Talking of God, by Alan Parker
Introduction:
There are fashions in words as in everything else. Without doubt, one of the most fashionable words in recent years has been the word ‘communication’. Unhappily the more it has been used, the less really effective communication seem to have taken place. Numerous sermons in the last two decades have had something to say about communication, some even purporting to be entirely about it. All too frequently such sermons have failed to achieve communication, and have often confused rather than clarified the congregation’s understanding of it. Only the boldest of preachers venture, whilst engaged in communication, to tell their hearers that they are explaining its nature and how to achieve it. Of course, the same weakness is apparent in many organisational and corporate situations. Something goes wrong – goods are not delivered, a strike takes place, modern man rejects the gospel – and the diagnosis is ‘a breakdown in communication’. The implication is very clear – ‘nobody told me, the information wasn’t sent, someone failed to pass on the message’.

Unfortunately, this is far too simple an explanation, and is even less satisfactory as an excuse. Communication is much more that just conveying messages or passing pieces of paper to people. Christians above all folk should understand this, for communication is at the heart of Christian experience. Its real meaning is sharing, or involvement. Perhaps the opposite makes it even easier to grasp - excommunication means being excluded, having no share or involvement. There is an obvious affinity with words and ideas, such as community – a common or shared unity of life and work, or as Communism – shared ownership of resources and involvement in a common way of life, or communion – a relationship of complete intimacy. The story of the Bishop who, on visiting Moscow, was invited to conduct a service for English residents there, is relevant. The Moscow newspaper announced that on Sunday the Bishop would celebrate Holy Communism! There is, of course, a real truth in that error.

Levels of Meaning:
Communication, like many other words, carries several different shades or emphases of meaning. It would be more accurate in this case to speak of levels of meaning. Firstly, the technical level, answering the question: ‘How accurately are the symbols of communication being transmitted?’ The symbols used may be words, pictures, signs, sounds, music etc, but they must be clearly and correctly transmitted before communication can begin. In worship, and in preaching as part of worship, certain kinds of symbols are used more than others, though there is a greater willingness today to diversify the range of symbols used. It is at this level that the focus is on the preacher’s technique, at which the relevant question is, ‘Can he/she be heard?’ but there is more to it than that. Appearance, gestures, movement and facial expressions are all symbols of communication, often being transmitted unawares. Even the way words are delivered can affect their impact. Pace, pause, volume and intonation all aid or hinder the total transmission. This is the level of, ‘I thought you said…’ The following most pungent criticism of a preacher’s technique was heard recently: ‘What he was saying was important, I’m sure, but he neither looked nor sounded as though it was!’

The second level of meaning is the semantic level, answering the question: ‘How precisely do the transmitted symbols convey the desired meaning?’ Accurate transmission is of no avail if the choice of symbols is inappropriate for the message or for those to whom it is directed. This is one reason for welcoming flexibility of approach to the types of symbol being used in worship and preaching. In an age more accustomed than any before to visual media it is unlikely that any cause will commend itself to people by verbal means alone. When the time was ripe, God superseded the verbal proclamation of the prophets by the Word made flesh; the choice of symbols by today’s prophets is all too often as restricted as it was by those of the pre-Christian era. Even when words are retained as the principal symbols it is vital that they are assembled for transmission with careful regard to those who will hear them. Much of the Gospel needs thoughtful interpretation to folk who have been born and brought up among factories, rather than on farms or in fishing villages. If the technical level of communication is concerned with preaching technique, the semantic level is concerned with the content of preaching – can he be understood? It is the level at which members of the congregation move from, ‘I thought you said…’ to ‘I thought you meant…’

There is, however, a third level of meaning, to which, sadly, there is a marked reluctance to proceed. This is the effectiveness level, at which the question to be answered is: ‘How far does the received meaning affect conduct in the desired way?’ Put another way, communication has not taken place unless people do something they would not otherwise have done, or refrain from doing something they would otherwise have done. The object of the exercise is to modify behaviour, and this is hard for people to accept. Unless the students have learnt, the teachers have not taught. It could be argued that nobody can teach anybody anything, but can only create conditions in which learning is more likely to take place. It is certainly so with communication. Communication has not taken place until the message has not merely been received and understood, but has been acted upon. Response is a necessary part of communication. This is the point at which Christian communication differs in both aim and nature from other communication, for, if what we believe and preach is true, the evocation of response is, at the last, the work of the Holy Spirit.

Relationships:
Humanly-speaking, though, it is quite proper to enquire if there are any recognisable factors which make for effectiveness. Having equipped us with mechanisms for thought and feelings, it is unlikely that God will always choose to bypass them in His dealings with us. We have also the capacity to make relationships with other people, and without doubt our response to the things that other people tell us depends to a great degree on the relationship we have with them. The extent of sharing or involvement in a common experience, and the extent to which the message is ‘internalised’ is influenced much more than may appear by the relationship between preacher and congregation. The relationship need not be of long-standing, it need not reach into every facet of life, but if it is a right relationship for the situation it will be the means of making communication effective.

This is part of the argument for what is commonly called ‘pastoral preaching’, or, at an earthier level, explains why ministers usually get bigger congregations than visiting local preachers. They have a fuller relationship with members of the congregations, know them in their homes, in mid-week activities and official church meetings. A generation or two ago, the explanation would have been different. It would have been said that the minister was the specialist, and had an authority because he was the minister. This is but a reflection of the changes in society and its organisations generally. Paternalism, ‘the boss says…’, has been replaced by participation. People are involved, and the degree of involvement, that is the effectiveness of communication, depends on their relationships.

This does not mean that there is no continuing role for local preachers. It does, however, mean that ‘locals’ will be wise to consider the relationships they actually have or may anticipate having with each congregation to which they are appointed. They may be wise to find out, as far as possible, something about the people, to take some initiative – if none is taken first – to contact stewards and musicians to build a relationship so that when Sunday comes they do not ‘start cold’. Even to welcome worshippers as they arrive for service, instead of only greeting them as they leave, can go a long way to create a communication relationship. It is sad when diligent preparation of service and sermon is undermined by lack of this - it is just as important to prepare it, as to prepare the matter and the manner of its presentation.

Expectations and Response:
Finally, when all is said and done, if response is the true test of communication, let there be no doubt that it is doubly true of preaching. The old-fashioned description was ‘preaching for a decision’, and, like so many old-fashioned descriptions, when it went out of use the truth it expressed also disappeared. There are signs that it is being rediscovered; it is again being said that "preaching must stir the people’s will". This raises the question of what it is that motivates people, and once more it must be emphasised that through all that makes up worship (including the preaching) it is the activity of God which makes the difference. Preachers must come to their task believing that God can do what human agents alone, cannot do, and more – that God will do it. if preachers really believe this, members of the congregation will soon realise it, and their own expectations will be raised.

Every professional communicator knows the importance of expectations. If people can be led to expect certain things, then these are what they will most readily perceive. it is not a matter of supplying more and more information, for we are not solely creatures of reason. Indeed, it is sometimes true that the more information, the less communication.

("Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up!") People must not only be convinced, they must feel convinced – it is when reason and emotion reinforce each other that the will is stirred, decisions are made and active response follows . For some, the balance between reason and emotion is tilted one way, for some it is tilted the other, but every sermon must make some appeal to the intellect, some appeal to the feelings, and through them both, some appeal to the will- power. ‘Head, heart and hands’ was the way it used to be expressed.

There is a partnership between preachers and people in the communication of the Christian faith in modern society. The Gospel must not merely be declared on Sundays -it must be demonstrated every day. Really effective, response-conducive communication from the pulpit is an essential condition for bringing that about.

Alan Parker is a Past-President of LPMA and a Local Preacher in Stockton-on-Tees