subculture, or may be (or may be perceived as) at least partly an ‘outsider’ to it. Over time, he or she may shift along this spectrum, one way or the other. Awareness of one’s cultural location as a preacher enables sensitivity to the ways in which one’s own embodiment of the gospel may be peculiar to a particular culture and the ways in which it transcends such particularity.
As we saw in Chapter 1, the transformation of culture has been seen as one of the classic aims of Christian mission.[5] Preaching’s role in such transformation is well-documented, although as preaching is a fallible cultural act itself, it has produced not only positive transformation but less benign effects as well.[6] Moreover, we should not think of such transformation of cultures as something set apart from the transformation of individuals within them. As individuals are persuaded, whether through preaching or any other means, of the transforming truth and power of the gospel, they will start to exercise a transforming influence on the culture(s) in which they are embedded. Conversely, cultures influenced by the gospel may be hospitable settings for its transforming influence on individuals.[7] I am therefore treating preaching’s function in transforming culture as its ‘evangelistic’ function in the widest sense.
It is important to distinguish two levels at which this function is fulfilled. First, it is fulfilled by means of the preacher’s theological appropriation of God’s revelation in order to interpret the present and mediate God’s wisdom for life within it. That is, the content of preaching can be transformative of people’s thought-world and therefore their lives. Insofar as the preacher’s theology reflects contemporary fashions more than the historic revelation, this transformation will be lessened or eliminated. I consider this theological function of preaching in the next section.
Second, preaching can fulfil a transformative function with respect to culture by means of its form. This too can have a surprising effect. But here, too, if preaching imitates too closely either the communication style of a previous generation or that of today, its transformative potential will be reduced. The question is not whether our preaching ‘looks’ or ‘sounds’ strange in a culture accustomed to many other media, but whether that strangeness is a vehicle of transformation or a mere eccentric relic.
Roger Standing has given an excellent concise and up-to-date overview of cultural characteristics of contemporary British society, together with reflections on how these characteristics are inspiring preaching to adapt.[8] He cites eight: entertainment, narrative, consumerism, an ethos of suspicion in public life and reluctance to commit oneself deeply, ‘virtual’ relationships, celebrity, ‘liquid modernity’ and a ‘post-Christendom’ era in which there remain remarkable signs of Christian life and influence. He proceeds to give an incisive account of the potential of this atmosphere for Christian communication of the gospel, as well as the paradoxes entailed in becoming so immersed in it that the influence is predominantly one-way, from culture to preaching.
Here I want to take Standing’s argument a little further and summarize some ways in which preaching with its own ‘strangeness’ might already be positively influencing this strange contemporary British cultural pot-pourri, and could influence it further.
First, preaching may be a voice of reconciliation within the mistrustful and often polarized arena of public discourse. Deborah Tannen writes about the ‘argument culture’ which shapes so much of this discourse, especially in the media and politics.[9] Tannen is not at all opposed to argument per se, but rather to ‘ritualized opposition, in contrast to the literal opposition of genuine disagreement’.[10] Prime Minister’s Questions and tabloid journalism are examples which immediately spring to mind. One hopes that the echoes of a past in which the pulpit itself was a place for ritualized denunciation of ‘the world’, or other Christian traditions, are getting fainter now – though the memory of more adversarial times may linger, not least because ‘preaching’ has become associated with repeated scares about the ‘extremism’ of a minority of Muslims. But if preaching is allowed to be truly a vehicle for God’s own act of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5.18–19), its positive influence could be incalculable. The fact that many congregations are multicultural now places particular demands on the preacher, but also offers a glorious opportunity for the reconciling nature of this ministry to be manifested.
Second, preaching may come as a moment of refreshing and personal simplicity after the frenetic virtual world of internet exchange in which ‘friends’ may be ‘online’, yet are not ‘there’. This might particularly be true when preaching directly, interactively and without notes.[11] Preaching might call people out of over-immersion in the virtual and the impersonal. Tannen points out how one-way communication, such as the blanket email from boss to workers, or a message on an answerphone, can express aggression and therefore feed defensiveness in a way which does not happen in face-to-face communication.[12] Preaching may be largely one-way at the time, but at least the preacher is standing before the hearers, able to gauge their responses, and receive them orally afterwards. It may offer a salutary reminder to our culture of the vulnerability at the heart of personal relationships, expressed most clearly when we are physically present to each other.
Third, preaching can also function as a necessary and reassuring voice of wisdom in an ether awash with ‘knowledge’ which few know how to judge. Maybe the very difficulty and strangeness of preaching – sometimes – is a vital pointer beyond the immediately exciting, ever-changing yet ephemeral world of the small screen.
Fourth, preachers can use a language which deliberately eschews some of the debased forms of speech in circulation today. For example, the ideology of consumerism spreads in a sinister way from the economic to the linguistic sphere, and language shapes perceptions in all sorts of subtle ways (one hears, for instance, about the way people ‘consume new media’). This is a sign of the central place the desires of the self, and the desire for things now, have in the psyche of today’s society. All too easily, Christians may play along with this in the way that a variety of forms of church life and practice are ‘marketed’. Indeed, some forms of preaching can be in reality an exercise in self-marketing or church-marketing, whereas a conscious resistance to using such language can help preaching to be a truly transformative event. Our words can evoke another world, a sphere of free giving, a sphere in which others are as important as ourselves, a sphere in which patience is possible because the future is known to be far more glorious than the present, a sphere in which the human-driven ‘success’ of the Church counts for nothing in comparison with the God-empowered growth of his kingdom.
It is important to think particularly about the way in which the influence of preaching on culture (and vice versa) may change if it happens in the open air rather than within the safe walls of the church.[13] We will return to this topic in Chapter 8 when we consider patterns and practices of preaching. In the open, the preacher is much more obviously a competitor. There is no hiding-place. He or she may choose to imitate some of the tactics of other ‘open-air performers’ such as street actors, or to offer a ‘performance’ in stark contrast to theirs. Neither option should be prejudged as the more potentially transformative. The judgement and response of the public, if any, will be thoroughly conditioned by their expectations and preferences concerning what may happen in such ‘public space’. In church, the preacher is in an important sense on his or her own turf, in a position of control, and members of the general ‘public’ who enter will probably be aware on some level that they are moving into a
