Level I: Meaning/Interpretation

The Sermon

1. Level I: Meaning/Interpretation

a. Look at the whole. This is done on two levels. First, we chart the book itself, noting the ebb and flow of its thought-development. Second, we determine its biblical theology, that is, the major emphases the author seeks to stress. Through this the pastor/teacher develops both understanding of the whole message of the book/paragraph and a prelim- inary thesis statement.

b. Look at the genre. We must determine the genre or type of literature before inter- pretation can begin. The pastor will preach apocalyptic quite differently than poetry or narrative. As we know from chapters six through twelve, we must study and proclaim each biblical genre differently, according to its own purposes and rules, lest we proclaim a message alien to the divine intention in the text.

2. Level II: Interpretation/Relevance. At this stage we determine the extent to which a passage is normative for all times or applies an underlying eternal command to a specific cultural situation. We all recognize that portions of Scripture are not meant to be followed today, such as historical narrative or purely cultural commands. That Paul made urban evangelism his approach at Ephesus (Acts 18-19) does not mean that the village evangelism of our time is wrong. Nor do we have to “greet one another with a holy kiss” (Rom 16:16 and others). However, we must evangelize and greet one another in love. Therefore, before we can contextualize a passage we must determine the extent to which it is meant for our day.

c. Look at the grammar, semantics andsyntax. When we move from the whole to the parts, it is important to see how individual statements fit together, to note the major and minor clauses and to study the interrelationships of the units of thought. We must look at the whole statement and ask the author’s intended meaning in the context before applying it to our context. Above all, we dare not declare our belief in an inspired, inerrant Scripture when by our treatment of the text we demonstrate a lack of concern for the inspired meaning. God couched his revelation within human language, and any study of linguistics demands that we note the relation of each word to its context. Word study must be wed with grammar and syntax to allow the divinely inspired message to shine through the text.

a. Note when the argument is anchored in prior revelation. If a statement is grounded in the Old Testament proof-text or a saying of Jesus or a canonical creed (such as 1 Cor 15:3-5), it may demonstrate that the author is not merely dealing with a current cultural situation but rather in the revealed, eternal counsel of God.

b. Determine the circumstances and the underlying theological/ethical principle. We must always search for the theology behind the statement as well as the historical situ- ation that occasioned the emphasis. If the principle is prescriptive rather than descriptive, it will more likely be normative. Also, we must determine the distance between that underlying principle and the explicit statement in the text. If there is distance it will perhaps support a cultural application, and we will apply the passage at the principial level (deep theological structure) rather than at the surface level (see also points c-e below).

d. Look at the historical/cultural background. We need to understand the passage and c. Determine whether the teaching transcends the cultural biases of the age. If it does book within their historical context as well. It is amazing how much more meaningful transcend those norms of society, it will provide a clear signpost for the supracultural the Bible becomes when viewed in this light. Moreover, this often highlights a contex- relevance of the command. If it does not, we must consider the other principles, for we tualizing situation in the history of Israel or the early church and provides a helpful step may then need to contextualize it within the new situation.

in leading the congregation to note the significance of the passage for their own lives. d. Determine whether a teaching is primarily cultural or theological/moral in essence.

Finally, this aspect can lead us to highly meaningful illustrations as we recreate the If the former, it is usually applied at the principle level, such as those concerning slaves

“world” behind the text and draw parallels with ou’r own world.

e. Look at the unulogiu scripturu. While the above steps recognize the diversity of Scripture, here we consider the unity of the Bible, asking what parallel passages help to clarify the true point of the text. Primarily, we need to realize that individual statements must be understood within the broader context of Scripture as a whole. We tend to overly dogmatize single passages when the author was only stressing one aspect of the larger truth for the sake of the problem he was addressing. We must consider several levels: the passage, the theology of the writer and the theology of Scripture as a whole. Each must be applied before we can understand the exact meaning of the passage.

f. Look at the interpretation of the passage throughout church history. Many modern errors of interpretation could be avoided if we were aware of similar mistakes in the past.

On individual passages the better commentaries will often list the possible interpretations, and this can be of great benefit, lest we force a reading on a passage that does not really best fit the context. Moreover, the history of dogma also supplies the pastor with excel- lent examples of contextualization to use in the sermon.

356 The Hermsneullctl Spiral Homiletics II: The Sermon 357 and their master (labor-management) or the holy kiss (Christian greeting). If the latter,

it is supracultural and therefore normative for all ages and cultures.

e. Recognize that the supracultural content of Scripture is eternal/universal and cannot be altered, while cultural forms may be changed depending on the context. This of course provides a transition to the final section. The major point is that our decision regarding eternal norms is binding on all cultures. Pragmatic considerations should not be allowed to overrule biblical demands. At the same time, however, if we decide that the command is cultural, it is still binding in subcultures (such as many fundamentalist and evangelical groups) that are similar to the first century in this area.

3. Level III: Contextualization/Application. The purpose of contextualization/ applica- tion is to make clear and readily available to persons in any culture the good news of God’s love in Jesus Christ and the abundant life he provides. Further, the Bible demands that we challenge all persons and societies with the supracultural norms of Scripture.

a. Add to our exegesis of the Word an exegesis

of

our world. Before we can properly apply any biblical statement to our culture or another, we must seek a deeper understand- ing of the specific cultural environment. This is just as true of our society as it is of one overseas. Many pastors have lost touch with the professional, the factory worker and others. In another culture it is even more crucial and should involve both library research and participant observation. Busy pastors, too, need to function as a sociologist, con- stantly doing the type of life-situation study that will enable them to meet the needs of their congregation.

b. Allow the Word to encounter the world. At times this will involve a positive con- firmation of the world and at other times a negative confrontation with it. Missionaries and pastors should seek redemptive analogies that will allow them to make the Word relevant and understandable within the given culture. Of course, this process may also have to distinguish cultural form from content, accepting the content but replacing the form in a culture that would not understand it. This positive or negative pull will be determined by a trialogue between text, interpreter/contextualizer and recipient culture.

The Word first addresses the interpreter who must internalize it before seeking to apply it to the culture. The interpreter becomes contextualizer when he or she participates both in the Word and in the world. In this process the Word challenges then transforms first the interpreter and then the receptor culture.

c. Take account of the scriptural teaching regarding the eschatological end of this age.

Jesus taught that the kingdom “has come” in his first advent and that we are now living in a state of tension between this age and the age to come. Jesus has bound Satan by the Incarnation and the cross (Mk 3:27), yet Satan is still the god or prince of this age (2 Cor 4:4; Eph 2:2). We now exist in the heavenlies (Eph I:3 and others) where Satan operates (Eph 3: 10; 6: 10-12) and must manifest Jesus’ victory in our lives. Many issues facing the church are of a global, even apocalyptic, nature. The church ignores these at her peril. We must avoid irrelevant or even deceitful speaking on these issues (such as social injustice, arms escalation and so forth) yet at the same time maintain a balance between evangelism (which is primary) and social concern (which in the end should not

be radically separated from it).

d. Note the priority ofauthority. Too often preachers’ and teachers’ interpretations and even their applications are given an ex cathedra authority. We need to remember that only the inspired text is inerrant. Our interpretation is dependent on the Spirit’s illumi- nation and its authority depends on the amount of effort we put into studying the passage. Our finite understanding and human perspective too easily control our interpre- tation. Therefore, our delineation of a passage’s message carries authority only to the extent that it conforms to its intended meaning. The contextualization is even further removed and is also dependent on the Spirit’s illumination and is still another step removed from the text, since it depends on the interpretation and our own decision as to the text’s normative content and applicability to the receptor culture. Therefore, our task in contextualization is to shape our response to the results of levels one and two.

e. Finally, realize the necessity of praxis. Proper contextualization recognizes that right understanding ideally results in right practice. The Bible seeks not just correct thinking or understanding but more the correct action that results. The same Hebrew and Greek words mean both “hear” and “obey.” Therefore, changed lives are the intended results of the enculturation of the Word.

4. Level IV: Preparing the Sermon.

a. Rework the outline. The Bible study outline that resulted from the exegesis is presented in descriptive language and simply summarizes the meaning of the parts of the passage. In the sermon these points will be reworked in dynamic language in order to challenge the hearer to respond to the point.

b. Decide how to contextuulize thepoints. The pastor or missionary will work through the sermon points on the basis of a life-situation analysis of the audience. Certain aspects will be emphasized to meet those needs and the pastor or teacher will then decide what type of contextualization (such as illustration, suggesting ways and means, direct con- frontation of issues) will best serve the purpose at each point of the passage.

c. Work on packaging the sermon. The preacher must remove pedantic language and seek a smoothly flowing sermon. The wording should be worked carefully to maintain interest and grip the hearts of the hearers. The speaker will want to plan carefully the proper rhetorical techniques for the various parts of the sermon. The Holy Spirit is the one who actually persuades and motivates the listener, but the speaker must utilize methods that will form a channel rather than a barrier for the Spirit’s work.

In conclusion, one cannot “rightly divide the Word” (2 Tim 2:15) until it has been interpreted and contextualized so that the same voice of God speaks today as spoke in biblical times. Of course, God is strong and wise enough to speak through erroneous interpretations. However, at the same time it is incumbent on each of us to speak with as clear a voice as possible, to seek to say, “God worked in my ministry because of (and not ‘in spite of’) the interpretation and contextualization that I was led to present today.”

Paul states, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news” (Rom 10: 16, from Isaiah 52:7). There is no greater privilege than to be the proclaimer of divine truth within the desperate situation of our world today. May we be careful to make certain (through

3 5 8 The Hsrmtntuticrl Splrrl Homilellcs II: The Sermon 3 5 9 the leading of the Holy Spirit and our own hard work) that it is indeed God’s voice

speaking through us as we contextualize his Word for our world.

I. Petition God for Power (3:16-17a) II. Petition God for Insight (3: 17b-19a) III. Petition God for Fullness (3: 19b) Excursus on Preparing Ihe Sermon

In many ways a detailed study of the sermonic process goes beyond the subject of this book. However, several aspects touch on the hermeneutical spiral from text to context and are helpful in communicating the significance of the passage.

I. 16-17a 1. Develop a Thesis (Propositional) Statement. After concluding the exegesis of the

passage, the pastor/ teacher should summarize the message as a whole and determine the single point the writer has been trying to develop. This is easiest when one preaches by paragraphs (using a paragraph Bible like the New International Version), for often a message changes themes slightly from one paragraph to another. The purpose is to center on the message as a whole rather than the isolated parts. Homileticians continually castigate biblical scholars for developing so many points in a message that the congre- gation is confused as to what areas they should develop in their lives. Moreover, the biblical writers saw their message as a single whole rather than as a series of disjointed parts. Therefore, we are true to Scripture only if we develop the “big idea” (Robinson’s term) that the author intended. The details of the text or main points of the sermon will actually develop aspects of this thesis statement. Each main point will be one part of the larger whole, much like pieces of a pie (see figure 16.1).

2. Outline the Sermon. This is the third step in determining the structural development of the passage. In the basic survey of the context (chap. one above) the Bible student does a preliminary outline and in the detailed exegesis reworks that to its final form. In preparing the sermon the pastor takes that final outline and contextualizes each main point to speak dynamically to the congregation. Some (such as Adams, Pulpit Speech) have said that the sermon outline stems from the congregation’s needs and not necessarily from the outline of the text. In other words, a sermon on prayer from Ephesians 3:14- 21 (see chap. four) might have only two points, one on “strength” and the other on “love”

if that were the perceived need of the hearers. The pastor would omit the other points and save them for another time. However, I find that problematic and unnecessary. It is problematic because the busy pastor could easily skew the meaning of the passage and thus of the words strength and love by ignoring the context from which they come. Adams is not saying that one should neglect exegesis, but on the pragmatic level this would occur.

Further, such a method is unnecessary because the pastor could do the same thing by following the textS outline and contextualizing specifically at those points. The outline of the text must provide a control on the common tendency to analyze a text subjectively (from the congregation’s needs) rather than objectively (from the author’s meaning).

The technical exegetical outline is rephrased to communicate the dynamic message of the text. The goal is to speak the original message to the needs of our day. Therefore, it is a conscious contextualization of the text. For instance, the three points of Ephesians 3: 16-19 could be reworked:

II. 17b-19a

!

Fig. 16.1. The Pieces of a Sermon on Ephesians 3:16-19.

Alliteration has been much maligned of late, due to misuse on the part of many, We need to remember, however, that it is a technique used often in Scripture. For instance, Psalm 119 is an acrostic on the Hebrew alphabet, and Matthew organized his material in groups of threes, fives and sevens. So long as one does not skew the meaning of the passage, alliteration can be a valuable device for helping a congregation remember the points. One should not use this method constantly, however, lest the congregation tire of it. Variety is the primary goal. If one were to use alliteration on the Ephesian passage, the three “petitions” could be for power, perception and perfection (the latter is the title for v. 19b in Markus Barth’s Ephesians commentary). Most important, the titles for the major sections should share two characteristics: (1) they should constitute parts of the thesis statement (see above); (2) they should ask the audience to participate in the ap- plication of the text to their own lives.

Let us employ Ztphaniah 3:14-17 (see chap. four) as a further example. Developing the Bible study outline of the passage gives us the following:

I. We can respond joyfully to ,triaIs (3: 14-15)

II. We can confess our hope in the midst of trials (3: 16-17)

In this passage I have presented it as possibility rather than command because I want the hearers to respond with anticipation rather than with guilt, positively rather than negatively.

Liefeld mentions three functions of a good sermon outline: (1) it groups the data in order to facilitate comprehension; (2) it focuses attention on those parts which the text (or preacher) wants to emphasize; (3) it moves the sermon along toward its goal

360 The Hermensulicrl Spiral

(1984: 115). I would add a fourth: it challenges the congregation to implement the major point(s) in their lives. An outline is like a good lawyer who not only assembles the facts but does so in such a way that the jury (the congregation) is moved to respond to the truths of the message. It establishes rapport and helps the audience desire to attain the goals presented in the message.

3. Rework the Body of the Sermon. This must be done in keeping with the life-situation analysis of the congregation and the propositional statement. Choose those aspects of the message you wish to highlight and apply, then work carefully through the proper con- textualization of those parts. With a proper balance between explanation, persuasion and motivation, the preacher will develop a message that immerses the congregation in the ancient situation and message and then in its relevance for their own lives.

Transition statements between points of the text are crucial, for they are the mortar that binds together the idea-blocks of the edifice of the sermon. Transitions should be natural, leading the congregation from one point to another and enabling the listeners to see the relationship and progression between the ideas. There are three elements here:

the concise summary of the previous section (“We have seen how Jesus taught that God’s forgiveness is conditional on our willingness to forgive”), a transitional phrase (“and now we will turn to the Epistles”) and the introduction of the next point (“in order to see what they say about forgiveness”). The key is brevity and simplicity, making certain that the audience understands the development of the message.

Another critical element is sermonic flow. The preacher must remove all pedantic, unnecessary parts and rework the points so that the audience’s interest will be maintained.

The goal is to transmit not merely information about the text but the spiritual power of the text. Each element must flow into the next and details should be paired down so that the hearers are not bored by needless data that adds little or nothing to the real message of the text.

4. Prepare the Introduction and Conclusion. These are the last elements of the sermon proper to be developed. One needs to know exactly what the passage teaches and how it should be developed for the congregation before deciding how to introduce and con- clude the passage. Both aspects are tailored to fit the propositional statement. The in- troduction is written to catch the interest of the congregation and prepare them for the sermon proper. It should be about 10 per cent of the message and consists of three parts:

(1) an interesting anecdote that will both capture the imagination of the listeners and lead into the propositional statement; (2) the propositional statement itself; and (3) a brief note of the context that situates the message in the larger framework of the biblical author’s developing message, connects it with previous sermons in the expository series and leads naturally into the main points of the body of the message. This will help the audience note the larger context within which the passage occurs and will function in a sermon the same way a book chart (see chap. one) works in Bible study.

The conclusion ties together the points of the sermon and its contextualization, mo- tivating the congregation to live out those points concretely in the days following. It

Homiletlcs II: The Sermon 361

should also be concise (no more than 10 per cent of the sermon) with well-phrased sen- tences built around a personal appeal that contextualizes the propositional statement.

The goals are to sum up the message, drive home the main point and motivate the audience to act on it. The listeners should feel that the conclusion is addressed to them personally, and so it should be phrased in positive terms, centering on action (what to do) rather than guilt (what to avoid). Finally, the conclusion must be forceful, direct and urgent, demanding immediate response and giving the audience something to act on immediately (if they can put it off they will forget the point). I prefer concrete suggestions rather than generalities. Give them a “homework assignment” that asks them to put the sermon to work in specific ways in the days to follow. For instance, one could concretize the message above on Zephaniah 3:14-17 by asking each hearer to list three trials that he or she is experiencing currently and then to note specific ways in which God confirms his love (v. 17) to them in the midst of each trial during the coming week.

Excurstts on Style

1. Story Preaching. The tendency in current homiletic theory is to reject the proposi- tional form of preaching espoused in this section in behalf of “story preaching,” an

“event” approach that narrates a plot or tells a story rather than presents in didactic fashion a series of theological assertions. The problem of traditional preaching, it is argued, is its basis in Aristotelian rhetoric, which has controlled Western logic and communication from the start. As a result, preaching has always tended to be didactic, trying to convince the congregation of the truth of the propositional points made in the message. However, the homiletical version of reader-response criticism (pp. 377-80) argues that the Bible consists not of propositional assertions but of religious metaphors.

As Buttrick says, “Revelation is associated with the symbols through which we interpret life. Thus preaching, as it forms faith-consciousness, is a means of God’s self-disclosure and saving grace now” (1987:l U-16). For story theology, preaching is not assertive but suggestive, not propositional but symbolic. Metaphor and self-awareness are the names of the game. Proclamation has given way to sharing, and truth-orientation has been replaced by life-centeredness. It is not so much content as shared experience that char- acterizes story preaching.

Steimle states that there are three “stories” in preaching (1980:41-42): the biblical story (the basis), the preacher’s own story (the example) and the congregation’s story (the occasion for the sermon). The “authority” of the sermon is derived from the extent to which it touches on and interweaves these three elements. According to Steimle, the

“story sermon” must be “secular” from start to finish, addressing the needs of people today in the same way that biblical writers chose their redemptive metaphors (for exam- ple, “redemption” was derived from the slave market) from the secular world (pp. 165 67). For him the “timeless sermon,” which is just as relevant today as it was a century ago, is not a good sermon, for it does not touch lives. A truly “biblical” sermon establishes a dialogue with the daily needs of the hearers, and the best way to do this is to structure the sermon around a plot or story that draws the audience into the suspense and life-

relatedness of its message. c