what does this all mean for the future of preaching? Some are convinced that it spells the end of an out-of-date, six-foot-above-contradiction monologue that is both educationally flawed and culturally anachronistic as a means of communication. Such critiques more often than not interact with exaggerated stereotypes that do not bear scrutiny, or they extrapolate from the experience of sub-standard preaching an overly pessimistic assessment of the whole. There is no doubt that bad preaching is boring and that cultural change has the potential to make a more traditional approach to preaching appear dated and out of touch. However, there is much more to be said.
It has always been true that preaching is a mediated discipline. Incarnational theology has taught us that the Word of God must always be clothed in the specific culture of place and time. In addition, as the Word of God is proclaimed it is not a pure distillation of divine revelation, but rather it has to take shape in the thoughts, words and ideas of the preacher and then be mediated through their experience, character and personality. Our contemporary context adds additional layers to a view of ‘media-ted’ preaching through both the all-pervasive nature of ‘the media’ alongside the ever-more sophisticated technological tools of communications multimedia.
If preaching must be mediated through its surrounding culture, and we live at a time of significant cultural change, it is inevitable that preaching will change too. Not to allow for this would place the proclamation of the word of God over against the surrounding culture and require it to take a step away from such a dangerous influence. Such a view might be admissible for those dimensions of culture that are antithetical to the gospel, but it would be a serious mistake to adopt with regard to preaching as a whole. Indeed, because of the mediated nature of preaching, it would only result in the continued embrace of the cultural embodiment of homiletics from another time and place.
Many of the voices calling for change in the practice of preaching, consciously or unconsciously draw on that movement in the second half of the twentieth century that became known as ‘the new homiletic’. With Craddock’s call for a move from deductive to inductive preaching (Craddock, 1978) and the work of others like Lowry with his advocacy of the narrative plot and his infamous graphic ‘loop’ (Lowry, 1980) the sermon was shifted towards the emerging cultural trends like the growing pervasiveness of storytelling in the entertainment industry and suspicion of the motives of those attempting to make authoritative pronouncements. McClure (1995, 2001), for example, argues for a collaborative approach that sees the preacher preparing in a ‘roundtable’ context with other members of the congregation, where shared insights and concerns are established to form the substance of the following week’s sermon.
Underlining the importance of an inductive approach for postmodern people, Graham Johnston (2001) also stresses the significance of storytelling alongside the inclusion of drama, art, audiovisual aids and the use of humour. Appealing for a creative ‘remixing’ of preaching, Jonny Baker advocates a similar range of strategies that keeps the ‘unleashing of the power of Scripture’ in a sermon fresh. Team working ensures a mixture of ideas and styles that can be integrated into an inductive approach that surprises and, at times, ‘pulls the rug out from underneath’ the listeners’ expectations (Baker, 2009, p. 86). In this way preaching is accommodated to contemporary culture that enables an expression of the gospel that connects and is accessible to its audience.
This, of course, is only part of the story of contemporary culture. Talk of the death of the ‘monologue’ is premature. In a number of significant contexts it is alive and well and continues to thrive. First there is the ‘After Dinner Speaker’ circuit. Bill Clinton reputedly earned £15 million in his first four years after leaving office, while in December 2007 Tony Blair was commanding up to £200 k for each speaking engagement.4 Clearly Clinton and Blair are at the top end of this particular marketplace, but it is evidence of a thriving industry and of people’s willingness to pay to hear a good speaker. JLA is the UK’s largest agency for ‘Keynote, motivational and after-dinner speakers’. Established in 1990 they carry a list of over 6,000 speakers. This is not a dying industry.
Second, the arrival of Barack Obama onto the American political scene when he spoke at the 2004 Democratic National Convention brought another dimension of public speaking into ‘high relief’: its power to inspire. Drawing on the classical skills of oratory Obama embodied the truth that personal, face-to-face, communication can have a quality and depth to touch the human heart and lift the human spirit. In a very different context on 19 March 2003, Colonel Tim Collins addressed the First Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment as they prepared to enter Iraq from Kuwait,
We go to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them.5
These are high-profile examples of the power of inspirational addresses. In public and private spheres, in business and the voluntary sector, from campaigning organizations to sports teams, the ability of individuals to speak and inspire those around them has not been lost.
Third, and perhaps a little out of left field, is stand-up comedy. Theo Hobson, writing in The Guardian, makes the link between it and the ‘essential performance-art of our Protestant past: preaching’.6 One voice holds hundreds captive by the power of their speech and creates a sense of unity in the crowd by establishing common points of reference and insight. From the left-wing polemicists of the 1990s to the eclectic themed shows of the Edinburgh Fringe, these contemporary folk heroes among the young are compelling communicators. As Joe Moran observes, also in The Guardian, ‘Great comedy clarifies reality in some way. It changes our perceptions rather than simply confirming them.’7
While there is a gulf between the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the anecdotes of the after-dinner speaker and the ironies of life laid bare by the incisive wit of a comedian, the preaching of Christ fulfils that to which these contemporary expressions of communication aspire. Truth is expressed, the heart is inspired and the will is engaged.
Deploying technology and utilizing contemporary communications solutions are also increasingly popular in seeking to enable preaching to engage with its twenty-first-century context. From the introduction of the printing press the Church has always been an early adopter of such technology, seeking ways to deploy it in more effectively communicating the good news of Jesus.
From Microsoft’s first offering of its new PowerPoint software that it acquired with its purchase of Forethought Inc. in the late 1980s, its use has burgeoned within the preaching community. While Jonny Baker astutely observes that most of this usage is about ‘recreating the old world’ by posting the three points or alliterated observations of the sermon on a screen behind the preacher, rather than exploiting the creative opportunities the medium offers, still it is evidence of the life and vitality within preaching as it struggles to engage with a changing context. Movie clips, locally produced ‘vox pops’ and illustrative graphics have all begun to play their part. It is interesting to note that evidence seems to suggest that in the experience of the listening congregation these developments were neither as radical nor as controversial as they were thought to be. Indeed, in rating a sermon, substance always triumphed over presentation and issues of spiritual growth over contemporary relevance (Standing,
