TMSJ 17/1 (Spring 2006) 7-15 A CHALLENGE FOR CHRISTIAN COMMUNICATORS* John M acArthur President and Professor of Pastoral Ministries Clarity and accuracy in comm unicating divine truth is more important forChristian communicators than anyone else. The availability of mass communica-tions further enh anc es the p reacher’s job in this da y and time bec ause of the vastaudiences he can reach, wh ich w ere not nearly as large in earlier days. Mass m ediaopportunities can be abused, however, as they have been in so ma ny case s.Television, for example, helped to usher out the “age of exp osition ” an d ush er inthe age of “sound bites” when image became more important than substance in themessage being communicated. As an entertainment medium, television has loweredappetites for serious tho ugh t as it has raised expectations for trivia and brevity.That is especially true of serm ons in the mass media. Christian publishing has gonein the same direction in catering to people’s “felt needs” and giving them somethingthey want rather than the doctrinal truths of the Bible. That is the very thing thatPaul warned Timothy against and that Jeremiah refrained from doing. As Christ’sambassad ors, Christian communicators must make the message, not the medium,the hea rt of what they give their listeners, viewers, and rea ders. ***** Importance of Clear Communication No preacher like s the feeling of being tong ue-tied— especially when ithappens in the pulpit. Those awkward mome nts when his brain gets stuck in neutraland his mouth continues to rev are the nightmare of every preacher. It can beespecially dangerous when everything he says is taped. A few years ago some of our radio-broadcast workers assembled a tapedcollection of all my verbal fumbles over the years. They collected about fifteen-years worth of out-takes and strung them together to make an entire sermon ofnonsense. It was painful to listen to. So I have nothing but extreme pity for the Reverend W illiam Archiba ldSpooner, who suffered from a d isability that no preacher de serves. Spooner was abrilliant man w ho wa s dean of N ew College, Oxfo rd, at the turn of the twentiethcentury. Tod ay he is chiefly remembered because he elevated slips o f the tongue to * The following, a previously unpublished address given by President MacArthur at a ChristianCommunicators’ Conference a number of years ago, has been edited for use in The Master’s SeminaryJournal. 7
8 The Master’s Seminary Journalan art form. H e was p articularly prone to one variety of verbal blunder that has beengiven his name—the spoonerism. A spoonerism transposes the syllables or soundsof two or more words, as in “Let me sew you to yo ur sheet.” Sp oo ners backward eloquence was unsurpassed. Reprimanding a waywardstudent, he uttered these imm ortal words: “Y ou have hissed all my mystery lectures;I saw you fight a liar on the college grounds; in fact, you have tasted the who leworm !” It is easy to see how this tendency could adversely affect a preachingministry. Spoo ner’s tend ency to transpose sounds occasionally caused him to saythe very opposite of what he intended. Once when he was performing a wedd ing,Reverend Spooner told the bridegroom, “It is kisstomary to cuss the bride.” Onanother occasion Spooner was preaching on P salm 23, and he assured his congrega-tion that “our Lord is a shoving leopard.” W hen you realize that Spooner’s ministrywas primarily among students, you have to give him high marks for fortitude. No communicator wants to mangle the message. But for Christiancommunicators the need to get the message right is elevated to the height of a sacredduty. Perhaps one can smile and pardon an affliction like W illiam Spoo ner’s, but hecertainly cannot tolerate any distortion of divine truth that results from traits such assloppy thinking, laz iness, carelessness, apathy, or indifference. M ore sinister yet isthe tendency to sidestep elements of truth or water down the message because of adesire to please people, a love of worldly praise, or a lack of holy courage. New M edia Opportunities If anything, the obligation to communicate the truth of the gospel clearlyand accurately weighs more heavily on our generation than on those who have gonebefore us, because our opportunities are so much greater. Luke 12:48 says, “Fromeveryo ne who has been given m uch shall much be required.” No previous generation has b een blessed with the means of masscommunication like ours. A hundred years ago, “Christian communication”consisted almost totally of preaching sermons and writing books. The only form ofmass com munication was the press. It never occurred to men like Charles Spurgeonthat the means would exist to transmit live sounds and images via satellite to everynation in the world. Spurgeon was the most listened-to preacher in history by theend of the nineteenth century. He preached to huge crowds in his church. By someestimates, four million people actually heard him preach over a remarkable lifetimeof ministry. But today, via radio, Chuck Swindoll preaches to mo re people than that ina typical week. J. Vernon M cGee (“he being dead yet speaketh”) has been broad-casting every weekday worldwide for decades. If you count the sermons that aretranslated and preached in other langua ges, M cGee has undo ubted ly preached tomore people than any other person in history—and he continues to do so from thegrave. The staff who produce o ur recordings and radio broadcasts like to remindme that the sun never sets on our ministry. At any given moment of the day or night,worldwide and around the clock, someone, somewhere is listening to a sermon Ipreached from our church pulp it. I canno t tell you ho w heavily that resp onsibilitycontinually weighs on me. I am constantly aware of the obligation to get themessage right, to speak it clearly, and to proclaim it with authority and conviction. New vistas in communications are constantly opening up. Futuregenerations will be able to download from a central databank video images andsounds of today’s preachers. If tomorrow’s Bible students want to know what James
A Cha llenge for Christian Co mmunicators 9Boice said about Romans 7, they will not have to get his commentary and look it up.If they prefer, they will plug into the digital communications superhighway and hearor view the original serm on as he preached it from the pulpit. Satellite technology, digital sound, high-resolution, wide-screen televisionare already available. Other high-tech advances suggest that a hundred years fromnow, com munications will have advanced at least as far beyond today’s technologyas our world has come since Spurgeon’s time. If the Lord delays His return, ourgreat-great grand childre n may have access to form s of communication that wecannot even imagine tod ay. M isused Opportunities This is a very ex citing age in which to live and minister. But rememberLuke 12:48 : “From eve ryone who has been given much shall much be required.”W e are stewards who will be held accountable for the opportunities with which theLord has blessed us. And if we are honest, I think we would have to confess that thechurch for the most part has simply squandered the rich opportunities moderncommunication technology has given. Our generation, with greater means than everto reach the world with the gospel, is actually losing ground spiritually. Thechurch’s influence is actually diminishing. Our message is becoming confused— andit is confusing. We are not speaking the truth plainly for the world to hear themessage. Part of the problem is that the church has failed to see the pitfalls inherentin modern communications. The new technology has brought much more than newopportunities; it has also brought a whole new set of challenges for those whose goalis to proclaim and teach the truth of God. Mo st of the new media are better suitedto entertainment. Neil Postman wrote an important book so me years ago , titled, AmusingOurselves to Death.1 Every Christian communicator should be familiar with thisbook. Postman is not a Christian. He teaches communications at New YorkUniversity. He writes from the perspec tive of a secular academ ician. H is boo k isan analysis of how modern com munications techno logy— and television inparticular—has dramatically altered our culture. Postman points out that prior to television, society relied on printed m ediafor most of its information. P eop le had to be literate— not merely able to read andwrite, but able to think logically, able to digest information m eaning fully, able toengage their minds in all kinds of ra tional processes. T he content of any form ofcommunication took priority over the form. Communicators were chiefly concernedwith substance, not style. The message had to have cog nitive co ntent. Postman refers to the age prior to the twentieth century as “the age ofexposition.” Human discourse in the age of expo sition was significantly different.The Lincoln-Douglas debates, for example, took place in rural co mmunities, in theopen air, often in sweltering heat, without the bene fit of public add ress system s. Yetthousands of people stood and listened for hours, carefully following the logic of thedebaters, listening intently to profound dialogue, hangin g on every word of twoeloquen t speakers. By contra st, today’s politicians compe te for “sound b ites.” Image is moreimportant than substance. America now selects presidential candidates the way 1 (New York: Penguin Books, 1986).
10 The Master’s Seminary JournalHollywood auditions acto rs. In fact, prior to Bill Clinton, the only p resident in fortyyears to com plete two terms was an actor (Ronald Reagan). A major shift took place, according to Postman, “Toward the end of thenineteenth century. . . . The Age of Exposition began to pass, and the early signs ofits replac eme nt could be discerned. Its replacement was to be the Age of ShowBusiness.” M edia-M odified Message Television has done more than anything else to define the age of showbusiness. W e tend to think of television as a significant tool in the advancement ofknowledge. Through the eye of the television camera, we can witness events on theother side of the glob e— or even on the mo on— as they are unfolding. W e see andhear things our ancesto rs could never have im agined . Surely we should be the best-informed an d mo st know ledge able genera tion in histo ry. But the effect of television has been precisely the opposite. Television hasnot made us more literate than our ancestors. Instead, it has flooded our minds withirrelevant and m eaning less inform ation. W e are experts in the trivia of pop culture,but are ignorant ab out serious ma tters. The publicity surrounding the O. J. Simpsonmurder trial in 1995 illustrates this. During Simpson’s preliminary hearing, a severecrisis over nuclear weapons was unfolding in Korea. The government of Haiti wasoverthrown by a coup and an entire nation thrown into chaos. Yassir Arafat returnedto the Gaza strip legally for the first time in decades, marking one of the mostsignificant modern political developm ents in the Middle East. The prime ministerof Nepal resigned. All those things of earth-shaking importance were happ ening inthe world, yet in spite of their significance, our local television newscasts devoted93 percent of their coverage to the Simpson hearing. Television is an entertainment medium. Too much television has fedpeo ple’s appetite for entertainment and lowered their tolerance for serio us thought.Now even the print media are following television’s lead, and form atting theircontent so that it is more entertaining than informative. In England, the tabloidshave all but driven serious newsp apers out of business. USA Today was founded toachieve a similar purp ose. It was consciously designed and formatted to reach theTV generation. T he stories are p urpo sely short. Only the main front-page articlesare carried over to ano ther pa ge. It is an entire newspaper of sound-bite information,formatted for a generatio n who se mind s have been shaped by television. Andcomm ercially it has been a tremend ous success. Book publishing is following suit. Look at a recent New York Timesbestseller list. Seven of the top books were cartoon collections—“Garfield,” “TheFar Side,” and similar fare. The top nonfictio n books included some pho tographicessays and works by Dave Barry, Rush Limbaugh, and Howard Stern. Only threeof the top books on the nonfiction list had any substantial non-humo rous content.W hat do es this say ab out our society? Television has no t only lowered tolerance for serious though t; it has alsodulled minds to reality. As the O. J. Simpson drama was unfolding, one networkfollowed the sensational freeway chase scene by helicopter but kept a small windowat the bottom of the screen where the NB A playoffs were being shown. The twoscenes were utterly incongruous. But even apart from the O. J. Simp son sto ry, netwo rk news is surreal. Theevening news is a performance, where suave anchormen coolly read brief reportsabout war, murder, crime, and natural disaster. Commercials that trivialize the
A Challenge for Christian Communicators 11stories and isolate them from any context punctuate these stories. Neil Postmanrecounts a news broadcast in which a Marine Corps general declared that globalnuclear war is inevitable. The next segment was a commercial for Burger King. W e are not expected to respond rationally. In Postman’s words, “Theviewers will not be caught contaminating their responses with a sense of reality, anymore than an audience at a play would go scurrying to call home because a characteron stage has said that a m urderer is loo se in the neighborho od.” 2 Television canno t demand a sensib le response. Peo ple tune in to beentertained, not to be challenged to think. If a program requires contemplation ordema nds too m uch use of the intellect, no one watches. Television has also lowered attention spans. After fifteen minutes, we geta break for commercials. One of the cable networks even has a program called“Short-Attention-Span Theater.” On every network, programs require a minimumintellectual involve ment. Mo st television dramas are designed for an intellectualcapacity of the average seven-year-old . The point is not to ch allenge viewers, butto amuse them. Neil Postman says we are amusing ourselves to death. He suggeststhat our fasc ination w ith television has sapped our culture’s intellectual and spiritualstamina. In fact, his most trenchant message is in a chapter on modern religion.Postman is Jewish, but he writes with piercing insight about the decline of preachingin the Christian church. He contrasts the ministries of Jonathan Edwards and G eorgeW hitefield with the preaching of today. T hose men relied o n dep th of content,profundity, logic, and knowledge of the Scriptures. Preaching today is superficialby comparison, with the em phasis on style and em otion. “Good ” preaching by themodern definition must above all be brief and amusing. Much that passes forpreaching these days is merely entertainment— devoid o f any exhortation, reproof,rebuke, or instruction (cf. 2 Tim 3:16, 4:2). The epitome of modern preaching is the slick evangelist who overstatesevery emotion, carries a microphone as he struts around the platform, and gets theaudience clapp ing, stom ping, and sho uting while he incites them into a frenzy. Themessage has no meat, but who cares as long as the response is enthusiastic? It is not only a few televangelists who fall into this category. Some of ourmost conservative, evangelical churches have allowed entertainment to replace theclear preaching of truth. Where preaching can be found, it is often devoid ofdoctrine, filled with clever anecdo tes and sound-bite witticisms. Biblical preachingwith real content is in a serious state of decline. Felt-Need Communication Christian publishing has du tifully followed the trend s. A certain publishingcompany has been in b usiness for nearly a hundred yea rs, pub lishing very solidChristian literature. But not too long ago they completely shut down their textbookdivision and announced that their new focus wo uld be on p ublishing books that couldeasily cross o ver into the secu lar market. T hey were loo king for self-help books,humor books, and other lightweight material with a minimum of biblical references. That is precisely the wrong direction to go . W e who have access to thedivinely inspired truth of God’s Wo rd should be confronting the apathy and 2 Cited in George Barna, Marketing the Church (Colorado Springs, Colo.: NavPress, 1988) 145(emphasis added).
12 The Master’s Seminary Journalfoolishness of a society that is addicted to entertainment and ignorant of truth. W eshould be sho uting truth from the roo ftops, no t adap ting our message to the shallowand insipid amusements that have left our society morally and intellectuallybankrupt. Living in an age that has abandoned the quest for truth, the church cannotafford to be vacillating. We minister to people in desperate need of a word from theLord, and we cannot soft-pedal our message or extenuate the go spel. If we makefriends with the wo rld, we set ourselves at enmity with Go d. If we trust world lydevices, we autom atically relinq uish the p ower of the H oly Sp irit. I am very concerned about the modern church’s fascination with marketingmetho dolo gy. I wrote a book, Ashamed of the Gospel,3 which analyzed and critiquedthe modern church’s tendency to rely on Madison Avenue technique. Too many aretrying to sell the gospel as a product rather than understanding that the go spel itselfis the power of God to chang e peop le’s hearts and minds. M y challenge to pastors and to writers is the same. The task of everyChristian communicator is the same. It is not only to entertain. It is not merely toamuse. It is not just to sell a product. It is certainly not to increase audienceapproval ratings. The task is to comm unicate God ’s truth as clearly, as effectively,and as accurately as possible. Often this is incompatible with marketing goals. Why? Have you evernoticed how many television commercials say nothing about the products theyadvertise? The typical jeans commercial shows a painful drama about the woes ofadolescence, but do es not mentio n jeans. A perfume ad is a collage of sensuousimages with no reference to the product. Beer comm ercials contain some of thefunniest material on television, but say very little about beer. Those com mercials are supposed to create a mood, to entertain, to appealto emotions—not to give info rmation. An obvious parallel exists between suchcom merc ials and some of the trends in Christian communications. Like thecomm ercials, many Christian communicators, whether preachers or writers, aim toset a mood, to evoke an emotional response, to entertain—but not necessarily tocommunicate anything of substance. Others, using the best techniques of modern marketing, purposely frame themessage so that it appeals to people’s desire for happiness, prosperity, and self-gratification. The goa l is to give p eop le what they want. Advocates of a m arket-driven com munications p hilosophy are quite cand id about this. Consumersatisfaction is the stated goal of the new philosophy. One key reso urce o n market-driven ministry says, “This is what marketing the [Christian message] is all about:providing our p roduct . . . as a solution to people’s felt need.” “Felt needs” thus determine the road map for the mode rn communicato r’smarketing plan. The idea is a basic marketing principle: you satisfy an existingdesire rather than trying to persuade people to buy som ething the y do not want.Such trends are sheer acc omm oda tion to a society bred by television. They followwhat is fashionable b ut reveal little conc ern for what is true. The y cater to the veryworst tendencies in modern society. They humor people whose first love isthemselves. They offer people God without any disruption of their selfish lifestyles. 3 (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1993).
A Challenge for Christian Communicators 13 Biblical Communication And if results are what you want, here is a sure way to get them. Pro misepeo ple a religion that will allow them to be co mfortable in their materialism and se lf-love, and they will respond in droves. B ut that is not effective Christian communica-tion. In fact, it is precisely the kind of thing Paul warned Timothy to avoid. Paul command ed Timo thy, “Preach the word; be ready in season and outof season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction” (2 Tim 4:2).The apostle included this prophetic warning: “The time will come when they will notendure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulatefor themse lves teac hers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away theirears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths” (4:3-4). The King James Versiontranslates the passage like this: “After their own lusts shall they heap to themselvesteachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ea rs from the truth.” Clearly Paul’s philosophy of ministry had no room for the give-people-what-they-want theory of modern marketing. He did not urge Timothy to conducta survey to find out what his people wanted. He did not suggest that he studydem ographic data or do research on the “felt needs” of his people. He commandedhim to preach the W ord— faithfully, reprovingly, patiently—and confro nt the spiritof the age head on. Notice that Paul said nothing to Timothy about how people might respond.He did not lecture Timothy on how large his church was, how much money it tookin, or how influential it was. He did not suggest that the world was sup posed torevere, esteem, or even accept Timothy. In fact, Paul said nothing whatever aboutexternal success. Paul’s emphasis was on faithfulness, not success. In stark contra st, mod ern marketing experts are telling Christian communi-cators to find out what people want, then do whatever is necessary to meet the mostpopular demands. The audience is “sovereign” in such matters. One best-sellingbook on Christian marketing actually states that the audience should determine howto frame a message: It is . . . critical that we keep in mind a fundamental principle of Christian communica- tion: the audience, not the message, is sovereign. If our advertising is going to stop people in the midst of hectic schedules and cause them to think about what we’re saying, our message has to be adapted to the needs of the audience. When we produce advertising that is based on the take-it-or-leave-it proposition, rather than on a sensitivity and response to people’s needs, people will invariably reject our message.4 W hat if the OT prophets had subscrib ed to such a philosophy? Jeremiah,for example, preached forty years without seeing any significant positive response.On the contrary, his countrymen threatened to kill him if he did not stop prophesying(Jer 11:19-23); his own family and friends plotted against him (12:6); he was notpermitted to marry, and so had to suffer agonizing loneliness (16:2); plots weredevised to kill him secretly (18:20-23); he was beaten and put in stocks (20:1-2); hewas spied on by friends who sought revenge (20:10); he was consumed with sorrowand shame— even having the day he was born cursed (20:14-18); and falsely accusedof being a traitor to the nation (37:13-14). Jeremiah was then beaten, thrown into adungeon, and starved many days (37:15-21). If an Ethiopian Gentile had notinterceded on his b ehalf, Jeremiah wou ld have died there. In the end , tradition says 4 Barna, Marketing the Church 145 (emphasis added).
14 The Master’s Seminary Journalhe was exiled to Egypt, where he was stoned to death by his own people. He hadvirtually no converts to show for a lifetime o f ministry. Supp ose Jerem iah had attended a m ode rn communications seminar andlearned a market-driven philosophy of communications. Do you think he wouldhave chang ed his style of confrontational ministry? Can you imagine him staging avariety show or using comedy to try to win people’s affections? He may havelearned to gather an appreciative crowd, but he certainly would not have had theministry to which God called him. Contrast Jeremiah’s commitment with the advice of a modern marketingexpert. An author who insists that the audience is sovereign suggests that the wisecommunicator ought to “shap e his communicatio ns according to [p eop le’s] needs inorder to rece ive the response he [seeks].” 5 The effect of that philosophy is app arent;Christian communicators are becoming people-pleasers—precisely what Scriptureforbids. The whole strategy is backward. The audience is not sovereign, God is.And His truth is unchanging. H is Wo rd is forever settled in heaven. Though newforms of media may come and go, the message itself cannot be changed. To changethe biblica l message in any way is exp ressly forbidden. We cannot truncate it, waterit down, sugar-coat it, or otherwise minimize the offense of the cross. Someone will inevitab ly point out that Pa ul said he bec ame all things to allmen that he m ight by all m eans win some. But Paul was no t proposing that themessage be changed or softened. Paul refused either to am end or to abridge hismessage to make pe ople happy. He wrote, “Am I now seeking the favor of men, orof God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I wouldnot be a bond-servant of Christ” (Gal 1:10, emphasis added). He was utterlyunwilling to try to remove the offense fro m the gospel (5:11). He did not usemethodology that catered to the lusts of his listene rs. He certainly did not follow thekind of pragmatic philosophy of mo dern, mark et-driven com municators. W hat made Paul effective was not marketing savvy, but a stubborn devotionto the truth. H e saw himself as Christ’s amb assad or, no t His press secretary. Truthwas something to be declared, not negotiated. Paul was not ashamed of the gospel(Rom 1:16). He willingly suffered for the truth’s sake (2 Cor 11:23-28). He did notback down in the face of opposition or rejection. He did not adjust the truth to makeunbelievers happy. He did not make friends with the enemies of God. Pau l’s message was always non-negotiable. In the same chapter where hespoke of becom ing all things to all men, Paul wrote, “I am under compulsion; forwoe is me if I do not preach the gospel” (1 Cor 9:16). His ministry was in respon seto a divine mandate. God had called him and commissioned him. Paul preached thegospel exactly as he had received it directly from the Lord, and he always deliveredthat message “as o f first impo rtance” (1 Cor 15:3). He was not a salesman ormarketer, but a divine emissary. He certainly was not “willing to shape hiscomm unications” to accommod ate his listeners or produce a desirable response. Thefact that he was stoned and left for dea d (Acts 14:9 ), beaten, imp risoned, and finallykilled for the truth’s sake ought to demonstrate that he did not ad apt the message tomake it pleasing to his hearers! And the personal suffering he bore be cause of hisministry did not indicate that something was wrong with his approach, but thateverything had been right! As Christian communicators we must com mit ourselves to being what God 5 Ibid., 33.
A Challenge for Christian Communicators 15has called us to be. We are not carnival barkers, used-car salesmen, or commercialpitchmen. We are Christ’s ambassadors (2 Cor 5:20). Knowing the terror of theLord (5:11), motivated b y the love of Christ (5:14), utterly made new by Him (5:17 ),we implore sinners to be reconciled to God (5:20). Use the Media Without Abusing the Message I believe we can be innovative and creative in how we present the gosp el,but we have to be careful that our methods harmonize with the profound spiritualtruth we are trying to co nvey. It is too easy to trivialize the sacred message. W emust make the message, not the medium, the heart of what we want to convey to theaudience. As Christian writers and communicators, I challenge you to forget what isfashionable and concern yourself with what is true. Do not be quick to emb race thetrends of modern marketing. Certainly we should use the new media. But ratherthan adapting our message to suit the medium, let’s use the medium to present themessage as clearly, as accurately, and as fully as possible. If we a re faithful in that,the soil God has prepared will bear fruit. His Word will not return void.