Image by sean dreilinger via Flickr
Have you ever thought about using more questions when you preach? The method of question & answer was a strategy often employed by speakers in ancient times. Consider the following quote from Quintilian – a first century communication expert:
What is more common than to ask or enquire? For both terms are used indifferently, although the one seems to imply a desire for knowledge, and the other a desire to prove something. But whichever terms we use, the thing which they represent admits a variety of figures (i.e. a literary/speaking device). We will begin with those which serve to increase the force and cogency of proof to which I assign the first place. A simple question may be illustrated by the line: “But who are you and where do you come from?” On the other hand, a question involves a figure, whenever it is empoyed not to get information, but to emphasise our point, as in the following examples: “What was that sword of yours doing Tubero, that was drawn on the field of Pharsalus?” and “How long, Catiline, will you abuse our patience?” and “Do you not see that your plots are all laid bare?” with the whole passage that follows. How much greater is the fire of his words… than if he had said, “You have abused our patience a long time,” and “Your plots are all laid bare.”
Next time you preach, think about how you could use questions to make what you say more powerful. In the next few entries under this heading I will include further quotes from the ancient world to stimulate you on this subject.
Posted by Bruce Lowe
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=dbc994e3-e27d-4160-abb3-2b345dc427ae)
RSS feed - Posts
Subscribe by Email
Thanks for the post.
I assume that you are talking about rhetorical questions in sermons. As I am still very new the the preaching thing, I am wondering what the balance between rhetorical questions (2nd person – direct impact on the hearer – “ do you hear Christ’s command here??) and 1st person (“we need to hear Christ’s command in this passage“)
Obviously using one to the exclusion of the other is overdoing it, but if the preacher must first see the impact upon themself before preaching to others, does the use of rhetorical question make the preacher seem more than authoritative, but overbearing?
Stephen,
there’s no reason why you can’t ask a rhetorical question in the first person – “So what’s this mean for us?” or “How then do we need to respond?” As you’ve implied, the first person plural is also good for identification sake. You can use the third person too – “So what is Jesus doing here?” I’m not sure the overbearing thing is really the issue. It just depends how it is done.
My advice would be to take a manuscript of a sermon and go back over it asking yourself where could I have added a rhetorical question or a string of questions for the sake of engaging the audience more – which is what the ancients seem to get at with this. When done well, many see this as an extension of a dialogue that you may have in the classroom… But more on this in a later blog.
Bruce,
Thanks for this, brother. I had a great spell using questions in Sunday School recently. I used them as sort of rhetorical steps in my outline, and they made for better transition points than simply introducing a new point de nouveau. (Stephen, I usually say something like “This aspect of the passage [or, 'This glimpse of God's sovereignty' or whatever the passage might provoke] might cause us to ask why God . I.e., third person plural. I personally think audiences respond better in my context to this than 2PP, unless I’m talking to a specific group–women, unbelievers, the elderly–of which I’m not apart.)
One master of this is Tim Keller. In every sermon he anticipates questions from unbelievers in his audience; he addresses at least one, based on the top 5-7 obstacles to Christianity in his context (NYC). At least one obstacle arises in every sermon, and he tries to address it in a clear way, often framing it something like, “Right now some of you are asking _____”. His book, The Reason for God, is essentially the product of this.