Being There Even When You Are Not: Presence in Distance Preaching

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I thought this was a thoughtful and well-articulated discussion of the role of classical rhetoric in emerging discussions related to virtual church. While the article spends more time in building its case for the importance of ethos in pastoral presence (very important) than it does in actually applying the discussion to digital church, the argument presented in vital and necessary. The essay demonstrates a keen awareness of and insight to rhetoric and how it plays into contemporary homiletical thought.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 asked for application. I addressed ethos in multiple ways and concluded that relationships are the primary application for establishing ethos. While that does not address application through the single speech act, my conclusion is that preachers should embrace relationships as the primary place of application. I believe I said this in lines 355-396. The appendix also made suggestions for application. Maybe Reviewer 1 was looking for concreteness in another direction.

Reviewer 2 Report

The move to return to classic, ancient rhetoric to reflect on “presence” in contemporary online preaching is intriguing. But, in the end, there wasn’t much to offer the reader. I remain unconvinced, for instance, that establishing ethos in recorded sermons that are downloaded in later times works the same as it did in the Roman Senate. It would help if the argument included some connections to contemporary homiletical literature.  For example, there has been some interesting work on “distance” in Craddock, Overhearing the Gospel, and the related, Brothers, Distance in Preaching, which could serve as conversation partners, even counterpoints. While these authors are addressing different concerns, thinking about presence and distance together in relation to ancient rhetoric, recent homiletics, and the new-ish digital preaching could have pushed the argument beyond the level of recounting ancient rhetoric and the simply applying it to digital preaching.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 asked for a conversation with contemporary homiletics suggesting two possibilities. I did interact with contemporary homiletics (I counted six interactions). The two suggestions (Craddock and Brothers) both seem out of context to me. Craddock is addressing a cultural setting that addresses people who "already know" (as stated in his introduction, pgs. 6-7). He is addressing a context that several in the field have noted no longer exists in post-Christian America (notably Tom Long and many post-liberal homiletic voices). Craddock, through indirection, is wanting to increase hearing. Craddock and I have the same concern (hearing) but his solution of indirection is not one that emerged from my research or one that I find currently advocated. One might argue that narrative, through indirection, is still current and needed in a digital age, I would advocate narrative, as structured toward a denouement that is not vague, is what is needed. As one of my teachers, Peter Gomes would say, "Do not play hide and seek with the text."

I do not want to dismiss Brothers lightly. I considered his argument and even discussed his project with a colleague who studied under Brothers at Princeton. Brothers' argument is that some level of performative "distance" in preaching is necessary for hearing the sermon. I am not making that argument. I am saying that presence can be achieved or maintained even through distance. Brothers's project is different than mine.

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a highly relevant and well-researched article that can benefit preachers and students of preaching, and will contribute to the academic field of homiletics.

Here are a few minor suggestions for improvement:

In line 47 of page 1, the author uses the shorthand "f2f" before having introduced the acronym to the reader. It would be best to spell out the full meaning of the abbreviation (ie, "face-to-face interaction") before using the shorthand version.

On lines 330-331, there are two blanks left for the name of a preacher and the preacher's church. Is this intentional? Or is it made blank for the review process? If it is intentional, perhaps the author could explain ("fill in the blank with the name of the most popular preacher in your area" or something similar).

Lines 349-350 contain an incomplete sentence.

I look forward to this article's publication and plan to include it as assigned reading in my Introduction to Preaching course.

Author Response

Thank you for the careful read.

Point 1. In line 47 of page 1, the author uses the shorthand "f2f" before having introduced the acronym to the reader. It would be best to spell out the full meaning of the abbreviation (ie, "face-to-face interaction") before using the shorthand version.

Response 1. 

I assumed too much about the acronym and made the suggested edit. 

Point 2. On lines 330-331, there are two blanks left for the name of a preacher and the preacher's church. Is this intentional? Or is it made blank for the review process? If it is intentional, perhaps the author could explain ("fill in the blank with the name of the most popular preacher in your area" or something similar).

Response 2. While the blanks were intentional, I see the ambiguity. I rephrased the sentence to delete the blanks.

Point 3. Lines 349-350 contain an incomplete sentence.

Response 3. I rephrased the sentence.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Perhaps I was not clear when suggesting Craddock and Brothers as examples. I was not suggesting that you need to build on their arguments. It would be fine to footnote their discussions of distance and distinguish what you are doing from them. But given their prominence in past discussions of distance, it seems quite the gap that they are not even mentioned as you build an argument for presence across digital distance. In your response to the review you named why they were not significant, but a homiletical reader familiar with the field of literature will wonder why they are not consulted/mentioned.

That said, you have considered the two, which is what I asked for.

Author Response

Thank you. I have added a new endnote 5. I have added to new references that were included in the footnote. The new footnote reads:

5. The term “distance” is sometimes used differently from my use in the homiletical literature. Michael Brothers (2014) advocates that some level of performative "distance" in preaching is necessary for hearing the sermon. He briefly surveys the literature (pgs. 142–45) that promotes distance in preaching. I am not making that argument. I am saying that presence can be achieved or maintained even through distance. Brothers (pgs. 47–87) discusses Craddock’s (1971) recognition of the distance between the preacher and hearer. Craddock, therefore, speaks of “over-hearing” or indirection. Brothers, speaking of Craddock states, “Distance preserves the integrity of the biblical text, is theologically and morally warranted as a function of sermon style, is beneficial to the hearer, and thus should be used ‘intentionally’ as part of the sermon style and delivery” (pg. 47). Brothers (pg. 140–41) acknowledges that critics of Craddock’s use of “distance” belongs to a cultural setting that addresses people who "already know". Craddock is addressing a context that no longer exists in post-Christian America. We live in an age where biblical illiteracy abounds. The distance that familiarity fosters is not the issue. One might argue that narrative, through indirection, is still current and needed in a digital age. Yes, story works to create identification. However, I would advocate narrative, plotted toward a concrete dénouement, is needed. As one of my teachers would say, "Do not play hide and seek with the text." The distance of “not knowing” is overcome by direct speech.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf