Beyond Nice Sermons: evaluating preaching as if the church matters

A preacher of a small suburban congregation spends all week preparing her sermon. On Tuesday she chooses one of the lectionary texts for the coming Sunday and reads it from several versions. By the end of the day she begins to reflect on the biblical text and jots down ideas that come to mind. On Wednesday she turns to her commentaries and looks up some key words in the text she is going to preach, again jotting down notes. From her own reflections and readings from commentaries the preacher begins to focus on one central idea from the text.

At home while reading the newspaper she comes across a story that fits with her sermon’s theme. On Thursday she arrives early at the church office and outlines a sermon flow that communicates her key idea from the text. By late morning she starts to put into the flesh of words on the bones of her sermon structure and to add metaphors, images, and stories that give the sermon life. By the next morning she has a first draft of her sermon that she begins to tweak and question and ask herself how the teenager with the piercings or the old couple in the front pew in her church will hear it.

By the end of Friday she has read through her manuscript checking for its flow and putting phrases and symbols in the margins to help her remember sections of the sermon without reading it on Sunday. Saturday morning she tapes the sermon and listens to it for tone, emphasis, movement, transitions, and clarity. By Saturday evening she has preached her sermon out loud several times, once in front of a mirror, while her family is in the living room watching a movie and eating popcorn.

Sunday morning she arrives at church early to pray over the sermon and look over her notes. Following the choir special she leaves her seat in the front of the church, steps behind the large wooden pulpit, and begins proclaiming the sermon she has spent all week preparing. As she preaches she looks at the faces of the members of her congregation trying to read their responses in their facial expressions and body language. When she sits down following the sermon, she feels it was one of her better ones.

After the service is over the pastor takes her regular place in the foyer of the church building to greet the people as they leave. She only hears one response to her sermon: “Nice sermon, pastor.”

Dr. Lori Carrell, in her study The Great American Sermon Survey, found that 78% of churchgoers never give their pastors any type of feedback for their sermons.(1) Are the few informal remarks church members occasionally offer the best way to evaluate preaching? These informal mini-evaluations are immediate, but too infrequent and not very objective to be very helpful in evaluating preaching in a congregational setting.(2)

If we understand preaching to be a corporate practice of the church, we will have to look for better ways to evaluate preaching.

Formal sermon evaluation in the congregation

In order to move beyond occasional, subjective, informal evaluation of preaching some congregations try to be more intentional, objective, and formal. In order to get feedback from the congregation the pastor or leadership may utilize a prescribed written survey of the congregation as an ongoing practice or during a set time period. A pastor may initiate sermon evaluation as a means of improving his/her preaching or leadership may use it to assess the congregation’s opinions about the pastor’s preaching. Preaching evaluation might be taken through detailed surveys of individual sermons or may seek more general information following a series of sermons.

These types of written surveys provide more information than the few informal responses a pastor might receive each week. Depending on the detail of the sermon evaluation these surveys can assist the preacher in improving various elements of the sermon, how the biblical text is communicated and applied, and the delivery of the sermon. Because these evaluations are more detailed and draw from a wider range of the congregation, they are more helpful in appraising the preaching in a congregation.

Another possible form for sermon evaluation of feedback is through a sermon feedback group. A small group, preferably a cross-section of congregational members, is enlisted to meet with the pastor following the Sunday sermon to provide more direct feedback.(3) The feedback sought might be obtained through informal conversation with a few directive questions to having the members fill out and discuss a more detailed sermon evaluation form. Including both written and verbal feedback provides for a greater depth of feedback from the congregation.


Sermon evaluation in seminary preaching class

Sermon evaluations are most often modeled after those practiced in introductory preaching classes in seminaries. For four years I was one of several leaders of the practicum section of a seminary introduction to preaching class taught by the preaching professor. Each week my group would gather to preach their sermons in the seminary chapel, an empty church, or a classroom. We had seminary students preaching for academic credit and before the critical ears of others within these artificial settings, not a community of ordinary believers gathered for worship and preaching. I tried to be intentional in noting these elements as we participated in this preaching practicum together, especially in light of the point I want to make in this writing.

Before the students presented their sermons I would hand out a sermon evaluation sheet, which is similar to those used in countless seminaries.(4) This tool assesses standards of excellence based upon what is taught in the introductory preaching class. Each preacher is evaluated upon a scale of poor to excellent using a number of these following elements of the sermon and performance: 1) introduction, body, conclusion; 2) structure, transitions, flow, focused theme; 3) exegesis, contextualization, practicality, and application of the biblical text; 4) language, grammar, metaphors, illustrations, clarity; and 5) delivery, voice, body, gesture, eye contact, passion. Improving a sermon in these areas is intended to lead toward better preaching in the congregation.

It should be acknowledged that this is a white, Western, academic approach to evaluating a sermon. In more spontaneous, grassroots, charismatic-oriented congregational settings, particularly the African-American tradition, there is often an informal dialogue and evaluation of the sermon that takes place within the worship experience. Unlike the scenario of informal feedback presented at the beginning of this article, in these congregations you will likely find ongoing feedback, encouragement, affirmation, and celebration during the sermon in the call and response between preacher and congregation with an “Amen!,” “Well!,”“Help him, Lord!,” “Thank you, Jesus!” or “Hallelujah!”(5) Granted, this is not the technical and thorough sermon evaluation of a seminary classroom, but again the congregation is evaluating the sermon by different criteria than academic standards of excellence.

In my seminary preaching practicum class each student provided a written and verbal critical response to each student’s sermon. First, the student would share their own response to their preparation and delivery of the sermon. Second, the class and I as teacher would offer verbal responses to the sermon. Third, the student would be given all the sermon evaluation sheets. Although students were to preach a sermon in their own ministerial setting, the focus of the practicum section of the preaching class was upon evaluating and improving the students preaching skills as an isolated preacher.

Even with my caveats about the artificial setting, assessing preaching isolated from the church, being evaluated by colleagues, the focus upon several sermons, and the academic context ending in a grade, I felt that evaluating sermons this way might be helpful in some senses, but overlooked the issues I was exploring in my doctoral project.


Aristotelian rhetorical principles for sermon evaluation

Academic sermon evaluations have elements which have been drawn from classical rhetorical studies. In his writing On Rhetoric Greek philosopher Aristotle analyzed three forms of rhetorical persuasion in communication: 1) Ethos- appeal based on the character of the speaker; 2) Pathos- appeal based on emotion or passion; and 3) Logos- appeal based on logic or reason. As a form of persuasion preaching can benefit from these three rhetorical forms outlined by Aristotle. They have even been utilized as a means of evaluating sermons.6)

William Roen’s The Inward Ear: A Sermon Evaluation Method for Preachers and Hearers of the Word is one of the few full length books on sermon evaluation available.(7) Roen appropriates Aristotle’s three forms of rhetorical persuasion for the task of listening to sermons. He elaborates on each of Aristotle’s three rhetorical forms to serve as evaluative criteria for sermons. First, the listener should ask: what is the ethos of the sermon? How does the preacher’s character shine through the presentation? Does the sermon draw the listener in? Does the preacher speak with authority? Second, the listener should ask: what is the pathos of the sermon? Does the sermon evoke excessive sentimentality or try to manipulate feelings? Does the preacher speak with authentic passion about his subject? Third, the listener should ask: what is the logos of the sermon? Does the sermon have a logical structure? Does the preacher exhibit knowledge of his subject?

First, Roen suggests that in the practical application of this rhetorical analysis within the congregational setting that the principles should be taught to a sermon critique group. Second, an evaluation form with questions that reflect these three principles be handed out before the sermon for the group to take notes. He provides a sample form. Third, the sermon critique group meets with the preacher to discuss their responses to the sermon using these three criteria.

Roen’s use of Aristotle’s rhetorical categories can serve as simpler form for evaluating sermons, but is not as comprehensive as those usually found in seminary preaching classes. At the same time, it approaches the appraisal of sermons with a similar understanding of preaching and the church as those forms. And those evaluative forms are deficient when considering the nature of preaching and the church.


The problem of evaluating preaching as a singular event of an isolated individual

Although the previously presented forms of sermon evaluation have their benefits, they all have shortcomings in assessing preaching. Informal sermon evaluations are personal, but are too brief, subjective, and infrequent to be very helpful. Sermon feedback groups provide more frequent and detailed evaluations, but tend to leave out the dynamics of preaching as two-way communication. Spontaneous call and response can encourage a preacher, but focuses on a solo performance. Academic sermon evaluations are methodical, but focus upon the isolated preacher and singular sermon.

The major deficiencies of these forms of preaching evaluation are rooted in the fact that they are all grounded in similar assumptions about preaching and ecclesiology. One major assumption behind these types of preaching evaluations, implicit in the utilization of these various forms, is that preaching is predominantly a one way communication by an isolated preacher for a singular event. A completely different theology of proclamation may be offered for preaching, but the evaluative form reinforces this assumption about preaching.

First, the preceding sermon evaluations assess just that---sermons, as singular presentations. Exceptions might be when someone informally or through an assessment tool offers feedback on a sermon series or about a pastor’s preaching in general. More formal evaluations appraise individual sermons as to structure, content, or delivery. Sometimes these evaluations seek to illicit feedback as to sermon impact, but most often as to the individual listener. Generally, sermons are not evaluated by their cumulative impact upon the collective body of listeners. Is there a consistency or improvement in the quality of the preaching over time? Is there a breadth and depth to the preaching? Are the hearers engaging in and being transformed by the theology taught through persistent preaching? Preaching as a ministry of the church is not effectively assessed through critiquing isolated sermons the preacher presents.

Second, sermon evaluations tend to evaluate the preacher as an isolated individual. The preacher is assessed in isolation from the congregation. Preaching is not simply a one-way monologue from preacher to listener as a herald might announce the news of the kingdom.(8) Monological, one-way preaching, in which the preacher communicates the truth to passive listeners, has been prevalent in the church for centuries. It has been constructed and reinforced in the traditional design of church buildings with the raised pulpit in the front and the pews lined in rows like a theatrical performance with passive audience. We provide assistance in the persistence of the monological model of preaching through assessing the preacher as an isolated individual charged with proclaiming the Word. Preaching that is located solely with the preacher is missing the congregation as partners in the preaching ministry.(9)

Besides assumptions concerning the role of the preacher as isolated individual, assumptions behind these types of sermon evaluations reflect an underlying ecclesiology.(10) When assessing the particular sermons by an isolated individual there is often an ecclesiology that assumes: 1) a sharp division between clergy and laity; 2) preaching is the sole responsibility of the pastor of a congregation; and 3) laity are passive recipients of preaching. With these assumptions the clergy will be evaluated concerning preaching with little or no assessment of the role of the congregation.


Preaching as a formational ministry of the church

If we understand preaching to be a ministry of the whole church and not simply a responsibility of the lone preacher, then our assessment of preaching will need to move beyond evaluating the preachers using singular sermons. That is not to say that preaching cannot be improved by assessing the form, structure, content, language, purpose, and performance of sermons. These forms of sermon evaluation can be understood as elements among whereby to assess standards of excellence in preaching as a practice. But, critical elements are left out of these appraisals of preaching.

One key element has to do with preaching as a form of communal spiritual formation.(11) Preaching forms and is formed by the congregation.(12) The collective formational character of preaching requires examining the cumulative impact of preaching upon the congregation. This type of evaluation can be done on a yearly, tri-yearly, or over a five or ten year period. Reflection questions can be created to assess to some degree how preaching over the long haul has shaped the spiritual lives of individual members of the congregation and how the congregation as a whole has been shaped by the preaching ministry.

These questions can be part of a small preaching evaluation group. In what ways has the preaching formed, challenged, and confirmed the theology of this congregation? How has the congregation shaped the preaching over time? How has the congregation embodied the teachings from the preaching? Do the sermons call to church to public responsibility? Using these types of questions in an indicative mode with a rating scale the congregation can help assess the cumulative impact of the preaching as a practice for communal spiritual formation.

Another area for evaluating the cumulative nature of preaching is for preacher and/or congregation to consider the breadth and depth of the cumulative preaching. If preaching shapes congregations over time, it would be a good idea to appraise whether there is a balance in the character of the preaching. Again, some key questions may be helpful in ascertaining this kind of information. Have the sermons covered the breadth of Christian doctrine? Have both testaments been preached? Have there been appeals to both mind and heart in the preaching? Is there a balance between being and doing? These types of evaluation questions help to analyze whether or not there is a balance or imbalance in the preaching over time.


Preaching as a communal and dialogical practice

When I began considering a doctoral project in preaching I was intrigued by the emergence of communal and dialogical forms of preaching in my study of contemporary homiletics. In my study of Anabaptist history and theology I noticed that there was a correlative historical precedent for communal and dialogical forms of biblical interpretation and preaching.(13) Anabaptist scholars spoke of an “Anabaptist hermeneutic of community” as a form of interactive biblical interpretation located within the believing community. Having practiced interactive preaching in a number of congregations I became interested in constructing a contemporary, inclusive, emancipatory “Anabaptist homiletic of community” that brings into conversation both the interactive and collective forms of biblical interpretation and preaching in 16th century Anabaptism and corresponding contemporary forms of biblical interpretation and preaching.

In the process of working on this study and teaching a preaching practicum class I described earlier, I began questioning the form of sermon evaluation we were utilizing and which led to my caveats to the class about the artificiality of the setting, the focus on the isolated preacher, and the need for a different approach to evaluating sermons. Constructing a preaching model as a communal and dialogical practice led me to reconsider current forms of preaching evaluation. One paragraph of my doctoral study reflects the questions I had about sermon evaluations in light of the understanding of preaching as a practice of the church:

To consider preaching as a communal practice is to go beyond the oratorical skills of the isolated preacher in defining standards of excellence. Traditional standards for evaluation of excellence in preaching have most often been based upon preaching as a monological event performed by the preacher. Preaching is evaluated according to the preacher’s skill in the construction and presentation of a particular sermon. This evaluative methodology is standard in most seminary preaching classes. These rhetorical and performative criteria for evaluation of excellence in preaching tend to reinforce the understanding of preaching as a solo performance of the skilled preacher. (14)

What I briefly reflected upon some years ago I am attempting to explore more fully in this article.

Although preaching evaluation can utilize elements of the more traditional approaches, they will need to be reframed within an understanding of preaching as a practice of the church. This is what Leonora Tubbs Tisdale and Thomas G Long’s book, Teaching Preaching as a Christian Practice, seeks to do. The book argues for understanding and teaching preaching as a practice.(15)James Nieman defines a practice as “a constellation of actions that people have performed over time that are common, meaningful, strategic, and purposeful.” Preaching fits this description of a practice. Practices have standards of excellence by which they can be evaluated.(17) It follows that there are standards of excellence whereby preaching can be appraised as a practice.

The chapters of Tisdale and Long’s book elaborate on various elements of the practice of preaching, such as interpreting texts, exegeting the congregation, interpreting the larger social context, the use of language, imagination, historical vision, and voice and diction. These traditional elements are reframed within an understanding of preaching as a communal practice and can be utilized as standards of excellence to assess preaching.

Included in the book is a chapter by Daniel E. Harris on methods of assessment of preaching as a practice. Since the focus of the book is upon homiletical pedagogy, the chapter on assessment of preaching centers upon the classroom and laboratory settings and the preacher’s self-assessment. At the same time, there is a section on getting feedback from the congregation. A suggested evaluation form is provided which is concentrated on the response of the listener. In my view this is a move in the right direction for evaluating preaching as a communal practice, but could be supplemented by other elements.

It is my contention that even with an understanding of preaching as a practice, such as presented by Tisdale and Long, there are elements of preaching as a communal and dialogical practice that are missing or receive less attention because of the artificial setting of the classroom, the timeframe of the class, and a tendency to focus on isolated sermons of the solitary preacher. The communal and dialogical nature of preaching calls for highlighting these elements in the assessment of preaching.


Supplementary elements for evaluating preaching in a congregational context

Rethinking preaching as a communal and dialogical practice of the church is the starting place for reshaping how the church appraises its preaching. As long as the church understands and practices preaching as a monological, one-way communication event of the isolated preacher, the evaluation of preaching will focus only on the trained preacher separate from the congregation, who are partners in preaching. Communal and dialogical forms of preaching can only be adequately assessed in the preacher’s congregational context over a longer period of time.

If we understand preaching as a communal and dialogical practice of the whole church, then there are certain elements that are being left out or receive less attention in standard forms of preaching evaluation. Also, they are difficult to practice in a classroom setting. I propose bringing those elements to the forefront of the assessment of preaching within a congregational context. I would include among those elements for evaluation: 1) the cumulative effect of preaching; 2) communal formation of and through preaching; and 3) roles and responses of collaborators in the preaching ministry. Each of these areas overlap and connect to one another. Thus, these threads interweave into a communal tapestry for assessing preaching.

First, the cumulative impact of preaching upon the congregation over time needs to be emphasized in assessment.(18) Little attention has been given to this aspect in appraising preaching as a practice, though the “over time” feature is inherent in the definition of a practice. Whatever form of evaluation is utilized and over whatever period of time, dialogue and assessment concerning the balance and breadth of subject and sources (e.g., Old and New Testaments, themes, theological topics), the impact of preaching in shaping personal and congregational theology, and the extent and quality of engagement of the congregation in biblical interpretation and preaching over time would move assessment toward the communal and dialogical nature of preaching as a practice.

Second, preaching as communally formed and forming are features needing renewed emphasis in preaching as a practice. Preaching is shaped by the stories, life experiences, and contexts of the congregation. Preaching assessment tools can include questions about the extent and quality the preaching ministry exhibits in connecting with issues faced by congregational members and what’s happening in the community and world. Also, questions can be designed to directly address the extent of congregational involvement in the preaching ministry (e.g., informal feedback, sermon preparation and response groups, interaction during dialogue sermons). If there are no avenues whereby members share in actual preparation, performance, and feedback to the preaching, it will be difficult to view the preaching ministry as truly collective and conversational.

Preaching as a form of corporate spiritual formation calls for assessing the extent and quality of preaching as a formational practice. Preaching can shape collective worldview, theology, ecclesiology, and practice. Assessment would not seek to evaluate how well every member of the congregation has been conformed to the preacher’s viewpoint. That would reflect a monological, one-way understanding of preaching as a formative tool. Questions for an assessment tool may seek to discern how preachers and members together have shaped each other’s worldviews, theologies, understandings of the church, and practice of faith). Also, since congregations act from out of who they have been formed to be, assessment questions can be constructed to ascertain the correlation between the church’s action and understanding of faith (Example- Have you engaged in some public action, community ministry, or service to others as a result of a sermon over the past few years?).

Third, the roles and responses of collaborators in preaching clearly need to be accentuated with preaching as a communal and dialogical practice. As active participants in the preaching ministry of the church the congregation becomes part of the assessment, not simply as persons who evaluate the preacher’s sermons. Preaching as a communal and dialogical practice calls for evaluation of the extent and quality of the congregation as active participants in the preaching ministry. If preaching is truly a collaborative ministry in which the congregation, and not just the preacher, participates through sermon input, interaction, and feedback, then these aspects of their engagement in the preaching ministry can be assessed and improved. An example of an associated evaluative question might be---Has our congregation provided adequate avenues for member input and feedback for the preaching ministry?

Also, if preaching is understood and practiced as a multi-voiced collaboration, then not only the preacher and congregation become part of the dialogue of preaching, but also voices outside the church, voices of the oppressed, multicultural voices, and the voices of those on the margins of society.(19) Whether through conversations of personal or ministry contact, the preaching ministry of the church can find ways to include these voices in the homiletical conversation. And the width and breadth of this widening circle of dialogue can be assessed for its extent and quality, just as the rhetorical skills of the isolated preacher can be assessed. An example of an assessment question might be---Have you heard the voices and concerns of the oppressed, marginalized, and people of color reflected in the preaching?

Rarely if ever do preaching evaluations assess these aspects of preaching, but if the church is going to move beyond nice sermons and the understanding and practice of preaching as a solo performance toward preaching as a communal and dialogical practice of the church, then these supplementary elements that I have suggested will need to be included in our evaluations of preaching.

___________________________________________________


End Notes

1) Evans E. Crawford, The Hum: Call and Response in African-American Preaching (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995).
2) Aristotle’s three rhetorical forms have been used to speak of the various “settings” (i.e., inner locations) through which a person listens to a sermon. Roland J. Allen, Hearing the Sermon: Relationship, Content, Feeling (St. Louis: Chalice, 2004).
3) William H. Roen, The Inward Ear: A Sermon Evaluation Method for Preachers and Hearers of the Word (Washington, DC: The Alban Institute, 1989).
4) The herald image emphasizes the unidirectional message to be communicated from God through the preacher to the congregation. See Thomas G. Long, The Witness of Preaching (Louisville: Westminster John Knox), 24-30.
5) For a full bibliography of resources on collective and interactive preaching see my book; Leo Hartshorn, Interpretation and Preaching as Communal and Dialogical Practices: an Anabaptist Perspective (Edwin Mellen, 2006).
6) O. Wesley Allen Jr. presents a conversational ecclesiology in his book on interactive preaching. O. Wesley Allen, Jr., The Homiletic of All Believers (Louisville: Westminster John Knox), 2005.
7) One question I raised in my doctoral study that relates to reshaping the evaluation of preaching as a practice of the church was this: If preaching is a corporate practice, should not there be communal standards of excellence related to assessing congregational listening and enacting the Word? Hartshorn, 172.
8) Thomas G. Long and Lenora Tubbs Tisdale, eds., Teaching Preaching as a Christian Practice: A New Approach to Homiletical Pedagogy (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 188.
9) My doctoral dissertation was completed in 2002 and published in 2006. Hartshorn, 2006.
10) Hartshorn, 163.
11) Although it was unavailable at the time of the writing of my doctoral study, this book shares some of the concepts that were part of my project.
12) Tisdale and Long, 12.
13) Alistair McIntyre, After Virtue (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1981),187.
14) Lucy Rose, who proposes a conversational homiletic, briefly mentions the need for a shift to the cumulative effects of preaching. Lucy Atkinson Rose, Sharing the Word: Preaching in the Roundtable Church (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 112.
15) John S. McClure, “Collaborative Preaching from the Margins,” Journal for Preachers (1996): 37-42.

Where Have All the Prophets Gone?

Where have all the prophets gone? A first response to the question of Marvin McMickle might come from an old Pete Seeger song: Gone to graveyards everyone. In his book on reclaiming prophetic preaching in America McMickle laments the decline in prophetic preaching from U.S. pulpits and calls for a renewal of preaching that addresses the moral, social, and political issues of our day.

McMickle contrasts prophetic preaching, which addresses the social issues of a society, to preaching which focuses upon the internal life of the church, like praise and worship, and has been hijacked by a "royal consciousness," that is, preaching that serves our national interests. The latter type of preaching has captivated the American pulpit. When moral issues are addressed there tends to be a myopic focus on abortion and homosexuality. Justice cannot be limited to these two issues.

McMickle wants a broadening of moral issues addressed in the church and pulpit. He points to the biblical witness for addressing distributive (economic), restorative (judicial) justice, and war. His overview of these issues is very brief. Peacemaking and restorative justice are fields Mennonites have developed extensively and their work would have benefited McMickle's summary.

"Patriot pastors" are a target of McMickle's critique, particularly those conservative, Evangelical leaders who align themselves with the Republican party and serve the interests of the state. He does note a "subtle transformation" among some conservative Evangelicals, like Rick Warren, who have started to address wider issues like poverty and AIDS. My own critique would be that few of these "new Evangelicals" are addressing the systemic, economic, and political roots of many of these social issues. Others who recieve his critique are televangelists, megachurches with a "mini gospel, and prosperity preachers.

The truncated focus upon praise and worship in some churches leads to "cheap grace" according to McMickle. Worship without justice is paricularly addressed by the eighth century biblical prophets. McMickle calls for a balance of praise and protest.

Prosperity preachers receive extensive critique from McMickle. They blatantly misinterpret biblical texts of blessing to indicate that God wants everyone, and especially the preacher, to be blessed financially. He views prosperity preaching as a major hinderance to the prophetic word.

Prosperity preaching comes from a particular wing of the church. I believe that there is an even greater danger in the more prevalant middle and upper-class capitalist consumerism that is taken as normative within the church and society. It has infiltrated the church. This broad cultural idealogy and practice seems to be a greater hinderance to prophetic preaching.

McMickle is to be commended for addressing social issues like racism, sexism, heterosexism and for viewing the antiwar stance as being prophetic. From an Anabaptist perspective I feel McMickle has not drawn out some of his prophetic vision to its radical conclusions. The sermon he added at the end of the book left this Anabaptist wanting. He addressed the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance entitling his sermon Under God Is a Good Place. He notes those who are concerned about the separation of church and state, which would include Anabaptists like myself. As McMickle states, "The words 'under God' cause me the least concern" in the Pledge of Allegiance. I am with him as he goes through the pledge and offers his challenge to their truth in practice.

One nation. Are we really? When there are so many homeless and corporate executives plunder their companies and retire with exhorbitant wealth? When African Americans constitute 13 % of the population but more that 70% of the prison population? Republic. When thousands of votes in Florida were discounted in a presidential election? Indivisible. When we are divided by race, red and blue states and economics?

Under God. McMickle views these as the most important words of the pledge for three reasons. First, we are all under God as Creator of the world. Second, we are all accountable to God. Third, God is able to do more than we can do. My problem is that the context of these words seems to be ignored by McMickle. First, this is a pledge of allegiance to a nation. For Christians our primary allegiance is to God. And those two allegiances often come into conflict with one another. Second, the complete phrase is "one nation under God." Can Christians affirm that there is only one nation under God? Christians are citizens of God's realm and reign and members of the church, which is multinational, multiracial and multicultural. His concluding sermon could have been far more prophetic for my tastes.

Nevertheless, McMickle has provided another helpful resource for preachers and the church to renew the call to prophetic preaching.

Public Church, Public Preaching

The public church is a family of apostolic churches with Jesus as the center, churches which are especially sensitive to the res publica, the public order that surrounds and includes people of faith.---Martin Marty, The Public Church: Mainline-Evangelical-Catholic (New York: Crossroad, 1981, p. 3)


25 years ago Martin Marty painted for us a vivid portrait of the public church. His three assumptions about the public church were that it: 1) expresses itself in discriminately engaging the secular order or disorder; 2) interacts in meaningful ways with religions outside biblical faith; and 3) provides a counterforce to religious communities that impose a complete set of norms on its people, form tribes who reject outsiders, or practice a privatistic faith of individualism.

Marty further suggested that the public church need not rely upon a Christianization of American culture, but can draw resources from those who preach a justitia civilis, a civil righteousness. Preaching in the public church proclaims the intrinsic values of grace and hope for the world. There is still wisdom today in Marty’s description of the public church and public preaching.

More recently, in her book Public Church: For the Life of the World (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004), Cynthia Moe-Lobeda illuminates the significance of the North American church’s public identity and vocation in an “age of privatization.” The church of Jesus Christ cannot be a place for privatized spirituality, a personal religion that does not impact the public good. She presents proclamation of the good news as being “in and to the world.” A public church calls for public preaching.

These and other reflections on the public church incite the need for further reflection on the relationship between an understanding of the church as a public assembly and the shape of public preaching.

Public Church

Distinctions between what is public and what is private go back to political philosophy in ancient Greece. Aristotle distinguished between the polis, public or political space, and oikos (i.e., household), familial or private space. In his understanding the family existed for the sake of the polis, not the polis for the sake of the family. Personhood is to be defined by the polis. Human identity is shaped by the public sphere.

As Western Christianity took on many of the assumptions of the 18th century Enlightenment, the church’s identity became defined more by the private individual or the personal family than by the polis. Over time the understanding of the church shifted from being a public space to being a private space. As a private space the emphasis within the church has been upon responding to the felt needs of the individual believer, ministering to the family, and creating an intimate environment for worship and fellowship. The Western church has fallen into what Richard Sennett has called “the tyranny of intimacy.”

To understand the church as a private space for the individual or family has had a profound impact on the proclamation and mission of the church. As private space the church focuses its energies on nurturing individuals and families. Theology is replaced by therapy. Mission is replaced by maintenance. Public worship is turned into a private, intimate affair. Preaching seeks to meets the ever changing needs of the individual believer.

The public church is the church in mission, the church empowered by the Spirit and turned toward the world. This does not mean the public church neglects to meet the needs of individuals and families, but its raison d’etre is its mission to the world. For God so loved the world… To use the imagery of Aristotle, in a real incarnational and missional sense the church as oikos (i.e., household) exists for the sake of the polis (i.e., public).

James Fowler has offered us a significant list of characteristics of the public church (Weaving the New Creation: Stages of faith and the Public Church. San Francisco: Harper, 1991, chap. 6). His list grows out of observations of particular congregations. I will offer my own list of characteristics of the public church. My short list is intended to focus on a few of the characteristics of the public church that connect with its practice of public preaching.

* The public church has a clear sense of mission- The public church is a missional church. Mission is not relegated to a special committee or project. All that the church is and does in worship, discipleship, practices, education, and ministry is permeated by its call by God to be salt of the earth, a light of the world, a “city set on a hill.” As salt and light the public church’s witness penetrates to world in which God has placed it. A city on a hill is not a private enclave, but rather a collective public witness to the world around it.

* The public church engages in public witness and the common good- The public witness of the church involves social responsibility within the wider community and world. This takes the form not only of acts of charity, like soup kitchens and food banks, but in the work of resistance to systemic powers of injustice and active engagement in social and institutional transformation. Some theologians have proposed a type of “sectarian future of the church” in which the church’s primary focus is upon living in the world as “resident aliens.” The public church seeks the common good not only of the body politic of the church, but also the res publica, the world that surrounds the church.

* The public church is hospitable and diverse- If North American society is pluralistic, one should expect that the church within such a context would reflect cultural, racial, economic, and social diversity. Hospitality, an open welcome to strangers and a cultural value in the ancient Mediterranean world of the Bible, has to be recaptured in new ways by the public church. Hospitality to the stranger has profound social and political implications for the public church in a religiously pluralistic world where there is talk of the “clash of civilizations.”

Public Preaching

Homiletics and ecclesiology are inextricably linked. How we understand the nature of the church and its mission will shape our practice of preaching. If our concept of the church is parochial and self-referential, our preaching will be circumscribed by constricted ecclesial boundaries. The public church, as I have characterized it, engenders preaching which engages the public beyond the walls of the church.

Preaching in the public church is, in the words of Arthur Van Seters, a “social act.” As a social act preaching is consciously aware and shaped by the social contexts or “publics” in which it is embedded. These social contexts include the communities within the biblical texts, the local congregation, ecumenical, and universal church, other faith communities, the nation, and the wider world.

Preaching that addresses a diverse public demands a polyvalent voice. The good news will fall on ears male and female, young and old, liberal and conservative, rich and poor, powerful and oppressed, and people from a various races, cultures, and ethnicities. Public preaching will seek to tune its voice to speak to the rich diversity of its audience. That does not mean the message will be the same for all, particularly if it is “good news to the poor.”

The characteristics of the public church I have previously outlined lend themselves to shaping some characteristics of public preaching. The following list is a brief sketch of what public preaching that grows out of the public nature of the church might look like.

· Public preaching is missional Mission-oriented preaching is not about telling exotic stories of foreign missionaries in strange cultures or using the Bible as a thin springboard from which to leap for support of missionary institutions. Missional preaching illuminates the connection between the church as an apostolic (i.e., sent) community and the public as the arena of its mission.

* Public preaching is emancipatory and political- Public preaching involves more than widening the audience of the Christian proclamation. Preaching that addresses the common good and witnesses to the public of the reign of God will of necessity proclaim the prophetic message of “good news to the poor, liberation for the captives, and freedom for the oppressed” (Isa. 61:1-2a; Luke 4:18-19). Public preaching is political not in a partisan sense, but in the sense of being good news that shapes the body politic of the church and its engagement with the wider polis or world.

* Public preaching is communal and conversational. Monological preaching that is lodged in the solitary preacher and isolated from dialogue with its communal context loses its public character. If preaching is a practice of the church for itself and the world, it will be shaped by diverse public conversations. It is the challenge of the public preacher to form practices of biblical study, contextual analysis, and sermon preparation which are in dialogue with a diverse persons and communities within and beyond the church.

A congregation focused on its individual members and families or even buzzing with social ministry and political activism will not suffice for a polis needing to hear the good news of God’s reign. A public church instigates a practice of public preaching.

Polyrhythmic Preaching

The rhythm is certainly one of the most fundamental characteristics of the utterance of a language---R.H. Stetson, linguist

Where I come from we say that rhythm is the soul of life, because the whole universe revolves around rhythm, and when we get out of rhythm, that’s when we get into trouble---Babatunde Olatunji, drummer

Rhythm might be described as to the world of sound what light is to the world of sight. It shapes and gives new meaning.---Edith Sitwell, poet

Meaning and rhythm are interconnected, bound together in Black preaching, like “white on rice” or as “sweetness is to honey.”---James Henry Harris, professor

As a drummer for over 40 years I am acutely aware of rhythm. Rhythm pounds with a thump-thump in my chest and moves with the rise and fall of my breathing as I awake. I walk with a rhythm in my step and talk with a rhythm in my speech. The rising and setting of the sun is a slow rhythm that shapes my daily life. Rhythm is in the rain falling, the swish of windshield wipers, and the booming bass of cars that pass by in my neighborhood. It is in the tic of the clock on my office desk and the chirp of the bird outside my window. Rhythm becomes embodied as I slap a goatskin drumhead or shake a gourd rattle. I am surrounded by rhythm.

Having been a preacher for almost 30 years I noticed there was also rhythm in my practice of preaching. As a matter of fact, there were many rhythms, polyrhythms, that I felt resonating in my bones through the cycle of years as a pastor. Liturgical celebrations from Advent to Pentecost created a sacred rhythm to the year. The up and down, back and forth, flow of my week had its own pulse. As I prepared and performed a sermon there were accents and improvisation that gave the sermon my own swing. Syncopation regularly occurred between text, preacher, congregation, and social context. The spoken word had a pace, pulse, and pause that gave the sermon a certain “homiletical musicality.”[1] I discovered that there was a polyrhythmic character to preaching.

Rhythm can serve the preacher as a musical metaphor to reflect on the polyrhythms of their own practice of preaching.[2] Rhythm is not just a metaphor for drummers or musicians. Everyone experiences rhythm in their daily lives. And in spite of a popular myth, everyone has rhythm. Some are simply more skilled in the performance of making rhythm. Every preacher has their own preaching rhythms. Awareness of the diverse cadences of preaching is the beginning of developing the skills of homiletical polyrhythm. Polyrhythm as a metaphorical groove may lead some preachers to a more multilayered, lively, and rhythmic understanding and practice of proclamation.

Polyrhythm and Preaching

West African drumming is characterized by polyrhythm.[3] According to Simha Arom, polyrhythm “consists of the superposition of two or more rhythmic figures, each articulated in such a way that its constituent configurations (as determined by accentuation, changing tone colour, or altering durations) will mesh with those of the remaining figures, and create an effect of perpetual interweaving.”[4] The repetitive form of polyrhythm has the musical characteristic of an ostinato with “the regular and uninterrupted repetition of a rhythmic…figure, with an unvarying periodicy underlying it.”[5] Put simply, polyrhythm is two or more beats played simultaneously and in repetition, interlocking and creating a complex texture of sound. It is the multiplicity of interwoven sounds in a repeated pattern that creates not only the richness, but also the meaning of the polyrhythm.

West African polyrhythm is not improvisational. These rhythms are composed of traditional parts played by various drums with differing tones. Improvisation is primarily the performance of the master drummer or soloist, who plays with, over, within, and through the multilayered polyrhythm. Each rhythm within the polyrhythm does not stand on its own, but is interconnected with the other rhythms weaving a tonal tapestry. It is the combination of beats within a polyrhythm that make the rhythm what it is. One rhythm defines another.[6] Played alone each singular rhythm does not make sense. The combination of contrasting, and at times conflicting, rhythms within a polyrhythm is what provides the creative tension that drives the beat and gives it a dynamic energy. The skilled drummer must not only be able to play the various parts of a polyrhythm, but play one part in concert and tension with the other parts.

Preaching is polyrhythmic. It is more than the isolated preacher performing a solo improvisation on a Sunday morning. Preaching is a complex interplay of diverse rhythms that converge and interlock to create a multilayered practice.[7] There are many rhythms that converge to create polyrhythmic preaching----the lilt of the liturgical year, the cadence of contexts, the pulse of preparation, and the swing of the sermon. These diverse rhythms of preaching are not performed nor understood on their own, but are interconnected in a multidimensional practice. Each of these homiletical rhythms interpenetrate, interlock, and entrain with one another to form the polyrhythm of preaching. The preacher plays the sermon with, over, within, and through this homiletical symphony.

The Lilt of Liturgy

Preaching is set within the context of the liturgy.[8] The rhythm of the sermon pulses within the larger rhythms of the liturgical setting. This larger rhythm creates a groove in which the sermon takes shape and form. Music might seem to be the most explicit place one might turn to in a discussion of rhythm in liturgy. Synchronization of music and preaching is an obvious arena for examining liturgical rhythm. And yet, there is a silent rhythm that pulses in the order and patterns of worship and liturgy themselves. Worship, liturgy, and ritual provide the underlying rhythms that are crucial to the preaching performance. The fixed patterns of liturgy are foundational movements within and through which preaching finds its own rhythm. The musicality and lilt of liturgy are found particularly in its repetitive patterning.

Repetition is a basic part of liturgy, ritual, and music. It is distinguishing feature of African and African-American music.[9] Jazz, blues, gospel, and rock music, which have their roots in African music, are particularly structured by repetition. West African polyrhythms are formed, like the patterns of African cloth, by repetition. In woven cloth the repeated pattern forms the fabric into a meaningful whole. In percussive rhythm the repetitive pattern of beats is essential to the meaning of the rhythm.[10]

In some African cultures drumming is directly linked to language. Drums are used in many African communities to communicate from village to village. Rhythms are often associated with speaking and linguistic phrases. Improvisation is limited by these connections that exist between drumming and language. [11] So, beats are not simply made up, but often follow traditional tonal patterns reflecting language or conversation. The melodic or tonal shape of a rhythm creates its aural meaning, just as language forms conceptual meaning to the listener. The repetitive patterns of rhythm are essential to clarifying the meaning of a polyrhythm.

Repetition is an essential characteristic of ritual and liturgy.[12] The celebration of Christian holy days recurs within a yearly cycle. Worship, prayer, eucharist, and homily occur regularly within a weekly pattern.[13] There is even repetition with certain rituals and liturgy (e.g. saying “Amen.”). Repetition serves numerous functions, which are: 1) formative- constituting a collective identity and experience;[14] 2) performative- conveying meaning to participants and observers;[15] 3) communal- allowing full participation; 4) transcendental- moving beyond the words or rite to an experience of the divine (e.g., mantras).[16] Ritual repetition, like the repetition of drumming rhythms, is essential to its meaning.

I grew up in the Free Church tradition (Southern Baptist), which generally did not use the lectionary for preaching nor did we follow the Christian year, except for observance of Christmas and Easter. In my experience choice of texts and topics were understood to be “improvisations” emerging from an encounter between the preacher, the Holy Spirit, and the congregational context. From a “low church” perspective, characterized by informality, the repetitive nature of various liturgical seasons, readings, and rites was considered “empty ritualism,” without “real meaning,” and suspect as being devoid of Spirit. “High church” traditions were viewed as formal, boring, and even cold due to the repetitive nature of the liturgy (even though our own low church “liturgy” was extremely repetitive).[17]

I have come to aesthetically and spiritually appreciate the order, movement, and even the repetitive nature of liturgy and ritual.[18] The repetition of ritual and liturgy is not intrinsically monotonous and limiting to spiritual experience. Ritual and liturgy can become performative icons through which to catch a glimpse of the divine, rhythms that give sacred meaning and movement to worship. The long, low rhythm of the ritual observance of the Christian year is like the underlying bass line in music. Bass drum (djun djun) patterns in West African drumming are often longer rhythms that establish a foundation for the drums with higher pitches. The deep rhythm of the Christian year provides a slow, cyclical pulse that underlies the changing tones of the weekly liturgy.

The Christian year re-presents the movement and rhythm of salvation history embodied in the Christ-event: his first coming, birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension, exaltation, sending of the Spirit, second coming, and eternal reign. The prelude of Advent, the procession of Christmas, the march of Epiphany, the dirge of Lent, the stillness of Good Friday, the cymbal crash of Easter, and the cacophony of Pentecost create a cyclical pattern that moves the body of Christ to a sacred, embodied, liturgical rhythm. The shifting themes and moods of the Christian year provide the preacher a perennial movement that supports the rhythm of the weekly liturgy.

The liturgy of weekly worship has its own rhythm. The structure of the worship service is a rhythm made up of the elemental beats of processional, song, silence, word, water, praise, prayer, movement, eucharist, offering, benediction, and recessional.[19] These elements create a sacred syncopation. Regular attendance at weekly worship engrains a liturgical rhythm within us. When the order of service is altered there is an almost unconscious awareness of a change in the rhythm of worship. If you have ever visited another congregation after attending your own for a long time, you may sense differences in the worship structure or style before you cognitively recognize the dissimilarity. It feels different. Like drum rhythms, liturgical rhythms become embedded within us.

For some people changes in liturgical rhythm may be welcome, like those who welcome the swing of jazz after a season of classical music. For others the change of liturgical rhythm may strike them as discordant or offbeat. The so-called “worship wars” are evidence of the clash of liturgical rhythmic sensibilities within congregations, which may reflect generational, class, or racial aesthetic divergence. Broadening the worship sensibilities of a congregation may play a role in opening the congregation to other people’s rhythms. Changing the rhythms of worship calls for careful consideration. Preachers, pastors, and liturgists should be aware of the rhythmic sensibilities of the congregation as they preach and construct liturgies, but also be willing to risk new liturgical syncopations and backbeats.

Mark Taylor advocates a “polyrhythmic sensibility” within the church’s liturgical practices.[20] Taylor draws upon the polyrhythmic worship practices of Caribbean diasporic cultures as a means of engagment with the world, adoration through collective performance and celebration, remembrance of the story of Jesus, experience of social liberation, and resistance to empire. Caribbean worship, drawing from its African sensibility, is intensely communal. Within community Word and Spirit are “replayed” as they move through the members of the congregation (in sermon, story, or song) and repeated with variations on the theme becoming a “rhythm word.”[21] This polyrhythmic mode of worship defies the binary rhythms that divide Word and Spirit. Through rhythmic repetition in communal performance Word and Spirit intensify creating “polymorphic complexities that defy mere binary rhythms.”[22]

In polyrhythmic modes of worship the locus of the God-experience is the body. Taylor is convinced that embodied praise and polyrhythmic practice are essential for effecting social emancipation and resistance to empire. A polyrhythmic sensibility: 1) honors the drum; 2) allows the drum’s rhythms to pervade the whole gathering of the community in worship; 3) nurtures the flourishing of a diversity of rhythms (musical styles); 4) thrives when people give their bodies to the rhythm. [23]

Taylor has tapped into a cross-cultural, embodied, polyrhythmic, world-engaging understanding and practice of worship and Word. His theo-musical reflections are more than a call for diversity in worship style or the addition of rhythm in congregations formed by binary rhythms. His understanding of “polyrhythmic sensibility” leads to emancipatory adoration. Without denying the implications of Taylor’s thesis for liberative, multicultural worship, I am suggesting that a polyrhythmic sensibility for preaching recognizes that the divine pulse beats through the multiple rhythms that make up the patterns of Word and worship. It is not simply the rhythm of the Other or the “exotic” that can be transformative. Polyrhythmic preaching can tap into the emancipatory potential within the diverse rhythms (i.e. liturgy, hermeneutic, context, language, performance) that constitute the polymorphic practice of preaching.

The Cadence of Contexts

The lilt of liturgy is a primary context of preaching. Other contexts form the polyrhythmic nature of preaching. Awareness of these different contexts can affect the rhythmic shape of the sermon. Contextual preaching is polyrhythmic in that it allows the various rhythms of life to shape the sermon.

Drums and rhythms vary with their contexts in different world cultures. Drums come in a multitude of shapes, sizes, and sounds. Diverse cultures have their own rhythms that are played within cultural-specific ceremonies, rituals, or life events. Drums and rhythms are shaped by their cultural context. Music may be in some sense “the universal language,” but musical communication is often context specific. The meaning of a rhythm and the ritual in which it is embedded will not be played or understood in quite the same way across cultural contexts.

The rhythms of preaching are shaped by various contexts. Congregational culture is a significant context that shapes the rhythms of preaching. The Word of God may be, in some sense, a “universal language,” but it comes to us through specific languages, cultures, and contexts. The preacher does not preach her sermons to a “universal audience,” but to a specific congregation with its own cadence. To preach without an awareness of the contextual cadence of the congregation is to be “out of sync.” Awareness of the cadences of one’s context is one way for the preacher to “entrain’ with the pulse of the congregation.

In 1665 the Dutch scientist and clockmaker Christian Huygens noticed that two pendulum clocks he had placed next to each other on the wall were swinging in a common rhythm. Huygens assumed some sort of “sympathy’ in the relationship of the clocks and began experiments to find out how the clocks maintained a synchronized rhythm. He discovered a universal phenomenon. Whenever two or more oscillators are in proximity to one another and pulsing near the same tempo, they have a tendency to “entrain” or synchronize. [24] The entrainment of preacher and congregation is engaged not simply by the proximity of pulpit to pew, but by the synchronization of the pulses within the sermon and the context. In some congregations this entrainment between preacher and congregation is signaled by an “Amen!” or “Hallelujah!”

Entraining with a congregation is enhanced through an understanding of the cadences of the congregational context. Knowing and feeling the pulses of the local congregation allows the preacher to construct the rhythm of the sermon in such a way as to entrain with the pulse of the congregation. Several homileticians have provided the preacher with scores for reading the polyphonic music of their congregations. Lenora Tubbs Tisdale presents contextual preaching as a type of cross-cultural communication.[25] The preacher, like a cultural anthropologist, reads the subculture of the congregation paying attention to its local theology, worldview, values, symbols, rituals, stories, history, demographics, art, architecture, events, activities, and people. Tisdale uses the image of the preacher as a folk dancer and the sermon as “ a participatory act in which the preacher models a way of doing theology that meets people where they are, but also encourages them to stretch themselves by trying new steps, new moves, new patterns of belief and action.”[26] Using the metaphors of drumming and rhythm, by listening to the variety of rhythms in the congregational context preaching becomes a polyrhythmic, participatory performance in which the preacher entrains or synchronizes with the rhythms of the congregation, while at the same time offering off beats, back beats, and counter rhythms that move the congregation into new pulses and performances.

The diversity of life rhythms within the congregational context calls for a polyrhythmic approach to preaching. Every congregation comes with its own built in diversity with a variety of listeners. Within any congregation you will find distinct life experiences and personality types, different genders and generations, diverse modes of mental processing, dissimilar economic and social situations, and divergent worldviews and ideologies.[27] Sticking to one homiletical rhythm will not resonate with all the diverse beats that make up a congregation. This recognition of multiplicity within the church is needed to an even greater degree since America is becoming increasingly multicultural. Cross-cultural communication is no longer exclusive to missionaries in foreign lands. The preacher in a culturally diverse congregation will need to groove to this new multicultural preaching context by overcoming ethnocentrism, greater cultural awareness, collaborative preaching, homiletical flexibility, and cross-cultural preaching strategies.[28] A sermon that intones a straight march beat will not connect with listeners who are attuned to Rhumba or Salsa. Polyphonic congregations call for polyrhythmic preaching.

Improvisation within West African drumming is expressed in the musician’s connection of the music to the social setting.[29] The drummer’s creativity is in the integration of the social situation (e.g., harvest celebration) into the music, which will reshape the music. In the same manner, improvisation in preaching can be understood as the shaping of the sermon to fit the various social contexts of the congregation. Polyrhythmic preaching takes into consideration the multiple social settings within which the preacher shapes the preaching event.

The Pulse of Preparation

The practice of preaching on a regular weekly basis is enhanced when it follows a particular rhythm. Without a weekly rhythm of sermon preparation the preacher can get out of sync. This is not to say that the weekly rhythm of sermon preparation will not be interrupted by various “offbeats,” like meetings, visits, and emergencies, but a set pattern of preparation paces the process of weekly sermon preparation. Paul Wilson suggests for sermon preparation a weekly hermeneutical rhythm of examining what the text says (Monday), what the text means (Tuesday), what experience says (Wednesday), and what the preachers says (Thursday/Friday). [30] Whether or not days are assigned to specific preaching tasks, most homileticians offer models for a rhythm of preparation from the study to the pulpit. Typical rhythms of sermon preparation involve awareness of the pastoral, congregational, social, political, and liturgical contexts, reading, selecting, and interpreting the primary sermon text, determining structure and movements of the sermon, creating the language, and practicing and presenting the sermon. A regular rhythm in sermon preparation can help to improve the practice of preaching.

At the same time, the rhythm of sermon preparation is not static and inflexible. Preachers follow a different beat when it comes to the creative process of sermon preparation.[31] Imaginative preaching requires an ability to be open to inspiration.[32] Jana Childers says, “The Spirit is not big on sequential movement. Segues, transitions, linear flow, and homiletical form are the preacher’s job, not the Paraclete’s.”[33] Every sermon may not begin with an exposition of the biblical text. Linda Clader likens her imaginative preaching process to “humming the harmony” and jazz improvisation.[34] She talks about her practice of humming the harmonies of familiar hymns, while the melody is there in the imagination. Similarly, in her preaching she often does not stick strictly to the biblical text in the sermon, but understands the melody is there in the readings, prayers, and hymns and evoked or recapitulated within the sermon through the improvisation of words, stories, and experiences in a type of “jazz preaching.”[35]

Sermon preparation may begin with a reading of the liturgically assigned biblical texts or personal meditation. At other times it may begin with an experience, a story, or a new insight. Even though there may be variance in the creative process, often some kind of pattern or rhythm emerges in an ongoing practice of preaching. Finding one’s own unique rhythm in the creative process is important for sermon preparation.

The Swing of the Sermon

Within many African cultures rhythm and word are interconnected. This is rooted in the relationship between language and drumming. Léopold Senghor states:

…rhythm is indispensable to the word: rhythm activates the word; it is its procreative component. Only rhythm gives it (the word) its effective fullness; it is the word of God, that is, the rhythmic word, that created the world.[36]

African languages have been described as “tonal” languages, through which different pitches determine meaning.[37] Drums create tones that replicate language. Thus, drums are often used to communicate messages from village to village or to tell a story. A master Dagbamba drummer has stated that it is absurd to play a “talking drum” unless the player can speak the native language of Dagbani, since every sound has meaning not only as music, but also as language.[38] It was this ability of the drum to “talk” that led white slave masters in North America to legally ban the use of the drum among African slaves. [39] Drumming could call together slaves to plan rebellion. Although the drum had difficulty surviving in some areas of the African Diaspora, rhythm continued to be manifest in body, song, and the word. Poetry within certain African cultures is embedded in polyrhythmics. Like polyrhythmic drumming, poetry uses multiple language forms, secondary rhythms, and repetition to create meaning.[40]

A rhythmic understanding of the word is particularly evident in Black preaching.[41] Theomusicologist Jon Michael Spencer makes a direct connection when he says,

The ‘drumming’ of traditional black preaching (like that of black rapping) includes kinetic, linguistic, and metric manifestations, which together create a polyphonic multimetricity equivalent to that of African rhythm.[42]

There is a “homiletical musicality” to Black preaching based in the rhythms of traditional African life.[43] Evans Crawford describes preaching rhythmically as “holiness in timing.”[44] He uses the word “timing” to describe the musical qualities he examines concerning African American preaching. James Henry Harris recognizes cadence and rhythm to be uniquely combined in African American preaching.[45] Harris recognizes the indispensability of rhythm to the preached word in Black preaching. Rhythm and word come together in a distinctive manner within African American preaching.

The dialogical character of some African drumming is found in both the understanding of drumming as a form of communication that “conversational” relationship between rhythms within a polyrhythm.[46] Dialogue is also characteristic of both African music and African American preaching.[47] Henry Mitchell goes so far as to say that “without dialogue, there is no distinctively Black sermon, it is just that crucial to Black preaching.”[48] Dialogue requires some form of conversation between speaker and listener. Call and response, a musical modality found within some African music, has shaped the dialogical nature of African American preaching. The rhetorical rhythm is heard in audible responses to the preacher, such as “Well?” “Help ‘em, Lord!” “Amen!” or “Hallelujah!” that at times may be punctuated by musical instruments. This back-and-forth rhythmic conversation between preacher and congregation reflects the call and response chants and drumming signals within certain forms of African music.

James Snead makes reference to the “cut” as a rhythmic speech form found in African American preaching with a counterpart in African music.[49] The “cut” relies on repetition by abruptly moving back to a previous pattern or phrase. James Brown is known for using the “cut” in his music. Following a cue, vocal or percussive beats, the music will shift to a “bridge” or new mode, then, with another signal, the music “cuts” back to the original tempo or chord progression. In preaching, the “cut” may be as simple as a repetitive phrase (e.g., Praise God!) that interrupts the flow of the sermon, but which creates a rhythmic pattern to the proclamation.

Another rhythmic form within the African American preaching is known as “the hoop.” It is characterized by “vocal gymnastics that require gasping for air, panting, long pauses, or rapid speech…Articulation is marked by elongation of vowels, repetition of phrases or initial consonants, or omission of word endings” that leads to an emotional and spiritual intensification.[50] The practice of hooping in some ways reflects the repetitive, rhythmic intensification of the drumming that often leads to spirit possession that is found in Yoruban culture and its counterpart in Cuban Santeria.

Other rhetorical practices in African American preaching, such as repetition of phrases, alliteration, acceleration of pace, vocal dynamics, and linguistic and thematic improvisation have their rhythmic counterparts in African drumming.[51] Repetition occurs in the normal course of the sermon. Texts, sayings, or other “significant statements are restated for emphasis, memory, impact, and effect.”[52] As I noted earlier, repetition assists in clarifying meaning in some forms of African drumming. Repetition in African American preaching serves to produce, energize, and instill meaning.

When I teach drumming to beginners I tell the students that everyone has rhythm. We all heard and felt the constant rhythm of our mother’s heart beat for close to nine months. One does not have to be an African or African American to have rhythm. It is just that rhythm becomes more highly developed in some cultures and people than others. Rhythm exists in sermons outside the African American preaching tradition. It may be less developed or subtler, but there is rhythm there nonetheless. There is rhythm in the “movements” or “homiletical plot” of well-constructed sermons.[53] Rhythm resides in the pulse of language, phrasing, punctuation, pause, and pace. Every sermon has a rhythm and can be constructed in such a way as to enhance its rhythmic qualities.

Preparing to “perform” the sermon involves practicing the sermons pulse and pace. Thomas Long entitled a section of his seminal book on preaching “Finding the Rhythm,” which is about rehearsing the sermon aloud. Speaking the sermon aloud places the preaching in the role of listener. Long says, “Listening to our own sermon being spoken makes us aware of the rhythms, movements, and intrinsic timing of the sermon in ways that studying notes or a manuscript can never do.”[54] Rehearsing aloud is a means of hearing and sensing the swing of the sermon.

Finding Your Polyrhythm

“Finding your voice” has become a metaphor for learning to express your own distinctive self in preaching.[55] “Finding your preaching voice” is the path that leads the preacher to bring to the practice of preaching all the various elements of their own personal uniqueness. Having a voice does not indicate a monotone. Through the preacher’s one voice is expressed not only the polyphony of their own experience, but also the conversation that the preacher has had with text, theology, liturgy, congregation, community, and world. These elements are shaped by the preacher’s own voice.

Using the metaphor of polyrhythm, the preacher brings together the diverse rhythms of text, contexts, liturgy, sermon construction, performance, and personality to create a complex polyrhythm. As with drumming polyrhythms, these various homiletical rhythms interlock, create tensions, play off each other, and converse in type of call and response, while at the same time they are heard as one specific rhythm in the preaching event. Each rhythm has its meaning only within the complex structure of the polyrhythm. Each homiletical rhythm (i.e., text, context, liturgy, personality, etc.) does not stand alone, but is understood only within its relationship to the other rhythms. For example, the meaning of the biblical text is interconnected with the contemporary context. Meaning is constructed in a call and response conversation between text and context, then and now, biblical world and contemporary world.

The interaction of diverse hermeneutical and homiletical rhythms give the text and the sermon its meaning to all those involved in the preaching conversation. It is the conversation and energy from the interactions of the various rhythms within polyrhythmic drumming that communicates its meaning and causes the dance. It is the preacher’s own creativity and energy in bringing together the diverse rhythms of the practice of preaching into a sermonic polyrhythm that communicates sacred meaning and causes the people to dance.

____________________________________________

[1] William C.Turner, Jr., “The Musicality of Black Preaching: A Phenomenology,” The Journal of Black Sacred Music, vol. 2, no 1 (Spring 1988): 27.
[2] For an example of using the arts as a metaphor or model for the practice of preaching, see Jana Childers, Performing the Word: Preaching as Theatre (Nashville: Abingdon), 1998; Kirk Byron Jones, The Jazz of Preaching: How to Preach with Great Freedom and Joy (Nashville: Abingdon), 2004.
[3] I may refer to the specific drumming traditions of West Africa (Ivory Coast, Guinea, Liberia, Ghana, Togo, Sierra Leone) or rhythm in “some African traditions,” rather than to speak of a generic “African rhythm.” A postcolonial perspective recognizes “African rhythm” as a European invention or reification of a more complex reality. The countries and tribes within Africa are not one homogeneous body and neither is the music. For a postcolonial critique of “African rhythm,” see Kofi Agawu, Representing African Music: Postcolonial Notes, Queries, Positions (New York: Routledge), 2003.
[4] Simha Arom, African Polyphony and Polyrhythm: Musical Structure and Methodology trans. Martin Thom, Barbara Tuckett, and Raymond Boyd, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 272.
[5] Arom, 40.
[6] John Miller Chernoff, African Rhythm and African Sensibility: Aesthetics and Social Action in African Musical Idioms (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 52.
[7] Hauerwas presents preaching as a practice. Stanley Hauerwas, “Practice Preaching,” Exilic Preaching: Testimony for Christian Exiles in an Increasingly Hostile Culture Erskine Clark, ed., (Harrisburg: Trinity, 1998): 62-68. Ronald Allen claims that “preaching is not a distinctive practice, but a part of the practice of worship.” Ronald Allen, Interpreting the Gospel (St. Louis: Chalice, 1998), 12. Preaching fits MacIntyre’s definition of practice and can be considered as such. Alastair MacIntyre, After Virtue (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1981), 187.
[8] A thorough presentation of preaching within the context of worship can be found in David M. Greenhaw and Ronald Allen, eds., Preaching in the Context of Worship St. Louis: Chalice, 2000.
[9] Chernoff, 80. In his insightful essay, James A. Snead notes that in black music repetition is valued in and of itself. Rhythmic repetition creates the framework for improvisation, polymeter, and call-and-response, which are key characteristics of both African and African-American music. James A. Snead, “On Repetition in Black Culture, “ Black American Literature Forum 15, No. 4 (1981):146-154.
[10] Repetition in music has been recognized as a psychological necessity for making sense. Since music has no clear “object” to which we can direct our minds, the repetition imprints music’s shape within us giving it coherence and meaning. Richard Middleton, ‘“Play it again Sam”’: Some Notes on the Productivity of Repetition in Popular Music,’ Richard Middleton and David Horn, eds., Popular Music, vol. III, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 236.
[11] Janheinz Jahn describes drum language as a “drum script,” directed at the ear instead of the eye. Janheinz Jahn, Muntu: The New African Culture (New York: Grove Press, 1961), 187-188. The Yoruban talking drum, an hourglass-shaped drum held under the arm, was designed to imitate the Yoruban’s tonal language through a modulation of the pitch by squeezing the strings tied to the two drum heads. Drummer and ethnomusicologist David Locke was not taught the lead luna drum (a talking drum) by the master drummer, Abubakari, because he could not speak the language of Dagbani. It would be absurd since every sound had meaning not simply as music but as language. David Locke, Talking Drum Lessons (Crown Point: White Cliffs Media Company, 1990), 70.
[12] Tom F. Driver, The Magic of Ritual: Our Need for Liberating Rites that Transform Our Lives and Our Communities ( San Francisco: Harper, 1991), 100.
[13] On the use of musical repetition to reflect on the ritual of the eucharist, see Jeremy S. Begbie, Theology, Music and Time (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000): 155-175.
[14] Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (New York: Free Press, 1915), 463ff.
[15] Clifford Gertz understands ritual to symbolically encapsulate the ethos and worldview of the performers. Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 113. For further discussion of Geertz perspective on ritual and meaning, see Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992): 30-46.
[16] The repetitive nature of mantras, like drum rhythms, can serve as a means of bypassing the cognitive and connecting a person with the subconscious and Spirit. Dru Kristel, “Drumming and Mantra,” Breath was the First Drummer: A Treatise on Drums, Drumming, and Drummers (Sante Fe: QX Publications, 1995): 85-92.
[17] I have come to recognize that there is variety even in repeated musical and liturgical forms that keep them from being static, boring repetitions. There is variation in context, occasion, volume, tone, inflection, accent, pace, and communal response that makes each performance new.
[18] Thomas Long characterizes many churches in the “free church” tradition as having random liturgical elements as if they were spilled out of a bag. Then, the movement of the service depends upon the improvisational abilities of the worship leader. He talks about worship services needing “dramatic integrity.” I would express this needed liturgical quality as “rhythmic syncopation.” Thomas Long, The Senses of Preaching (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988), 87-88.
[19] Tom Driver lists rhythm as an essential quality of eucharistic performance. In speaking of the rhythm of ritual as the “soul, the heart-beat of worship” he describes a sacramental celebration in which a company of African drummers and dancers drew the congregation into a storm of hand-clapping, screaming, and cheering! Driver, 215-216.
[20] Mark Taylor, “Polyrhythm in Worship: Carribean Keys to an Effective Word of God” Briant Blount and Lenora Tubbs Tisdale, eds., Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001): 108-128.
[21] Taylor, 119.
[22] Taylor, 120.
[23] Taylor, 123-125.
[24] George Leonard, The Silent Pulse: A Search for the Perfect Rhythm that Exists in Each of Us (New York: Penguin, 1978), 13.
[25] Lenora Tubbs Tisdale, Preaching as Local Theology and Folk Art (Minneapolis: Fortress), 1997.
[26] Tisdale, 125.
[27] Joseph R. Jeter, Jr. and Ronald J. Allen, One Gospel, Many Ears: Preaching for Different Listeners (St. Louis: Chalice), 2002.
[28] James R. Nieman and Thomas G. Rogers, Preaching to Every Pew: Cross-cultural Strategies (Minneapolis:Fortress), 2001.
[29] Chernoff, 67-68.
[30] Paul Scott Wilson, The Practice of Preaching (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 127-196.
[31] For a variety of approaches to the creative process by women preachers, see Jana Childers, ed., Birthing the Sermon: Women Preachers on the Creative Process (St. Louis: Chalice), 2001.
[32] On inspiration and imaginative preaching, see Linda Clader, Voicing the Vision: Imagination and Prophetic Preaching (Harrisburg: Morehouse Pub.), 2003.
[33] Childers, 41.
[34] Clader, 99-101.
[35] Clader, 102.
[36] Quoted in Janheinz Jahn, Muntu: The New African Culture (New York: Grove Press, 1961), 164.
[37] Chernoff, 75.
[38] David Locke, Drum Damba: Talking Drum Lessons (Crown Point: White Cliffs Media, 1990), 7.
[39] Jon Michael Spencer, Re-Searching Black Music (Knoxville: University of Tennessee, 1996), 11.
[40] Jahn, 166.
[41] James Henry Harris, The Word Made Plain: The Power and Promise of Preaching (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 81-82.
[42] Spencer, 17.
[43] The term “homiletical musicality” is borrowed from Jon Michael Spencer, Sacred Symphony: The Chanted Sermon of the Black Preacher (Westport: Greenwood Press), 1987. On the musicality of preaching and African tradition, see William C. Turner, Jr., “The Musicality of Black Preaching: A Phenomenology,” The Journal of Black Sacred Music, vol. 2, no. 1, (Spring 1988), 25-26.
[44] Evans E. Crawford, The Hum: Call and Response in African American Preaching (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 17.
[45] Harris, 91-94.
[46] Chernoff, 55.
[47] See chapter 7 in Henry H. Mitchell, The Recovery of Preaching (San Francisco: Harper and Row), 1977.
[48] Mitchell, 122.
[49] Snead, 151.
[50] Teresa L. Fry Brown, Weary Throats and New Songs: Black Women Proclaiming God’s Word (Nashville: Abingdon, 2003), 171-172.
[51] For a discussion of improvisation in preaching as it relates to Jazz, whose roots are in African music, see chapter 5 in Kirk Byron Jones’ The Jazz of Preaching.
[52] Henry H. Mitchell, Black Preaching: The Recovery of a Powerful Art (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), 93.
[53] Eugene Lowry presents the sermon form and structure in terms of a narrative plot, which constructs a type of “linguistic dance” to the sermon. Eugene L. Lowry, The Homiletical Plot: The Sermon as Narrative Art Form. David Buttrick describes sermon structure as “moves,” as opposed to static “points,” which create a sequential rhythm to the sermon. David Buttrick, Homiletic: Moves and Structures (Philadelphia: Fortress), 1987.
[54] Thomas G. Long, The Witness of Preaching (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1989), 186.
[55] David J. Schlafer, Your Way with God’s Word: Discovering Your Distinctive Preaching Voice (Boston: Cowley Pubs.), 1995; Mary Donovan Turner and Mary Lin Hudson, Saved from Silence: Finding Women’s Voice in Preaching (St. Louis: Chalice), 1999.