Rhetoric Society of America

Kairos and Kerygma: The Rhetoric of Christian Proclamation

Author(s): Mark Montesano
Source: Rhetoric Society Quarterly, Vol. 25 (1995), pp. 164-178
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3886282 .
Accessed: 19/06/2014 23:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Rhetoric Society of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Rhetoric Society Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:27:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Kairos and Kerygma: The Rhetoric of Christian
Proclamation
Thegoalof thispaperis to elucidatetherhetoricalnatureof thetransmission of the
Christianreligion. By "rhetorical" I mean severalthings.One is that, like all
religiouslanguage,Christiannarrative uses metaphor,symbolandimageto create
in the mindof the hearerof "theWord"a worldthatthelisteneris invitedto enter
as a guide to the way he or she perceives,interpretsand acts in reality. This
rhetoricaldescription
of a worldis notto be seenas havinga directcorrespondence
to an objective reality. When rhetoricallanguageis emphasizedover literal
language,however,thereis a tendencyto denytheimportance of correspondence to
any referenceoutsidelanguageitself.In thispaper,however,I will emphasizean
understandingof rhetoricas a necessarily
imperfectattemptto respondto a complex
of cosmologicaland ethical forces which are active in a living universethat
ultimatelyexists beyond what humancommunitiescan captureprecisely in
language.
Currentlyin Christianitythereis theabidingcontroversyoveralternativeclaimsof
thenatureof Christiantruthandtheprocessof its transmission.Onone hand,there
are claims of literaltruthfor Christiandiscourse;the most salientexamplesof
whichcan be foundin manyfundamentalist groups.Onthe otherhandare groups
who, out of theirdesireto avoidthe consequencesof a strictobjectivism,attempt
to carveoutan approachto livingfroma vaguerelativism.Thiscontroversyis one
reasonthatthe retrievalof the rhetoricalapproachto Christianworldview and
religiouslanguage,generally,is importantas it promisesa way of avoidingthe
deadendsof bothobjectivismandrelativism.
I will examinethe rhetoricof the processof transmission
in fourmainsections.
The first section will be an explorationof the rhetoricalnatureof religious
languagegenerally,especiallywithintheChristiantradition.Thesecondandthird
sectionswill preparethegroundfora moredetailedexamination of themomentof
transmissionby definingtwo Greektermsthathistorically,in bothChristianand
Greekthought,havebeenassociatedwiththisprocess.
The first word, "kerygma" as it is both spokenand respondedto refers to the
proclamation itself. The secondword,"kairos" refersto the " fullnessof time"in
whicha potentproclamation is delivered.Bothtermsemphasizecontext.Kerygma
andkairosemphasizeboththechoiceof thelistenerto respondto themessageand
the forceswhichinfluencethereceptivityof thelistenerthatgo beyondthecontrol
of the personsinvolved.Kairosandkerygmaalso pointto a descriptionof reality
whichis not groundedprimarilyin a transcendent metaphysics, butin the process
of dialoguewhichhasits originsin thehistoryof thecommunity.
In the fourthsection I will use kairos and kerygmato explore in detail the
dynamicsof therhetoricalnatureof thetransmissionof theChristianworldview. I
will drawuponsectionsof MikailBakhtin'sessay, "Discoursein the Novel" to
enrichandcomplexifythisinsightandreinforcethe understanding thatthepassing
on of Christiantruthcan be thoughtof as a rhetoricalprocess;somethingother
thananrigidobjectivismon one handanda directionless relativismon theother.

RSQ 25,1995 AnnualEdition

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:27:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
KairosandKerygma 165
The Rhetorical Nature of Religious Language
languagewe will firstlook at
In orderto establishtherhetoricalnatureof Christian
the rhetoricalnatureof religiouslanguage,generally,especiallyas it emergedout
of the pre-ChristianHellenicculturecomplex.In contrastto a rhetoricalview of
religious languageis the modem view of the natureof language.This view
includessomekey conceptsthathavebeenwell documented.1 Oneis thatlanguage
is transparentto an objective,metaphysicalreality to which we have access
undistortedby the vicissitudesof time. Secondis thatwe can communicatethis
realityintactfromone personto anotherthroughrationallanguagebasedon the
principlesof scientificthought.Third,gaininganobjectiveview of realitydepends
on ourabilityto standbeyondourpersonal,historicallyconditionedselves.Fourth,
apperception of the worldthroughobjectivelanguagewill enableus to manipulate
theobjectsof ourperceptionto ourownends.
In distinctionfrom this modem view of language,we will examinerhetorical
approachesto truthandhow theymightcorrespondto possibleways of Christian
self-understanding.Presentamongtheseunderstandings mustbe the ideathattruth
is not a literal,modernistversionof directaccessto realitythroughlanguagebut
is, rather,anaccessto realitywhichis less exact,moreopen-endedandgroundedin
historyandits circumstances.
In an importantbookon the Greek,rhetoricaloriginsof the conceptof Christian
faith,JamesKinneavy(1987).pointsout thatin ancientGreece,the word"pistis"
meantbothpersuasionandfaith.TheSophists2, who hada profoundinfluenceon
the culturalmilieu that spawnedthe beginningsof Christianity,denied the
possibilityof exactscienceorabsoluteknowledge.Therefore,whatcouldbe known
was basedon the "persuasions" to whicha personadhered- waysof interpreting
the worldthatwerepassedon throughrhetoricin publicforumsin a community.
Pistis indicatesboththe techniquesfor persuadingandthe motivationsfor belief.
Thereseemedto be little distinctionbetweenthe persuaderand the persuadedin
conceiving of this process. Transmissionwas seen as a cosmological event
sweepingupboththespeakerandlistener.
In an impressiverhetoricalanalysisof sectionsof the New Testament,Kinneavy
shows how manypassagescan be classifiedinto categoriesof classicalrhetoric.
of the Christianconceptof faithwere derived
His conclusionis thatthe "origins"
fromtheseSophistideasaboutpersuasion.
GeorgeKennedyconcurswith Kinneavyin his essay proposingrhetoricas an
effective formof biblicalcriticism.Truthin ancientGreecedid not necessarily
requirea rationalframework. He holdsthat"radicalChristianrhetoric"resembles

1 See especially Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, (Princeton,
University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1979)
2 It is actually the Pre-Christian Sophists who bear most directly upon my argument,
while Christians were characteristically at odds with their Sophist contemporaries.
My concern, however, is the rhetorical structures which are pervasive in and
fundamental to all discourse arising from Hellenic culture; see David S. Cunningham
Faithful Persuasion: In Aid of a Rhetoric of Christian Theology, U. of Notre Dame
Press, Notre Dame, 1991; p 27-41.

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:27:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
166 MarkMontesano
what the ancient Greeks called enthymeme. This referredto truthassertions that
requiredno supportingreasonsbut, instead,relied on assumptionsthat were shared
by the audience and speaker but remained unstated. "Truth,"however, was not
merely a repetitionof what was alreadyaccepted by the audience. These common
assumptions could also be used to lead the listener to new perspectives on the
world (Kennedy1984).
Kennedy furthersuggests that the revival of rhetoricis a welcome antidoteto 20th
century pessimism about knowledge. Rhetoric is able to capturea more nuanced
conception of what it means to be humanand what it means to talk about "truth"
in other than scientific language. This insight also suggests that what Christians
were talking about two millennia ago may have been a differentcategory of truth
than we think of with our rationalistlanguage.Rhetoricbecomes, for Kennedy, an
excellent way to discern not merely the sources of the early Christianwritings, but
its power to suggest new ways of living (Kennedy 1984).
In Theopoetic; Theology and the Religious Imagination,Amos Wilder claims that
religious language is a "pre-rational"way of motivating humans through the
imagination rather than through logic. He states that fully engaged action of a
communitycan only be "orientedand empoweredby truevision"(Wilderp.7). This
way of looking at religious languageeschews both dogma and appeals to evidence
in favor of a deeply contextual view of knowledge. All human language, for
Wilder, imposes a "specialkind of order"on the generationwhich speaks it from
within its own history. It can also open up a new dimension of awareness and
breakthroughto new behavior. In other words, Wilder sees Christianlanguage as
rhetoricaland decidedly pre-modernin its appeal to imaginationover facts and in
the way it refers to the problems of a specific communityratherthan an absolute,
ahistoricalreferent.
Kenneth Burke saw in religious languagean ideal form with which to study human
motives. He also believed that we act ultimately by faith through hearing rather
than by reason. In this way, religious languagehas historicallybeen most effective
in motivating people, not throughrational discourse, but by a more spontaneous
capturing of the listener's imagination (Burke 1961). Burke quotes the Apostle
Paul favorably, "Really, the faith follows hearing ..."(literal translationfrom the
Greek, Romans 10:17)
According to Paul Ricoeur one thing that distinguishes religious from ordinary
language is that religious language involves being "called"to live a different life.
For him religious language is like other literaturein that it reveals new ways of
seeing the world. Unlike literature, however, religious language calls for a
commitmentto a world view. This new world view also suggests new possibilities
of behavior and a new relationshipto time. Our very selfhood is a gift of language,
writes Ricoeur. As in various forms of fiction religious language recreates reality
on a "higherlevel." It helps us " invent"and "discover"reality. By helping us to
see differentlyit offers us an interpretationthatmay "situateus betterin being." Its
language is non-literal (Ricoeur 1980). Religious language engages one's
imaginationthroughimages and symbols.
Religious language, then, has the potential to challenge the established way of
seeing the world with new visions. Yet religious discourse does not necessarily
describe a transcendent,metaphysicalreality but is a persuasion to a world view

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:27:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
KairosandKerygma 167
whichfacilitatesliving in the world.Thelanguageusedin Christianityis, for the
mostpartnotrationalistic butnarrativeandpoeticandrootedin a communitywith
a specifichistoryandexperience.Theconfusionof wordswithrealityis considered,
in Christianity,
a formof idolatry.Language,or "TheWord,"instead,is the way in
which the "mysteryof being"is revealed.Christianlanguagepoints toward
possibilitiesof being in relationshipto the mysteryratherthan describingor
controllingthis mystery itself. The measureof its truthis not in some ideal,
abstractsystemnorin the experienceof simpleparticulars. It lies, instead,in the
historicalmatrixwhereinthelanguageis communicated. (DiCenso,1990)

Kerygma
A numberof characteristics
of therhetoricalnatureof theproclamation
of Christian
truthcan be furtherilluminatedby an exporationof the Greekword,kerygma.In
ancientGreece,kerygmawas associatedwiththeherald,a manwitha strongvoice
and presencewho would announceto crowdsnews from the leaders.He also
broughtmessagesfromthe gods.Thoughhe usuallypossessedattractivepersonal
qualities, he was merely a mouthpiecefor a higher authority.(Theological
Dictionaryof theNew Testament, vol III).
In early Christianitythis functionwas identicalwith preaching,which Jesus
consideredto be the mainpurposeof his ministry(Mark1:38). ThoughJesus
himselfpreachedthe "goodnews of God'ssavinggrace,"to laterChristiansthe
contentof the kerygmawas the storyof Jesus'deathandresurrection. This story
becamethe centralnarrativethatshowedbelievershow to live as a "newbeing."
Kerygma,the announcement of "goodnews"(evangelists).was a majorformof
New Testamentrhetoricwhichled to belief (pistis)in a new way of seeing the
worldratherthanin empiricalknowledge(episteme)aboutit (Sullivan1993).
The later churchrelied more on dogmathannarrativeto carry "thefaith"as
Christianculturebecamemore literarythanoral. In responseto a numberof
emergingheresiesthe Churchconvenedcouncilsthe purposeof which was to
kerygmafromthe distortionsof heretics.As the
clarifyandprotectthe "original"
heresiesdiedout,thereasonsfortheoriginalcreedsthatemergedfromthecouncils
wereno longerextant.Thusthe contextitself thatgave meaningto this language
changedandnewcultural concernssurfaced3.
Thereemergenceof the importance of conceptof kerygmafor the transmission
of
faithcoincidedwiththeReformation. Partof theagendaof theReformation was to
remedythe unresponsiveness of RomanCatholicdogmato currentsocialissuesby
emphasizingthe immediacyof the Christianmessage throughtransmission
betweentheministerandhis audience.Thisongoingprocesswas supposedto resist
the reificationof words,conceptsandimagesandemphasizethe responsibilityof
eachbelieverto experiencethe"Word" ( Valdes,217ff.).

3 For a more detailed discussion of this phenomenon and its consequences see Christ
Proclaimed; Christology as Rhetoric, Frans Jozef van Beeck, S.J., Paulist Press,
N.Y., 1979, p.30-50.

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:27:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
168 MarkMontesano
Kerygma, also became a central term in the writings of 20th century theologian,
Rudolph Bultmann. Strongly influenced by existential philosophers, Bultmann,
claimed that kerygma was a way of meeting the world that involved a decision on
the part of the hearer to accept or reject the core message of Christianity. This
message was not so much rational facts as an existential experience of world-
forming symbols through dialogue. Bultmann believed that for this message to
have meaning for most contemporarylisteners,however, it must be strippedof the
mythology of New Testamenttimes and couched in a modernlanguage. This was
an appeal to the historical context of the language as well as the centrality of the
response of the audience. Despite the controversybroughton by his writings when
they first emerged, Bultmann's insights, because of their sensitivity to the
importance of the historical context of religious language in understanding its
truth, seem true to the original, rhetorical nature of the transmission of the
Christianexperience(Bultmann1961).
Kerygma, then, is not the passing on of informationbut a challenge to see the
world in a new way which requiresa response,which can only take place when the
listener is ready to respond.Reception of the kerygmaby the audience can only be
understoodby seeing it as promptedby the tension containedin the currentlives of
the listeners. These tensions must be discoveredand broughtto life by the speaker.
In this sense the speakeris limited by both the centralvision of the kerygma (e.g.
"Christresurrected")and by the personalhistoryof the listeners.
There is a marked contrast between an idea of truth which is grounded in the
rhetoricalmoment and an idea of truthwhich is groundedin the transcendentforms
of a Platonic philosophy. Truth in kerygma is not discovering a transcendent
reference point by which to live one's life. Ratherit is an existential experience of
narrativeand symbol: a process which engages both the speakerand the audience
therebyinductingthe listenerinto a new way of meeting the world.
McDonald points out that within a Christiancommunity,teaching of the meaning
of symbols and narratives helps to prepare members in the community to
experience kerygmarepeatedly,keeping theirrelationshipwith the Christianworld
view fresh. Kerygma is an invitation to new understandingof the self and its
orientation in the world. (McDonald 1980). Such invitations are necessary for a
believer to learn to "puton the mind of Christ"after years of seeing the world in
another way. The kerygma is a destabilizing experience which calls even the
established Christianto reorient themselves to the narrativesof their faith. Such
elements are clearly rhetoricalin their emphasis on persuasiontoward new world
views and its emphasis on the social context in the momentof transmission.

Kairos
The term kairos is also useful in seeing the transmissionof Christianworld view
as having a rhetoricalbasis, especially in termsof the importanceof the immediate
influences which bear on the momentof assimilationand how those influences are,
in turn, informedby the stories of Christiantradition.
Kairos has a more elaboratedhistory within Greek culture and Christiantheology
than kerygma. The Greeks were so aware of the importanceof this concept that
they conceived of a god to representit. He was young, with winged feet and most

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:27:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Kairosand Kerygma 169
distinctively, had a long forelock in the midst of shorter hair. This forelock was
symbolic of the "righttime"that must be seized before it "flew"away. The Greeks
used the word to give a sense of a decisive point or place in time. It is the destiny
that demands decisive, ethical action. (Dictionaryof New TestamentWords, Vol.,
III). It is the time of ripeness; the time of blessing. It is the inspiration of the
moment which is constrained by history yet transcends the merely personal.
(Sullivan 1992). For the Greeks kairos was constitutive of the universe itself.
Pythagoras taught that the discernment of kairos was a mark of wisdom. It
informedthe "bestchoice" at a particulartime.
Michael Carter sees kairos as an indication of the Greek's view of the social
constructionof discourse. Communitiesengaging in public problem solving would
inevitably come into conflict. According to the Sophists, the tension of this
conflict between two opposing choices generateda new solution or "logos." Since
all humandiscourse was limited in its ability to representtruth,the most one could
hope for was a truth that worked best in that particularsituation. The situation
itself was seen as giving rise to the speaker'srhetoricalresolution of the conflict as
well as his impetus to do so (Carter1988).
The stimulus towardtruth,though, was seen as coming from a transhumansource.
Though the epistemological foundation of rhetoric was a relativistic, this
relativism was not merely a matterof saying what the audience wanted to hear.
Instead the search for truth was grounded in an acceptance of the limits of all
discourse to convey reality while accepting the necessity to act at a crucial time.
The basis of action became what seemed to be the truest world view within that
particularcommunity of listeners at that particulartime. Meaning came through a
synthesis of influences in " the power of the opportunemoment." This moment,
(kairos) guides choice among competing discourses in a pluralistic world: it is not
arbitrarybut ethical in that it is in response to a complex need to solve an ethical
dilemma. The Sophists were not concernedwith absolute truthbecause of the ever-
presentpossibility of deceptionbut looked towardcosmic forces to help create the
most persuasive language to move them towarda new option that transcendedthe
options in conflict.
In his excellent paper on kairos and the rhetoricof belief, Dale Sullivan speaks of
kairos as primarily a "window of opportunity."The kind of truth that comes
throughthis "window"is that which is "unveiled"or revealed, not one that easily
lends itself to analysis and study. The rhetor is inspired to reveal it. It does not
come out of a technique thathe has learnedbut emerges out of the right time. It is
not merely opinion or consensus but is the product of all these things under the
pressureof the demandsof the times. The discoursethatbreaksthroughis apate or
enchantment,much like the Sophist'sidea thatall discourse is deception. What this
means, however, is that discourse is not a literal description of reality, but a
"releaseof the radianceof Being"- a glimpse of the cosmos which is revealed and
engages the "joy" of the listener. In other words, the speaker induces in the
audience an existential encounter with a new interpretive frame and with the
"world" that this new frame creates. The Apostle Paul wrote of this type of
speaking (1 Corinthians2;4-5). Jesus, in his parables,tried to make people aware
of something greaterthan themselves; somethingnuminous.Throughhis appeal to
imagination,he persuadedto faith in his world view.

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:27:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
170 MarkMontesano
According to Kinneavy, the tension of kairos brings timeless ideas down into the
rhetorical situation and forces humans to make decisions about them. In other
words kairos brings theory into practice, asserts the continuing necessity of free
decision, insists on value, and unites idea and historicalreality. (Kinneavy in Moss
ed. 1987). KennethBurke focuses in much of his writingon the conflicts inherent
in the rhetorical situation and the relationshipbetween discourse and reality. The
scene of the kairos, accordingto Burke,is not relativisticbut itself sets boundaries
on action and limits choices. All action is groundedin the discursive elements of
the "scene"and can't be analyzed. He calls these elements "codes."Codes include
such things as the ethics and customs which guide and confirm decisions and
behaviorand decide the "fitness"of a choice (Sheard1993).
Paul Tillich is credited with making the concept of kairos significant in
contemporaryChristiantheology. During the events of Nazi Germanyand World
War II, he wrote aboutkairos as the right momentfor sufferingand deciding to act
in a time that demandedit. With referenceto Christianityhe saw the Christ-event
as the centralkairos;when God chose the right time for Jesus to enter history. This
event was the central kairos which became the source of continuing karoi
throughouthistory. There came times when, for instance, a selfless sacrifice was
demanded by the situation. With Jesus as the model for a selfless sacrifice a
Christiancould fulfill this demand.In the New Testamentkairos was also used by
John the Baptist and Jesus when they spoke of the fact that the Kingdom of God
was "at hand."When Jesus talks about the time of his own suffering and death
which is yet to come, he speaks of kairos.
The direction of kairos is a matter of vision; of being able to have a narrative
picture of what certain situationsdemand.This vision or "logos"exists outside of
time but is also contained in the history of the community.(Tillich 369-72).
When the "righttime"comes, one's behavioris guided by the vision which grasps
him/her during that moment. The coming of such a time cannot be predicted .
Jesus himself doesn't know when it will come. These situations are often
interpretedby Christiansas being initiatedby the "HolySpirit,"that "blows where
it will" or as the impending and immanentKingdom of God which presents new
opportunities and possibilities beyond what humans have done before. Such an
event breaks throughthe barriersof the status quo, the "law"and any pretense to
absolute knowledge about what should be. However, we always have the freedom
to deny its demands on us (VanHoozer).In both Christianand Pythagorianviews
of kairos there are influences at work that transcendhuman initiative and point
toward the creative forces of the universe as they perform in time. In this sense,
kairos points to a Christianself-understandingwhich is rhetoricalin its contextual
view of truthand the process by which it is transmitted.

The Transmission of the Christian Proclamation

Thus far I have reviewed several writerswho have exploredthe rhetoricalnatureof
Christian religious language. Then by using the terms kairos and kerygma I
examined how, throughout history there was at least a remnant of self-
understandingwhereby Christiansunderstoodthe process of proclamationof their
world view as rhetorical.

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:27:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
KairosandKerygma 171
I want, now, to focus on the process itself wherebyindividuals,throughthis
proclamationof the Christianworldview (kerygma)at the right time (kairos),
come to a new understanding of themselvesandtheirworld.This understanding
comes throughan existentialencounterwith Christiannarrative,symbol and
metaphor.Discoursetakes hold of the listenertypically,in the tension of the
momentthatmay includeguilt,anxiety,inspiration,etc.. Whenthe listener'sold
view of seeingthingsis confrontedby this new vision tensionis increasedwhich
requiresa responsefromhim/her.Thismomentis the "fullnessof time"whereinit
is possibleto choosean eschatologicalexistence:to live one'slife as thoughGod
In otherwords,the processof transmissionitself
reignedin one'slife.(Bultmann).
is rhetorical.
MikailBakhtinoffers,especiallyin his essay,"Discourse on theNovel,"a detailed
descriptionof theprocesswherebytheindividualis influencedby discourse,while
he accountsfor both individualchoice and the radicalconstructednessof the
individual.His model suggestsan elaboratedway of conceivinghow a "living
faith"is passed from communityto individual(the process of kairos and the
transmissionof kerygma)in termsof "persuasions" ratherthanmereassentto rules
or dogma.In the areaof transmission I believeBakhtin'scontribution goes further
thanthe otherscited in this paper.I will use his writingin the remainderof this
piece to constructa more complex,richermodel of the dynamicsof how the
transmissionof Christiankerygmahasworkedrhetorically.4
"Theimageof manis alwaysintrinsicallychronotopic" (85). This statementby
Bakhtinis pregnantwith meaningabouthow our conceptionaboutourselvesis
presentin our discourseandhow this conceptionis characterized by the way it
situatesus in time andspace.In literaturechronotopeis the organizingcenterof
the narrativeeventsof a novel.It helpsto put"fleshandbones"on the narrativeby
organizingideas of time, space, self, etc. It gives internalform to the word.
Accordingto Bakhtin,bothtimeandspaceareinextricablyboundtogetherin the
creationof ourself image.Onecannotequate,for instance,the personalrealityof
someonewho wentto ArizonaStateUniversityin 1974withsomeonewho attends
this schoolnow.Likewisethe self-conceptof someonewho attendsthe University
of Cairopresentlywould have some significantdifferenceswhen comparedto
someonewhoattendsArizonaStateUniversitycurrently.
At the same time, for Bakhtin,all discourseis dialogic. Our world view is
generatedby a processof the exchangeof languageamongpeople. Withinthis
processthereare manyfactorswhichbothstabilizeanddestabilizethe language;
factors that Bakhtincalls centripetaland centrifugal,respectively (272-73).
Centripetalforces accountfor what is passedon in words from our traditional
preconceptionsaboutthe world.This is the conservativeelementin discourse.
Centrifugalforces are the creativeelementsin languagethat emerge from the
myriadof contextsand meaningscarriedby wordswhich intersectin unlikely

4 In my appropriationof Bakhtin for an analysis of Christian proclamation I am not so

much interestedin the implications of his "theological" statements as contained in
such writings as Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics as in BakhtIn'sdescription of how
world view is passed on to the mind of a listener in a particulartime and place. Though
this description may have its own theological implications, its exploration is not
germane to this paper.

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:27:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 172 MarkMontesano
juxtapositions at the time the discourse is being transmitted. Because of the
permutationsin this vortex of meaningnew views or solutions to problems can be
more easily generated.This dialogic context of a word for Bakhtin,is the sine qua
non for the emergence of new, alternativeworld views. Within this interactionof
words language itself takes on its most cogent meanings.
This view of communication helps us to furthersee the rhetorical nature of the
proclamation of Christian world view as illustrated in the words kairos and
kerygma. Through the use of Bakhtin'sconcept of the chronotope we can see in
kairos the significance of both the time in which the discourse occurs and the
particularplace where it happens and how this intersection of time and place is
constitutive of the participants'image of themselves and their world. Kairotic
occasions have "congealed"throughouthistory and have served as organizing
principles to the many narrativesof the Christiantradition.This concept conforms
in many ways to Bakhtin'sdescriptionof the congealing of stable literarymotifs in
differentculturesand times in history(84-258). Christianity'scentralchronotopeis
contained in the life and death of Jesus. These events have deeply influenced the
Christian'simage of themselves and theirworld. They have also served to organize
subsequentnarrativesrangingfrom Paul'slettersto the lives of the saints, etc.5
The most obvious point of differencebetweenchronotopeand kairos is thatkairotic
moments have typically (especially in Christian thought) been thought of as
having a transcendent or cosmic origin whereas Bakhtin tends to think of
chronotope as constructedand limited by exclusively human factors. As a result
kairos has more ethical overtones and an emphasis on praxis than Bakhtin's
conception of chronotopes.On the otherhand
Christianself-understandingtends not to account for how Christianworld view is
influenced by the time and place of its usage. In light of Bakhtin'stheory we can
begin to understandmore fully how Christiandiscourse acts as rhetoric without
having to prove that it has transcendentorigins. Whetherwe see an appeal to God
as a rhetorical device or a "truth"does not influence the understandingof the
dynamics of Christiankerygma.
Bakhtin's concept of "dialogue"is closer yet to the meaning of kerygma. Both
count on a mutual responsiveness and interactionof the discursive worlds of the
rhetor and the audience for its effectiveness. As the Christiankerygma is usually
conceived, however, it is a privileged voice in the midst of the heteroglossiaof the
surrounding world. Though not necessarily helpful in analyzing the rhetorical
power and strategies particularto Christianitysuch as the use of universal and
divine, Bakhtin'smodel may help us understandhow Christiandiscourse may gain
privilege in an individual'sworld view withoutresortingto theology.
Each word, for Bakhtin,entersan "alienenvironment"of the listenerand is shaped
in understanding by her/his active response from within the limits of this
environment. "Understandingcomes to fruitiononly in the response" (282). This
environmentis composed of a historyof objects and emotions thatare connected to

5 Again, for a Christianunderstandingof how the central Christiankairos has guided the
understanding ofother kairotic moments throughout history see Paul Tillich's
Systematic Theology, Vol.III, U. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1963, ppgs., 369-72.

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:27:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
KairosandKerygma 173
words.Whetherthesewordsfinda placein the listener'senvironment is primarily
dependenton theresponseof thelistener.Thelistenerhasa choiceto be persuaded
yet is also influencedby manyexternalfactorsto makethischoice.
This descriptionof the influenceof languagehelps us morerichly define both
kerygmaand kairos. When a kairoticmomentpresentsitself, the listener is
susceptibleto influencethroughany numberof environmental influencessuch as
the credibility of the speaker, the guilt experiencedby the listener, and a
transcendentimperativewhichitself seeksto be assimilated.Yet, the one hearing
kerygmamustchooseand,in Christianity, is conceivedof as havingthe freedomto
do so.
At this point, Bakhtinconceivesof the speakeras "breakingthroughthe alien
conceptualhorizonof the listenerand constructinghis own utteranceon alien
territoryagainstthe listener'sapperceptivebackground... the subjectivebelief
systemof the listeneris the arenaof encounter"(282). In this accountone has the
sense thatwordsareintrusiveanda battleis aboutto takeplace.In factpreachers
have often thoughtof theiroffice as thatof fightingfor souls. In speakingabout
the competitionof otherworldviews withhis, Jesussaidhe was not preachingto
bring" peace, but a sword"(Matthew10:34)with which to separatethose who
chose to accept his world view from those who did not. Persuasiveness,for
Bakhtin,becomesan aggressiveact whichpresumesto influence,in this case, the
wayhumanssee themselvesandtheirworld.
In referringto Tolstoy'sprose,Bakhtintells howpersuasivediscourseinvadesthe
belief and evaluative system of the listener and both "harmonizesand
disharmonizes"their establishedworldview "strivingto stun and destroy the
apperceptive backgroundof thereader's activeunderstanding" (283).Whena verbal
performance achievesthis level of poignancywordsmay "infect"with theirown
intention.As theyenterthe consciousnessof the hearereach word"tastes"of the
contexts in which it has functionedhistorically;bringing with it its own
power.(293).Christianityitself has been at the centerof so many significant
developmentswithinour civilizationthat,aftertwo thousandyearsits narrative
still has the powerof to be irresistiblein the "right"situation(kairos).Though
Christiansmay refer to this processas the "workof the Holy Spirit,"Bakhtin
helpsus to understand whatthismightmeansin termsof history.
Accordingto Bakhtin,a living language"lieson the borderlinebetweenoneself
andthe other"(293).In Christianterms,the sceneof kairosis the placewherethe
transmissionof "theWord"occursfromrhetorto audience.Theemergenceof the
kerygmais a processwherebythewordsof thespeakerinteractwiththewordsthat
constitutethe world view of the audience;each bringingall the connotations
incumbenton these words. Amidst this profusionof influences (heteroglossia) that
govern the meaningof a word in a particulartime and a particularplace, the
listeners must choose a languagewhereby to orient themselves.(295). This
orientationis not a matterof graspingwhatis being representedliterally,but is
concernedwiththe assimilationof an " interpretive
framework"whichthe listener
can use to give meaning and structure to the world and their relationship to
it.(339).Bakhtinbelievesthereis a tendencyforhumansto absorbcommunication
not as informationor directionsbut as "the very basis of our ideological
withtheworld."Acceptanceof Christian
interrelations kerygmacanalsobe seenas

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:27:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
174 MarkMontesano
the experience of a world view throughsymbol and narrativeratherthan simply as
instructions for living; enhancing furtherthe understandingof the acceptance of
kerygma as rhetorical.This process whereby the listener assimilates a world view
is investigated by Bakhtin using the concepts of authoritative and persuasive
discourse. Authoritativediscourse (342ff.) is seen as external to the listener. By
virtue of its status it insists that we consider it. Once considered, it claims our
allegiance. Christian language is most often seen as a typical example of
authoritativediscourse in thatit has divine sanction.Jesus, it was remarked,"spoke
as one with authority."This authoritycame partly from the claims of a divine
source for his words but also from his healing of the sick and the dignity and
confidence with which he spoke. Paul claimed to be merely a mouthpiece, the
carrierof the kerygma,yet he believed he had a divine mission which increasedhis
persuasiveness.

Internally persuasive discourse, on the other hand, opens up new potentials for
consciousness.(345ff.). It awakens the individual to the possibility of an
independent ideological life. It does this partly by confronting a heretofore
authoritativediscourse within the mind of the listenerand challenging its claims to
absolute hegemony over his/her consciousness. At this point, internallypersuasive
discourse, however, is still "half ours, half others." It inevitably enters into a
struggle with other internally persuasive discourses that the listener encounters.
When one discourse meets another,"twomyths perish simultaneously:the myth of
a language that presumesto be the only language, and the myth of a language that
presumes to be completely unified"(68). So the listener'sworld view is challenged
quite simply by the presenceof differentworldview.
Once the assumptionthatone's originalworld view was the only way of seeing the
world is confronted,says Bakhtin,the individual's"conscious-ness is awakenedto
an independentlife in a world surroundedby alien discoursesfrom which it cannot
separate itself." The listener begins to "awaken to the separation of internally
persuasiveand authoritarian,enforcedlanguage"(345). At this point the possibility
of choosing for oneself what one believes aboutthe world is first considered.It is a
time, for Bakhtin, that "both the authority of discourse and its internal
persuasivenessmay be unitedin a single word"(342).
In Christian terms, this resembles the moment of kerygma. With Bakhtin's help
we can see how Christian world view can also function as internally persuasive
discourse in thatit actually works to unseatprevious authoritativediscourses (even
other varieties of Christian world views). We can further see how kerygma
functions in a rhetoricalprocessof persuasionwhereits influenceis more contained
in the dynamics of the momentthan in an authoritativeusurpingof previous world
views.

Christian kerygma has elements of both authoritativeand internally persuasive

discourse. It has the status of being externalto the listener in the sense that it is a
message from God as well as from a specific influentialspeaker.At the moment of
decision it may act as internallypersuasivediscourseas it destabilizes a heretofore
stable world view. The tension present in the process itself becomes one of the
preconditionsfor the acceptanceof kerygma.
Assimilating the new world view is often a gradualprocess. At each step, there is
what Bakhtin calls a "stage of genius." By this I believe he means the

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:27:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Kairosand Kerygma 175
intensificationof the entiredialogicaldynamicwherebythe myriadof factors in the
confluence of discourses are broughtto bear on the consciousness of the individual
and thereis a "sharpeneddialogic relationshipto the word"(352). The effectiveness
of anyone discourse(whetherthismomentis a kairotic"windowof opportunity").
depends on its "dialogicalvigor"or the mutualopenness of the various discourses
to one another.In the dialogical process the meeting of "alien"discourses liberates
the listener from the dominanceof "theculturalsemanticand emotional intentions"
that are the consequence of a world view thatproceeds from a " unitarylanguage.'
At the same time one becomes more conscious of "tone'sown horizon within
someone else's horizon."The site of discourse , Bakhtincalls "penetration"where
ideologies strugglefor dominancein the " arenaof utterance"(416-17).
According to Bakhtin, "... living dialectical synthesis is constantly taking place
between the psyche and ideology. In each speech act, subjectiveexperience perishes
in the objective fact of the enunciatedword-utterance,and the enunciated word is
subjectified in the act of responsive understandingin order to generate, sooner or
later, a counterstatement"(as quoted433-34). At this point the listener is receptive
to a variety of competing world views. Each discourse/world view confronts the
listener's subjective experience directing her attention beyond her current world
view. In turn the listener assimilates this new world view by her response and
makes it constitutive of a new personal world view. This is a circular process
which Bakhtin believes is necessary to keep a discourse alive and keep persons
vitally responsive to the world thatsurroundsthem.
This description can also help us to understandthe site of the kerygma - of
religious rhetoric where those multiple factors from beyond the merely personal
come together in a precise and emotionally intensified moment to create an
opportunity(kairos) to choose a new point to stand ; a new faith. In its history we
see in Christianitya constantprocess of the assimilationof various world views as
it influences those views in turn. This accounts, to some degree, for the fact that
Christianityhas remaineda "living faith."This is not necessarily a capitulationof
Christianityto other discourses, but a matterof the Christiannarrative'sability to
engage other "worlds"in dialogueand to both influence and respondto those worlds
at a particulartime and place(kairos). Bakhtin'sdescriptions do not specifically
address examples of a discourse which include both the influence of a god or of a
cultural force as tremendousover a variety of times and places as Christianitybut
they nevertheless help us betterappreciateand understandthe rhetoricalpower of
Christian discourse through the centuries and begin to account for this power
outside of a strictly theologicalor dogmaticframework.
Once a word has effectively influenced a listener there is always the tendency that
thenew worldview maybeginto be mistakenforrealityitself.Whenthishappens
the dialogical process becomes obscured.The word itself is "diminishedand made
shallow" (353). Ignoringhow historicalcontext has generatedChristiandiscourse;
that its meaning is dependenton this living history leads to reification of the word
- in Christianlanguage, idolatry.The ability of a worldview to guide persons in
living situations lessens. In this denial of the role of social constructionin a world
view "believers"begin to look at the kerygma as revelation given, complete and
whole for all time. The historical process in the community from which the
kerygma issues is forgotten. These "believers" may stop participating in the
generation of the kerygma and begin to make kerygma into an idol; removing it

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:27:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
176 MarkMontesano
from influence of the unpredictableforces within time (kairos). Technically it
ceases to be kerygmaand turnsto dogma.Believers forsaketheirresponse-abilityto
interact with this vision, to commit themselves over and over to it in the tension
of the moment in which they experience its power anew. Instead the vision
becomes a closed map of reality that the believer can follow step by step without
doubt. This response- ability which is lost is not a relativism nor an absolutism
but a process that humans necessarily carry on in the humility of knowing the
limits of their capacities to know "truth."Bakhtin'stheory helps us to see when
understanding of the transmission of Christian world view departs from its
rhetorical origins and intentions and presumes to absolute truth;seeing itself as
outside historyand its processes andproblems.

Conclusions
The transmission of the Christian world view is a complex process. In order to
examine this process it seems importantto reexamine our modern assumptions
about the kind of knowledge that privileges literal description and rationality
(episteme) and to ask if this is what Christian language is. Traditionally, this
rationalview of language attemptsto deny the influenceof the historicalcontext in
which knowledge emerged. In its attempts to maintain the appearanceof being
impersonal and universal,it also attemptedto ignore the influence of the speaker,
listener, and time and place of the discourse. The history of rhetoricin the time of
ancient Greece points to a rhetoricalkind of knowledgethatincludes such factors as
the immediateworldsof the speakerand the audienceas well variouscircumstances
of time and place.
By using the ancient Greek concepts of kerygma and kairos as lenses through
which to look at Greek culture'sconcept of rhetoricalknowledge (which was of
profound influence on early Christianity)we can begin to entertainbroaderideas
about what qualifies as knowledge both in early Christian discourse and in
Christianityof our own time. By using Bakhtin'sdetailedanalysis of the process of
the assimilation of discourse our concept of the rhetorical nature of Christian
discourseis enrichedandfocused.
First, we see that communicationabout world views two millennia ago was more
akin to poetry and story thanto science. We see thatreligious knowledge or world
view was seen as transmittedthroughthe response of the listener to these images
and stories as much as by the persuasive abilities of the speaker or the supposed
truthof the narrative.This interactionof speakerand audiencewas governedby the
complex interactionof forces coming to bear at "theright time." These governing
forces were also seen as constitutive of the universe itself and thus had a
cosmological and ethical dimension. The "truth"of the world view that was
absorbed was a transmission of the truth in context. It was a "living" truth
expressed througha complex mixtureof traditionand the relationshipsof people
within presentcircumstances.
By saying "yes"to the vision or world view, people became situated in the living
world through a community of discourse. Individuals were presented with
possibilities of seeing, acting and interpretingthis world. The world, for humans,
was not seen as a "thing"which could be known directlybut rather,as a creationof
the confluence of both humaninfluences and influences thattranscendedthe limits

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:27:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
KairosandKerygma 177
of the intentionsof one particularhumancommunityin history.(thenexus of
influences of time, place, etc.). Individualsand communitiesthrough their
discourserespondedto the tensionsinherentin the intersectionof these many
influences, creatingnew possibilities and interpretations.In their responses,
conflictsweretranscended,solutionsto problemswerefound,andnew worldviews
weredevelopedthatwereappropriate timein thatparticular
to thatparticular place.
This new kerygma was groundedin the values, history and images of the
communityyet was dialogizedsimultaneously by otherlanguagesandworldviews
whichrelativedits presumptions to absoluteknowledge.Bakhtinpointsout, that
for a discourseto continueto "live"it mustbe engagedin dialogue,otherwisethat
discourse,with its symbolsand narratives,becomesmistakenfor reality itself.
Symbols and narrativesthen becomeidols while diminishingtheir capacityto
functionas "equipment" foreffectiveliving.
Theseinsightsintorhetoricalknowledgeof theGreeks(whicharelaterelaborated
by Bakhtin)canbe appliedto Christianity partly,I believe,becauseof the fact that
Christianorigins were clearly nurturedby this Greekculture.When we try to
interpretearlyChristianideasof knowingthe worldin termsof ourcontemporary,
rationalinterpretive
framework we missmanynuancesthatarealsobroughtoutby
seeing the dialogicalnatureof Christianknowledgeas it was transmitted in New
Testamenttimes and as it interactedwith otherculturesthroughoutits history.
Consequently,we easily confuse Christianclaims with literal descriptionsof
realityand"rulesforliving."Whenwe do ourchoices,it seems,areeitherto reject
suchclaimsoutrightas absurdor to reifythe languageandthusloose its "living"
responsivenessto a particulartime and particularplace (kairos). A religious
languagethatloses its capacityto inducekerygmaandrespondto kairosbecomesa
deadlanguagemaintained andreactionaries
by antiquarians whowouldtryto control
thewind.
MarkMontesano
ArizonaStateUniversity

WORKS CITED
Bakhtin, Mikhail M.. The Dialogic Imagination,Four Essays. Austin: University
of Texas Press, 1981.
Bultmann,Rudolph. "NewTestamentand Mythology"in Kerygmaand Myth. Ed.
Han WernerBartsch.New York:HarperandRow, 1961.
Burke, Kenneth. TheRhetoric of Religion: Studies in Logology. Boston: Beacon
Press, 1961.
Carter,Michael. "Stasisand Kairos:Principlesof Social Constructionin Classical
Rhetoric."Rhetoric Review. Vol. 7.1, 1988.

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:27:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
178 MarkMontesano
DiCenso, James. Hermeneuticsand the Disclosure of Truth,A Study of the Work
of Heidegger, Gadamer,and Ricoeur. Charlottesville:University Press of
Virginia, 1990.
The JeruselumBible. GardenCity: Doubledayand Company, 1968.
Kennedy, George A.. New TestamentInterpretationthroughRhetorical
Criticism. Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress, 1984.
The Kingdom Interlinear Translationof the GreekScriptures.Brooklyn:
WatchtowerBible and TractSociety of New York, Inc., 1969
Kinneavy, James L.. GreekRhetorical Origins of ChristianFaith, An Inquiry,
Oxford University Press, 1987.
McDonald, James I. H.. Kerygmaand Didache: the Articulationand Structureof
the Earliest ChristianMessage. New York:CambridgeUniversity Press,
1980.
Debate with Hans-Georg
Ricoeur, Paul. "TheConflict of Interpretations:
Gadamer."in A Ricoeur Reader:Reflectionand Imagination..ed. MarioJ.
Valdes, Toronto:University of TorontoPress, 1991.
_ Paul. Essays on Biblical Interpretation.Philadelphia:FortressPress,
1980.
Sheard,CynthiaM.. "Kairosand KennethBurke'sPsychology of Political and
Social Communication."College English. March, 1993, v. 55.3: 291-310.
Sullivan, Dale L.. "Kairosand the Rhetoricof Belief." QuarterlyJournal of
Speech. August 1992, 78.3: 317 (16).
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.ed. GerhardKettel, transand
ed., Geoffrey W. Brimiley, Vol.111,GrandRapids:Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1967.
Tillich, Paul, Systematic Theology, Volume Three, Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press. 1963, 369-7 1.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J., Biblical Narrativein the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur,
CambridgeUniversity Press, 1990.
Wilder, Amos N. Theopoetic: Theologyand the Religious Imagination.
Philadelphia:FortressPress, 1976.
, Early ChristianRhetoric: Language of the Gospel, Bloomsbury:SCM
Press LTD., 1964.

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:27:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions