Contemporary Models and Thinking on How to Preach

CONTEMPORARY MODELS/THINKING ON PREACHING (“WHERE IS PREACHING TODAY?”)

“A postmodernist is a person who calls into question most, if not all, of the assumptions that have directed the pursuit of knowledge since the time of the Enlightenment. Postmodernists are highly skeptical of the three c’s of closure, certainty, and control.”

-Danny Akin

How do preachers preach? As pulpit poets, with a kind of holy artistry, preachers image a world. They shape the newness of God’s basileia in faith consciousness.

-(David Buttrick, Preaching the New and the Now, 100)

Simply put, preaching will be renewed by truth. Not by marketing, not be management, not by homiletic techniques, not by storytelling, not by biblical preaching, but by telling the truth. We will reformulate theological meaning and then tie it to true human realities. Our people, with a kind of glistening wonder, will hear, and yes, perhaps once more believe. (p. 138)

We can begin by acknowledging that “kingdom of God” is a metaphor. Will our earth be turned into an actual realm of God within anyone’s lifetime? Probably not. Besides, the human world is fragile and is quite possibly scheduled for eventual phaseout. Instead, kingdom, a sociopolitical image, is a metaphor for the finished purposes of God. With regard to the where or when or how of kingdom come, we cannot say; the “somewhere, somehow” mystery of the kingdom is quite beyond human calculation. A similar end­term symbol, the idea of the second coming, also will not be fulfilled literally. Christ will not float in on a cloud to some local shopping plaza like a parachuting Santa Claus at Christmastime. God in Christ has initiated a saving work, and the second coming is a symbol of conclusion for the work God has begun in Christ Jesus.” (p. 118)
INTRODUCTION

As the Church has moved into the 21st century, there is significant disagreement and confusion concerning preaching. The impact of post-modernity has immersed western culture in a sea of uncertainty and instability. The foundations of rationalism and scientism have been dislodged and they now face criticism and attack similar to that which revelation encountered with the advent of the Enlightenment. The contemporary situation, from one perspective, can be summarized under “Ten Basic Features of Modernity.”

TEN BASIC FEATURES OF MODERNITY

NATURALISM – Reality is nature.

HUMANISM – The human is the highest reality and value.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD – Knowledge is good and the method best suited for this enterprise is observation and experimentation, the sources from which our knowledge of truth is obtained.

REDUCTIONISM – Science is the only method for gaining “true” knowledge.

PROGRESS – Because of our increase in knowledge, we are progressively overcoming the problems that have beset the human race.

NATURE – Rather that being fixed and static, nature is dynamic, growing, and developing. It is able to produce the changes in life forms through various processes of evolution (e.g. natural selection and random mutation), rather than requiring explanation in terms of a creator and intelligent designer.

CERTAINTY – Knowledge is seen as objective. This is foundationalism, the belief that it is possible to base knowledge on some sort of absolute first principles. One early model of this was found in the rationalism of Rene’ Descartes, the other was the empiricism of John Locke, the belief that there are purely objective sensory data from which knowledge can be formulated. [Postmodernism decries this is unattainable].

DETERMINISM – What happens in the universe follows from fixed causes. The scientific method discovers these laws of regularity that controlled the universe.

INDIVIDUALISM – Since truth is objective, individuals can discover truth by their own efforts. They can free themselves from the conditioning particularities of their own time and place and know reality as it is in itself.

ANTI-AUTHORITARIANISM – The human is the final and most complete measure of truth. Any externally imposed authority must be subjected to scrutiny and criticism by human reason.

What does preaching, what should preaching “look like” in the new millennium? Opponents of biblical/expository preaching interestingly are present on both the left and the right of the theological spectrum. From the left challenge the notion that modern preaching must of necessity even be related to the biblical text.

“Buttrick wants to cut the connection between Scripture and the Word of God in preaching, ‘let us be willing to say boldly that it is possible to preach the Word of God without so much as mentioning the Scripture.’ He goes on to say that `an authority model descending from God to Christ through Scripture to sermon could lead to a terrifying arrogance that not only contradicts gospel but destroys preaching.’ What Buttrick describes as arrogance may of course represent the humility of accepting God’s revelation.”

-(Adam, Speaking God’s Words, 117)

However, from within evangelicalism itself it is now argued that biblical exposition is both irrelevant and inadequate to “build a church” and meet the “felt needs” of a culture awash in the therapeutic. Biblical exposition and “seeker sensitive” are simply incompatible in the minds of many.

Interestingly, and, tragically, many contemporary evangelicals espouse similar agreements against biblical exposition that were first trumpeted years ago by the classic liberal pulpiteer Harry Emerson Fosdick.

To be fair one must recognize some truth in the analysis of Fosdick. However, what he is railing against is not expository preaching but bad preaching. Furthermore, his diagnosis is more of a misdiagnosis, and his cure is in some sense, worse than the disease he seeks to treat. Still, many have opted for alternative models of preaching, and a brief summary of the present playing field is in order.

I. TEXTUAL PREACHING – a sermon “in which both the topic and divisions of development are derived from and follow the order of the text…” (Clarence Roddy, “The Classification of Sermons” in Homiletics, 34). The textual sermon is often indistinguishable from the expository, with the length of the text being the only significant factor. A textual sermon is usually shorter, covering only 1 to 3 verses. Fasol notes this distinction is superficial at best (Al Fasol, “Textual Preaching” in Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, 78). The comments of Sidney Greidanus accurately describes the issue:

“The term expository preaching cannot truly be contrasted with textual preaching or preaching on a single verse, since these terms describe preaching from different angles. Instead of contrasting these terms, therefore, one can easily combine them…

Textual preaching is preaching on a biblical text and expounds the message of that text. This definition implies that all textual preaching requires not only a text but also an exposition of that text. All textual preaching is therefore understood as expository preaching.”

-(Sidney Greidanus, The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Literature, 123).

II. TOPICAL PREACHING – preaching where the topic under consideration determines the text or texts. Here a preacher searches for a passage or passages that addresses the subject he wishes to address. Most topical preaching will usually be related to what the Bible has to say on the subject, though the danger of the preacher: 1) departing from the text, and 2) interjecting his own thoughts and opinions is a greater danger. Rick Warren’s “verse with verse” approach to preaching is basically topical preaching. One is “free to develop the sermon without rigid adherence to the structure of the text and without the compulsion to deal fully with every verse, phrase, or word in that text.” (Francis C. Rossow, “Topical Preaching” in Handbook of ContemporaryPreaching, 85). This is a popular and much favored model today.

III. DOCTRINAL PREACHING – preaching that is biblically based with the intent of expounding the doctrinal themes which arises from the text or texts being expounded. Popular in the Puritan tradition, this method seeks to convey the doctrine so that its meaning and application are driven home to the hearers. This method is not popular

today, but is much needed in a theologically illiterate church. Timothy George gives 5 suggestions to enhance this style of preaching:

Use confessions and catechisms to give a framework for doctrinal sermons.
Preach on the grand events of salvation history.
Prepare for the celebration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper by sound doctrinal teaching.

4. Use great hymns of the faith to accent the theological content of the sermon.

5. Show the importance of doctrine in the lives of great biblical and church historical characters. -(“Doctrinal Preaching” in Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, 97-98)

B.B. Warfield addressed the importance of Systematic Theology (Doctrine) and its relationship to preaching in 1897 when he wrote,

“If there be any validity at all in these remarks, the indispensableness of Systematic Theology to the preacher is obvious. For they make it clear not only that some knowledge of Christian truth is essential to him who essays to teach that truth, but that the type of life which is produced by his preaching, so far as his preaching is effective, will vary in direct relation to the apprehension he has of Christian truth and the type of proportion of truth he presents in his preaching. As Bishop Westcott puts it: ‘Error and imperfection in such a case must result in lives which are faulty and maimed where they might have been nobler and more complete’; and, on the other hand, ‘right doctrine is an inexhaustible spring of strength, if it be translated into deed.’ In directly the same line of remark that saint of God, Dr. Horatius Bonar, urges that: ‘All wrong thoughts of God, whether of Father, Son, or Spirit, must cast a shadow over the soul that entertains them. In some cases the shadow may not be so deep and cold as in others; but never can it be a trifle. And it is this that furnishes the proper answer to the flippant question so often asked: does it really matter what a man believes? All defective views of God’s character tell upon the life of the soul and the peace of the conscience. We must think right thoughts of God if we would worship him as he desires to be worshipped, if we would live the life he wishes unto live, and enjoy the peace which he has provided for us.’”

-(The Master’s Seminary Journal, Fall 1996, 246)

IV. BIOGRAPHICAL PREACHING – preaching that gives attention to the life of a biblical character. It may take the nature of expositional or topical preaching. It is always a popular model and is naturally related to the narrative style.

V. NARRATIVE PREACHING – preaching as story (not necessarily telling the story), which from beginning to end “binds the entire sermon to a single plot as theme. Here and there sub-plots, separate illustrations or precepts may punctuate or ornament the narrative, but the theme narrative stays in force all the way through from the sermon’s “once-upon-a-time” until its “happy every after” (Calvin Miller, “Narrative Preaching” in Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, 103). This method is often associated with persons like David Buttrick, Fred Craddock, Eugene Lowry, and Henry Mitchell. It is an extremely popular model today, especially among mainline liberal Protestant preachers. It is, however, beginning to gain a following in evangelical churches as well. Calvin Miller notes, “typical congregations nourished on years of television dramas and popular video releases have been groomed to relate to the narrative sermon” (quoted in Leadership, Winter 1997, 96). Bottom line is the story, and the impact the story makes.

“If the story does not touch you, doesn’t get a rise out of you, it’s not going to get a

rise out of anyone else. Passion communicates The key is that the story resonates,

and you are thinking about it after you leave, and the next day you are thinking

about it. That means it is permeating the culture,”

(Actor Max McLean, quoted in NetFax, Jul 20, 1998, pg. 1).

*THE “NEW HOMILETIC” – related to narrative preaching and growing out of the “new hermeneutic,” this method has emerged in the past 25 years. Exemplified in a book like The Sermon: Dancing the Edge of Mystery (Abingdon, 1997) by Eugene Lowry, this is a plot-based approach to preaching that looks for “conflict” in the text and then pursues its “complications” to “sudden shift.” The sermon “unfolds” finally coming together in “resolution.” Like the New Hermeneutic from which it was birthed, this approach is radically existential and emphasizes the importance of decision on the part of the congregation. “In the moment of decision as he hears the Word of God proclaimed, the hearer “stands outside of himself” (existere, from Greek ek + histemi) and has the possibility of entering a new understanding of himself’ (R.G. Gruenler, “The New Hermeneutic” in EDT, 764). Concern for authorial intent and textual meaning is not important. Meaning and significance (application) are often blurred in this style of preaching. Its strength is in the attention it gives the audience and its call for decision. As Robert Stephen Reid wrote, “The New Homiletic’s interest [is] in creating an experience rather than making an argument” (“Postmodernism and the Function of the New Homiletic in Post-Christiandom Congregations” Homiletics, Winter 1995)

CONCLUSION:

William Willimon, Dean of the chapel at DukeUniversity, recently stated, “today’s conservatives sound like yesterday’s liberals.” In a fascinating article titled “Been there, preached that.” (Leadership, Fall 1995) Willimon sounds a prophetic warning to evangelicals, that they might not be seduced by the sirens of modernity and follow the path of tragic insignificance which mainline denominations have trod.

“I’m a mainline-liberal-Protestant-Methodist-type Christian. I know we’re soft on Scripture. Norman Vincent Peale has exercised a more powerful effect on our preaching than St. Paul…

I know we play fast and loose with Scripture. But I’ve always had this fantasy that somewhere, like in Texas, there were preachers who preached it all, Genesis to Revelation, without blinking an eye…

I took great comfort in knowing that, even while I preached a pitifully compromised, “Pealed” -down gospel, that somewhere, good old Bible-believing preachers were offering their congregations the unadulterated Word, straight up.

Do you know how disillusioning it has been for me to realize that many of these self­proclaimed biblical preachers now sound more like liberal mainliners than liberal mainliners? At the very time those of us in the mainline, oldline, sidelined were repenting of our pop psychological pap and rediscovering the joy of disciplined biblical preaching, these “biblical preachers” were becoming “user friendly” and “inclusive,” taking their homiletical cues from the “felt needs” of us “boomers” and “busters” rather than the excruciating demands of the Bible.

1 know why they do this… It all starts with American Christians wanting to be helpful to the present order, to be relevant (as the present order defines relevance). We so want to be invited to lunch at the White House or at least be interviewed on ‘Good Morning America.’ So we adjust our language to the demands of the market, begin with the world and its current infatuations rather than the Word and its peculiar judgments on our infatuations.

If you listen to much of our preaching, you get the impression that Jesus was some sort of itinerant therapist who, for free, traveled about helping people feel better. Ever since Fosdick, we mainline liberals have been bad about this. Start with some human problem like depression; then rummage around in the Bible for a relevant answer.

Last fall, as 1 was preparing in my office for the Sunday service, the telephone rang. ‘Who’s preaching in Duke Chapel today?’ asked a nasal, Yankee-sounding voice.

I cleared my throat and answered, ‘The Reverend Doctor William Willimon. ‘Who’s that?’ asked the voice.

‘The Dean of the Chapel,’ I answered in a sonorous tone.

‘I hope he won’t be preaching politics. I’ve had a rough week and 1 need to hear about God. My Baptist church is so eaten up with politics, I’ve got to hear a sermon!’

When you have to come to a Methodist for a biblical sermon, that’s pitiful.”

————–

Be Blessed!