Subscribers have the opportunity to participate in discussion forums, post sermons and offer helpful critique to others. Archived feature articles will also be available to subscribers.
A six-month free subscription is available through a key that can be found on the CD bundled with Kent Anderson's Choosing to Preach. >>
A number of years ago two new television shows went head to head in the most important time slot of the week, Thursday evening at 10pm. Both shows covered the same themes, with similar objectives, through use of the same basic format—the medical drama. The result was decisive. ER, NBC’s frenetically paced ensemble piece immediately shot to the top of the ratings, while Chicago Hope, with its slower, more ponderous style, sank like a stone. Eventually, Chicago Hope was able to resolve its problems, but only by refitting the show in the mold of its more successful sister show. If you can’t beat ‘em, move to Monday nights and copy ‘em.
Preachers ought to pay attention. This experiment in public discourse offers useful insights into the mind of the listener as we attempt to communicate the Word in the context of postmodernity. If listening styles have changed, preachers need to know about it.
Struck by the unusual opportunity to consider what amounted to a ready-made experiment in social science, I taped random episodes of the two shows from the 1994-95 season in order to discern the reason for this amazing divergence in public approval. The most obvious difference, I observed, may also be the most significant. While it could be argued that ER featured superior actors, or more interesting story-lines, those factors were likely less significant than the radical divergence in discursive method. While Chicago Hope appeared familiar, ER found a whole different way to tell its stories.
The episode of Chicago Hope I taped followed two basic story lines that interwove one another throughout the show ultimately conveying its basic point. The episode of ER, on the other hand, was much more adventuresome, covering no less than fifteen story lines in the forty-some minutes allotted to it, a pattern that the show has maintained in the years since. Some of these stories lasted only a few seconds, while others came back four or five times throughout the show. In the end, somehow, the writers and actors had made their point, imprecisely, but with impact. It’s far cry from Marcus Welby. The good doctor Welby gave us a single story line and a singular plot. Apparently we have become too sophisticated for such simplemindedness.
This observation is disturbing to preachers brought up on a diet of point by point preaching. Traditional homiletics called for simplicity, clarity, and a logical progression from proposition to proposition. Many preachers still believe that such an approach is the only credible way to present the principles of the Scripture with integrity and impact. Cultural critics like Neil Postman would agree that shows like ER with their disinterest in linear, logical point-making, signal society’s descent into silliness. ER may entertain, but can it educate?
There is no doubt, we are witnessing a major shift in the way people learn. Newspapers like USA Today, services like America Online, and stations like Headline News, all showcase the public’s desire to sift information, piecing together the story line from a multitude of sources and perspectives. Whether this is good for us, may be beside the point. Preachers cannot choose their culture, but must find a way to communicate truth within the culture as powerfully as possible. If this is the way people think today, we are going to have to learn to deal with it.
But maybe it is not so much of a stretch. Watching an episode of ER is actually a lot like having a conversation. Our conversations are seldom logical and linear. Conversationalists lose track and chase rabbits. People in conversation get emotional at certain points and quiet at other times. Points are made and lost and revisited later on. Somehow the process works and we emerge in the end having communicated.
Is this any way to preach? It is difficult to know what it might mean to preach a sermon like an episode of ER. Certainly such a sermon would be less didactic. It would be less concerned with scoring points and more interested in creating moods in order to shape awareness and direct a response. The message of the sermon might take greater importance than the form. Stories would be told, arguments offered, and passions aroused. Somehow, in the end we would get the point, even though we might not be quite sure how it happened Such a sermon need not compromise the authority of the scripture or the power of the proposition. Perhaps we could see it simply as a different road to the same destination.
This season ER began with a fully live episode; a first for prime time network drama. The episode attracted almost fifty million viewers, which was also a new record for the show. Somehow it seemed appropriate. ER always plays like a live event anyway and that"s why we like it. Dr. Green gets grumpy. Dr. Ross finally grows up enough to have a serious relationship. Meanwhile, sirens howl, patients "code" and life goes on.
That’s the point, actually. It’s life!
ER is stiff competition for regular local church pastors. But, then, churches are a lot like ER wards anyway. People die. People cry. They love. They laugh. They live. Our preaching should reflect that reality. Our preaching should live.