I’ll try to make this interesting even for good, empirical, disbelievers — but I can’t promise to be successful, so they may want to skip this one.
A long time ago, Naomi asked whether “preaching [were] an exclusively Christian activity, and does it necessarily imply ‘the gospel’?” In response, I’d make a distinction between a narrower sense of preaching, and a broader sense. (The broader sense involves what ought to be interesting to readers-in-general; the narrower sense involves premises that stand to enrich thoughtful engagement with theologically-interested conversation partners, whether dissenters or adherents, but not dismissers.)
In the broader sense, preaching has nothing whatever to do with the Spirit, and anyone can (and does) do it. “Public speaking,” “rhetoric,” “ethics,” “politics” all might fit under a broad definition of preaching (politics and ethics as lived advocacy of particular ways of life). If what we’re talking about is “making a case, even a very thin case, for a trusting, thinking, feeling, acting, in particular ways,” then preaching embraces everything from marketing pitches to campaign speeches to talk-show tomfoolery (and also intense, deep, articulation of philosophical and theological claims).
Now, so defined, preaching seems uninterestingly broad — but I want to hold up this almost trivial version as a foil for the alternative I propose because (a) it’s much more prominent in the culture, (b) much of what represents itself as theological-philosophical preaching amounts only to pitching-ideas or free-associating about one’s feelings, (c) the thin version still involves some important dimensions of what remains pertinent in the deeper version, and (d) I haven’t thought of (d) yet, but I’m holding space for an edited version here.
(C) first. At the broad level, all of what we do to affect others’ behavior partakes of preaching, and that affects both the narrower and broader definitions, partly because it provides an angle of view that conflates the two in unproductive ways (“Sermons — they’re just marketing for churches!” or “The church can teach Madison Avenue about marketing; it’s been doing it for two thousand years”) (speaking of whic, whatever happened to “Madison Avenue”? I mean, as a metonym for advertising/marketing?), and partly because the unproductive comparisons interweave with some true and relevant congruences.
(B) second. A lot of the time, preachers are just talking; something informed by the Spirit may happen when they talk, but if I have to believe that everyone who stands up in front of a congregation is therefore preaching in the Spirit, well, that’s a version of the Spirit that would tempt me to get very skeptical, very suddenly. (I have the feeling that a theologian will bust my chops about that, but I’ll venture it for the time being.)
(A) last (I’ll squeeze in a (d), if I come up with one, above). When there’s so darn much public persuasion going on, when in certain respects spin-doctoring, advertising, marketing, hyping, and soft- and hard-selling have become ubiquitous (“Welcome to TutorWorld!”), it’s important to acknowledge that ubiquity before trying to isolate anything possibly different about the narrower sense of preaching. As the discursive space within which narrowly-defined-preaching operates has been claimed and in many cases usurped by advertising/spin control, the very possibility of narrowly-defined-preaching seems to dwindle.
Now, the broader version of preaching doesn’t need to be pernicious; raising children, for instance, involves lots of suasion that’s not necessarily determined by spiritual interests. Inculcating the importance of “Don’t cross against the light” doesn’t depend on faith.
[I’m going to call it a night and get back to this tomorrow. I dropped off the ladyfolk at the train station, am tired and will probably just watch a movie and go to bed. But I will return to this topic.]
Posted by AKMA at June 18, 2003 02:04 PM | TrackBackSo, say more about the narrow-defined part...is it still "do-able"? Or are people so santized by the broader "preaching", either from the pulpit or from all the other places which you pointed out, that they can't see the difference?
And never forget..."nothing but fire kindles fire".
I say if the message is from the heart, the spirit is present. The Simpson's tonight is all about faith; Homer burns down the church with a model rocket, and Burns funds the rebuilding by making a business of it and branding everything. Of course, Lisa objects to the blatant corruption of the spirit and becomes a Budist. I can't help it, but I love the irreverence of it all, and at the same time, it really puts a deep message out their, even if there is a bit of cynicism in the sarcastic take. AKMA doesn't quite come out and say it directly (in explaining B), but he isn't willing to claim that the spirit informs the speaker just because he steps behind the pulpit with the robes on. Actual effort is required, it takes more that just going throught the motions. I'm willing to accept the idea that the spirit pervades everyone and everything, but that is a rather weak sense, and not really very interesting.
I don't really like the word preaching much, it has very negative connotations, probably because too much of it has been done (broad and narrow) dishonorably. Teaching, on the other hand hasn't taken on this negative cast; even when it falls short of the mark the activity is still noble in the honest attempt. If it isn't, we would use words like brainwashing or indoctrination.
Naomi's mention of the Holy Spirit in this context reminds me that the idea of the pervasive presence comes from the story of the Pentacost (What is that literally, five signs? or messages? something like that?). If you don't take it on faith that the story is literally true, how do you interpret the speaking in tongues part? I suppose the speaker could be so filled with the emotion of the message that the communication would be beyond language.
Mathew, huh. My knowledge of the Bible isn't good enough to even evaluate Naomi's descriptions, but I've been suspicious of Mathew for a long time. You see, my mother, who attended Catholic schools all the way through a B.A. in Arts from Cardinal Stritch College in Milwaukee underwent a spiritual awakening (broadening?) when I was a teenager, and was reading a lot of stuff well beyond the acceptable range for well heeled Christians. I read quite a bit of it too with an open mind. In particular, we both read a lot of the works of Jane Roberts, the author of Seth Speaks, and in one (or maybe more) or the Seth sessions, Seth states that Mathew wasn't a "true" Gospel, and more or less just leaves it at that. Now, this brings up a lot of issues about truth and how we know things, etc. Certainly none of it is falsifyable in any useful sense, but I have always wondered what possible basis this could have. 1) Mathew was just channeling his own profecy without any real reference to Jesus and his life, 2) Mathew never wrote or said any of it, but it was put in later. Learning later in life of the Gnostic Gospels adds yet another layer.
Posted by: Gerry Gleason at June 18, 2003 11:29 PM