Communication in Church and Modern Culture
Dr Theo Pleizier
Protestant Theological University∗
October 29th, 2010 | Ede
Abstract
In my lecture I explore the conditions for religious
communication in a context in which Church and
culture seem to be moving in opposite directions.
Since I address this issue from a theological point of
view, I begin with providing some brief definitions of
the three central notions of communication, church,
and culture. Next, I contrast a few prevailing models
of the relationship between church and culture, and
in doing so the issue is put in terms of a quest for a
public theology.
The central part of the lecture consists of a twofold
argument. First, religious communication in the
Church has a kind of particularity that can neither
be reduced to cultural communication, nor be ap-
proached as completely sui generis by transcending
culture. This is illustrated by a typical Protestant vehi-
cle of communication, namely the sermon. Preaching
is characterised by an intertwinement of interhuman
communication and a divine-human dynamics that
is operative. It is an important instance of verbal
religious communication since it is believed that
preaching conveys the Word of God.
The second argument that follows, concerns the
specific nature of the religious communication in
preaching. Preaching is not about transmission of a
message, nor can it be explained sufficiently in terms
of meaning making. In hearing a sermon listeners are
transported in the world of faith, that both affirms
and challenges them. Understood this way, religious
communication creates church, a body of believers
that dwells in the world of faith. IN hearing a sermon
the listener’s faith is actualised.
In the closing section, I suggest some implica-
tions for public theology. Individual believers return
to their own fragmented cultural existence with the
experiences and impressions that have been gen-
erated in the course of the worship service, taking
religious communication out on the street, and thus
fulfilling their vocation as Christians in the ongoing
conversation between Church and culture.
1
Introduction
I feel very honoured to be speaking to you today
though I am very well aware that it’s a risky thing,
particularly for a protestant minister, to have the
final talk. It puts you all in the position of a listener
during a Sunday morning worship service: if the
sermon turns out to be too long or too boring, you’re
excused for falling asleep. Ominous as it may seem
already, having a protestant preacher as final speaker
at this conference, reveals another embarrassing
fact about this lecture: I am a theologian among
communication scholars. So my fate is doomed
once more, because the protestant preacher suffers
the charge that he talks too much about things that
are either irrelevant to his audience or way beyond
his expertise.
Perhaps my little problem today only reflects a
general problem of communication in church and
culture. Does the church talk too much about ir-
relevant things, or address issues that in a scientific
Modern society are way beyond its expertise? For-
tunately, the title given to me by the organisers of
this conference betrays a sobering realism: I am only
here to talk about communication in church and cul-
ture, not about communication between church and
culture, let alone to speak about communication
from church to culture.
What about communication?
Last week, one of the delegates to the Lausanne
congress of World Evangelism, Cape Town 2010,
posted the following question on twitter: ‘how do
we take the bible, its message & repackage it to
∗ Heidelberglaan
2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands,
ttjpleizier@pthu.nl, www.pthu.nl/ttjpleizier
communicate effectively in our media culture?’1 At
the same day I read an article in a Dutch newspaper
about an evangelist who has been working for years
in Amsterdam. In the article he admits that it is
really hard to reach what he said ‘common man’.2
Are we still entitled to speak as boldly as the African
delegate did, to communicate the message of the
bible effectively in our culture? In Modern, and I add,
Western culture, Christians are more modest to talk
about communication from church to culture.
Church and culture in a secular age
Charles Taylor addresses the relationship between
religion and Western Culture in terms of the weak-
ening of the conditions of religious belief. We have
moved from ‘a society where belief in God is unchal-
lenged and indeed, unproblematic, to one in which
it is understood to be one option among others, and
frequently not the easiest to embrace.’3 We live in a
Modern culture in which the conditions for religion
have become weak and in which the spiritual shape
is that of immanence rather than transcendence4 , a
closed perspective, as Taylor argues.5 So the humble
title given to me by the organising committee fits
the self-understanding of religious people in a Mod-
ern culture. We speak today about communication
in, in stead of between church and culture.
From this initial thoughts, two difficulties emerge.
First, how do we understand ‘church and culture’;
and second, what about ‘communication’? So first,
what do we mean by the the notions of church and
culture? Using Niebuhrs well-known taxonomy in
which he models the relationship between Christ
and culture, we could relate church and culture in
various ways, ranging from ‘church against culture’
(rejection of culture), ‘church of culture’ (assimila-
tion of culture) toward ‘church transforming culture’
(model of conversion).6 To some extent these mod-
els may be helpful. At least they show that the
relationship between church and culture is a com-
plicated one.
Yet we have to dig deeper, because the notions
church and culture are rather problematic in them-
selves. What is meant by church? If we talk about
a particular organisation of Christian believers, a so-
called denomination, then we have to talk about
churches. Or do we talk about church in a more
catholic, world-wide perspective? If church is under-
stood as an organised body of believers, then we
2
have to address the various ways in which commu-
nity formation takes shape in Christianity.7 Not to
mention the latest trends such as ‘emerging church’.
Similar questions can be posed for the idea of cul-
ture. Do we speak about culture or cultures? What
about local culture in relation to a global cultural
consciousness? Or ideologically speaking, do we
have to favour one culture at the expense of others?
Cultural relativism and its multicultural ideal receives
intense criticism these days. If we define culture as
an organisation of actions, rules for linguistic be-
haviour, sets of human artefacts and practices, what
about church? Church is also an organisation of
actions, and contains rules for linguistic behaviour.
Does that make church a kind of culture?8
I leave aside these complexities. My suggestion
this morning is to understand communication in
church and culture as representing two different
ways of how communication might work. So I
distinghuish between religious and cultural com-
munication. Religious communication concerns the
relationship with a transcendent and personal God.
This kind of communication happens in various re-
ligious practices. Cultural communication, on the
other hand, consists in, to borrow a phrase from
James Carey, ‘the construction and maintenance of
an ordered, meaningful cultural world’.9 According
to this view, communication is about construct-
ing meaning, creating shared beliefs, and building
society. Though Carey borrows his cultural view
1. http://twitter.com/lcwe/status/27842975564.
2. Reformatorisch Dagblad, p. 2: ‘‘Evangelist G. Baan: De gewone
man is lastig te bereiken’’. October 20, 2010.
3. Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, (Cambridge, Massachusetts,
and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press, 2007) p. 3.
4. Ibid. pp. 539--550.
5. Taylor talks about ‘closed world structures’, Ibid. pp. 551ff.
6. H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, (Harper & Row, 1975).
Also, D. A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited, 2nd edition. (Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008).
7. Such as episcopal, presbyterian, or congregational forma-
tions. Cf. Richard N. Longenecker, Community Formation: In the
Early Church and in the Church Today, (Hendrickson Publishers,
2002) pp. 179--238.
8. Cf. Gerben Heiting offered a hermeneutical model, in which
the praxis of Christian faith is brought into conversation with the
praxis of Modern culture. Gerben Heitink, Praktische theologie.
Geschiedenis - theorie - handelingsvelden, (Kampen: Kok, 1993).
9. James W. Carey, ‘A Cultural Approach to Communication’, in:
Communication as Culture. Essays on Media and Society, (London:
Routledge, 1989).
of communication from religion, its force lies be-
yond religion: in communication culture is created,
through communication it is maintained, ordered,
and transformed.10
In sum, the difference between church and culture
then lies in the way communication works. Follow-
ing Taylor’s analysis we can say that in Modern
soceity, religious communication and cultural com-
munication move in opposite directions. Cultural
communication has become both secular and plu-
ralistic, resulting in a marginalised and sometimes
suspect place for forms of religious communication.
On the other hand, to be church, the church has
to cherish a kind of communication that safeguards
the religious dimension of faith. Publications by
James Kennedy and Stanley Hauwerwas11 articulate
the need for a critical identity of the church as re-
ligious community. In our context the church is
concerned with its religious identity while culture
approaches religion with indifference or suspician.
In between the two domains of church and culture,
we may need a public theology. Not to reclaim
the public sphere, but to do justice to the fact
that the public sphere cannot function as a bearer
of religion anymore while individual believers and
Christian organisations continue to participate in
cultural communication. I return to this in the final
section of the lecture.
The idea of communication
A second diffulty is lurking in the background, namely
the very idea of communication itself. Until now I
have used a relatively naieve, problem-solving view
of communication: communication is full of prob-
lems, and communication studies must find solu-
tions. However, as John Durham Peters argues, too
easily we try to solve the problem of human commu-
nication in either technical or therapeutic terms. Our
technic means for communication multiply in order
te be able to communicate in the expanding global
village; while therapeutic approaches try to over-
come the breakdown of communication through
building sound relationships with the self and with
others. We are busy avoiding so-called ‘‘noise’’ in
communication, either by technical or therapeutic
means. In order that we may understand each
other. . .
Yet the real problem of communication is, as
Peters puts it, that ‘both the technical and the thera-
3
peutic views claim that the obstacles and troubles in
human contact can be solved.’ It’s much worse, he
continues, because problems in communication are
‘fundamentally intractable’. Communication is ‘not
a matter of improved wiring or freer self-disclosure
but involves a permanent kink in the human con-
dition.’ This shatters the dream of communication.
Though it may sound rather sceptic, I think Peters
offers a very liberating view on communication. It
makes true communication a gift of grace, and a
matter of faith rather than technique, because a
‘cheerful sense of the weirdness of all attempts at
communication offers a far saner way to think and
live.’12 Communication is not so much the transmis-
sion of ideas from one mind to another, but a risky
affair in which each turn in a conversation creates
possibilities for both intimate contact or severe mis-
understandings. Only ethics can save us here, when
speakers strive for justice in discourse, and hearers
take responsibility in hearing. It would be tempting
to dwell upon Peters ideas in more depth, but I
am going to talk with you about my central topic,
religious communication.
First, I focus upon the nature of religious commu-
nication to understand communication in church.
Second, I present a case- study of religious com-
munication, namely the practice of preaching in the
Protestant tradition. This second part of the lecture is
mainly derived from my doctoral work. My PhD the-
sis is based upon an empirical study in the religious
nature of listening to sermons.13 I present some of
the research results as a way of illustrating how reli-
gious communication works. In the closing section
I return to the question whether it is possible to
relate religious and cultural communication. Once
we have a clearer view on the nature of religious
communication, we are much better equipped to
reflect upon both the differences between commu-
nication in church and culture as well as upon the
challenges that emerge. So, then, what is the nature
of religious communication?
10. Carey also uses the term ‘ritual communication’.
11. James Kennedy, Stad op een berg. De publieke rol van
protestantse kerken, (Boekencentrum, 2010).
12. John Durham Peters, Speaking into the Air. A History of the Idea
of Communication, (University Of Chicago Press, 2001) pp. 22--31.
13. T. T. J. Pleizier, Religious Involvement in Hearing Sermons.
A Grounded Theory Study in Empirical Theology and Homiletics,
(Eburon Academic Publishers, 2010).
 The nature of religious communication
Many times, communication in church is misunder-
stood as just another instance of cultural commu-
nication. This misunderstanding becomes apparent
in discussions about the use of modern technology
in church services, in expectations concerning the
personality and communicative style of ministers,
or in rejecting oldfashioned forms such as sermons.
Opinions on these topics usually assume that com-
munication in church is basically the same as cultural
communication. Though there are indeed similari-
ties as I will point out later, the misunderstanding
to conflate religious and cultural communication
creates a smokescreen that hides what is really at
stake in communication in church. If communication
in church is put in the framework of technicalities
or adaption to Modern cultural standards, its reli-
gious core---namely communication between God
and human beings, experiencing salvation, or get-
ting religiously involved---becomes secondary. I am
going to turn the tables on this: formation of faith,
experiencing salvation, and doing religion should
play first fiddle in thinking about communication in
church. We must have a clear idea about the phe-
nomenon of religious communication before we get
to issues like language, forms, contemporaneity, etc.
Divine-human communication
As Gerrit Immink has argued, communication is a
key-concept in religion.14 For two reasons. First, re-
ligion is about communicating with God; secondly,
religion consists of a variety of interhuman commu-
nications. First, then, religion is about God. It is
about relating to God, getting to know God. Reli-
gion, therefore, is not so much a body of doctrines
or a set of rules for conduct though religion also
contains ethical precepts and doctrinal statements.
Religion is foremost the interaction with a transcen-
dent reality.15 In the Christian religion this extends
to the understanding of God. God is communicative
by his very nature, He exists in communion of Fa-
ther, Son and Spirit.16 God’s communicability is also
external, He reaches out towards human beings, in
order that they may get to know him, and celebrate
a relationship with the Most High.17
So the important difference between religious
communication and cultural communication lies in
the fact that religious communication entails com-
4
munication with a Divine person.18 Christians do not
only believe that God exists as an external reality,
but also that it is possible to interact with God. God
brought about the universe, not by some kind of
natural movement, as if the universe flowed from
his nature necessarily. The Christian story of creation
entails the conviction that the universe is produced
by a free act of the divine will. God communicated
the universe into being, as the first book of the Bible
poetically describes. God spoke, and speech is a free
act of a Personal being rather than a natural process.
So Christians believe God is a Person. We are persons
because God has endowed us with personal quali-
ties such as volition and cognition. Without going
into theological details here, the point is that if God
is a Person, than he is able to communicate. This
self-communication is called revelation.19
Religious practices
Revelation requires human understanding. God’s
self-communication is an event in which the human
mind becomes active. Thus, there is a sense in which
religious communication is sui generis: it constitutes
a category of its own and is irreducable to social
interactions. It has a transcending quality.20 We are
capable of communicating with God because we
are created as spiritual beings. The human mind
is actively involved, in a similar way when human
beings interact. Religious communication, in the
Christian conception, then, is the contact between
14. F. G. Immink, Faith. A Practical Theological Reconstruction,
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005) pp. 119-137.
15. See also various contemporary sociological approaches to
religion, Martin Riesebrodt, Cultus und Heilsversprechen. Eine
Theorie der Religionen, (München: C.H. Beck, 2007); Rodney Stark
and Roger Finke, Acts of Faith. Explaining the Human Side of
Religion, (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California
Press, 2000).
16. Cf. N.W. Den Bok, Communicating the Most High, (Brepols,
1996).
17. Cf. Markus Piennisch, Kommunikation und Gottesdienst.
Grundlinien göttlicher Zuwendung in Bibel und Verkündigung,
(Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hansler-Verlag, 1995) pp. 47--85.
18. Immink, Faith pp. 123--127.
19. Cf. Nicholas Wolterstorff, Divine discourse. Philosophical
reflections on the claim that God speaks, (Cambridge: University
Press, 1995).
20. On divine transcendence, see Arjan Markus, Beyond Finitude.
God’s Transcendence and the Meaning of Life, (Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang, 2004).
God’s Spirit and the human mind. This makes divine-
human communication a spiritual practice.
Let me give three examples of such spiritual prac-
tices. (1) When believers are praying, they are ex-
ercising their minds in order to focus upon God.
Praying is a primary form of religious communica-
tion, because the human mind reflects upon God’s
character, acknowledges His goodness, trusts in His
faithfulness, and calls upon His mercy. (2) Similarly,
in hearing a sermon, the human mind opens up to
receive the promises of God, or divine directions for
life, and the explanation of the Scriptures carries the
load of being God’s Word. So in religion there is both
talking and listening, praying and hearing the Word.
(3) A third would be a pastoral conversation between
two believers who talk about God and the life of faith
in the expectation that the Third is present in their
conversation.21 These examples indicate the three
basic shapes of religious communication: speaking
to God, listening to God, having a conversation in
which God’s active existence is acknowledged.
In protestant theology, faith plays a crucial role
in understanding how communication with God
works. It is the way how human beings are able
to have communion with God.22 In practicing faith,
human beings acquire an orientation of God, en in
faith the promises of God are received --- to borrow a
classic Reformed phrase. Faith is a complex interplay
of human emotions, cognitions, processes of atten-
tion, attitudes, social relationships, and motivations
for conduct. So besides the fact that religion is about
God, it also consists of a whole range of interhu-
man communications. For instance, personal prayer
is surrounded by all sorts of psychological aspects,
such as emotions, speculations, projections, long-
ings, and disappointments. Because of and in the
midst of these anthropological elements a human
being is capable of exercising faith. They do not
reduce prayer to a psychological phenomenon. But
speaking to God in prayer, hearing the Word, and
having a conversation with a fellow human being en-
tails a complex anthropological system of language,
psychological functioning of the mind, and social
interactions. Indeed, language and personality do
count. Though religious communication has a tran-
scending dimension, it is not entirely a category of
its own. In thousand ways it is embedded in human
interactions.
5
Hearing sermons
Let’s look more closely what religious communica-
tion means in the case of preaching. In the protestant
view on preaching, the monologue of the preacher
is believed to convey the Word of God. Some-
how the preacher’s words are heard as being God’s
word, at least as participating in God’s Word, his
self-revelation. This makes the sermon a vehicle
for communication with God. The sermon is about
God’s actions in the past, in retelling the story of
Christ’s death and resurrection. The sermon also at-
tempts to understand our current situation in terms
of God’s presence, dealing with questions like: what
has my life in the here and now to do with God? The
sermon also carries the load of the future, in address-
ing the coming Kingdom of God and speaking about
forgiveness and eternal life. So, there is a dynamic at
work in preaching, in which God addresses us in our
here and now existence in different ways.23
The listener as subject of communication
In preaching everything is communication. The
voice of the preacher, tone, pitch, clarity, pace, the
structure of the sermon, use of language. Interest-
ingly, though, in order to find out how preaching
is a spiritual practice in the sense I talked about it
earlier, namely the functioning of the human mind
in relation to God, we have to look at the listeners
rather than to the preacher. Thus in order to find
out how preaching works as religious communica-
tion, we have to focus upon the listener as believing
subject. Faith is through hearing, St. Paul reminds
us of (Rom. 10:17). To consider preaching as religious
communication, namely communion with God or
contact with God, we must turn to the listener.24
Preaching theories have usually thought about
the listener in terms of transmission theory, because
a preacher has to bring across a message. However,
as you all know better than I do, communication is
not as simple as sending a package of information to
a receiver, nor are listeners passive receivers of bits
21. Cf. E. S. Klein Kranenburg, Trialoog. De Derde in het pastorale
gesprek, (Boekencentrum, 1990).
22. Immink, Faith pp. 39--40.
23. For a more detailed account, see Pleizier, Religious Involve-
ment in Hearing Sermons Ch. 2 and 3.
24. Recent developments in homiletics, the science of preaching,
call for a ‘turn to the listener’. Cf. Ibid. pp. 7--12.
of information. In the sixties of the previous century
Raymond Bauer coined the concept of the ‘obstinate
audience’.25 Listeners are not mere passive objects
but are emotionally and cognitively involved in such
a way that they are able to resist messages, that they
focus their attention, and that they filter information
through complex psychological processes of selec-
tion. When we deal with preaching as religious com-
munication, the perspective of transmission is not
very helpful either, because we can hardly talk about
God being someone who sends pieces of informa-
tion to human beings. The Scriptures are believed
to be divine discourse26 , not a book with religious
information. Hence, transmission falls short, both
theologically and communicatively.
Another important theory in preaching under-
stands listening from the perspective of the for-
mation of meaning. Recent trends in homiletics
describe the sermon as an open piece of art, follow-
ing postmodern aesthetic theories. The perspective
of the artist disappears behind the autonomy of the
listener or viewer. In terms of preaching, the sermon
is a form of art that is open for interpration on the
part of the hearer. Meaning is in the ear of the
listener.27 Is it possible to retain the idea of religious
communication in such a framework? Is it possible
to experience a sermon as comforting or challeng-
ing Word of God, when meaning is located in the
hearer? I don’t think so, because the centrality of the
autonomy of the hearer neglects the ‘‘otherness’’
that is required in communication.
Dwelling in the world of faith
In my own research I have come up with another
model for the religious dimension in hearing ser-
mons. Hearing a sermon is neither an autonomous
process of meaningmaking by the listener nor the
reception of a message that is being transported
from the mind of the preacher to the listener. In
hearing a sermon a listener dwells in the world of
faith. In the sermon a narrative world is created by
a network of references to the text of the Scriptures,
to realities that concern the gospel of Christ such as
forgiveness and renewal, and to the real life of the
listeners. These three, the Bible, the gospel, and the
actual life of the believers, make up a world in which
the listener is invited to participate. Communication
in church then is ‘being in the world of faith’. Be-
ing in a world, that is projected in the performance
6
of the preacher28 , but that also represents realities
that transcend the immanent scheme of the secular
age in which we live our everyday lifes. In terms
of communication we have to incorporate the in-
sights from transportation theories in our theories
of preaching.29
Talking to listeners, analysing these interviews,
and conceptualising many incidents on sermon re-
ception, brings to the fore that listeners are not so
much busy with evaluating or interpreting a ser-
mon, but they are trying to be part of the world
of faith that is projected in the sermon. Of course,
they evaluate sermons, they engage in interpreta-
tive processes. But beyond that, they experience,
perceive, and identify with the sermon in terms of
their faith in God. Does it grow my faith? Does it
gives me insights to entertain so that I may live a
more Christian life? Or what to think of a listener who
said: I liked being here today, but don’t ask what the
sermon was about. Indeed. Listeners do not come to
church to give an accurate summary of the sermon
afterwards. They come to church in order to be in
an environment that invites them to entertain their
faith. To get religiously involved. Therefore, ser-
25. Raymond A. Bauer, ‘The Obstinate Audience. The Influence
Process from the Point of View of Social Communication’, in:
Wilbur Schramm and Donald F. Roberts, editors, The Process
and Effects of Mass Communication. Revised Edition, (Chicago:
University of Illinois Press, 1972). Cf. also Denis McQuail, Audience
Analysis, (London: Sage Publications, 1997); Frank A. Biocca,
‘Opposing Conceptions of the Audience. The Active and Passive
Hemispheres of Mass Communication Theory’, Communication
Yearbook. An Annual Review, 1 (1988):11.
26. Wolterstorff, Divine discourse.
27. Cf. influential reader-reponse theories, Stanley Fish, Is There
a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretative Communi-
ties, (London: Harvard University Press, 1980). In homiletics,
see the hermeneutical or postmodern versions of Ingo Reuter,
Predigt Verstehen. Grundlagen einer homiletischen Hermeneutik,
Volume 17, Arbeiten zur Praktischen Theologie, (Leipzig: Evange-
lische Verlagsanstalt, 2000); Erich Garhammer and Heinz-Günther
Schöttler, editors, Predigt als offenes Kunstwerk. Homiletik und
Rezeptionsästhetik, (München: Don Bosco, 1998).
28. For world projection and aesthetic theory, see Nicholas
Wolterstorff, Works and Worlds of Art, (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1980).
29. For transportation theory, see e.g. Richard J. Gerrig, Experi-
encing Narrative Worlds, (Yale University Press, 1993); Melanie C.
Green, ‘Transportation Theory’, in: The International Encyclopedia
of Communication, (Blackwell, 2008); Melanie C. Green, Timothy C.
Brock and Geoff F. Kaufman, ‘Understanding Media Enjoyment.
The Role of Transportation Into Narrative Worlds’, Communication
Theory, 14 (2004):4.
mon listening has an intrinsic value: the pleasure of
hearing a sermon consists in the pleasure of hearing
about God, this includes being challenged in terms
of this earthly life and being lifted up towards the
coming Kingdom of Christ.30 Listening is religion.
This makes communication in church true religious
communication: being transported into the world of
faith. The sermon is not just an element in a worship
service, hearing a sermon is worship. Therefore,
church is created in communication. Participating
in the Christian religion is not just doing Christian
things. It is participating in communicative practices
that embody the communication between God and
the community of faith.
Well, I am aware of all kinds of problems that sur-
round preaching these days. Problems that concern
relevancy; some even talk about a crisis of preach-
ing. I think we have to consider these problems
and crises carefully. But solutions do not come from
technical or therapeutic means, as Peters has re-
minded us. We have to put all sorts of problems in
terms of the unique and fragile nature of religious
communication. How can participants in worship
and preaching, experience religion? Because that’s
what they come for, and that’s what makes religious
communication a distinct phenomenon.
Beyond worship: from religious to cultural
communication
I am moving towards a conclusion for this morn-
ing. What does this approach to religious com-
munication entail for communication in Modern
culture? Though they are moving apart in our West-
ern context, religious communication and cultural
communication are never completely separated. I
will illustrate this in two ways. First, a worship
service has a public dimension. With online record-
ings of complete worship-services, a sermon can be
heard without actually being in church, of weeks
later. It can also be heard by those who are not
interested in religious communication at all, but
consider sermons instances of cultural communica-
tion. The Synod of the Reformed Congregations (de
Gereformeerde Gemeenten) recently discussed the
problem whether preachers must be careful what to
say in the pulpit.31 This is an instance of overlapping
discourses, religious and cultural communcation are
never separated. So preacher do have to be aware
7
that what they say do not only have religious signif-
icance but has a cultural bearing as well. In order
to handle this, the church in general and preachers
in particular need a public theology that helps to
be careful about words without loosing the most
important thing in church, namely religion. Careful
distinctions between sin and cultural phenomena,
require careful language. A public theology also has
an ethical dimension, concerning justice and care in
discourse.
A second example concerns my own church. I am
a minister in a small rural village. Every Sunday we
have two services, with attendance figures between
90 and 130. We worship and we participate in
the event of preaching. Our faith is strengtened,
challenged, renewed or celebrated. Than we return
home, waiting for the next day at work and at school.
We fear the hospital or a funeral that is coming up,
we prepare for a new exciting business deal or we
think ahead about a new long week of loneliness.
We participate in all sorts of cultural communication,
from doing business to watching television. In this
secular age, hardly any of us participates in religious
communications outside specific church activities.
While the conditions of relious belief have vanished,
the situations in which religion can be entertained
outside church are very rare indeed. We therefore
need a public theology. In order to know how to
think and act Christianly. To be able to take a stand in
a public debate that takes place on a birthday party,
or to be willing to go an extra mile if necessary. In
order to acquire such a public theology that helps us
all to participate fully in Modern culture, the church
has to safeguard its proper identity, that what we
find nowhere else, religious communication.
If the church looses the practices through which
religious communication can flourish, all there is
left is cultural communication. In that sense we
have lost ‘being church’. In fact, the secular age
would be the end of history. There is only one tiny
comfort: you don’t need a theologian to speak about
communication anymore.
30. Pleizier, Religious Involvement in Hearing Sermons Ch. 7 and
Ch. 10.
31. Reformatorisch Dagblad, p. 2: 1 ‘‘Synode GG: Bezinning nodig
op karakter eredienst’’. October 14, 2010.
Bibliography Peters, John Durham, Speaking into the Air. A History of
the Idea of Communication, (University Of Chicago
Bauer, Raymond A., ‘The Obstinate Audience. The In- Press, 2001).
fluence Process from the Point of View of Social Piennisch, Markus, Kommunikation und Gottesdienst.
Communication’, in: Schramm, Wilbur and Roberts, Grundlinien göttlicher Zuwendung in Bibel und
Donald F., editors, The Process and Effects of Mass Verkündigung, (Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hansler-
Communication. Revised Edition, (Chicago: Univer- Verlag, 1995).
sity of Illinois Press, 1972), 326--346.
Pleizier, T. T. J., Religious Involvement in Hearing Sermons.
Biocca, Frank A., ‘Opposing Conceptions of the Audience. A Grounded Theory Study in Empirical Theology and
The Active and Passive Hemispheres of Mass Com- Homiletics, (Eburon Academic Publishers, 2010).
munication Theory’, Communication Yearbook. An
Reuter, Ingo, Predigt Verstehen. Grundlagen einer homiletis-
Annual Review, 1 (1988):11, 51--80.
chen Hermeneutik, Volume 17, Arbeiten zur Prak-
Carey, James W., ‘A Cultural Approach to Communication’, tischen Theologie, (Leipzig: Evangelische Ver-
in: Communication as Culture. Essays on Media and lagsanstalt, 2000).
Society, (London: Routledge, 1989), 13--36.
Riesebrodt, Martin, Cultus und Heilsversprechen. Eine Theo-
Carson, D. A., Christ and Culture Revisited, 2nd edition. (Wm. rie der Religionen, (München: C.H. Beck, 2007).
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008).
Stark, Rodney and Finke, Roger, Acts of Faith. Explaining
Den Bok, N.W., Communicating the Most High, (Brepols, the Human Side of Religion, (Berkeley, Los Angeles,
1996). London: University of California Press, 2000).
Fish, Stanley, Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority Taylor, Charles, A Secular Age, (Cambridge, Massachusetts,
of Interpretative Communities, (London: Harvard and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press, 1980). University Press, 2007).
Garhammer, Erich and Schöttler, Heinz-Günther, editors, Wolterstorff, Nicholas, Works and Worlds of Art, (Oxford:
Predigt als offenes Kunstwerk. Homiletik und Rezep- Clarendon Press, 1980).
tionsästhetik, (München: Don Bosco, 1998).
Wolterstorff, Nicholas, Divine discourse. Philosophical re-
Gerrig, Richard J., Experiencing Narrative Worlds, (Yale Uni- flections on the claim that God speaks, (Cambridge:
versity Press, 1993). University Press, 1995).
Green, Melanie C., ‘Transportation Theory’, in: The Interna-
tional Encyclopedia of Communication, (Blackwell,
2008).
Green, Melanie C., Brock, Timothy C. and Kaufman, Ge-
off F., ‘Understanding Media Enjoyment. The Role
of Transportation Into Narrative Worlds’, Communi-
cation Theory, 14 (2004):4, 311--327.
Heitink, Gerben, Praktische theologie. Geschiedenis - theorie
- handelingsvelden, (Kampen: Kok, 1993).
Immink, F. G., Faith. A Practical Theological Reconstruction,
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).
Kennedy, James, Stad op een berg. De publieke rol van
protestantse kerken, (Boekencentrum, 2010).
Klein Kranenburg, E. S., Trialoog. De Derde in het pastorale
gesprek, (Boekencentrum, 1990).
Longenecker, Richard N., Community Formation: In the
Early Church and in the Church Today, (Hendrickson
Publishers, 2002).
Markus, Arjan, Beyond Finitude. God’s Transcendence and
the Meaning of Life, (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang,
2004).
McQuail, Denis, Audience Analysis, (London: Sage Publica-
tions, 1997).
Niebuhr, H. Richard, Christ and Culture, (Harper & Row,
1975).