Two styles of preaching
The two basic styles of preaching are the ad populem and the ad
clarem styles.
The former is what is most properly and strictly the sermon as is
found upon the lips of the prophets, the apostles, Christ Himself, and
great figures in the history of the church as were the Reformers. This
type of preaching is addressed to the general public, it does not aim at
a polished style as such, but is addressed to the heart, to the very
conscience and soul of the hearers.
In fact, from ancient times the sermon was known as the homily
(Greek, homilia, a sermon or discourse upon some point of
religion, delivered in a plain manner, so as to be easily understood by
the common people. The Greek word signifies a familiar discourse, like
the Latin sermo. Discourses delivered to the people of God
followed this guide-lines, to intimate that they were not harangues, or
matters of ostentation and flourish, like those of profane orators, but
familiar and useful discourses, as of a master to his disciples, or a
father to his children.
Presented in such a condensed and abbreviated mode, the sermons of
Paul and his fellow-apostles (in the Acts especially), we may still see
what a sermon properly so-called should sound like. This was Paul's
avowed ambition, to preach Christ and Him crucified, "not with
enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and
of power" (1 Corinthians 2:4). And there is a specific purpose why
we should adopt such a preaching stance: "That your faith should
not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (v.5).
Though both content and delivery are important in a sermon, people
should be attracted to our churches by the content (primarily), and only
secondarily by the delivery. The latter is subordinate to the former.
In the other style of preaching, the ad clarem, the reverse tends to
hold true. This is the style of preaching as so often flourishes in
places of education, in universities, and seminaries. This style
developed and became the norm during medieval Scholasticism. It is a
lecture-type of sermon, with strict and logical divisions and
subdivisions of the talk.
This was rejected by the Reformers, especially Luther and Calvin. To
read their sermons is so refreshing; they sound lively and practical and
addressed to the heart.
Though I do not mean to cast a shadow on the Puritans, they reverted
to the ad clarem type of preaching. Though their content in preaching
was sound, it was often presented in a stiff and rigid way, as if a
professor of theology was addressing another professor of theology.
It is evident to me that the ad clarem style has the upper-hand
today. This is sad. Is it because the pastors generally desire to be
accounted as learned men, because they want to leave an impression of
scholarship?
The church, consisting mostly of poor and simple people, would be
much profited by a return to a prophetic type of preaching, the ad
populem, where preaching would be an interaction between preacher and
people: a dying man preaching to dying men, urgently, solemnly, simply,
powerfully.
|