The Perils of Persuasive Preaching*
Duane Litfin
The study of human
persuasion has a long and noble heritage, reaching back at least as far
as the ancient Greeks and Romans. For most of its history the subject
was pursued under the banner of “rhetoric,” but in more recent times
it has been studied by social scientists under such rubrics as
“persuasion theory," “attitude change," and "social
influence.”
The relation between
secular views of persuasion and preaching is also of long standing.
Christianity was conceived in a Jewish womb, and its first preachers,
audiences, and modes of discourse were all Jewish. Yet the new faith was
born into a world dominated by Greco-Roman influence and immediately
began to take on some of the characteristics of its environment One of
the most obvious of the Church’s adaptations was its appropriation of
what was then the crown of a liberal education, rhetoric, for its own
use in preaching.
The sermon as we know
it now was not what took place in the New Testament. Today’s sermon
resembles the oratorical activity of the ancient Greeks and Romans more
than the practice of the apostles, as almost any standard work on
homiletics demonstrates. For example, in the classic work of John A
Broadus, On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, the discussion of
how to construct and deliver sermons is much more indebted to the
rhetorical forms of Aristotle and Cicero than to the practice of Peter
and Paul. For other homiletical writers the debt may be more implicit,
or it may be to a more modem set of theorists, but the dependence upon
secular writers is present just the same.
This dependence is
not necessarily bad. The apostles never intended to provide a
comprehensive theory of homiletics. Our situation is not that of the New
Testament preachers either culturally or chronologically, and we would
be foolish to try to copy them to the letter. Moreover, the work of
rhetoricians and persuasion theorists, many of whom were themselves
preachers, abounds with wonderfully valuable insights into human
communication. To the extent that we can use their work to make our
proclamation more effective, we not only should but must do so.
But can we do it
unquestioningly? One who did not was the Danish philosopher Soren
Kierkegaard, whom evangelicals are increasingly coming to realize as
less an ogre than they had thought (see, for example, the review of
books on Kierkegaard in the June 9, 1972, issue of Christianity Today).
Kierkegaard believed that secular theories of persuasion form an
inadequate approach to preaching because the goals of rhetoric and
preaching are very different. Instead,
he advocated his own theory of “edifying discourse," which he
believed was more consonant with Christian goals.
Kierkegaard’s
analysis at least raises an important question. The genesis of any
theory of discourse must lie in the philosophy or theology that
underlies it. Is it
possible that some modem preaching practices are based upon secular
theories of persuasion whose underlying assumptions are contrary to
those of Christianity?
I am convinced that
this is a question we need to be answering, and I would like to suggest
a particularly troublesome area where we might begin. It has to do with
the role of persuasion in preaching in general, and the goal of
preaching in particular.
Secular theories of
persuasion have always been designed to enable men to influence their
fellow men more effectively; that is, they are avowedly instrumental,
utilitarian, or goal-oriented. Responsible rhetoricians have seldom
condoned sophistry or casuistry, of course, but their efforts have been
frankly directed toward drawing forth particular decisions, attitudes,
or behavior.
Significantly,
homileticians tend to hold that the goal of the preacher is similar to
that of the secular persuader, to elicit a desired response from the
listener, and that it is quite proper to use a broad range of rhetorical
techniques to achieve this goal. This
assumption lies beneath much of the contemporary writing on homiletics.
For example, one well-known homiletician writes: “Before the preacher
understands the approach to be made to disbelieving audiences, he must
first understand the sources through which people accept belief, so that
he can organize his material in such a way as to gain the desired
response.” And. “If a good talk made a good sermon the preacher’s
lot would be an easy one. It is the fact that a sermon has to achieve a
certain change of will that puts upon the preacher the double compulsion
of knowing both the response he desires and the countless techniques
which will help him achieve his goal Persuasion becomes an art”
(Ronald E. Sleeth, Persuasive Preaching, Harper, 1956, pp. 17,
45).
While we may grant
that the secular persuader can proceed in this way, using his techniques
to gain a particular response, are there not additional considerations
for the preacher? One may ask whether the preacher should use any
technique in an effort to induce the desired response from his audience
-whether, in fact, gaining “the response he desires” should be the
preacher’s goal at all. For is it not possible that having this goal
increases the possibility that the results will be of man and not of
God?
For the sake of
illustration, let us consider an extreme example. In his book Hypnotism:
Fact and Fiction, Frederick L. Marcuse reports a research study
conducted at a large eastern university. The researchers attempted,
through hypnotic suggestion, to induce a convinced and vocal atheist to
become “religious.” The attempt was so successful that it had to be
halted and all suggestion removed from the subjects mind. When his
entire attitude toward religious faith changed after only three sessions
and for the first time in his life he began to attend church, the
investigators decided that the ethics of the situation prevented them
from pursuing their research any further.
While the example is
admittedly a dramatic one, it serves to raise a monstrous question:
would it be possible through hypnotic suggestion to create a
“believer,” quite apart from any work of the Holy Spirit? And would
such a person truly be a child of God? Such questions are not simply
academic. Psychologist James McConnell has said, "The time has come
when if you give me any normal human being and a couple of weeks ... I
can change his behavior from what it is now to whatever you want it to
be, if ifs physically possible. I can’t make him fly by flapping his
wings, but I can turn him from a Christian into a Communist and vice
versa" (quoted by Marvin Karlins and Herbert Abelson in Persuasion,
Springer, 1970, p. 1).
Clearly, it is
possible to employ means that go too far in seeking results, means that
tend to bypass some essential element in the human thought process and
therefore render any “results” less than satisfactory. Although
researchers have shown that audiences are not nearly so malleable as was
once thought, nevertheless skilled persuaders, including some who stand
in the pulpit, are often able to exert a tremendous influence on other
human beings. And they do not have to resort to such dramatic methods as
hypnotism. Consider, for
example, the words of the well-known social scientist Milton Rokeach:
Suppose you could
take a group of people, give them a 20-minute pencil-and-paper task,
talk to them for 10 to 20 minutes afterward, and thereby produce
long-range changes in core values and personal behavior in a significant
portion of this group. Suppose, further, that you could ascertain
quickly and that you could predict accurately the nature and direction
of these changes
My colleagues and I
have in the last five years achieved the kinds of results suggested
[above]. As a result we must now face up to the ethical implications
that follow from the fact that it now seems to be within mans power to
alter experimentally another person’s basic values, and to control the
direction of the change” (Psychology Today, Sept, 1971, p. 68).
Rokeach probably
gives too much credit to modern researchers, for persuaders have long
been able to influence the values, attitudes, and behavior of their
fellow men; but he is correct in asserting that techniques are now
reaching a new level of sophistication and scientific accuracy.
Moreover, it should be emphasized that the techniques he used were as
simple as he says, and that they are only a sample of those available to
any preacher.
All this suggests
that through the use of certain techniques it is possible to get
results, even where the Holy Spirit is not active at all. But according
to the Scriptures, God has said that his work is to be accomplished
“not by might nor by power but by my Spirit” (Zech. 4:6). The
psalmist wrote, “Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain
who build it” (Ps. 127: 1). Paul later applied this principle to
preaching when he avowed to the Corinthians that “my message and my
preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in the
demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not
rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God” (I Cor. 2:4,5).
Paul obviously understood that persuasive
words of wisdom” so highly prized in the rhetorically oriented
Corinthian culture, could never bring men and women to Christ. Only the
straightforward presentation of the Gospel could do that.
The use of persuasive techniques might indeed win a response, but
it would be a response based upon the wisdom of men” and not the
“power of God.” Paul had the insight to see that such results would
inevitably “make void” the very Gospel he preached.
Many Christians are
troubled today by the seeming impermanence of much of what is
accomplished by modern evangelistic methods. Perhaps a certain amount of
the attrition can be explained by Christ's parable of the sower, but is
it not also possible that the results we get are often the product, not
of God’s Spirit, but of our own “might and “power” as
persuaders? And are not such false results worse than no results at all?
It is said that D.L.
Moody was accosted on the streets of Chicago one day by a drunk who
exclaimed, “Aren't you Mr. Moody?" Why, I’m one of your
converts!” Said Moody in reply, "That must be true, for you
surely aren't one of the Lord's.” We need more of Moody's honesty in
facing the fact that it is possible for people to respond to the
messenger and his techniques instead of to the Gospel and the Savior it
sets forth.
How can this pitfall
be avoided? It is a function of the fact that God has chosen to use
fallible human beings as instruments to reach other human beings. I
suggest, however, that the danger can be minimized by a careful
rethinking of the goal of preaching.
Earlier I suggested
that homileticians, borrowing from secular persuasion theorists, have
often set up “eliciting a desired response” as the goal of
preaching. The trouble with such thinking is that it places the
responsibility for obtaining results
too much upon the preacher. J. 1. Packer has analyzed this error
perceptively in his book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. He says:
to proclaim salvation, we must never forget that it is God who saves ...
Our evangelistic work is the instrument that He uses for this purpose,
but the power that saves is not in the instrument: it is in the hand of
the One who uses the instrument We must not at any stage forget that.
For if we forget that it is God’s prerogative to give results when the
Gospel is preached, we shall start to ddi* that it is our responsibility
to secure them. And if we forget that only God can give faith, we shall
start to think that the making of converts depends, in the last
analysis, not on God, but on us, and that the decisive factor is the way
in which we evangelize. And this line of thought, consistently followed
through, will lead us far astray.
Let us work this out.
If we regarded it as our job, not simply to present Christ, but actually
to produce converts to evangelize, not only faithfully, but also
successfully our approach to evangelism would become pragmatic and
calculating. We should conclude that our basic equipment, both for
personal dealing and for public preaching, must be twofold. We must
have, not merely a clear grasp of the meaning and application of the
gospel, but also an irresistible technique for inducing a response. We
should, therefore make it our business to try and develop such a
technique ... We should regard evangelism as a battle of wits between
ourselves and those to whom we go, a battle in which victory depends on
our firing off a heavy enough barrage of calculated effects. (Inter-Varsity,
1961, p. 27).
Much of the
contemporary writing and preaching theory demonstrates the very
tendencies Packer describes. But this need not happen. Let us examine
the problem more closely.
In an excellent
article on attitude change in the Handbook of Social Psychology
(IH,173), psychologist William McGuire suggests that human attitude
change may be broken down into at least five steps or levels: attention,
comprehension, yielding, retention, and action. The hearer must “go
through each of these steps if communication is to have ultimate
persuasive impact,” he says, “and each depends on the occurrence of
the preceding steps. The traditional approach to homiletics seems to
suggest that the goal of preaching is the third step, yielding; that is,
the preacher’s goal is to induce the listener to yield to (and
ultimately to act upon) a particular value, attitude, or belief. I
suggest that the preacher’s goal should not be viewed as the yielding
step at all but simply the previous step, comprehension.
Someone might protest
that this makes preaching merely a sterile intellectual exercise; but to
say that is to miss the point. Certainly the preacher must deal with the
whole man, including his emotions. My point is that the goal of
preaching should be so to present the Gospel that the listener
comprehends, sees, is grasped by the issues involved. This may well
include and even require the use of “emotional appeals,” but those
appeals will be directed toward helping the listener to comprehend, not
toward inducing him to yield. Technique has a valid role in inducing
comprehension but should not be used by the preacher to induce yielding.
Preaching must always
be a fork-in-the-road experience for the listener. He must be so clearly
and powerfully confronted with the truth that he cannot evade or ignore
it. Comprehension is pressed upon him and he is forced to make a
decision. But the decision is his to make, a matter between him and the
Holy Spirit. The preacher has shown him the choice; now he is forced to
decide, to accept or reject.
What the preacher
must not do is use the many techniques available to him to shuttle the
listener down one road instead of the other, even though he deeply wants
the listener to choose that way. To do so is to violate the listener’s
freedom by manipulating him; but worse, it is to shoulder an intolerable
burden, one that belongs only to the Holy spirit It is to take upon
oneself the responsibility of getting results.
The preacher is a
herald or ambassador for Christ (U Cor. 5:20), a function inherent in
the words used in the New Testament for preaching: the preacher comes to
bring or announce the good news of Jesus Christ (euaggelizo), to
solemnly proclaim the Gospel (kataggello), to announce as a herald the
Living Word of God (kerusso). As the appointed messenger he is
responsible for seeing that all hear and that, to the best of his
ability, all understand. But the response of the hearers is not the
messenger’s affair. He is not called upon to persuade the hearers to
respond.
Secular persuasion
theory tries to help the speaker mold his efforts to the needs and
values of the audience in order to produce the desired response. The
preacher, on the other hand, should mold his efforts to his audience for
a different reason: to ensure that they comprehend his message. He
should use all the techniques at his disposal to put the message in
terms that his audience can understand, to break through a hearers
defenses so as to confront him with the truth. But having done this he
dare go no further. Only the Holy Spirit can properly go beyond this
point
But, some may object,
why can’t God use a speaker’s persuasive techniques to bring people
to Christ? “The answer is that he can and sometimes does. He does not
need such “help,” but he may use it in spite of us.
But what about all
those misguided persons who respond to the messenger instead of the
message because of high-powered efforts to get results? Are we not at
least partially responsible for leading them astray, for encouraging
them to rest their faith on the "wisdom of men” rather than the
“strength of God,” and will we not be judged for our well-intended
efforts that went beyond legitimate boundaries?
This is not to say
that the preacher must refrain from urging, entreating, exhorting, or
beseeching his listeners to follow Christ The very essence of the Gospel
is invitation, and some of the terms used in Scripture for example,
parakaleo (Acts 2:40) and deomai (H Cor. 5:20) clearly portray ft aspect
of the preacher’s ministry. Nothing I have said is meant to deny the
validity of straightforward encouragement or exhortation to receive the
Gospel, and of an opportunity to respond during the service. After all,
invitation itself can hardly be viewed as a persuasive technique
designed to induce (i.e., to cause rather than simply be the agent of)
yielding. But the preacher would do well to have serious reservations
about methods like these:
-
Slick
and flashy evangelism centered around a flamboyant, pseudo-celebrity
type of evangelism (Says Packer “Those who have begun to
understand the sovereignty of God … seek to efface themselves in
all their work for God. They thus bear a practical witness to their
belief that God is great, and reigns, by trying to make themselves
smart, and to act in a way which is itself an acknowledgment that
the fruitfulness of their Christian service depends wholly on
God...” [Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, p. 2711.)
-
The
familiar machine-gun, pulpit-pounding style of evangelistic
preaching that tends to rev up the emotions but bypass the rational
faculties.
-
Sad-story-laden
messages lack any real biblical substance.
-
Interminable
invitations designed to wear down resistance until someone, anyone,
responds.
-
Such
widespread techniques as asking people to raise their hands to be
prayed for and then asking all who raised their hands to come
forward. (Unwittingly--or perhaps not so unwittingly--those who do
this are using a very sophisticated method based upon a cognitive
consistency model: having publicly admitted his need by raising his
hand, the person is placed under tremendous social and psychological
pressure to comply when the second invitation is given.)
Such
practices seem to be aimed at inducing yielding and should probably be
avoided by those who do not want false results.
In a widely published
IBM advertisement an executive was portrayed in a pensive mood, and the
copy read: “No one can take the ultimate weight of decision-making off
your shoulders. But the more you know about how things really are, the
lighter the burden will be. IBM. Not just data, reality.” In a sense,
the goal of the preacher should be to function for his listeners the way
IBM purports to function for executives. “The preacher cannot, must
not, take the weight of decision-making from the shoulders of his
hearers by employing persuasive techniques in such a way that he induces
the listener to yield; but he can and must do everything in his power to
induce comprehension of the reality of God’s claims upon the listener.
* Reprinted with permission from Christianity Today (Feb. 4. 1977).
Duane Litfin, Ph.D., Th.M., was
Assistant Professor of Practical Theology at Dallas Seminary, Dallas,
Texas at the time this article was written.
He is currently President of Wheaton College.
This article is an electronic version
of an article originally published in Cultic
Studies Journal, 1985, Volume 2, Number 2, pages 267-273. Please
keep in mind that the pagination of this electronic reprint differs from
that of the bound volume. This fact could affect how you enter
bibliographic information in papers that you may write.
|
