Printer-Friendly Version

 Kristopher Barnett

Ph.D. Student, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Pastor, Ridglea West Baptist Church

Fort Worth, Texas

Abstract

Contemporary culture rejects authority figures.� How can preachers deal with this disconnection?� What does Scripture say about a preacher�s authority? This paper will consider biblical, cultural and practical criteria in order to provide a workable theology of preaching in light of the current movement against authority figures.� 

In Matthew 21:23, the chief priests and elders questioned Jesus� authority by asking, �Who gave you this authority?�[1]� The chief priests and elders have returned with the same queries for contemporary preachers.� Rather than dressing in the religious robes of the past the modern inquisitors appear in contemporary attire: suits, bell-bottoms and work shirts.� Like the chief priests and elders, they question, �Who gave you this authority?�� Unlike the chief priests and elders, the contemporary congregant does not voice the question.� Instead, the wheels of the mind turn while the voice of the preacher drones on.

In order to preach effectively, the contemporary preacher must possess a response to the inquiry.� Like the question, the response need not be verbalized and aimed at the inquisitors.� Instead, the preacher�s response should reveal itself through actions, attitudes and mannerisms displayed in the pulpit.� In order to help preacher�s respond to the question of authority, this paper will explore the issue of authority in preaching from biblical, cultural and practical perspectives. The paper will develop a workable theology of preaching.� This theology of preaching will focus on two types of authority: the actual authority derived from the Bible and the perceived authority held by the listeners.����

Authority in Ministry

����������� ��Authority in ministry is most complex. It is ecclesiastical by reason of ordination; it is charismatic by reason of a call; it is personal by reason of talent and education; it is democratic by reason of the willingness of listeners to give their attention.�[2]� Fred Craddock�s famous quotation reveals the complicated picture of ministerial authority.� Ministerial authority could be simplified if the preacher thought in terms of two separate types of authority: actual authority and perceived authority.� Actual authority describes the authority that the preacher possesses as a servant of God.� Perceived authority describes the authority that the audience or congregation ascribes to the preacher.� Obviously, actual authority takes precedence over perceived authority and will be discussed first. 

Actual Authority

����������� Most homileticians agree on the value of the Bible in preaching.� Haddon Robinson contends, �When a preacher fails to preach the Scriptures, he abandons his authority�� Therefore most modern preaching evokes little more than a wide yawn.� God is not in it.�[3]� Calvin Miller agrees that only through Scripture does the sermon provide, �the voice of God.�[4]� John Piper asserts, �Our authority as preachers sent by God rises and falls with our manifest allegiance to the text of Scripture.�[5]

����������� Despite the scholarly agreement on the necessity of biblical authority, surprisingly few scholars have discussed methods for assessing a sermon�s connection to its text.� This important aspect often gets a nod on the path to other aspects of the preaching process.� Rather than merely paying lip service to the idea of biblical authority, contemporary preachers should commit to honestly assess their sermon�s connection to Scripture.�

����������� H. C. Brown provided a tool for measuring biblical authority in his book A Quest For Reformation in Preaching.[6]� Brown�s student, Al Fasol, has since furthered Brown�s work.[7]� To explain the categories of biblical authority, Fasol employs the illustration of a car passing under an electrical wire and experiencing static on the radio.� The closer the car comes to the electric wire, the greater the static on the radio.� Likewise, the closer a preacher comes to the Bible in a sermon, the greater the degree of biblical authority.� The further the sermon varies from the Bible, the less biblical authority the sermon possesses.[8]� The following text will discuss Brown and Fasol�s categorizations and describe the value of these categorizations to the contemporary preacher. 

Direct Biblical Authority

����������� The first category of biblical authority is direct biblical authority.� A sermon possesses direct biblical authority when the message communicates the same central message that the Scripture text teaches.[9]� For a sermon to have direct biblical authority, the preacher must work diligently to discover the meaning of the text.� This does not imply that a sermon with direct biblical authority must resemble a dry history lesson.� Instead, through a careful study of the text, the preacher can discover and communicate eternal truths.[10] 

Secondary Biblical Authority

Secondary biblical authority focuses on a secondary theme within the Scripture passage.[11] ��This does not imply that the theme is unimportant or insignificant.� Rather, it indicates that another theme is obviously the most dominant theme of the text.[12]��� Brown warns of the dangers involved in any sermon with less than direct biblical authority.[13]� In order to help preachers understand the distinction between direct and indirect authority; Brown and Fasol describe three different types of sermons possessing secondary biblical authority.� The contrast and comparison sermon develops a parallel between physical and spiritual truths.� For example, an Old Testament text on leprosy could serve as a comparison to sin.[14]� Secondary biblical authority also appears in sermons that specify a general truth of Scripture.[15]� The final categorization on secondary biblical authority provided by Brown and Fasol is validating an implication from Scripture.� [16]

Focusing on a secondary theme contained in the Scripture could lead the congregation to believe that the preacher has detoured from the Bible and landed in the midst of personal speculation.� This could weaken the preacher�s perceived authority.� As prescribed by Fasol, utilizing this type of secondary biblical authority in an anti-authority culture would require a solid explanation on the part of the preacher.[17]� 

Casual Biblical Authority

Casual biblical authority is the third category.� This type of biblical authority provides a loose relationship to the text.� Fasol warns, �A steady diet of sermons based on vaguely defined biblical authority could leave a congregation spiritually anemic.�[18]� These sermons occasionally develop out of rhetorical suggestions which are based on only a few words of text because the surrounding context does not support the idea around which the preacher wrapped the sermon.[19]� Another type of sermon displaying casual biblical authority is the spiritual essay, which often involves a subject that the preacher needs to address, but the Scripture does not speak on.� These spiritual essays become dangerous when preachers begin to tag unrelated Scripture to their own personal views in order to gain biblical authority.[20]� If the subject has no direct source in Scripture, the preacher should admit it and speak from his heart or not speak at all. 

Combination Biblical Authority

����������� Combination biblical authority implies that a sermon could have varying degrees of biblical authority.� For example, one component of the sermon could have direct biblical authority while another has indirect biblical authority.[21]� Most sermons would fall into this category. 

Corrupted Biblical Authority

����������� Brown also includes corrupted biblical authority, which Fasol has omitted.� Admittedly, the term corrupt biblical authority seems contradictory.� Corrupted authority would indicate no authority.� Thus, Fasol is correct in omitting it.� However, Brown�s description of this corrupted sermon provides insight for considering the lack of biblical authority in contemporary sermons.� Brown describes these sermons as abusing the Bible through: allegorizing, proof-texting, pushing denominational agendas, rejecting the supernatural, making the Bible a science textbook, and twisting Scripture through cultural accommodation.[22]� 

Evaluation of Brown and Fasol�s Criteria for Biblical Authority

The system for measuring biblical authority developed by Brown and furthered by Fasol has many advantages although it is not flawless and some additional suggestions could provide assistance.� Sermons containing casual biblical authority seem extremely weak in their relationship to the Bible.� Possibly the descriptive term casual is too favorable and needs revision.� The term loose could provide a more pointed assessment of the sermon�s relationship to the text.� As mentioned above, the phrase corrupt biblical authority makes little sense.� However, a category is needed for those sermons that are disconnected from the Bible.� Possibly a more appropriate label would be non-biblical authority.� Thus, the category would make sense logically because the corrupted sermon is non-biblical and relies on other sources for authority.�

����������� � With the noted revisions, this system of measuring biblical authority provides an effective tool for preachers.� It will prevent preachers from speaking their own words in place of God�s.� As preachers prepare their sermons, they can pinpoint the degree of biblical authority.� Then, they can approach the congregation with the confidence that their words have actual authority.� Although preachers have actual authority if their sermon comes directly from the Bible, preachers and their message might not have perceived authority in the eyes of the congregation.��� 

Perceived Authority

There is a distinction between actual authority and perceived authority.� Actual authority comes in the calling of Christ and dependence on the Word of God.� Perceived authority lies in the perceptions of the congregation.� Although not as important as the actual authority provided by the Word of God, perceived authority influences the reception of the preacher�s message.� Therefore, communicators should have an awareness of perceived authority.�

Perceived authority is complicated because it is based on the listener�s ideas, philosophies and opinions.� Effective preachers must remain grounded in their actual authority.� However, they should also operate with an awareness of their perceived authority.� Such awareness begins with an understanding of cultural perspectives.�

Cultural Perspectives

����������� Contemporary American society struggles with authority.� In the 1960�s, students showed their discontent with authority through protests.� In the decades that followed, political leaders provided even more fodder for anti-authority sentiment with Watergate, the Iran-Contra hearings, and the Clinton impeachment trials.�

����������� The religious arena also provided fuel for the anti-authority movement.� Publicized fallings by Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart and others damaged trust. These actions, by supposed men of God, encouraged Americans to question the authority provided to religious leaders.

����������� The perceived authority of the minister has been diminished.� Thus, the preacher needs to work to gain entrance into the listener�s sphere of influence.[23]� The preacher does not enter the congregation�s sphere of influence to gain perceived authority.� Rather, the preacher enters because God has bestowed the actual authority.� This follows the example of Christ who humbly became a man to provide salvation for mankind.� In this manner, pastors display authority through dependence on the authority of Christ.� J. I. Packer says it this way, �Preaching has authority when both its substance and its style proclaim in a transparent way the preacher�s own docile humility before the Bible itself and before the triune God whose Word the Bible is.�[24]

����������� Preachers must serve in the confidence of the actual authority bestowed by Christ and gently lead their congregation to the point where perceived authority and actual authority are identical.� The congregation must be allowed to grow into a proper understanding of authority.� Demanding authority often destroys authority.� Graham Johnston offers an illustration of this principle.� When an individual attempts to feed pigeons, the birds must first develop familiarity and trust.� If the individual attempts to force feed a bird, the pigeons will rapidly fly away.� However, if they are allowed to develop trust and familiarity, they will eventually eat from the feeder�s hand. [25]�

Pastors can unintentionally fall into the same trap of the pigeon feeder.� They desperately desire to see the congregation accept truth and in their desperation they drive the congregation farther from the truth.� Fred Craddock speaks of the temptation to trap listeners, �leaving the hearer no lateral room for movement.�[26]�

The admonition to serve with an understanding of perceived authority does not indicate that pastors should cater to the culture.� Instead this proposal calls for a working awareness of the culture and a willingness to communicate effectively to those within the culture.� Those who refuse to acknowledge culture look like a �fool or a liar� to the very people that they are attempting to reach.[27]

����������� Numerous factors influence the perceived authority of the preacher.� Some listeners consider the personal integrity of the speaker.� Others admire skill with verbal and nonverbal communication techniques.[28] �Some evaluate authority based on adherence to tradition.[29]� The preacher�s personality and knowledge also influence perceived authority. [30]� Preachers must not allow an understanding of perceived authority to take priority over the actual authority of God�s Word.� Calvin Miller warns preachers against relying on their own pulpit skills, �In such deft displays of biblical skill, God rarely gets the spotlight.�[31]� Likewise, Fred Craddock points out that the ego sometimes presents a formidable roadblock to communication.[32]������������

Practical Considerations

����������� �Preaching is broke,� declares emergent church leader Doug Pagitt.[33]� What observation solicits such a strong declaration by Pagitt? According to Paggit, the authoritative nature of the sermon is inappropriate; �A sermon is often a violent act. It�s a violence toward the will of the people who have to sit there and take it.�[34]� Upon closer inspection, Pagitt�s commentary reflects a critique against sermon style, delivery, and authoritarian tendencies.� 

Sermon Style

����������� Critiques of sermon style are not new.� In his 1971 book, As One Without Authority, Fred Craddock raised similar issues with the traditional deductive sermon.� Craddock contended that the deductive sermon, �presupposes passive listeners who accept the right or authority of the speaker to state conclusions which he then applies to their faith and life.�[35]� The general acceptance of authority has continued to dissipate since the original printing of As One Without Authority.� Thus, Craddock�s suggestions deserve attention.� Craddock indicated that the communicator should employ more induction in his sermons.� Inductive preaching involves retracing the preacher�s discovery process and allowing the congregation to arrive at a point of discovery.� Rather than beginning the sermon with the conclusion, the preacher ends the sermon with a conclusion.[36]� Craddock points out that most people live their lives inductively, not deductively.� Thus, he concludes that preachers should communicate more in the style that people live their lives.[37]� For Craddock, inductive preaching appeals to the priesthood of the believers.[38]

����������� Craddock�s call for inductive preaching issued in the 1970�s has found some opponents.� They consider changes in preaching style condescension to culture.[39]� However, the traditional deductive sermon was not the only type of sermon communicated in the Bible.� Jesus spoke in parables, shaping stories to teach moral lessons.� Even Paul used a more inductive style of address when he spoke at Mars Hill.

����������� Preachers must remember that the actual authority in preaching lies in Scripture.� Preachers can effectively communicate Scripture both inductively and deductively.� Interestingly, Fasol notes, �A sermon based on Scripture is controlled or guided by its biblical text, but using a text does not force a set form or approach on the preacher.� A biblical sermon can be (and ought to be) creative, fresh, and scintillating within the parameters on which it is based.�[40]� In fact, Craddock himself did not advocate preaching only inductive sermons.� He indicated that the two styles could work together to communicate Truth.� Inductive sermons plow the intellectual ground for deductive messages.[41]� A variety of sermon styles provide the healthiest diet for believers.[42]� So, how does a preacher determine a sermon�s form?� The actual authority of preaching resides in the Bible, so the Bible should serve as a guide for discerning the sermon style.� In recent years, several scholars have worked diligently developing this theory: Sidney Griedanus, Mike Graves, and Thomas G Long.[43] 

Dialogical Delivery

Doug Pagitt�s stinging critique recorded earlier noted that sermons were �a violence toward the will of the people who have to sit there and take it.�[44]�� This aspect, of Pagitt�s complaint, stems from the sermon�s monological style.� Again, Craddock made similar indictments in the 1970�s.� He described the congregation�s role on the team as �javelin catchers� for the preacher�s message.[45]� Fortunately, the congregation is not bound to such a passive role.

Monologue can have the feeling of a dialogue, just as dialogue sometimes turns into a monologue.[46]� Reul L. Howe�s book, Partners in Preaching: Clergy and Laity in Dialogue, called for a more dialogical style of pulpit communication.� He writes of the preacher, �If his image is of himself as a performer, if he conceives of himself as the informer and his congregation as passive recipients, if he thinks of himself as the answer man, and fails to address himself to the questions and insights of the people, he will fail and the gospel, too.�[47]

In order to preach dialogically, preachers must think of the pulpit event as speaking with the congregation rather than speaking to the congregation.� Dialogical communication can occur in a large group setting when the preacher asks rhetorical questions or answers questions that the congregation might be wrestling with. [48]� Of course, in order to answer the congregation�s questions the preacher must spend time with the people.� Haddon Robinson focuses on communicating with the congregation by imagining different members of his congregation in the study.� Robinson listens to their questions and attempts to respond to them in the message.[49]

Dialogical sermons encourage listeners to interact with the message. Fred Craddock advises that preachers should involve the audience so that they think, feel, and decide.[50]� Although the listener cannot respond during the delivery of the sermon, the dialogical format encourages the congregation to respond in words and actions after they hear the message.[51]� In this manner, the anti-authority movement could help Christian discipleship.� The previous model advocated acceptance without critical thought, which produces unhealthy believers who have never really discovered Scripture for themselves.[52]

In addition to the words of a sermon, nonverbal components can also impact the dialogical approach.� The pastor�s tone of voice, hand gestures, and facial expressions impact the reception of the message.� In fact, listeners are more likely to trust the speaker�s nonverbal communication.[53] �Therefore, communicators should make certain that their unspoken actions convey the appropriate type of authority. 

Authority, Not Authoritarian

����������� As discussed earlier, preachers often feel that their authority resides in a degree of expertness.� Therefore, they rarely admit ambiguities and uncertainties in their interpretation of the Scripture.� Ironically, in an anti-authority society, admitting uncertainties actually increases credibility with the congregation.[54]� Listeners have a newfound willingness to wrestle with the mysteries of the Bible.[55]� Robinson encourages pastors to admit and discuss the tensions discovered in applying the Word.[56]� Of course, preachers must resist the temptation to color each message with a shade of uncertainty.�

����������� In a similar manner, preachers should handle controversial issues with fairness.� Lambasting the opposition without providing a fair representation of their stance would hinder the congregation from accepting biblical views.[57]� In some cases attacking the views of others can result in reinforcement of the non-Christian values under attack.[58]� This does not imply that listeners should have the freedom to wander in sin with no response from the pulpit.� Instead, it encourages the communicator to speak Christian truth in a Christian manner exercising the actual authority of the Bible and not an authoritarian substitute. 

Conclusion

The question of the chief priests, elders, and contemporary inquisitors still hangs overhead.� �Who gave you this authority?�� This paper has endeavored to develop a theology of preaching.� This theology of preaching relies on the preacher�s actual authority derived from Scripture.� It is supplemented by the preacher�s awareness of the congregation�s perceived authority.� In order for this theology to remain true to Scripture, the perceived authority must remain supplemental and subservient to the actual authority of the word of God.� Then, the preacher can humbly and confidently communicate truth to their congregation, by authority of the King!

---