In the current issue of Theology Today Professor George S. Hendry of Princeton Seminary has an editorial on the following words of Bishop Johannes Lilje of Hannover: “The Christian
Church seems to have lost … the capacity to speak about its beliefs in a manner which should convey the impression of something real and alive. The language of the theologian seems to have become so artificial, so self-centered and so remote from real life that one can only dream of the times when theology took the lead in the universities and was the most formative influence in the intellectual life of the Western nations.” Under the title, “O Holy Simplicity,” Professor Hendry discusses the bishop’s statement and, while insisting on the propriety of a specialized vocabulary for theology, agrees in general with his point of view.
In an age preoccupied with science and with secular ideologies, communication not only in theological writing but also in the pulpit Sunday by Sunday does indeed stand in the forefront of the Church’s problems. Especially is this true of evangelicalism in which the communication of the Gospel through what Dr. R. A. Ward of Wycliffe College, Canada, calls the “royal sacrament” of preaching is so central. We evangelicals are not immune to the peril of obscuring a “holy simplicity” in preaching Christ. On the contrary, we are in some respects peculiarly prone to failure to get through to those who most need our message.
There is, for example, the tendency to talk to ourselves through using a pious vocabulary that becomes a badge of orthodoxy and at times elicits hearty “amens” from the hearers. At a Bible conference such a vocabulary may be understood, but there are sometimes present at Bible conferences Christians, to say nothing of unbelievers, who are unacquainted with our terminology. As for evangelical church services, they are regularly conducted with the assumption that strangers to the Gospel are in the audience. We need, then, a more critical awareness of any kind of pious phraseology that does not register on the consciousness of those we are seeking to win to Christ.
But there is another side of the coin. The endeavor to communicate clearly is never served by concealment of truth. We must by all means present the Gospel in plain words. Yet it remains the Gospel that must be presented. Concern for intelligibility must never blunt the cutting edge of the evangel which is the proclamation of the facts about man’s lost condition in sin, Christ’s death for man’s sin, and Christ’s glorious resurrection. These facts may repel some who hear them. We are not, however, responsible for “the offense of the cross,” although we are responsible for adding to that offense through inept expression.
This leads to consideration of a kindred danger. In a time of revival of scholarly interest among evangelicals, there is a need for alertness regarding mistaken identity between good communication and over-concession to present-day trends in theology or science. Because philosophical theologians like Paul Tillich with their existential emphasis are the vogue, effective communication does not require presenting the Gospel in philosophical terms to the rank and file of Christians. It is possible to preach to the existential condition of modern man without beclouding the living waters of biblical truth with metaphysical language.
Nor must preaching that will reach our non-Christian neighbors necessarily be phrased in accord with current scientific, literary, and political fashions. Familiarity with modern thought is necessary; awareness of the relevance of the Gospel to every area of life should be reflected in preaching. But these do not require attempting always to clothe the grand particularities of the faith in the latest intellectual garb.
Another hazard in communication springs from one of the most necessary elements of preaching—namely, authority. The minister who is convinced that Christ is “the way, the truth, and the life,” and who believes that apart from His redeeming work men are eternally lost, must speak with authority. Yet it is possible for even the godly to confuse the innate authority of the message with its effective presentation. While a man’s conviction of the truth he preaches immeasurably helps the reception of that truth, conviction does not solve every problem of communication. For the authority of personal conviction may pass over into uncritical dogmatism.
To be sure, authority does lie at the heart of communicating the Gospel with power, provided that the message is biblical not only in thought but also in its use of the very words of Scripture. The highest models of effective communication of God’s truth are in the Bible. Because Scripture is uniquely inspired by the Spirit of God, its use in preaching is uniquely accompanied by the authority and power of the Spirit. In its combination of directness and depth the Word of God stands alone. The proclamation of the truth of that Word by a man of God who believes the Gospel and who places all his resources of education and experience at the disposal of Christ will bring forth fruit in human life and conduct. Such a man will eschew any parade of learning for learning’s sake, simply because to flaunt learning smacks of pretense, which is the deadly enemy of vital proclamation of spiritual truth.
James Denney was right when he said that no man can at the same time persuade an audience that he is clever and that Jesus is the Christ. To use the title of one of Rudolph Fesch’s books, “The Art of Plain Talk” is an indispensable requisite of preaching that really communicates. To cultivate that art demands consecrated humility and unremitting self-discipline in the use of words. And to practice it effectively will mean even more than exercising what Bishop Lilje called “a formative influence on … intellectual life”; it will mean reaching through the Spirit the hearts as well as the minds of men with the reconciling message of Christ.
