The Credibility of

the Preacher

Donald R. Sunukjian

In 1947 three groups of college students listened to the same

recorded speech — a 15-minute address advocating compulsory
health insurance for all Americans. The first group was told that
the speech was by Eugene Dennis, Secretary-General of the
Communist Party of America. The second audience was told that
the voice belonged to Dr. Thomas Parran, Surgeon General of the
United States. Those in the third group were told that the speech
was given by an anonymous Northwestern University sopho-
more. (
Before hearing the speech, each student marked a ballot
indicating whether he thought health insurance should be com-
pulsory in the United States (Yes, No, or Undecided). After listen-
ing to the recording, each student then marked his after-speech
opinion as compared with his original opinion (i.e., More Sure,
Less Sure, Change to Yes, Change to No, Change to Undecided,
No Change).
The results showed that the speech by "Dr. Parran" caused
more people to change, and to change to a greater degree, than
did either of the other two speeches.1 Since all groups had heard
the same recording, the differing results had to be due to the
varying credibilities of the speakers. The difference in effective-
ness was not due to what was said, but to who said it.
This early study was one of the first statistical demonstra-
tions of the power of ethos in communication. 2
255
256 Bibliotheca Sacra — July-September 1982

The Definition of Ethos

The term ethos comes from classical rhetoric and refers to

the perceived credibility of the speaker. A preacher's ethos is the
opinion his listeners have of h i m as a person. If their opinion of
him is high, he will have high ethos, or great credibility, with
them. This m e a n s they will be inclined to believe whatever he
says. On the other h a n d if their opinion of h i m is low, his ethos or
credibility will be poor, a n d they will "turn him off" even before he
speaks.
It should be noted t h a t ethos is a perceived quality, not an
actual one. It is not w h a t the speaker is, b u t what the listener
t h i n k s h i m to be. J u s t as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so
ethos is in the mind of the listener.
Since credibility, therefore, depends on the hearer's percep-
tion a n d affects whether he will respond to the message, it would
be helpful to know the factors which contribute to the listener's
opinion of the speaker. If preachers know what determines their
listeners' impressions of them, they can work with this knowl-
edge for God's good.

The Dimensions of Ethos

R e s e a r c h e r s have isolated two s e p a r a t e d i m e n s i o n s of
ethos. 3 The first dimension is competency. If a listener feels t h a t
the speaker is competent — intelligent, alert, accurate, qualified
— he will assign h i m high credibility and will be inclined to
respond to his message. On the other h a n d if the listener con-
cludes t h a t the speaker is muddleheaded, uninformed, lethargic,
and inept, he will judge h i m as incompetent and tend to discard
his words.
The second dimension of ethos is character. If a listener h a s
a high view of the speaker's character, seeing him as a m a n who
is without guile a n d growing in godliness, he is more apt to be
affected by his words. If, however, he feels that the speaker is
self-centered, manipulative, or deceitful, he will be less likely to
accept his message.
These two dimensions operate independently in any given
preaching situation. A speaker can be high in one and low in the
other, t h u s mixing his potential impact. But to the extent that
he can communicate both competency and character, he will in-
 The Credibility of the Preacher 257

crease his effectiveness as a speaker. How then does a preacher

communicate competency and character?

Communicating Competency

Experimenters have determined that speakers communi-

cate competency and gain credibility by means of an attractive
appearance, a fluent delivery, an organized message, and an
evident awareness of human events.
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
Mills and Aronson discovered that an attractive speaker will
more successfully influence the views of an audience than an
unattractive one.4 They arranged for a young woman to be in the
audience of several college classes. As each class began, the in-
structor explained that he was conducting a study of how stu-
dents feel about the relative values of a broad liberal-arts educa-
tion versus a specialized career-oriented program. He wanted
them to answer a questionnaire on this topic, but felt that the
results would be much more valid if they could have a chance to
think about the questions beforehand. Therefore, in order to
familiarize them with the questionnaire, he asked for a volunteer
to respond publicly to the questions first.
In each of the classes the young woman "volunteered" and
was "chosen" by the instructor. For some of the classes she had
been made to look extremely attractive. Her clothes were fashion-
able, her hair was stylish, her makeup was becoming. For other
classes, she had been made to look unattractive. She wore ugly,
ill-fitting clothes, her hair was messy, makeup was conspicuous-
ly absent, the trace of a mustache was on her upper lip, and her
complexion was oily and unwholesome looking.
In responding to the questionnaire in front of the group, the
woman gave previously prepared answers which showed an ex-
treme preference for a general liberal-arts education. In all class
situations, both attractive and unattractive, she gave identical
responses to the questions. When she had completed her
answers, the questionnaires were distributed to the rest of the
students. Each student's response was then compared to his
answers given two months earlier to an opinion survey on this
and other topics. The results of the experiment showed that
when the communicator was attractive she was more effective in
influencing the audience toward her view.
258 Bibliotheca Sacra — July-September 1982

Someone might counter t h a t clothes and grooming are not

real indicators of competency. Logically this objection is true, b u t
psychologically the listener's mind makes a connection between
the two. Contemporary "Dress for Success" books and articles
are premised on this subconscious judgment. Preachers, there-
fore, need to be concerned about their appearance.
Perhaps the spirit of Paul — "I have become all things to all
men so t h a t by all possible m e a n s I might save some" (1 Cor. 9:22,
NIV) — might include having clothes that are clean, tasteful, and
moderately in fashion. S u c h simple things as shined shoes,
pressed pants, clean nails, combed hair, and pleasant breath
might also help convey to others that God's m a n is capable to
minister.
This same attractiveness should characterize church mate-
rials a n d programs. Letters should be typed on a good typewriter
and be free from error, bulletins and brochures should be aligned
on both margins a n d printed with offset quality, overhead trans-
parencies a n d other visuals should be graphic and clear, slide
presentations a n d films should unfold without hitch. All these
will communicate a n a u r a of excellence, because a perception of
competence comes from appearance.

DELIVERY

Competency is also communicated by means of a fluent

delivery. The more sure a speaker is of his words, the more
competent he will strike his audience. But if he gropes for words
("For uh the benefit of our children we ought to uh . . . " ) , his
credibility will go down.
Miller a n d Hewgill played a n identical message to five
groups. 5 The only difference was the n u m b e r of nonfluencies
(uh's) occurring within each message. One group heard a mes-
sage containing no nonfluencies, which was 1,054 words in
length a n d approximately 7 m i n u t e s a n d 15 seconds in duration.
The other four groups heard the same speech, the only difference
being the frequency with which the speaker groped for words.
These frequencies were 25, 50, 75, a n d 100, or one groping for
words (uh) every 42, 2 1 , 14, a n d 10.5 seconds respectively.
Immediately after hearing the message, each listener rated
the anonymous speaker as to his perceived competency. As the
chart on the top of the next page indicates, the mean ratings on a
scale of 4 to 28 (28 being the highest competency score possible)
were fairly consistent.
 The Credibility of the Preacher 259

Number of Nonfluencies
0 25 50 75 100
Mean Competency Ratings 22.8 18.9 15.9 16.3 15.6

The scores reveal t h a t the greater the fluency, the greater the
perception of competency. 6
The encouragement to preachers is obvious. They m u s t
know what they are to say a n d be able to say it without groping or
stumbling. They m u s t have the sermon "under their belts. " This
may require writing the message in full, or practicing before a
mirror, or listening to themselves on tape. However it is achieved,
the words m u s t flow smoothly, for that is what helps the listener
to say, "He knows w h a t he's talking about."

ORGANIZATION

A third way to gain credibility is to be clear and organized in

one's preaching. S h a r p a n d McClung found t h a t the attitude of
an audience significantly changes toward a speaker who delivers
a disorganized speech. 7 They prepared two speeches. One was
judged by a panel of experts to be well organized. The other was
identical in content, b u t was constructed by randomizing the
sentences within the introduction, body, and conclusion. As
measured by pretests a n d posttests, the listeners "exposed to a
disorganized speech t h o u g h t less of the speaker after his talk
t h a n before he spoke." 8
C h u r c h audiences also grow in their respect for a preacher
whose sermons are clearly structured. Their esteem and open-
ness heighten as their mind acknowledges, "He's easy to follow,"
or "I u n d e r s t a n d w h a t he's trying to say." This is in contrast to
that bewilderment or occasional stupor which masks the realiza-
tion, "I have no idea what he's talking about."
Since the latter complaint will seldom be voiced loud enough
for the preacher to make midcourse correction, he m u s t prepare
against it in the study. Every outline should be honed to a singu-
lar focus a n d a n orderly flow. There should be unity to the mes-
sage as a whole a n d observable progression from point to point.
Subpoints m u s t be logically subordinate to main points. Transi-
tions m u s t s t a n d out to the ear of the listener. "Restatement" 9
should occur in previews, reviews, and whenever a new point
emerges. All these will b r i n g a clarity which commends the
preacher a n d which opens a channel for impact.
260 Bibliotheca Sacra — July-September 1982

HUMAN EVENTS
Listeners respect a speaker who is aware of what they are
aware of. They have confidence in a m a n who knows the same
things they know, whose wide-ranging interests reveal a famil-
iarity with their world of news, jobs, stresses, a n d personal situa-
tions.
"Opinion leadership" research h a s demonstrated that cer-
tain people exercise more influence in communicative situations
t h a n others. Characteristically, these opinion leaders tend to be
great consumers of the m a s s media: "They listen more, read
m o r e , a n d view m o r e [ i n s t r u c t i o n a l ] television t h a n their
followers."10 They also tend to interact more: "They ask for in-
formation a n d they give i n f o r m a t i o n . . . . There is a constant
interactive process going on." 11 As a result, they are more knowl-
edgeable concerning world and national affairs, social and ethi-
cal issues, economic trends, b u s i n e s s practices, scientific dis-
coveries, a n d individual hobbies.
The m a n of God should be a voracious assimilator of knowl-
edge. He should subscribe to a local newspaper a n d to national
magazines, both secular a n d Christian. He should u n d e r s t a n d
the local teachers' strike, the rippling effect of government poli-
cies, a n d t h e a r g u m e n t s for a n d against various debatable
issues. Above all, in his daily contacts he should be inquisitive,
always learning from people about their jobs, schools, families,
skills, stresses, a n d decisions. Then, as this wide-ranging famil-
iarity with h u m a n life shows in his preaching, the hearer will
perceive t h a t he is competent to bring the eternal Word to a
modern world.

Communicating Character
The second dimension of ethos is character. Listeners re-
spond more readily to a speaker they like and can trust. Even
more important t h a n the perception of competency is the convic-
tion t h a t the speaker is a m a n of admirable personal qualities
and t h a t he h a s the hearers' best interests at heart. 12 Centuries
ago Aristotle wrote t h a t a m a n ' s own character is perhaps his
most persuasive power.

We believe good men more fully and more readily than others. This is
true generally whatever the question is, and absolutely true where
exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided. . . . It is not
 The Credibility of the Preacher 261
true, as some writers assume in their treatises on rhetoric, that the
personal goodness revealed by the speaker contributes nothing to
his power of persuasion; on the contrary, his character may almost
be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses.13
The listener's evaluation of character falls into two catego-
ries — what he t h i n k s of the speaker, and what he t h i n k s the
speaker t h i n k s of him. Stated in other words, a preacher's ethos
is high a n d his potential for effectiveness is great when the
listener can make the twofold statement, "I like him, and he likes
me."

"I LIKE HIM"

The importance of developing admirable personal qualities

and of having these qualities apparent to the listener was demon-
strated in a n experiment involving four audiences. A 15-minute
talk was prepared on the assets and liabilities of the American
political system. The speech itself was couched in sufficiently
temperate terms so t h a t if read it would create no strong bias for
or against the American system. Four professional actors were
enlisted to deliver the speech, two male and two female, all of
average physical build a n d personal appearance. One male and
one female were asked to simulate socially obnoxious and un-
friendly traits d u r i n g delivery. The other male and female were
instructed to win over their audiences if possible with charm and
goodwill. After each speaker had addressed his group the listen-
ers were asked to indicate agreement or disagreement with the
talk as a whole on small cards. The results of the 100 listeners
were as follows:
Admirable Speakers Obnoxious Speakers
Listeners Male Female Male Female
Agreeing with 25 17 7 4
Disagreeing with 5 3 23 16

The conclusion is simple b u t profound: Listeners tend to agree

with a speaker they like a n d disagree with one they do not like. 14
The application to preachers is, of course, as inexhaustible
as the forms of godliness. To the extent that they commend
themselves to others — whether by elder qualities (1 Tim. 3;
Titus 1), the Spirit's fruit (Gal. 5:22-23), or their worthy walk
(Eph. 4—6) — to t h a t extent they woo others to God's truth. As
others see w h a t m a n n e r of men they are, those people become
imitators of the messengers a n d the Lord (1 Thess. 1:5-6). As
262 Bibliotheca Sacra — July-September 1982

they find the preachers' Christlikeness attractive, they find the

message compelling. As theylike the preacher, they like what he
says.
This likeableness is communicated in a t h o u s a n d ways: how
they treat their wife a n d children; how they handle their money;
whether they are stable in temperament a n d self-disciplined in
eating; whether they avoid one-sided views and premature judg-
ments; whether they are teachable and rebukeable and in the
process of growing.
Most of all, preachers gain others' favor as they note the
absence of pride. As this first a n d greatest sin abates, the mind of
Christ takes hold in the communicator, and grace a n d t r u t h are
beheld once again. To find a preacher who is not building his own
reputation, who is not miffed if another part of the service is
more meaningful t h a n his sermon, a n d who freely p u s h e s others
to occupy the spotlight, is to find a m a n who is liked a n d listened
to.

"HE LIKES ME"

When a listener feels a speaker loves him, he is ready to
accept almost anything the speaker says.
When a listener says to himself, "I feel safe with this speaker;
I do not doubt his motives; I do not believe he would knowingly
h a r m me or lead me wrong; I believe he m e a n s me well; he can be
trusted because of his kind intention toward me" — then that
listener h a s given t h a t speaker great access to his heart.
How does a preacher convey t h a t he h a s his listeners' best
interests at h e a r t ? What can he do to cause the listener to say,
"He likes me"?
One of the m a i n things he can do is smilel A preacher's faciali
expression is the single most important factor in whether his
hearers will feel liked or not. Listeners judge from a speaker's face
far more t h a n from his words or even his tone of voice as to
w h e t h e r he is favorably disposed toward t h e m or not. Two
studies have documented first the value of "tone-of-voice" over
"content-of-words," a n d t h e n second, the overwhelming value of
"facial-expression" over both of these.
In the first study Mehrabian a n d Wiener chose nine words to
be played to college students. 1 5 Three of the words conveyed
positive content — "honey," " t h a n k s , " a n d "dear." Three con-
veyed neutral content — "maybe," "really," and "oh." Three con-
veyed negative content — "don't, " "brute, " a n d "terrible. " Each of
 The Credibility of the Preacher 263

the nine words was read in three tones of voice — positive,

neutral, and negative. The reader was instructed to say the
words, irrespective of contents, in such a way as to convey ( 1 ) an
attitude of liking, high evaluation, or preference; (2) a neutral
attitude, that is, neither liking nor disliking; and (3) an attitude
of disliking, low evaluation, or lack of preference. All possible
combinations of three contents and three tones were recorded on
tape, and a random order of the combinations was then played to
each student individually. The students were told to imagine
each of the words as being said by the speaker to another person,
and to judge the degree of the speaker's positive versus negative
attitude toward the addressee.
Some of the students were instructed to take both aspects of
the word into consideration — content and tone. Others were
told to make their judgment only on the content of the words and
to ignore the tone of voice. Still others were instructed to use only
the tone and to ignore the content-meaning of the words. On a
scale of + 3 to - 3 , the results were as follows:
Inferred Attitude of Speaker
Tone
Instructions Content Negative Neutral Positive
Use content only Negative -1.33 -1.00 -0.67
Neutral -0.47 -0.17 0.35
Positive 1.03 1.30 1.70
Use tone only Negative -2.47 -0.03 1.40
Neutral -2.07 -0.67 1.73
Positive -1.37 0.17 1.63
Use tone a n d Negative -1.77 0.30 1.21
content Neutral -1.67 -0.40 1.10
Positive -0.87 0.40 1.10

These results show that when the students consciously fo-

cused on either the content or the tone, their judgments reflected
the positive or negative force of that single aspect. But when the
students were left to respond to the total communication, the
tone-of-voice had a disproportionately greater effect on their
judgment. They inferred the speaker's attitude from his tone of
voice, even when the content of his words pointed in the opposite
direction.
In the second study, Mehrabian and Ferris instructed three
female speakers to vary their tone of voice while saying the neu-
tral word "maybe," so as to communicate like, neutrality, and
dislike toward an imagined addressee.16 In addition, photo-
264 Bibiiotheca Sacra — July-September 1982

graphs were taken of three female models as they attempted to

use faciad expressions to communicate like, neutrality, and dis-
like toward another person. All possible combinations of posi-
tive, neutral, and negative "tones-of-voice" and "facial-
expressions" were then presented to individual students. Each
student was shown photographs of different facial expressions
and at the same time heard recordings of the word "maybe"
spoken in different tones of voice. He was told to imagine that the
person he was seeing and hearing (A) was looking at and speak-
ing to another person (B). For each presentation the student was
to indicate on a scale of 4-3 to - 3 what he thought A's
attitude was toward B. The following table expresses the results:
Inferred Attitude of Speaker
Facial Expression
Tone of Voice Positive Neutral Negative
Positive 2.45 1.31 -0.91
Neutral 1.33 0.50 -1.62
Negative 0.20 -1.07 -2.47

These results indicate that listeners are more affected by a

speaker's facial expression than they are by his tone of voice
when judging his attitude toward them. What they see on his face
tells them even more than what they hear, whether he likes them
or not.
Putting the two studies together, Mehrabian and Ferris sug-
gest that a listener's decision as to whether he is liked or disliked
will be influenced 7 percent by the speaker's content, 38 percent
by his tone of voice, and 55 percent by his facial expression.17
A preacher's smile, therefore, more than any other single
thing, says to his people, "I love you." As he stands by a door, or
walks through the halls, or strolls across the grounds, his warm
glance, his cheery wave, his hearty laugh all convey his enjoy-
ment of God's people. As he stands to preach, his pause to
embrace the audience with a smile says to them, "I'm glad to be
here, I'm glad you're here, I like you, and I have a good word from
God for us."
When a preacher's smile is followed by loving tones and
gracious words, he completes the message of his favor toward his
listeners. His preaching does not scold or berate or assume the
continuous failure of God's people, but rather woos and encour-
ages and commends their growth. The motivations of guilt and
fear are balanced by reasonings that are attractive and by
 The Credibility of the Preacher 265

visualizations of God's full pleasure. No unwholesome talk comes

out of his m o u t h , b u t only w h a t is helpful for building others u p
(Eph. 4:29). A bruised reed he does not break, a n d a smoldering
wick he does not snuff out (Isa. 42:3). And what was said of his
Lord is said of h i m — he is full of grace as well as t r u t h ( J o h n
1:14).

Conclusion

Competency and character — these determine the

p r e a c h e r ' s credibility. His competency is suggested by h i s
appearance, delivery, clarity, a n d awareness of h u m a n events.
But the perception of his character depends on the work of God in
his life. And in the end, it is this work t h a t will make all the
difference in h i s effectiveness. "How good we are as preachers
depends — not al together, b u t (make no mistake!) primarily —
on how good we are as men." 1 8

Notes
1 Franklyn S Haiman, "An Experimental Study of the Effects of Ethos in Public
Speaking," Speech Monographs 16(1949) 190-202
2 Since the H a i m a n experiment, more research h a s been done on the topic of
ethos t h a n on any other single concept specifically related to communication For
a s u m m a r y of the research, see Kenneth Andersen a n d Theodore Clevenger, J r ,
"A S u m m a r y of Experimental Research in E t h o s , " Speech Monographs 30
(1963) 59-78
3 J a m e s C McCroskey, An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication (Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall, 1968), pp 59-61
4 J u d s o n Mills a n d Elliot Aronson, "Opinion Change as a Function of the
Communicator's Attractiveness a n d Desire to Influence," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 1 (1965) 173-77
5 Gerald R Miller a n d Murray A Hewgill, "The Effect of Variations in Nonfluency
on Audience Ratings of Source Credibility," Quarterly Journal of Speech 50
(1964)36-44
6 A study by Bettinghaus likewise confirms t h a t "effectiveness in delivery con­
tributes not only to the credibility of the speaker, b u t also to the persuasiveness of
the speaker in achieving acceptance of his message" (Erwin Ρ Bettinghaus, "The
Operation of Congruity in a n Oral Communication Situation," Speech Mono­
graphs 28 [1961] 142)
7 Harry S h a r p , J r a n d T h o m a s McClung, "Effects of Organization on the
Speaker's E t h o s , " Speech Monographs 3 3 (1966) 182-83
8 Ibid , ρ 183
9 To "restate" is to say immediately the same thing using different words It is
using other terms a n d p h r a s e s to convey the concept j u s t stated It is expressing
right away the same t r u t h in different language (The preceding three sentences
in this note are a n example of "restatement," which is used in preaching to
highlight, to emphasize, a n d to give "handles" to major concepts so t h a t the
listener can retain t h e m )
266 Bibliotheca Sacra — July-September 1982
10 Erwin Ρ Bettinghaus, Persuasive Communication, 3d ed (New York Holt,
Rinehart a n d Winston, 1980), ρ 169
11 Ibid
12 The necessity for character even beyond competency was revealed during the
primary contests in the 1980 national election for the United States presidency
As the networks interviewed voters exiting from the polls, they asked s u c h ques­
tions as, "Which candidate do you t h i n k could handle the economy better'? Who
9
do you feel h a s the best grasp of foreign affairs Who do you think could best work
9 9
with Congress to get things d o n e Which candidate did you vote for ' A great
majority of the voters would give one candidate's n a m e to the first three ques­
tions, b u t the other candidate's n a m e to the fourth When asked to explain their
vote, their answers invariably pointed to s u c h things as "morals," "integrity,"
"trustworthiness," a n d "character "
13 Aristotle Rhetoric 1 2, t r a n s W Rhys Roberts (New York Random House,
1954)
14 Henry Winthrop, "Effect of Personal Qualities on One-Way Communication,"
Psychological Reports 2 (1956) 323-24
15 Albert Mehrabian a n d Morton Wiener, "Decoding of Inconsistent Com­
munications," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6 (1967) 109-14
16 Albert Mehrabian a n d S u s a n R Ferris, "Inference of Attitudes from Nonver­
bal Communication in Two Channels," Journal of Consulting Psychology 31
(1967) 248-52
17 Ibid , p 252
18 J o h n Knox, The Integrity of Preaching (New York Abingdon Press, 1957),
ρ 59
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.