In my early years of preaching, I used to start all my sermons with a good joke, supposing that grabbing the audience’s attention in that way generated interest in my message.
After my junior year of college, however, when I started taking academics more seriously, I forsook the funny forewords and focused on my homily’s propositions and argumentation, assuming what people really need is not more entertainment, but more theological acumen. My favorite preacher at the time reinforced this assumption when he said, “America’s tombstone shall read, ‘We entertained ourselves to death.’”
Preaching, after all, I reasoned, is not a stand up comedy show. It’s not supposed to entertain us, it’s supposed to transform our minds through logical argumentation – even if it bores us to death along the way. In other words…
Preaching isn’t art, preaching is argument.
So I thought.
Over the last few years I’ve come to realize the wrongheadedness of this…or at least part of it.
I was right to reason that much of what represents the preaching craft in many churches is pure entertainment for entertainment sake, distracting from the gospel of Christ and reinforcing the “Here we are now, entertain us” mentality of churchgoers.
But I was wrong to bifurcate preaching and entertainment under the assumption that entertainment must equal shallow and trite messages.
This is simply not the case. In fact, more than just being wrong, it is unbiblical.
The very presentation of the Bible, with its symbols, images, and word-plays; it’s stories of mystery, love, intrigue, and murder all suggest that the Bible is intended to entertain us and stick with us! But that entertainment is not for entertainment sake, it has a telos: the illumination the kingdom of God and our role in it
That’s why Jesus tells parables instead of giving logical propositions. These stories talk about both mundane and fantastic events in life. They both reveal and hide the truth. They are literary genius, but were simple enough for illiterate farmers to comprehend. They entertained their audiences with both their form and their message, but they did so with the goal in mind of helping people love God and be conformed more to His image.
My avoidance of entertainment, then, was an attempt to be more “holy” than Jesus(you know, like Jonathan Edwards!). If Jesus entertained his audiences for a purpose, then we should understand that entertainment is not the Devil. In a sermon, entertainment without the goal of the Kingdom might be trite, but the problem is the wrong goal, not the means of communication.
Preaching isn’t argumentation. Preaching is art.
June 10th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Thanks for this Tom. I often wonder what exactly is the role of preaching. I whole heartedly agree that is is an art form which contains within it both argumentation and entertainment.
But what is the telos of preaching? Exortation? Evangelism? Education? Encouragement? All of the above?
How much do you think preaching is a device (or emphasis) of our construction? Where are we justified for thinking X about the sermon?
But, those are just the questions that your post stirs within me.
June 10th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Thanks for the reply. If others respond, I’d be interested in hearing them tackle your questions. If they don’t, maybe we’ll dialogue back and forth a bit.
June 10th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Tom, I like where u r headed with your thinking. I think it’s on track w respect to what preaching aims to be. ie subversive speech. This is an interesting notion of entertainment. I struggle with entertainment as a concept for preaching given all it’s present baggage. That said, I do think it’s much closer to entertainment (in the sense of art) than logic. The foolishness of the cross is wiser than the logic of the reasoned.
June 10th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
One more ponderable. I don’t really think the gospel is rational at all. It’s not irrational though–well maybe it is to the extent that love is irrational. I’ve been thinking about the idea of suprarational. It transcends rational.
Whatever the gospel may be–it’s proclamation must be of the same character. Right?
June 11th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Well said, JD. I also struggle with the word ‘entertainment’ because of its baggage. I wasn’t sure whether or not to use the word here, but I wanted to express art, not as something we just passively view/hear (the popular conception), but as something we engage – like when we’re at an entertainment venue and we laugh or cry or boo.
And, yes, absolutely – whatever the gospel is, it’s proclamation must be of the same character. Form and content are Siamese twins.
June 14th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Henry,
Here’s my stab into the great darkness. If preaching is contained within the worship/Eucharistic service, then wouldn’t its telos/purpose/function be the same, that is, doxological. In the sense that exortation, evangelism, education, or encouragement become lesser goods culminating in the larger good of doxology, then, I guess preaching might venture into these areas.
Also, I might argue that the sermon is completely, 100%, the minister’s construction. This does not mean, however, that God does not ‘give/grace’ through the sermon, for one doesn’t necessarily have to draw a dichotomy between God’s action and one’s own action. Take the Eucharist, for example. According to traditional (Catholic) teaching, the Eucharist is 100% the congregation’s gift to God which is why the offering of the elements by the congregation to God at the altar always precedes/begins the Eucharistic celebration (which has now turned into a purely monetary offering in most evangelical traditions). However, the Eucharist is simultaneously, 100% God’s gift to humankind.
Perhaps something similar happens with the sermon (though less perfectly of course). Trying to dissect which aspect God does and which aspect the minister does is largely, I think, unhelpful . . . kind of like those arguments between Calvinists and Arminians.
Just trying to generate discussion. Feel free to prod back . . . I still struggle with the whole notion of preaching, its place, and what it means. I’m interested to hear your response and what others are thinking.
Hey Tom, you should send me your non-Asbury email address.
June 14th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Caleb, Good words, man. I don’t think we’re in disagreement – or are we?
I would heartily agree that preaching is sacramental and doxological. Indeed, all good art is (with some specific qualifications).
And I agree, it’s pointless to draw lines between what God does and what the preacher does. I just use the word ‘participation’ and leave it at that.
My email is tomfuerst@hotmail.com
June 14th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
I didn’t/don’t think we are either.
Peace
June 14th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Gotcha – I JUST realized you were adding to Henry’s comment.
Henry, thoughts?
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:59 pm
[...] Here We Are Now, Entertain us June 2010 9 comments 3 [...]
January 27th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
I have been saying lately that preaching is not learned, but it’s something you are borne with, and that’s a gift of God.
Too many of the conservative wing of the Protestant church, to which I belong, put extremely emphasis on the knowledge part of the sermon, without taking into account that it must also create a feeling in us, in order to put the sermon into practice.
And I have seen time and time again that we are told that the gospel, and therefore, is a presupposition. Like you have pointed out, this is totally wrong!! This just shows that man wants to have total control of the sermon’s enterprise, and it seems that even the outcome of it must be dictated by man.
Many of these people criticise Charles Finney, and how he brought the feelings out of people. They see it as manipulation, but we see something similar in Acts 2, with Peter’s sermon.
We can’t divide ourselves, we are called to love the Lord with all our mind, but with all our soul and heart. Some people just want us to love the Lord with all our minds, period.
We need balance.
Thank you for your entry, and I will use it on my blog.