Dr Duane Litfin, president of Wheaton, studied Paul’s theology of proclamation for one of his doctoral dissertations. His study reveals how Paul’s view of preaching contrasted with the first-century Greco-Roman rhetorician. The biblical focus for the study was 1Cor.1-4, where the issue is addressed most directly. The following points may give you a taste of his study and its relevance for us as preachers:
1. Language and ideas have the power to sway people. Paul knew that, and we must recognize the power of language and ideas in order to comprehend the reality of ancient rhetoric and the contrast with Paul’s preaching.
2. The ancient rhetorician tailored his efforts to achieve a result, whatever it took. Paul was different. Paul, like the rhetor, viewed the audience as a given, but did not take unto himself the task of inducing belief. For Paul, this was the task of the Spirit of God.
3. Paul proclaimed, and as a herald he announced, but it was not his task to persuade. So he would “placard” the cross before his hearers. He could not allow for the possibility of the listeners’ faith being a product of the preacher’s ability to induce faith by rhetorical technique.
4. Paul did not somehow disavow every element of rhetorical technique. It is clear in his letters, and in the speeches in Acts (if they are accepted as representative of Paul rather than Luke’s writing ability), that Paul did use various elements of rhetoric in order to communicate effectively. In fact, the ancient study of rhetoric was descriptive more than prescriptive, it was determined by observation of what effective speakers did. In light of this, Paul would not have had to study rhetoric in order to learn the skills he demonstrates. But he did put his own preaching in sharp relief to that of the rhetoricians. What was the difference?
5. Paul did not pursue the third step in persuasion. Persuasion theorists break down the process into five steps. (1) Attention, (2) comprehension, (3) yielding, (4) retention, and (5) action. Rhetoric placed heavy emphasis on step 3, yielding. Paul aimed his presentation at step 2, comprehension. Obviously, as people were persuaded by Paul’s preaching, an observer might credit him with the whole process. But in reality, Paul held back from any strategies that might induce a yielding in the hearts of his followers. Without making a cheap shot at ancient rhetoric as being mere manipulation, it is clear that Paul was wary of anything that might cause his hearers to come to faith based on his technique of persuasion. We should be wary of the same.
Peter has responded to a comment, and gives a link to a Litfin article.
Hi. Good post, and I agree with its substance, but I do have a question. Is it entirely accurate to say that it wasn’t Paul’s task to persuade?
(It’s often hard, on a blog, to discern someone’s tone, so I want to say up front that my motive isn’t to challenge your point, or to argue with you, but to generate some additional thought on this subject.)
First, the NT itself unapologetically uses the language of persuasion. In fact, Acts 18:4 explicitly states that persuasion is Paul’s goal. (See Acts 18:4, 19:8; 26:24-29; 2 Cor. 5:11)
Because of that, I wonder if it might be better to view the issue as an example of a type of compatibilism, where the human responsibility to persuade, and the exclusively divine power to persuade, coexist.
Thanks Barry. Obviously I cannot really speak for Duane Litfin, and I would encourage anyone to get the book (if you can find it!) I suppose he might say two things.
One is that his focus was 1Cor.1-4 where Paul is clearly distinguishing his own ministry from the methods used by public speakers in that culture. Since Paul is making a strong distinction, it is good to study the situation carefully and discern what he was resisting so firmly.
The other is that the language of persuasion is used of Paul as you noted, just as I noted that certain features of oratory and rhetoric were evident in Paul’s speeches. However, Litfin distinguishes the specific focus on step three – getting people to yield. For Paul, the burden of responsibility rested in step two rather than three, because he did not want anyone’s faith to rest on his rhetorical abilities.
This is an interesting discussion, although I am a little nervous about it being based on my brief summary of Litfin’s work. I know that he summarizes his work in a series of talks with Haddon Robinson, available from the Ockenga Institute store at Gordon-Conwell. I should listen to those again.
Just to follow up with the previous comments. I asked Duane Litfin to take a look at the discussion thus far. He graciously did so and emailed me. Time constraints kept him from diving in here. However, you’ll have to take my word for all that I say here.
He thinks I’m “doing pretty well in summarizing the points” but what is needed now are the nuances to his work. The place to get that is the book, which he suggests interlibrary loan can help locate.
He’s considering a popular level version of the book (great idea, I’d encourage that!) He also summarized his work in a Christianity Today piece back in about 1977 which was “somewhat misnamed” as “The Perils of Persuasive Preaching.” I’ll link the article below.
He did say that “compatibalism” won’t work as a resolution. Paul’s clear decision was to restrict himself, rather than suggesting that his full efforts could fit together with God’s work. For Paul, the wrong approach could displace the work of God, rather than fitting together with it.
I appreciate Dr Litfin interacting here, even if not personally on the site. As he suggested, if this subject is of interest, then pursuing his book or article would be the way to go.
The link for the article, reprinted in the Cultic Studies Journal in 1985, is here:
http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/litfin_duane_perils_persuasive_preaching.htm
Peter,
Thanks, both to you and to Dr. Litfin, for the response. I would like to see a “popular” edition of that book published. In the mean time, I’ll try to read the article.