This is Part 2 of my interview with Larry Witham, author of A City Upon a Hill: How Sermons Changed the Course of American History. Today, we talk about how preaching has developed in the United States over the centuries. For Part 1 of my interview, click here. For my review of Witham’s book, click here.
Trevin Wax: What style of preaching did America’s earliest preachers utilize and how did that style shape the development of preaching in the following centuries?
Larry Witham: The first English preachers arrived on America shores with two styles of preaching, one associated with Anglicans and moderate Presbyterian and the other with strict Puritans. The first type of preaching goes back to Greek and Roman oratory, is seen in St. Augustine, and in the Scottish ideas of Christian rhetoric and “eloquence.” This kind of sermon is designed to persuade: it is an edifying argument, with a particular kind of format of opening, argument, evidence, and conclusion.
The second kind of sermon came with the Puritans, and it is called “plain style.” In this, the preacher takes a Bible text, probes it for proper doctrine, and then applies the doctrine to life. This is a very formal, even scholastic, type of preaching, but was perhaps the most widespread in the first century of American experience.
An early Puritan instruction book on this was called The Arte of Prophesy, but the title actually shows us the two basic kinds of preaching. One is the “art” of persuasive oratory. The other is like “prophesy” – the preacher is a channel for God supernatural message, found in the sacred text, often line by line.
Trevin Wax: You write of the importance of the “jeremiad” type of sermon. What is the “jeremiad” and how did it influence American life?
The “jeremiad” is a term coined by modern historians based on the biblical story of the prophet Jeremiah, who constantly warned the Hebrews that they would be punished if they continued their evil ways, and be rewarded for repentance and revival.
When this idea was taken up by the Puritans, who added the idea of a “covenant” between the people and God, the daily events of the American experience became biblical signs of God’s displeasure or blessing. His pleasure was proved by successful colonization and winning the Revolution, for example, but his displeasure was also proved by Indian wars, famines, plague, and earthquakes. At such times, preachers called for repentance and revival. This is the origin of the common American practice of prayer and fast days, often called by political leaders.
The American past is filled with jeremiad sermons. Indeed, Civil War sermons, both North and South, usually pointed to battlefield victories or defeats as evidence of God’s pleasure or judgment on the citizenry’s piety or lack of faith and morals.
Trevin Wax: During the time of the Civil War, both sides claimed religious reasons for fighting. How did preaching influence the direction of the War and how did the outcome of the war influence preaching in the following decades?
Larry Witham: It is hard for us to imagine such a different time in the past, but the first preaching regarding the split of North and South did not address slavery – it was about the God-given rights of states, or the God-ordained national government in Washington.
As battles flared, the South at first winning (and North turning that tide later), preachers on each side tried to explain those outcomes. At first, the South preached that God proved their cause true and just. Then, the North began to preach that the fight had to be over the morality of slavery, or God would not bring victory. The South responded by defending slavery on biblical and moral grounds. In all of this, the jeremiad played an important role.
Up to this time, the core theology of all preaching was based on belief that God takes sides and hands out clear outcomes based on divine control of events. However, this became a great conundrum – even a theological crisis – for American preachers, especially in the South, which had to understand why it lost. The result, some historians argue, was a new kind of preaching that said God brings suffering to his elect for some greater purpose (the Lost Cause becomes the Crucifixion, in other words).
Either way, American preaching, it seems, began to accept the “mystery” of God’s work in the world. We may trust that God is in control, but can’t really say which side he is on.
The other innovation was to say that God gave history and nature a certain degree of freedom to go its own way – in other words, God is not entirely in control of the details. This kind of theology was reinforced by the Civil War era revolutions in natural science, including the new theory of evolution.
Trevin Wax: In what ways has preaching developed since the 1950’s?
Larry Witham: The 1950s was a watershed period: There was economic prosperity, a celebration of “democratic faiths” – Protestant, Catholic, Jew — a boom in media technology (especially television), a tension between individualism and conformity, and above all a Cold War way of thinking.
In some religious traditions (speaking to our middle class), the preaching tried to be psychologically helpful, or to bolster traditionalism – such as preaching about church calendars, saints, and liturgical practices.
From war-torn Europe came the idea of “biblical preaching” – a proclamation of the Christ story, a salvation event that is above the conflicted world.
In contrast, popular evangelism took off by proclaiming a “moment of decision” in accepting Christ (Billy Graham), but this preaching also focused on particular modern sins: drinking, smoking, promiscuity and all the rest.
The 50s gave us the TV preacher celebrity, which we have today in great abundance.
Finally, American preaching responded to a sense of a divided world – communism versus democracy – and so it was both patriotic and you might say “dualistic” rhetoric: America is good and therefore its enemies must be evil. This is the origin of the “old Christian right,” which passed on its rhetorical style to movements seen today. In all, American culture seems to like a dualistic sermon, and the dualism speaks to conservatives and liberals alike.
