have to contend with the stresses of a televisual competition for communication. But are we really ready to relegate the Holy Spirit’s power with His Word to something less in degree, or less for our dependence, because of the presence or absence of a particular kind of technology? With keen understanding of this plight, Haddon Robinson presents a particularly wise warning when he says

Multimedia presentations, filmstrips, sharing sessions, blinking lights, and up-to-date music may be symptoms of either health or disease. Undoubtedly, modern techniques can enhance communication, but on the other hand, they can substitute for the message-the startling and unusual may mask a vacuum. (16)

It is this potential vacuum caused by trying to find relevance and power in the pulpit in the televisual, rather than in the Holy Spirit’s attendance to the message, that this paper addresses. But why do we suggest this vacuum as a potential problem?

Dealing with the Phantoms

Many pastors find themselves competing with phantoms of the past. For example, they frequently encounter that too well worn phrase, “we have never done it that way before.” In addition, pastors are often called to recognize phantoms of the future. Like it or not, they and the church will have to contend with a new phantom on the contemporary horizon: the phantomlike specter of technology. (Mosser, 1994, )

For many, this phantomlike specter of technology is conjuring up a new image of preaching. For example, recent Homiletic discussions often state that sermons must become shorter in length. This argument links emerging technology with a reduction in attention span.

In a culture where people get their news summed up, where political campaigns are run through quick thirty-second sound bytes, where television programs are interrupted quite frequently by ads that give the mind a rest, listening to a long sermon will not be welcomed. (Litchfield, 2000, 27)

Another concern relates to the perceived authority of preachers in a technological age. Discussions of “inductive,” versus “deductive” approaches to preaching abound. These discussions, perhaps originating from differing theological presuppositions may be increasingly tied to changing technological epistemes.

There has been a crisis in confidence in authority for the preacher, partially brought about by the multiplicity of voices communicated through the electronic media. (Mitchell, 1997, 271)

In addition, technology often forms the cause for moving from less verbal to more visual forms of a preacher’s communication. Power point and movie clips vie for our attention. As Paul Scott Wilson has stated, preachers must “make a movie with words (Mitchell, 1997, 271).” In other words, “the preacher must think televisually (Goldingway, 1997, 91).”

In short, many preachers, in their search for remaining relevant and powerful for the gospel, may subtly find themselves turning, less to the expectations and promises of Scripture, and more to the expectations and promises of a televisual culture in order to define the nature and practice of preaching that is relevant and powerful. Such thinking may begin to express an assumption that, “the biggest mistake that pastors make . . .is to superimpose their ‘thing’ on the media,” and need instead to, “discover what the media are doing and then adapt to the media format (Schultze, 1987, 256).”

But essentially more devastating, evidence of a vacuum emerges as the phantom of technology becomes for some, a menace, by which they justify, both, by their flight from previous notions regarding the primacy of preaching, and, by their search to discover new ways to communicate the gospel with relevance and power. And so, what was being spoken forty years ago within non-evangelical circles may now resurface among Evangelicals on the basis of technological presence. George Barna has stated that

The means for developing and delivering a great sermon these days is quite different than that which has been done in the recent past . . .increasingly, we find that the entire approach of “talking to the audience,” is an ill-fated form of communication. (Barna, 1997, 12-13)

Concerns for preaching’s outdated role may now arise, not from the absence of Scriptural assertions regarding the primacy of preaching; and less from differing theological assumptions; but more from the presence or absence of a certain kind of technology. With this technological phantom in view, and with a felt absence of relevant and powerful pulpit communication in our land, some Evangelical preachers hold an increasing sympathy of discomfort with the question raised by their more theologically-liberal counterparts. They quietly wonder, “What will happen to a religion of book in an age dominated by the epistemology of the electronic media (Buttrick, 1993, 319)?” Subsequently, discussion and counter-discussion, regarding the length of sermons, the role of authority, the use of more visual and less verbal emphases abound, while instruction and practice in the preacher’s dependence upon the Holy Spirit’s power with the Word may have already begun to fade from our discussions creating a vacuum in preaching.

How then, do evangelical preachers fill this vacuum? How do they engage televisual realities in order to enhance communication, while maintaining our assertion that, as Spurgeon says, “it were better to preach six words in the power of the Holy Ghost than to preach seventy years of sermons without the Spirit (Spurgeon, 1918, 621)?”

We suggest that a dependence upon the Holy Spirit in preaching wanes when preachers forget that (1) there is nothing new under the sun, (2) there are three kinds of sight in the soul’s of those listening to preaching, (3) there are two kinds of oratory, and only one has the capacity to engage all three sight levels in the soul.

Nothing New Under the Sun

Many assume, as was quoted above, that the “specter of technology” is a “new phantom.” Such thinking causes the Evangelical preacher to feel that he is like Elijah, alone in a cave, with no others who understand, and no hope but his own ingenuity for surviving Jezebel’s threats. But, as one ancient preacher has said, “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, ‘See, this is new?’ It has already been, in the ages before us (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10).” We suggest that this “nothing new” mentality applies to preachers and their dealings with technology as well.

The impact of the televisual on communication is little doubted. Even, John Stott has stated the impact of the televisual on the listener of sermons.

Preachers have to reckon with a TV-conditioned congregation. We have a colossal task in our hands if we hope to counteract the baneful tendencies of much modern television. We can no longer assume that people either want to listen to sermons, or indeed are able to listen. (Stott, 1982, 75)

In light of these and other similar sentiments, there is no reason to doubt that, “in a televisual age, preachers need to contend for people’s attention (Mitchell, 1997, 264).”However, what is dangerous to an active dependence upon the Holy Spirit for preaching is the implication that this need to contend for people’s attention is tied to, and even the result of, a televisual age. We suggest that preachers of the 21st century are not the first to find themselves concerned with attention spans, nor are they the first to stand in their pulpits amid technological change. The Apostle Paul preached in an age dominated by visual icons, rhetorical prominence, and theatrical flourishing. Likewise, the printing press, the “lightning lines” of the telegraph, the telephone, and the radio all confronted preachers and pulpits before the external visuals of television. In light of this, why have evangelical preachers assumed that there have been times in which people “wanted” to listen to sermons about Christ? And if historical seasons prove that they have, why have evangelical preachers assumed that their listening was tied to technological accommodation rather than to intensifications of the Holy Spirit? The author raises this question with the following thoughts in mind.

Sermons as the antidote for insomnia

Prior to the televisual, orality and literacy had historically lured preachers to theological and technological considerations for finding relevant and powerful preaching. In 1666 for example, Charles II “caustically prescribed attendance at sermons as the surest antidote for insomnia (Martin, 1965, 286).” In response to this lack of power in the pulpit, an ideological war arose among preachers, which looked to sermon method as the answer for powerful preaching.

Convinced of the need for effective sermon delivery, homileticians, preachers, and lay critics waged a long, acrimonious paper-war over the best way to keep congregations awake-the customary Anglican mode of reading sermons aloud, the Continental way of memorizing them, or the nonconformist method of extempore preaching. (Martin, 1965, 287)

Spurgeon’s call for snuff in the sermon

Similarly, it is prior to the introduction of the televisual that Charles Spurgeon, for example, gave one of his famous lectures to his students on the need for gaining and keeping attention; as he lamented the lack of writing on this subject in homiletical instruction (Spurgeon, 1875, 136). In this work, Spurgeon declares

The minister who recommended the old lady to take snuff in order to keep from dozing was very properly rebuked by her reply,-that if he would put more snuff into the sermon she would be awake enough! (Spurgeon, 1875, 137).

What is interesting for our purpose is to note that, attention problems existed in a print-dominated culture, prior to the televisual, even with the likes of Charles Spurgeon. But more importantly, while Spurgeon urges varying methods for gaining the attention of his hearers, he will unequivocally move front and center, the person and work of the Holy Spirit. “If you want to have the attention of your people,” says Spurgeon, “it can only be accomplished by their being led by the Spirit of God (Spurgeon, 1875, 145).”

We suggest that, inattention to sermons and the emergence of technological change, is new in kind or degree, but not in principle. Further, this trans-generational-antipathy of the soul to sermons has more to do with theology than technology. Why do we say this?

The Natural Blindness of the Human Soul

Whereas preachers once debated (and still do ) 1 the attendant power of extempore, versus written sermons; the power of orality versus literacy, tomorrow’s preachers will debate the attendant power of sermons that rely on visual media versus those that do not. But the best of Evangelical theology, regardless of media orientation in the culture, has always recognized that preaching Christ, is by its very nature, a foolish act in the eyes of natural men.

This is so, because it is understood that the “eyes” of the natural man’s soul are blind to the things of God. The Apostle Paul states this saying that the preaching of Christ is foolishness to those who are perishing (I Corinthians 1:21-24). As the Apostle notes, “the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolish to him, nor can he know them because they are spiritually discerned (I Corinthians 2:13-14).

Three Kinds of Sight

Paul’s instruction on “spiritual discernment” is recognized as an amplification of the teaching of Jesus when one remembers what Jesus said to Nicodemus, who came by night. Jesus refers to a kind of vision that Nicodemus lacks. Jesus says, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above (John 3:3).” When Jesus said that Nicodemus could not see, three kinds of sight come to the attention of the Evangelical preacher and offer a reason for remembering the necessity of the Holy Spirit in relevant and powerful preaching.

First, Jesus was not referring to the “physical sight” of Nicodemus. Nicodemus after all did come “by night” and saw where Jesus was staying. Physical sight refers to earthly or heavenly visuals that are external to the soul and held externally by the physical eyes. Such external visuals are recognized in the teaching of Jesus for example when Jesus, teaching about worry, points his hearer’s physical eyes to “look at the birds of the air . . .” and “consider the lilies of the field . . .(Matthew 6:26-28).”

But Jesus also sets a second kind of seeing before Nicodemus when he says, “you must be born from above.” The second kind of sight concerns earthly or heavenly visuals external to the soul and held internally by the imagination. This use of word picture by metaphor, analogy, or simile that engages the imagination has many examples in the teaching of the Scriptures. The Apostle Peter for example says, “like a roaring lion, your adversary the devil prowls around, looking for someone to devour (I Peter 5:8).”

The third kind of sight has reference for Nicodemus “seeing” the “kingdom of God.” This “spiritual sight” concerns divine visuals external to the soul and held by faith internally. This sight of faith is what the Apostle Paul refers to when speaking of what Jesus said to him on the Damascus road saying, “I am sending you to open their eyes so that they may turn from the darkness to light . . .(Acts 26:18).” Or again, “with the eyes of your heart enlightened, you may know what is the hope to which he has called you (Ephesians 1:18).”

These three kinds of sight, physical, imaginative, and spiritual are well exemplified in the preaching of John the Baptizer who declared, “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29).” Or again in the preaching of Jesus when he said to his disciples, “look around you and see how the fields are ripe for harvest (John 4:35).”

But what do these three kinds of sight imply about preaching?

Natural and Spiritual Preaching

When we lose sight of the nature of the soul, and of the necessity of the Holy Spirit to give this third kind of sight to the soul, we also forget that two kinds of oratory exist with two differing kinds of results upon the soul of man. Though these two kinds of oratory look alike, the one, if not recognized from the other, will, in time, prove deadly to the preacher and to the people who listen to him.

Isocrates, in his, Against the Sophists, “insists that the requisites of a good orator are first, natural ability, second practical experience, and third formal training (Isocrates, 1962, 172).” He says for example,

Ability, whether in speech or in any other activity, is found in those who are well endowed by nature and have been schooled by practical experience. formal training makes such men more skillful and more resourceful. . . But it cannot fully fashion men who are without natural aptitude into good debaters or writers . . . (Isocrates, 1962, 173).

When reminded, the Evangelical preacher recognizes that there exists among humanity, a natural talent for public address that does not require the new birth of the Holy Spirit to have an affect on the faculties of the natural man. Such a “natural aptitude” can be clearly demonstrated when one considers the great, and non-Christian, orators of human history. Further, one need only remember the orations of Hitler and Churchill, that within this natural aptitude for speaking, there also exists the power to naturally persuade men and nations, both, for ill and for good. It must therefore be recognized that there is a genuine and real power that can attend the natural orator. This power of the natural orator, like that of spiritual oratory, flows from something inwardly “felt.” Cicero stated that “unless there be beneath, the surface matter understood and felt by the speaker, oratory becomes an empty and almost puerile flow of words (Brummett, 2000, 203).” At times, the natural orator can liken this “felt” communication to an inspiration from the divine; a sort of feeling that the gods are singing to him (Kennedy, 1980, 9). As Kennedy notes of Classical rhetoric, “the Homeric orator . . . when he is at his best . . . has a gift of speech, an inspiration from the gods, which is something more than his own understanding. To a limited extent this phenomenon continues throughout the history of great oratory (Kennedy, 1980, 10).”

The Apostle Paul seems to highlight this discernment of oratorical kind in his letter to the Corinthians. “My speech and my preaching,” the Apostle says, “were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power (1 Corinthians 2:4).” Elsewhere, the Apostle says similarly, “our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance . . . (I Thessalonians 1:5).” The Apostle asserts an awareness of these two kinds of oratory. The one is rooted in human wisdom and as such can come in word only. This is the kind utilized by the rhetoricians of Paul’s day and could identify the best of non-Christian public address. This kind of oratory we identify as “natural oratory,” as it describes the fruits of that “natural aptitude” mentioned by Isocrates.

The other kind of oratory mentioned by the Apostle “involves a demonstration of the Spirit and power,” and involves “word” that is accompanied by “power,” “the Holy Spirit,” and “much assurance.” This kind of oratory, we identify as “unnatural or spiritual oratory,” as it reflects that kind of oratory that is attended to with the power of the Holy Spirit of God. Why do these distinctions prove important and how do they prompt the preacher to a renewed attention to the Spirit of God for his preaching, but that, the preacher may employ natural oratory to engage the first two kinds of sight in his preaching. But the preacher must recognize that he has no rhetorical or televisual power to engage the third kind of sight in his listeners unless by the presence of spiritual proclamation. It is this third kind of sight, rooted in spiritual oratory, which forms the primary purpose for Evangelical preaching in the first place; mainly, the opening of the eyes of faith to the things of God in Christ. It is this attention to this third kind of sight that distinguishes the Evangelical preacher from the natural orator. And it is this third kind of sight that natural oratory cannot provide.

Though perhaps affected by the televisual, it is reasonable to state that this soul-inattention to preaching is not primarily caused by the absence or the presence of a televisual climate. Neither then, if the televisual is not the primary cause for inattention to preaching, will more televisual usage, offer the answer for preachers longing for relevance and power in the pulpit. Something more will be required. For this third kind of sight, the preacher is dependent upon the working of another, the Spirit of God. What does this mean, but that, evangelical preachers may therefore utilize, in proportion to Scriptural example, a physical visual in the context of their Word-proclamation. In this sense, some discussion regarding the place and use of power-point or video-clip for evangelical preaching may be warranted. 2 Secondly, the appeal to the imagination with metaphor, simile, and analogy also finds Biblical warrant for evangelical preaching and therefore homiletic discussions of story and narrative have their important place. But we suggest, that by engaging in these two kinds of discussions, the evangelical preacher has not yet transcended the discussions had by orators with natural aptitude; who themselves rely on appeals to physical and imaginative sight in order to move their listeners. For evangelical preachers, concerned with a third kind of sight in the soul, which can only come from a spiritual proclamation, and that, only by the Spirit of God; such preachers, must, without hesitation, nor lack of conviction, give themselves to the study of the Holy Spirit in connection with their preaching. Without such attention, we as evangelical preachers run the risk of doing little more than moving the emotion, refining the thought, and stirring the will of the natural man. 3 Such powerful effects, though real, are nothing more than what a natural orator can accomplish, and therefore fall far short of that Spirit-endowed preaching described on the pages of Holy Writ.

Conclusion

We have suggested in this paper that the history of Evangelical preaching has asserted the necessity of the Holy Spirit in connection with relevant and powerful preaching. In light of an emerging televisual era, Evangelical preachers are increasingly becoming concerned with the place of this technology in preaching. Some are actually questioning the validity of preaching as we’ve known it. Amid all of this, it is possible for the Holy Spirit to be forgotten and preaching that is relevant and powerful to subsequently, wane. But, when Evangelical theology is brought to bear on the communication concerns of an oral, literate, or televisual landscape, we suggest that it was the lack of the Spirit of God rather than the lack of using technological advantage that was the primary reason for soul-inattention toward the preaching of the gospel in the New Testament. That is, the nature of the soul in a fallen world, regardless of the times, or the emphases that those times may place upon orality, literacy, or the televisual, is the primary cause for poor attention to sermons. A mosaic of emotional, sociological, economical, and technological considerations may intensify, but not cause, this antipathy to preaching. Therefore, the evangelical preacher needs what God has provided to get beyond the intensification to the cause. By remembering the three-fold sight possible in the soul, and by recognizing the inability of natural oratory to engage the sight of faith, the evangelical preacher is brought to a need for that spiritual proclamation that only the Holy Spirit can give him. Remembering the nature of the human soul regardless of the presence or absence of technology; and remembering the existence of natural and supernatural oratory and our need to discern the two, offer an introduction to the kind of dialogue that may spur Evangelical preachers to a greater seeking of the Holy Spirit for pulpit relevance and power, even amid a televisual landscape.

---

Endnotes

[1] See for example, Wilbur Ellsworth, The Power of Speaking God’s Word: How to Preach Memorable Sermons, (Christian Focus, Reformation and Revival Ministries, 2000).

[2] See Charles Spurgeon’s discussion on this principle of appealing to the physical eyes in preaching in his third series of Lectures to My Students, (Old Time Gospel Hour, reprinted, 1894), 94; or the author’s, “The Holy Fancy of Charles Haddon Spurgeon: Visual Logic for Traditional Preaching in a Postmodern Ethos,” Journal of the American Academy of Ministry, Volume 7 (1), 2001.

[3] “All that a man [has] that has been the subject only of a natural birth don’t go beyond that which Christ calls flesh, for however it may be refined and exalted, yet it cannot rise above flesh.” Jonathan Edwards, Treatise on Grace, Selections from the Unpublished Writings of Jonathan Edwards. (Soli Deo Gloria, 1992), 20.

---

References

Barna, George. “The Pulpit-meister: Preaching to the New Majority,” Preaching, Volume 12 (4), 1997.

Bounds, E.M. “Unction-Heavens Knighthood.” http://home.swipnet.se/~w-54890/Unction.htm (6/27/01)

Broadus, John. On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons 4th edition (Harper Collins, reprint 1979).

Brummett, Barry. Reading Rhetorical Theory. (Harcourt College, 2000).

Buttrick, David. “Preaching to the Faith of America,” Communication and Change in American Religious History. Edited by Leonard Sweet, (Eerdmans, 1993).

Chapell, Bryan. Christ Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon. (Baker, 1994).

Goldingway, John. “In Preaching be Scriptural,” ANVIL, Volume 14 (2), 1997.

Isocratese. “Against the Sophists” The Loeb Classical Library. (Harvard University Press, reprint 1962).

Kennedy, George A. Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times. (The University Of North Carolina Press, 1980).

Litchfield, Hugh. “Changes in Preaching.” Southwestern Journal of Theology Volume 42(3), Summer, 2000.

Martin, Albert. “Paper-Geniuses of the Anglican Pulpit,” Quarterly Journal Of Speech, October, Volume LII (2), 1965.

Mitchell, Jolyon. “Preaching in an Audio-Visual Culture,” ANVIL, Volume 14 (4), 1997.

Mosser, David Neil. “Neil Postman, Technological Culture, and Preaching,” Journal for Preachers, Vol. 17 (2), 1994.

Robinson, Haddon. Biblical Preaching. (Baker, 1980).

Schultze, Quentin. “The Mythos of the Electronic Church,” Critical Studies In Mass Communication, Volume 4, 1987.

Spurgeon, Charles. Lectures to My Students. (Old Time Gospel Hour,Reprint 1875). Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit. Charles Haddon Spurgeon Collection. (Ages Digital Library, 1998). Stott, John. Between Two Worlds: The Art of Preaching in the 21st Century. (Eerdmans, 1982).