Taken from To Preach Or Not To Preach by David C. Norrington, pages 44-48.
Rhetoric
Through the classical period the theory and practice of rhetoric did not change greatly and what follows is a brief outline of its main features in the Greco-Roman world.7
Rhetoric was particularly the province of the rich and powerful and was the most prestigious of all forms of learning. Furthermore, eloquence had become the principal aim of education; acquiring the art of speaking was perceived as the route not only to culture but also to thinking and acting correctly, since wisdom and eloquence (and social status) were believed to be intimately connected.8 Acquiring rhetorical competence was a lengthy process and a hallmark of a higher education. It required the mastery of an elaborate technique dominated by the traditions of the past and centered on invention and arrangement of material, style, purity of language, memory, delivery, voice modulation and posture. The principal medium of rhetorical expression was the public speech or lecture and capable exponents of the rhetorical arts looked forward to a distinguished career, fame, wealth, power over others and the admiration of the populace.9
The Greeks were intoxicated by rhetoric and the Romans later fell under a similar spell. Roman rhetoric was an adaptation of the Greek form with perhaps less emphasis on persuasion and more on style and artistic effect.10
Rhetorical displays ranked with theatrical performances as great spectacles of entertainment—even if the audience could not understand the language of the speaker—for a fine rhetorical display was regarded as a true work of art (Philostratus Vit Soph 491, 589).11 These performances could excite the same kind of enthusiasm as that generated by popular entertainers in our own day.
Not only was rhetoric popular, it had real merits. It offered a clear-cut framework within which practitioners could express themselves coherently and fluently. As these techniques were widely appreciated, rhetoric offered a common standard throughout the Greco-Roman world which all could appreciate, irrespective of education.12 It demanded some thought, logical ingenuity and psychological observation.13 Rhetoric also exercised a liberalizing influence. Rhetoricians were prone to argue for and against, with often the same rhetorician arguing both sides of a disputed case in quick succession. This demonstrated that there were two sides to each issue and that even the worst examples were entitled to a hearing.14 Lastly, as G.A. Kennedy points out:
In political debate there was in the best periods of ancient history a willingness to entertain the opinions of others when expounded with rhetorical effectiveness. At the very least rhetoric imparted vigor to ancient intellectual life; it has long been noted that oratory flourished most in the democracies and least under tyranny.15
For many, the virtues of rhetoric were self-evident and no alternative foundation for education was seriously considered.16
The problems with rhetoric surfaced early on and became increasingly severe with the passage of time. Indeed, when rhetorical studies dominated the timetable the disadvantages were formidable. First, style and form took precedence over substance to the extend that, for many listeners, content was immaterial.17 Second, rhetoric was not primarily a method of instruction, encouraging a disinterested analysis of data, but rather a technique of persuasion more akin to seduction than ratiocination. As its emotional content was often high and its subject matter distorted, audiences were frequently swayed by specious argument. The rhetorician himself was likely to be swayed by his own speech even more than his audience.18 Third, as the influence of rhetorical traditions gained in strength, rhetoric gradually discouraged independent thinking and intellectual curiosity, and in their place emphasized conventional content.19 Fourth, in spite of a concern for honesty in rhetorical theory, rhetoric failed to encourage a love of truth. For many rhetoricians, since content was secondary to victory in argument, truth was almost irrelevant.20 Fifth, the rhetorician like any stage performer, was concerned, at least in part, to display his genius and to receive the acclaim of the audience.21 Such a method inevitably fostered egotism and arrogance (Philostratus Vit Soph 616). This was particularly the case in the unreal atmosphere of the schools where declaimers had difficulty at times in preserving their own mental balance.22 The judgment of Sir William Tarn that rhetoric 'debased everything it touched' is perhaps not too severe, particularly of rhetoric during the latter days of the empire, the period the sermon came to prominence within the church.23
The Influence of Rhetoric in the Church
A hundred years ago [sic], Edwin Hatch argued that the extensive use of the sermon arose under the influence of Greek rhetoric brought into the church by those Christians who had been trained in rhetoric, and perhaps even taught rhetoric themselves—before or after conversion—and who subsequently achieved influence in the church. Many of the church's fathers—Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius and Augustine among them—had been professional rhetoricians before becoming Christians.24 Moreover, as rhetoric was the mainstay of the educational system, the Christian community had little choice but to recognize it and respond to it in one way or another.25 But the Christian use of speeches and rhetorical forms did not arise form copying the activities of pagan religion. There were no 'sermons' in Greco-Roman religion as, for the most part, it knew little dogma and so required little use of formal teaching. The church, on the other hand, valued dogma and used formal teaching methods. It was here that rhetoric made its impact. The christian rhetorician would expound the sacred text of Scripture, just as the sophist would supply an exegesis of the near-sacred text of Homer, although the Christian aimed to teach the congregation, including the simple, and to change lives, rather than to concentrate on the rhetorical arts.26 Simplicity of style was achieved on occasion as in the homilies of the 4th century27 but, more often than not, although the content was more or less Christian the style was Greek. Often indeed the content was mixed, for pagan ideas were corrupting Christian thought even by 100AD, as can be seen from the writings of Clement of Rome; the influence of techniques current in the schools is clearly visible in Augustine's biblical exegesis.28 As the majority of great Christian leaders had received a better training in rhetoric than philosophy,29 the finer points of philosophical debate frequently eluded them, with the result that pagan philosophical/theological30 ideas were unwittingly incorporated into the corpus of Christian doctrine even by those who, like Tertullian, claimed to despise pagan philosophy.31 This tendency should not be confused with the deliberate use of pagan philosophy by Christians as a weapon against their opponents. The problem of inadvertently utilizing non-Christian ideas and thought forms in the explication of Christian faith is a perennial one.
It may be objected that Greek rhetoric entered the church at least as early as the apostle Paul and that later developments stem from his contribution. Paul's precise knowledge and use of rhetoric are still disputed, but his epistles reveal a considerable understanding of the rhetorical conventions taught in the schools.32 Whatever the case may have been, rhetoric did not dominate Paul's presentation of the gospel in substance or form, and he rejected the cultural values associated with rhetoric (1 Cor. 1:10-2:5; 1 Thess. 2:1-12).33 Moreover, although Paul relied on public speaking to a great extent in introducing the gospel to others, there is no reason to suppose that he was limited to this one method. As well as the home, the workshop and other locations may have been used for missionary activity among small groups or with individuals, using a variety of means. But it should be noted that there was often no sharp distinction between the home and the workplace.34 Later, we shall see that Paul did not advocate the use of public speaking as a means to Christian growth. The church's use of rhetoric does not have its origin in the work of Paul.
When men such as Origen, John Chrysostom and Augustine made extensive use of the sermon, this was seen not as a distortion of New Testament methods but as a revival of the noble art of preaching as practiced by Paul. Many since have viewed preaching as re-awakening of spiritual power. But the use of Greco-Roman rhetoric depended for success entirely upon the skills and self-confidence of the individual rhetorician (to whom went the acclaim).35; it involved forms designed to entertain and display genius rather than instruct or develop talents in others; it had little interest in the spiritual welfare of the hearers,36 and it seldom required action on their part.37 Such a method was not designed to foster Christian virtues or intellectual maturity, and there is little evidence to suggest that it can do so.38 It seems that even the sermons of Augustine, delivered to his congregation at Hippo, failed to develop critical skills or independent judgment and were of questionable value in the development of spirituality.39 Furthermore, as we shall see, the use of the sermon even without rhetorical coloring distorted New Testament practice considerably. The belief that methods into Christianity are unimportant, eloquently summed up in the assertion of Adolf Harnack that 'a living faith needs no special methods',40 may sound deeply spiritual but is a distortion of the teaching of both testaments and certainly of the work of Paul, who was concerned with method as well as content—as we may see, for example, in his discussion of rhetoric, his practice of evangelism and his attitude to money and gifts.41
From a Christian standpoint, the pagan origins of rhetoric do not pose a problem. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the church embracing ideas from the surrounding culture. The Old Testament supplies several cases where the results of pagan influences were beneficial such as the appointment of judges to assist Moses (Exod. 18:13-26), the (possible) use of ancient Near Eastern concept of wisdom and the design of the Tabernacle.42 More frequently, however, syncretism and acculturation were harmful both to Israel and the church. This was because they led to the absorption of ideas and practices inimical to biblical faith and frequently to subsequent contempt for that faith.43 So it was with rhetoric, with its insatiable demand for speeches as the medium for its artistic expression and its unavoidable confrontation with the more personal methods of the New Testament.