From the author’s mind to the author’s communicative intent

One of the important matters in communicative preaching is the author’s communicative intention in order to transmit the Word of God, rather than “the mind of the author”105 related to a written text. Snodgrass (2002:17) insists on the importance of the communicative intent as follows:

102 _{According to Allen (1988:170), “Different images lead to different ways of conceiving the sermon; they also}

lead to different relationships between speaker and hearer and to different social effects.” Ellul (1985:205) points out that “This mutation took place not because people reflected and chose it (consciously preferring sight and this imaged universe) but as a result of the change in environment and circumstance.”

103 _{On the characteristics of formal written texts in an Ancient Near Eastern environment, Wendland (2008:10-}

11) comments as follows: “Formal written texts thus tended to feature an ‘oral register’ of discourse.” Accordingly, biblical texts have “oral-aural elements” that have great influence on the associated senses of taste, smell, touch, and feeling in general, and appeal to and evoke “the full sensorium or imagination of listeners.” Bible translators must be able to translate the oral-aural elements in the text of Scripture for contemporary readers or listeners.

104

According to Strathie & Baker (2010:177), “Imagination was not only employed by those who wrote original texts, but is employed by the preacher in constructing and delivering the sermon and by the congregation in hearing and interpreting it for themselves.”

105 _{Carr (2005:5-6) insists on the oral-written interface and the shaping of the mind as follows: “The main point}

here is that this element of visual presentation of texts is but one indicator of the distinctive function of written copies of long duration texts, like the Bible, Gilgamesh, or Homer’s works. The visual presentation of such texts presupposed that the reader already knew the given text and had probably memorized it to some extent. I will

We must also recognize that all speech and all texts have a varying degree of indeterminacy, which sometimes makes interpretation difficult. All that is in an author’s thinking cannot be conveyed and is not even conscious to him or her. Further, hearers and readers never grasp all that is communicated. Most of the time, however, even with the varying levels of indeterminacy, communication works wonderfully well, for the more an author cares about communicative intent, the more ideas are repeated or guarded to prevent misunderstanding. The more contexts we have, the more meaning is circumscribed. Even with elements of indeterminacy, the communicative intent is usually clear.

Therefore, to grasp the author’s mind or thinking in speech or texts is so difficult that preachers or hearers could have many misunderstandings about what was said or written. According to Snodgrass (2002:17), “The goal of interpretation is not to get in the mind of the author, but to understand the author’s communicative intent.” In the same manner, the aim of communicative preaching is not to explain the author’s mind, but to preach the communicative intent of the text or author. Snodgrass (2008:3) remarks on the importance of seeking the communicative intent as follows:

The work of deciphering Jesus’ intent is sometimes difficult. We have the parables of Jesus only as they are remembered by the early church and communicated by the Evangelists. On the other hand, the task is not as impossible as some have suggested and sometimes is not difficult at all. The parables do not need to be curtailed, rewritten, domesticated, psychologized, theologized with foreign Christological and atonement contribution, decontextualized, or controlled. They need to be allowed to speak, and they need to be heard. Some parables are as clear as bells, and, while we may discuss nuances and backgrounds in lengthy treatises, they do not need explanation so much as implementation. They in effect say to us, ‘Stop resisting and do it,’ or ‘Believe it.’ We do not need much commentary to know the intent of the parable of the Good Samaritan. Despite the numerous studies of this parable – studies which I will treat – the parable compels us to stop resisting and live its message.

According to the above as well as Table 12, it seems that to curtail, rewrite, domesticate, psychologize, theologize with foreign Christological and atonement contributions, to decontextualize, or to control the parables of the Bible belongs to a “literate way of thinking” in the written and print era. As we

argue further that such written copies were a subsidiary part of a much broader literate matrix, where the focus was as much or more on the transmission of texts from mind to mind as on transmission of texts in written form. Both writing and oral performance fed into the process of indoctrination/education/enculturation. Thus, the mind stood at the center of the often discussed oral-written interface. The focus was on inscribing a culture’s most precious traditions on the insides of people.”

consider the above, such an abstract and conceptual approach106 is not suitable for contemporary preaching, especially in the era of secondary orality, because, as Snodgrass (2008:3) comments, “Communication is not about abstract meaning; it acts and seeks to change things.” Therefore, contemporary preaching needs a change from the mind to the communicative intention.