As a teacher and (occasional) preacher, I find fascinating the subject of rhetoric, which simply refers to “how one ought to speak.”[1] In fact, several years ago, I published two other pieces on rhetoric, entitled “Rhetoric: The Christian and Non-verbal Communication” and “Rhetoric to the Glory of God.” In this post, I would like to return to the topic of rhetoric. One of the important means by which a preacher is the most effective and persuasive in his preaching is by the meaningful development of rhetoric. Although the fundamental frame around which this article is based concerns the preacher, many of the principles I lay out may apply more generally to communicators of all sorts.
Augustine offered an apologetic for the preacher’s careful attention to the discipline: “Oratorical ability, so effective a resource to commend either right or wrong, is available to both sides; why then is it not acquired by good and zealous Christians to fight for the truth, if the wicked employ it in the service of iniquity and error, to achieve their perverse and futile purposes?”[2] Thus rhetoric is an important element for the preacher, which the Holy Spirit can use, for producing real effect, change, and even transformation in the wills and lives of his hearers.
One of those vital points to successful rhetoric is perspicuity, which means clarity. For all of the speaker’s intentions to instruct, delight, and move, if those to whom he is speaking do not understand him, then it is all for naught. As a result, speakers must aim at perspicuity. In this article, I want to make the following plea: Aim at an appropriate style of perspicuity. In exploring this topic, I will first review the golden key of preaching, after which I will consider the importance of the vernacular and of simplicity.
The Golden Key of Preaching
Voices throughout the Christian tradition have made the point that speakers must be clear. Augustine used the image of a key: “The function of eloquence in teaching is . . . to make clear what was hidden from them [those to whom the preacher is speaking]. . . . What use is a golden key, if it cannot unlock what we want to be unlocked, and what is wrong with a wooden one, if it can, since our sole aim is to open closed doors?”[3] In other words, ordinary folk are not impressed with the speaker’s highfalutin language. Similarly, J. C. Ryle, in “The Simplicity of Preaching,” wrote that the preacher must “preach the simple gospel of Jesus Christ so fully and clearly that everybody can understand it.”[4]
The question arises, though: How does the preacher achieve perspicuity? How can he best use the golden key of preaching? Different authors have offered different, yet overlapping suggestions. Ryle, for example, believed that preachers must “take care that you have a clear view of the subject upon which you are going to preach,” use “simple words,” “take care to aim at a simple style of composition,” use “a direct style,” and “use plenty of anecdotes and illustrations.”[5] Similarly, Robinson pointed to a clear outline, short sentences, simple sentence structure, and simple words in a style that is clear, direct and personal, and vivid.[6] Space does not permit considering each of these, but the remainder of this article will review some of them, looking particularly at vernacular and simplicity.
The Vernacular of the People
The Oxford don C. S. Lewis, famous for translating the Christian message into apologetic statements that the common man could understand, explained: “Our business is to present that which is timeless (the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow) in the particular language of our own age. The bad preacher does exactly the opposite. . . . You must translate every bit of your theology into the vernacular.”[7]
He based this belief in a rich Christology, saying, “The same divine humility which decreed that God should become a baby at a peasant-woman’s breast, and later an arrested field-preacher in the hands of the Roman police, decreed also that He should be preaching in a vulgar, prosaic and unliterary language.”[8] Like Jesus before him, then, the preacher must humble himself when preaching God’s Word. It is what Stott referred to as building a bridge between the world of the Bible and the world of contemporary reality.[9]
Lewis explained that translation to the vernacular could be difficult, frustrating, tedious work: “This is very troublesome and it means you can say very little in half an hour, but it is essential.”[10] While taking the time to translate difficult concepts takes time, not doing so is to fail to communicate meaningfully. The preacher who desires to communicate effectively to his audience must, therefore, know his audience. For example, clarity to a Southerner is likely different from clarity to a Northerner. And clarity to an American is different from clarity to the non-American.
We must acknowledge that everyone, as a matter of course, has cultural distinctions. Ignoring this fundamental aspect of human existence will decrease the effectiveness of our communication. Knowing the subject, or even the craft of speaking, is not enough. The preacher must do more than preach to his congregant. He must also talk to them and spend time with them in the activities and culture that they enjoy but in a manner that is consistent with an ethic of excellence, honor, truth, and those other characteristics reflective of a Biblical ethic (e.g., Phil. 4:8). Thus the preacher is an exegete not only of the Word of God but also of the culture of his people. By so doing he may craft his message in greater wisdom.
Not only does translating theology into the vernacular help the hearer. It also helps the preacher. “I have come to the conviction,” wrote Lewis, “that if you cannot translate your thoughts into uneducated language, then your thoughts were confused. Power to translate is the test of having really understood one’s own meaning.”[11] The preacher of God’s Word, then, owes it to his church and himself to give himself enough time before a message to talk out its concepts, perhaps even with people who do not have a background in theology.
The Simplicity of Style
Often times (though not all of the time), attending to Lewis’s basic point will mean speaking with simple, straightforward, and ordinary language, where at all possible. As a part of considering the vernacular of the people, the preacher will also often aim to use perspicuous sentence constructions.
Long, windy, complex sentences are difficult enough to follow on the page; at least in that case, the reader has the opportunity to read it again. Unfortunately, spoken words afford hearers no such opportunity. Consequently, sentences should encourage rather than discourage the listener. For this reason, Broadus exhorted preachers, “Aim at a certain simplicity in the structure of your sentences, avoiding long, intricate, and complex periods.”[12] Similarly, Roy Peter Clark, an author rather than a preacher, encourages authors and speakers to “prefer the simple over the technical. Use shorter words, sentences, and paragraphs at points of complexity.”[13]
Robinson gave a practical reason for pursuing this advice. Summarizing Rudolf Flesch, who was famous for the Flesch-Kincaid readability test, Robinson wrote, “Clarity increases as sentence length decreases. According to his formula, a clear writer will average about seventeen or eighteen words to a sentence and will not allow any sentence to wander on over thirty words.”[14] Keep in mind: Robinson applied this principle to readers, who have the luxury of slowing down, speeding up, or re-reading. Listeners, on the other hand, do not have even that luxury.
Practically speaking, this advice means that the preacher should aim at speaking with simple, short sentences rather than complex, long ones. When in doubt, he should err on the side of simplicity. At the same time, he should work to avoid repetitive, boring sentence structures but work toward diverse, engaging ones.
Conclusion: The Urgency of Perspicuity
John Broadus would add an urgent, serious tone to this discussion, saying that the “preacher is more solemnly bound than any other person to make his language perspicuous.”[15] Robinson similarly wrote: “For preachers clarity is a moral matter. It is not merely a question of rhetoric, but a matter of life and death.”[16] The preacher testifies to the one who has the “words of eternal life” (Jn. 6:68, nasb). But what good is his testimony if his hearers, for all intents and purposes, cannot understand what he is saying? If his hearers would truly hear him, then the preacher must preach with an appropriate style of perspicuity. “How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard?” (Rom. 10:14) Yes, hearing requires communication on the part of the preacher. But also it requires understanding on the part of the hearer, which comes from clarity.
[1]John Albert Broadus, A Treatise on the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, 10th ed. (New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son, 1887), 25; see also 320.
[2]Augustine, On Christian Teaching, Oxford World’s Classics, trans. R. P. H. Green (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 102. He also wrote, “Since rhetoric is used to give conviction to both truth and falsehood, who would dare to maintain that truth, which depends on us for its defence, should stand unarmed in the fight against falsehood” (101).
[3]Ibid., 117.
[4]J. C. Ryle, “The Simplicity of Preaching” (1888; repr., Carlisle, Penn.: Banner of Truth, 2010); accessible at http://gracegems.org/18/Ryle-%20Preaching.htm; accessed March 24, 2020; Internet.
[5]Ryle. Regarding number two, Ryle wrote, “The most powerful and forcible words, as a rule, are very short.” Carrying out number three means “allowing the minds of your hearers to take breath.”
[6]See Robinson, 139–48. See also Gary Miller and Phil Campbell, Saving Eutychus: How to Preach God’s Word and Keep People Awake (Kingsford, NSW, Australia: Matthias Media, 2013).
[7]C. S. Lewis, “Christian Apologetics” (1945), in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 93, 98. Other works in which Lewis translates the Christian message into apologetic statements that the common man can understand include: C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (1940; repr., N. York: HarperCollins, 1996); C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, or Reflections on Education with Special Reference to the Teaching of English in the Upper Forms of Schools (1943; repr., N. York: HarperCollins, 2001); C. S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study (1947; repr., N. York: HarperCollins, 2001); C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (1952; repr., N. York: HarperCollins, 1980); and C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life (1955; repr., N. York: HarperCollins, 1966).
[8]C. S. Lewis, “Modern Translations of the Bible” (1947), in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 230.
[9]See John R. W. Stott, Between Two Worlds: The Challenge of Preaching Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), ch. 4.
[10]Lewis, “Christian Apologetics,” 98.
[11]Ibid.
[12]Broadus, 348; see also Gary Miller and Phil Campbell, Saving Eutychus: How to Preach God’s Word and Keep People Awake (Kingsford, NSW, Australia: Matthias Media, 2013), 149–50.
[13]Roy Peter Clark, “Fifty Writing Tools: Quick List,” Poynter, June 30, 2006; https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2006/fifty-writing-tools-quick-list/; accessed March 24, 2020; Internet.
[14]Robinson, 140; see Rudolf Flesch, The Art of Plain Talk (N. York: Harper, 1946), 38–39.
[15]Broadus, 340.
[16]Haddon W. Robinson, Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Preaching, third edition (1980; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 139.
Recent Comments