So far I’ve asked, “Are we more like 1st Century peoples than we think?” and thought about “Preaching to Dora the Explorer” and taken in some of the discussions about “Preaching, Teaching and Proclamation”.

Some of the debates taking place about the form of preaching suggest that (in light of some current postmodern thinking about the nature of truth and what can be known) that moves should be made from one authoritative speaker who has the whole truth to a plurality of voices in dialogue who in humility realise no one has the truth but in community seek truth together. Of course both of these pictures are caricatures but they point to the current sensitivities to imperial totalising power-plays and proclamation has become a target of these questions.

I want to argue that the postmodern critiques have important things to say but with suspicion of truth as power and authority as abuse the character of the Message-giver and the nature of the message are vitally important. Of course some would say that there is no message, no ‘revelation’ to be shared. Yet the Christian claim is that this is what God has done in Jesus Christ – the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. He spoke our language (human) and was one ‘who spoke with authority’.

You may have read that the word used for preaching is the word for the task a Roman herald would do when they had a message from the Imperial Emperor. For some this would be enough to invalidate the form altogether, “What you mean I should use a means of communication used by oppressors? No, thanks.” Though there seem to be other facets to the nature of preaching let’s take a look at what happens if you get a postmodern Herald. Just to get in there quick this isn’t a contradiction – if you notice that many postmodernists still write books, give lectures – they still say something and want to be heard. They do communicate (for all of the writings that say meaningful written communication is not possible or plausible!).

Here is John Piper’s original:

[The Herald] gathers a group of people and says, “Hear ye, hear ye, be it known to you today that by royal order of his highness, the king, there will henceforth be granted to this town an imperial watch of one hundred soldiers to protect you from the rebel bands who plunder the king’s subjects.”

And a cheer goes up among the people. (Those are the amen’s of the congregation.)

And he continues, “Furthermore be it known to you that the cost for this protection shall be born not by taxation but by the beneficence of the king from his royal treasury!”

Again cheers! (Amen!)

“Moreover, the king would have you know that he loves you, his loyal subjects, and will use all his royal counsel and power to defend you and supply your wants.”

Again cheers. (Amen! Amen!)

“And lastly he sends through me his royal blessing. Blessed be the people whose trust is in the king!”

Cheers. (Amen!)

What about the po-mo Herald? (Btw, you can also read of Jesus as an Emergent Talker here.)

Okay, so, a po-mo herald would probably not talk about a King and Subjects – too much like power play but go with me for a minute :

[The Herald] gathers a group of people and says, “Hear me, hear me, I have no superior knowledge, but I share with you my personal journey and truth-experience: what if there were a King who granted to this town an imperial watch of one hundred soldiers to protect you from the rebel bands who plunder the king’s subjects?”

There is a confused look from one to another.

And he continues, “Furthermore, I like to think that the cost for this protection shall be born not by taxation but by the beneficence of this king from his royal treasury!”

Annoyed silence from the crowd. Some start heckling. Who is this man? Who does he think he is?

“Moreover, I imagine that we should think of this king as loving you, his loyal subjects, and that he will use all his royal counsel and power to defend you and supply your wants.”

Some walk away shaking their heads. Others move towards him shaking their fists.

I tried to re-write it without the references to King and Subjects. I did. Do you know what happens if removed the King and made everything ‘flat’? There was be no one to act of the people’s behalf, nor anyone to adjudicate. There could be no Saviour, no Substitute, no Gift. There would be no Judge, no Protection, no Justice. Perhaps this is obvious – yet the question I imagine the crowds would want to ask is, “Well I don’t care what you think or what you like to imagine: Is it true? Should I live in the light of the protection and supply or not?”.

What first appears as humility on the part of the herald – that no one has the truth, just perspectives – is seen to be phenomenally arrogant. He has made himself the arbiter of reality and has taken the authority to proclaim his own message. If the King has not spoken the herald is arrogant in setting himself up as a voice to the people. If the King has not spoken the only human commentary can be silence. If the King has spoken the herald is arrogant to proclaim another message or to turn exclamation marks into question marks and speak without the certainty of the King.

For the Christian this cuts both ways. If you preach to someone who is postmodern who has relativist and pluralist assumptions then they may well hear the second scenario even if you preach the first. It really matters that the speaker shows that they are not speaking on their own authority but on the authority of the King, the one who sent them. Albert Mohler picks this theme in the article from which the title of this blog post is taken.

To pose the questions like the po-mo Herald and leave them unanswered is really to deny that the King has spoken. The authority is not our own and so to proclaim our own message or to ask questions and not say what the King has said may appear like humility to people but is pure arrogance to the King. This is a sobering thing: we do not preach as those with authority but as those sent by the One who does. Sent ones with a message to herald a King and his action with his words which are life to a dead world.

In the next post I’m going to return to the question of form and begin to round up.