Preaching and Postmodernism: An Evangelical Comes to the Dance David L. Allen

David L. Allen is the W. A. Criswell Introduction of my classmates were immediately con- Chair of Expository Preaching and the These days, everyone appears to be “danc- verted to postmodernism. I turned to Director of the Jerry Vines Institute of ing the edge of mystery” (the now famous Danny Akin who was seated beside me Biblical Preaching at The Criswell Col- phrase originating from David Buttrick in and by the gleam in his eye I could tell lege. Dr. Allen also serves as the Senior his Homiletic: Moves and Structures),1 so I that he was thinking the same thing I was: Pastor of MacArthur Blvd. Baptist thought I might visit the dance marathon the illustration merely proved that in Church in Irving, Texas. He is the author as well. The phrase appears as the sub- plane geometry, a right triangle always of a number of articles and is working title of Eugene Lowry’s book The Sermon had the angle degree of 90, and in what- on a commentary on Hebrews in the and as the title of Cornelius Plantinga’s ever form of geometry you would call a New American Commentary Series. review of twenty books and articles from right triangle drawn on a cylinder (the the New Homiletics in Books and Culture2 future Vice President of Southern Semi- and can be found in the text or footnotes nary and I weren’t particularly up on our of virtually every book written from the mathematics) the degree of angle was perspective of the New Homiletic. “Danc- always 92. After some discussion on this ing the edge of mystery” in many ways point, I am happy to report that Truth with encapsulates what the New Homiletic is a capital “T” survived. about: metaphor and symbol; evocation “Post” is in. Art has its postimpres- of an experience; unrestricted movement; sionism, music has its postlude, undertak- and, of course, mystery. Interestingly, the ers have their postmortems, obstetricians phrase also describes postmodernism. I their postpartums (which are, of course, wonder if there could be some correlation. postnatal), authors their postscripts, and My first encounter with a postmod- geologists their post-Tertiary. Just a few ernist occurred in a Ph.D. seminar on years ago, theologians rarely had to con- Rhetoric in 1984 at the University of Texas tend with anything “post” beyond that at Arlington. The professor made the bold which was subsequent to the council of statement that there was no such thing as Nicaea, certain eschatological positions, or truth with a capital “T”; there were only the position of gar in Greek grammar. truths with a little “t.” He proceeded to Today, we are inundated with lexical items illustrate this statement by asking the class such as “post-liberal,” “post-conser- what the degree of angle on a right tri- vative,” “post-evangelical,” “post-Chris- angle was, to which the class replied in tian,” “post-biblical,” and a host of other unison: “90 degrees.” He then asked if this “posts” that clutter our theological land- was always true. We said yes. With a big scape. None, however, is quite so perva- smile he retorted that it was not always sive as “postmodern.” true. “If one draws a right triangle on a What is postmodernism? How is it to cylinder, the degree of angle is not 90 but be defined? Can it be defined? Is it chro- 92” he cheerily informed us. A moment nological or ideological or even logical at of silence followed as I sensed that some all? Many have attempted answers to 62 these questions, and although unanimity is a metanarrative. 7) Thou shalt treat everything as an escapes us, a broad consensus has devel- interpretation, remembering that oped. Postmodernism basically denies the there abideth three: author, text, and objectivity of knowledge and truth. Truth, reader, but the greatest of these is reader. if it does exist, is socially and communally 8) Thou shalt not deny pluralism: for constructed and cannot exist with a capi- one will not be held guiltless who tal “T.” Inclusivism is out. Pluralism is in. tolerates exclusivistic thinking. 9) Thou shalt recognize that relativ- Metanarratives are out while “story” and ism is the only absolute. “narrative” are in. The individual is out 10) Thou shalt have no ultimate authority: everyone should do that while community is in. Objectivity is out which is right in its/hers/his/what- while perspectivism is in.3 ever own eyes. Postmodernism is nothing less than a shift in worldview. It has a chronological I find it interesting that the popularity element inherent in its very name: post- of postmodernism in the last quarter of modern. It has an ideological element: a the twentieth century coincides somewhat whole new set of assumptions and pre- with the rise and popularity of the New suppositions about the nature of reality. Homiletic. Fred Craddock’s As One With- From this standpoint, it has philosophi- out Authority was published in 1971 and cal, theological, scientific, literary, and is rightly looked upon as initiating a “new many other academic and cultural impli- era” and a “Copernican revolution” in cations and ramifications as well. Broadly homiletics. Is this coincidental or is there speaking, one could say that modernism a connection? To answer that question, we was dominated by the hard sciences; must identify the basic tenets of postmod- postmodernism by the human sciences. ernism and look for affinities with the At the risk of being very “un-post- New Homiletic. modern,” I would suggest the following First, however, we must ask how the 10 commandments (in a non-totalizing New Homiletic differs from a more tradi- sense of course) as illustrative of what tional homiletic. According to Eugene postmodernism is all about. Lowry, the New Homiletic is

1) Anti-foundationalism is thy god a paradigmatic shift involving and thou shalt have no other gods moves from deductive to inductive, before it. from rhetoric to poetic, from space 2) Thou shalt not make Logocen- to time, from literality to orality, trism thy idol neither shalt thou bow from prose to poetry, from hot to down before any (W/w)ord. cool, from creed to hymn, from sci- 3) Thou shalt deconstruct every- ence to art, from left brain to right thing. brain, from proposition to parable, 4) Honor reality and truth as from direct to indirect, from con- socially/communally constructed, struction to development, from dis- that it may be well with thee and that cursive to aesthetic, from theme to thou mightest live long in postmod- event, from description to image, ern academia. from point to evocation, from 5) Remember subjectivity to keep it authoritarian to democratic, from holy, for objective knowledge and truth to meaning, from account to truth with a capital “T” are impos- experience.4 sible. 6) Thou shalt recognize that narra- Perhaps the foundational tenet of the tive is everything and no narrative New Homiletic is that discursive, deduc- 63 tive, propositional preaching is no longer an experience rather than to assemble a viable method of communicating with thoughts.9 Eugene Lowry says that a ser- today’s postmodern audiences. This is mon is an ordered form of moving time.10 usually assumed to be true for at least In Lowry’s understanding of homiletics, two reasons: 1) communication theory narrative is essential because time is “cen- has discovered (or, more accurately, redis- tral to the homiletical event.”11 covered) the importance of the listener, These two key elements—the rejection and 2) the rise of narrative as a fundamen- of so called deductive, propositional tal category in the human sciences preaching in favor of a narrative structure coupled with the discovery (or rediscov- and the goal of preaching being that of ery) of the narrative form of much of the evocation of an experience in the lis- Scriptures mandates a narrative approach tener—form the twin pillars of the New to preaching.5 Homiletic. Lowry notes in his The Sermon: In As One Without Authority, Craddock Dancing the Edge of Mystery that the issues championed “inductive” preaching as being raised by postmodernism are “cru- opposed to the more traditional “deduc- cial” for the developing sermonic prin- tive” model. The goal of preaching as he ciples of the New Homiletic.12 saw it was to create an experience in the What I propose to do is to take the 10 listener that would effect a hearing of the commandments of postmodernism above gospel. In the same year in which Crad- and briefly relate each one to elements dock’s seminal work appeared, Stephen of the New Homiletic. “Briefly” is the Crites’s article “The Narrative Quality of operative word here. In most cases, we Experience” was published.6 Crites will only consider one or two examples viewed narrative as the universal condi- in each category, though more could be tion of human consciousness. Narrative given. This will not, however, be simply a is at the very heart of human existence. descriptive article. I cannot resist an occa- Another key element in the New Homi- sional critique of postmodernism or the letic is the idea that the goal of preaching New Homiletic along the way. is not the communication of information (which is secondary or tertiary at best and Anti-foundationalism according to Craddock was counter-pro- There can be no doubt that the philo- ductive) but rather the evocation of an sophical concept of anti-foundationalism experience. The sermon is a communica- undergirds (pun intended) postmod- tion event in which the audience, with the ernism. From a modernist perspective, help of the preacher, creates or discovers foundationalism begins with Descartes “meaning” and is led to a new way of and is traceable throughout Enlighten- seeing the world created by the gospel.7 ment modernity. Simply put, founda- The theological underpinning for this tionalism is the perspective that knowl- concept harks back especially to Emil edge is based on certain absolute first Brunner and H. Richard Niebuhr.8 principles or truths and the attempt to According to Richard Eslinger, if establish those first principles constitutes human experience is inherently narratival the foundationalist project. Founda- and temporal, a sermon should be tionalism is very much a modernistic designed to be experienced and to create construct and is heartily rejected by 64 postmodernism.13 Logocentrism and Deconstruction John McClure’s review of Beyond Inter- I will treat the two commandments pretation: the Meaning of Hermeneutics for concerning logocentrism and decon- Philosophy by Gianni Vattimo and of Reli- struction together since they are so closely gion edited by Jacques Derrida and related. Whenever one finds an anti- Vattimo illustrates the anti-founda- foundationalist ontological approach as tionalist approach of some within the New in the postmodern project, one can rest Homiletic.14 McClure, who teaches homi- assured that a critique of logocentrism letics at Louisville Presbyterian Theologi- won’t be far behind. According to post- cal Seminary, is thoroughly postmodern modernism, since language is used in a in his homiletical orientation. He quotes variety of ways in a variety of cultures, it approvingly both Vattimo and Derrida, cannot represent reality. Philosophers and concludes by telling us that in them from Plato on have been deceived in we find “fleeting glimpses of the nature thinking that we could access reality of the homiletical project in a postmodern through language. Indeed, postmodern- world.”15 ism informs us that we can know nothing Yet not all within the New Homiletic outside our language. All attempts via are committed to the first commandment language to refer to extensive reality of anti-foundationalism. For example, are doomed to failure, hence Derridian Scott Johnston steers us clear of nihilism deconstructionism. à la Mark Taylor, but reminds us that The postmodernist view of language within homiletics, we must live with and truth is ably described by Groothuis: uncertainty. In Theology of Preaching: Authority, Truth and Knowledge of God in a Truth is not established by anything outside of the mind or the culture Postmodern Ethos, Johnston, together with that shapes beliefs. The word co-authors Barbara Blaisdell and Ronald “truth” is simply a contingent cre- Allen, provide a bird’s-eye view of the ation of language, which has vari- ous uses in various cultures.… It inroads of anti-foundationalism in homi- cannot be said to represent or mir- letics. While this book does not advocate ror reality itself. Our access to the an anti-foundationalist approach, it does territory of reality is through our lan- guage, which acts as a map. But we give too much ground to postmodernism cannot check the map against the in several areas, including epistemology, territory, since we can know noth- ing outside our language…When the nature of truth, authority, and related language attempts to refer to any- issues. (Examples will be noted in most thing outside language itself, it 16 of the “commandments” below.) Allen’s fails. adherence to process theology makes it Without taking the time to critique virtually impossible for him not to agree deconstruction’s errant view of lan- with some aspects of postmodern anti- guage,17 I shall reference Joseph Webb’s foundationalism. Thus, even though we comments on sermon methodology in his cannot say that the New Homiletic com- Preaching and the Challenge of Pluralism to pletely accepts anti-foundationalism, it is compare homiletics with these two com- obvious that some of its practitioners have mandments. Webb makes use of Kenneth been influenced by it. Burke’s symbolic view of the text in his own approach to sermon preparation. He 65 correctly notes that Burke’s methodology way, however, that the preacher can, with honesty and integrity, analyze is actually a form of inductive textual and evaluate a text, and shall we say, deconstruction antedating Derrida.18 reject it—not “out of hand,” but “for 22 Although it lacks the “harshness” of a Der- cause.” ridian approach, Webb’s approach, fol- “When one preaches this way… one’s lowing Burke, produces a “radically preaching takes on a sparkle that instead different body of ‘information’ about the of demeaning the Bible, will actually give text,” including “a sense of its undercur- the Bible a vitality that it can receive in no rents, its assumptions, implicit ideas, other way.”23 unspoken definitions, and veiled asser- Webb would probably be on the far left tions.”19 on this issue. Less breathtaking but none- According to Webb, preaching is theless problematic is Scott Johnston’s affected in at least three ways by this discussion of the Derridian program for approach. First, rather than involving the homiletics. Rejecting the hard-line decon- preacher in reviewing the surface narra- struction of Mark Taylor, Johnston pro- tive or didaction of the text, the preacher motes an “alternative trajectory”— the gains a new insight into the text’s outlook. Derridian “trace” or “shadow,” the “par- The text’s underlying motivations, its tial presence,” the “mystery” which is “an underbelly as it were, must be brought to aspect of truth preachers do well to con- light through the “taking apart” and template.”24 I have offered a critique of “turning over” (deconstructing) of the Johnston’s thought elsewhere.25 text. Finding the underlying symbolic Groothuis offers a salient critique of the organization of the text and sharing this Derridian program and its effect upon the in the sermon is the goal.20 This is not an text and preachers: “irreverent” attitude toward the text, according to Webb. It is a deconstruction Derrida removes any objective of the text, however. meaning from texts; their meaning The second way in which preachers is forever indeterminate…. If a text is intrinsically and irreducibly benefit from this approach has to do with equivocal, its meaning is unavailable the Bible’s plurivocity. Because this relates and its interpreters can never be judged rationally against the one to commandment number 8 above, I shall meaning of the text itself. The author reserve comment until later. The third ben- vanishes, and readers are left adrift. efit lies in the way the preacher and con- Since Scripture is God’s inspired word…, it does possess a “permanent gregation can “confront and challenge” a identity that is absolutely its own.” text to expose its “ideology.”21 According The divine author employed human to Webb, the biblical text is in some ways authors to make truth known. Our concern is how to interpret rightly more “ideological than theological”! It and truly the objective meaning of needs to be probed in such a way that the the text, to discern how it coheres preacher does not “let the text off the with the rest of Scripture and how the text applies to us today.26 hook” with what it may appear to say on the surface. It would seem that some within the New Homiletic are using deconstruction to One can ask the text to demonstrate its ideology.… If this sounds some- varying degrees as a philosophical and what devious, it is not.…This is a methodological approach to the sermon. 66 Reality and Truth as a linguist named Chomsky. It is not just Socially Constructed that communities use language with a Ever since Peter Berger and Thomas little “l,” but that they have capacity for Luckmann’s The Social Construction of Language. Evidence now exists to show Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowl- that all languages have a semantic struc- edge, cultural constructivisim has been an ture (deep structure, notional structure), entrenched axiom of postmodernity (even and that these structures comprise a finite though we cannot have “entrenched axi- set of cognitive/communication relations oms” in postmodernism!). If the chief that are not language specific. The expla- error of modernism was the construction nation for this on an evolutionary model of a totalizing system falsely so called, the or a social/scientific model is hard to new error of postmodernism is the accep- come by. These communication relations tance of cultural constructivism.27 In act as a natural metaphysic of the human postmodernism, communities construct mind. They appear to be a part of the truth according to their use of language imago dei. The result is that communica- and the experiences that are shaped by tion is possible. The marvel is not that we their linguistic community. often misinterpret one another, the mar- This notion of cultural constructivism vel is that we can communicate at all!30 can be adequately refuted on philosophi- According to John McClure, a new cal as well as linguistic grounds. For generation of mainstream pulpit preach- example, Groothuis tackles it philosophi- ers, who no longer yearn nostalgically for cally28 and Robert Longacre tackles it foundational truths to preach, have linguistically in several places in his writ- arrived on the scene. For them the truth ings. Longacre argues against radical epis- of the gospel is community dependent temological relativism in linguistics by and can only be known within a particu- pointing out that languages segment lar tradition, in a particular community, certain aspects of reality in a rather con- at a particular time.31 sistent manner and that “this points to a Virtually every book and article in ‘natural’ segmentation of reality perhaps recent years from the New Homiletic has inescapable for us as human beings.”29 some space devoted to the role of the com- Whenever I read Lindbeck and the munity in preaching. Eugene Lowry tells postliberals on community, the question us, “We simply cannot talk about the ser- keeps coming to mind: what does the mon or any kind of meaning outside the community “commune” around if truth communal context.”32 Chapter six in is socially constructed? What transcends Allen, Blaisdell, and Johnston’s Theology all communities? The obvious answer: for Preaching is devoted to the issue.33 Tho- their use of language. Language is the one mas Long addressed it in “And How Shall thing all communities have in common. They Hear: The Listener in Contemporary How they acquired that capacity for lan- Preaching,”34 Lucy Atkinson Rose advo- guage remains a debated question. The cated sermons as conversations where social science view of language acquisi- preacher and congregation enter into tion says that the human psyche is molded dialogue both in the process of sermon by the surrounding culture. Yet a single construction as well as in the preaching roadblock continually thwarts this view: event.35 67 It would seem that a clear correlation revelation, then the banishment of the can be made between the postmodern ultimate Author leaves all other authors emphasis on community and what is tak- out in the cold. ing place in the New Homiletic. Certainly Let us not fail to lay part of the blame not all within the New Homiletic would on Locke and Kant, for it was Locke who affirm, without reservation, the postmod- (wrongly) held that the percepts (ideas) ern concept that reality and truth are that we perceive in our minds are the socially constructed. But there is a clear objects of which we are directly conscious. move toward the audience in preach- This was a crucial philosophical mistake, ing. More than ever, through rhetorical for Locke held, and virtually all since him, strategies built on contemporary commu- that the awareness of our ideas in our nication theory, homiletics is deeply minds is a private experience. Locke concerned with the role the audience/ locked philosophy into the view of ideas community plays in the sermon event. as that which we directly apprehend with the result that each of us is locked up in Remember Subjectivity the private world of our own subjective The previous four commandments experience. make the fifth a necessity for postmod- Kant, following Hume, didn’t help us ernism. If foundationalism and logocen- out either. He compounded the problem trism are null and void philosophically, by erecting a wall between the noumena then deconstruction would be a logical and the phenomena; and with it sowed outcome. With deconstruction comes the the seeds that would, after being watered recognition that reality and truth must be by Enlightenment modernity, sprout into socially constructed. If that is the case, postmodernity. then subjectivism is inescapable. But we are quickly getting too far Subjectivism comes in two brands: afield. Suffice it to say that confusion healthy and unhealthy. Healthy subjectiv- results when postmodern subjectivists fail ity recognizes that total objectivity is to acknowledge and/or distinguish three impossible. Evangelicals long before things: the existence of truth, the procla- Bultmann believed that exegesis without mation of truth, and the reception of truth. presuppositions was impossible, though Having rejected the notion of truth with a one would not imagine that evangelicals capital “T,” subjectivists collapse the other could entertain such a notion from read- two into a single entity. ing their non- evangelical counterparts on What of the New Homiletic? Any evi- the subject. dence of an unhealthy subjectivity? Unhealthy subjectivity suffers from the It would seem so. Ron Allen rejects postmodern disease of “objectivitis.” truth as correspondence and yet affirms Objectivitis occurs when one’s theologi- that the preacher can “confidently pro- cal diet consists of the rejection of God as claim that the text is true” because the the ultimate subject/author in the uni- claim of the text corresponds to the expe- verse. Since only God could have a God’s- rience of the congregation.36 This is an eye view of things and can communicate unhealthy subjectivism. No doubt Allen such (dare I say “truths” or “information”) would agree with Schuyler Brown: the about Himself, us, and the world via Bible is true not because it can be verified, 68 but because it enlightens the reader.37 the different discourse genre each reflects. Brown, following Carl Jung, believes that The problem came when narrative was the reader’s understanding of revelation given a privileged status over everything is the process of divine self-disclosure else. The problem intensified when nar- within the human soul. He cites Jung’s rative theologians continued to work description of Paul’s experience on the within the confines of an outmoded his- Damascus road as not the historical Jesus torical-critical framework that continued appearing to him, but rather as an “appa- and continues to erode biblical authority. rition” coming to him from the depths of Hans Frei’s The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative his own consciousness. Brown further became a major catalyst for narrative notes that the same experience Paul theologians. One critical problem that received can be mediated to us by read- continues to nag narrative theology is its ing Scripture. The final sentence of the sidestepping of questions about the truth/ book reveals the problem we all face in reality to which a discourse refers. This the theological game when people use the has been a criticism leveled at narrative same vocabulary but not the same dictio- theology from both non-evangelicals and nary: “The purpose of this book has been evangelicals. to reaffirm the revelatory function of holy One does not need to read much in the writ.”38 field of homiletics today to discover the Finally, Joseph Webb’s Preaching and the impact of narrative theology. Within Challenge of Pluralism illustrates the fact homiletics, although there are a number that once any form of an objective revela- of sermonic models used,39 the dominate tion is given up, subjectivity prevails and “umbrella model” for sermon methodol- is celebrated in the homiletical enterprise. ogy is called narrative preaching. Many We will hear more about him below when sermonic forms huddle together under the we talk about pluralism. Meanwhile, I umbrella of narrative preaching. A sermon wonder, “Why are all the walls mirrors on a narrative discourse in the Bible is here at the dance hall?” called narrative preaching. A sermon crafted in the form of a “story” or series Narrative is Everything but of “stories” is called narrative preaching. No Narrative is a Metanarrative This, however, is not the main thrust of In the last third of the twentieth cen- what is meant by the term. A narrative tury, narrative became the Cinderella of sermon is identified by its plot, which literary criticism. From there it became the involves conflict, complication and rising darling of theologians as well with the rise tension, reversal, and then resolution. of narrative criticism, narrative theology, Paul Scott Wilson’s description of a narrative hermeneutics, and finally nar- narrative sermon is helpful. rative homiletics. Of course, not all of this is bad. It was high time that theologians A narrative sermon is a sermon that makes primary use of story to of every stripe recognized once again the develop an idea, attitude, or experi- fact that much of the Scripture is given in ence for the congregation. It narrative form. It is well nigh impossible proceeds not by argument and propositions but by plot, character, to interpret Genesis 22, Psalm 22, and and emotion.… Its truth is recog- Romans 8 aright without a recognition of nized not through logical reasoning 69 and objective proof. Rather, the ser- gests a narrative approach since this is mon is tested by its correspondence 42 to Scripture and life experience.… Its how people process information today. source of unity is poetics, for More satisfying and helpful is David example: plot; controlling images; a Larsen’s Telling the Old, Old Story: The Art particular event, location, or time; identification; a sense of completed of Narrative Preaching, which offers a cri- action, growth, or emotional resolu- tique of narrative preaching but then pre- tion. Narration implies a flexible or- sents a valuable method for preaching the ganic structure and varied forms.40 narrative genre of the Bible.43 Although Those homiletes who put all their eggs this excellent book is from the pen of a in the narrative basket tend to disparage noted evangelical homiletician and is over expository preaching. One finds little 300 pages in length, one is hard pressed exposition of the text in most narrative to find it mentioned or even listed in the sermons. The goal is the evocation of an bibliography of those writing from the experience—a very postmodern goal. Of perspective of the New Homiletic. course, there are experiences and there are A number of assumptions about lan- experiences. Not all experiences are cre- guage, communication, and the nature of ated equal. Furthermore, experiences are the biblical text lie behind narrative not devoid of cognitive content and a truth preaching, and it is not within the scope factor. of this article to evaluate them. My goal is Claims by those who argue that preach- simply to point out that the postmodern ing should be in a narrative mode and not love affair with narrative is clearly expositional in nature do not increase the reflected in the New Homiletic. likelihood of the listener experiencing Has the New Homiletic given us more God, but rather make it less so. Cognitive, “biblical” preaching with the rediscovery propositional content may be a dirty word of narrative? I think not. Schuyler Brown in homiletics today, but the fact is that one notes: “On the one hand, we have access cannot “experience” someone fully with- to more information about the Bible than out knowing something about that at any previous period in history. On the someone. The unnecessary bifurcation other hand, there has never been a time between “propositional” and “personal” when the Bible has had less influence in 44 has always been misplaced, whether in a main-line Protestant churches.” theological discussion about the nature of One final question, though. If narrative revelation or in a discussion about the is a universal category, is this not a nature of preaching. Both are indispens- metanarrative? able.41 Craig Localzo’s Apologetic Preaching is The Issue of Hermeneutics a recent example of an attempt to preach One of the distinguishing marks of to the postmodern world from a narrative postmodernism is the hermeneutical revo- framework. He avoids demonizing post- lution. The shift from author to text modernism, offers little theological cri- and then from text to reader à la reader tique of it, but does attempt to suggest response criticism in literary theory found how preachers may preach to postmod- its way into philosophical hermeneutics erns. As you might guess, he recommends and then into theological hermeneutics against logical argumentation and sug- rather quickly. 70 In his book, Texts Under Negotiation: the One gets a taste of just how far some Bible and Postmodern Imagination, Walter within the New Homiletic are willing to Brueggemann insists that the practice of go to “reinterpret” biblical language and homiletical hermeneutics should be “con- dance the edge of mystery. It remains to textual, local and pluralistic.”45 John be seen just how many of the New Homi- McClure tells of the likelihood that the letic homiletes will be willing to be dance next generation of preachers will not be partners with McClure. so eager to be in “absolute control” of the process of interpretation.46 Ronald Allen Pluralism says that the postmodern preacher will Postmodernity demands pluralism recognize that his interpretations are just since there is no such thing as objective that: interpretations. There will be no truth with a capital “T.” Few sins will earn place for arrogance; rather a hermeneuti- you greater excoriation from the proph- cal humility should prevail.47 This is a ets of pluralism as exclusivistic thinking. primary theme in Kevin Vanhoozer’s Is The issue of pluralism was catapulted into There a Meaning in this Text? But Vanhoozer the theological arena about a quarter of a offers a much better philosophical/theo- century ago with the publication of John logical understanding of that humility Cobb’s Christ in a Pluralistic Age in 1975. than does Allen.48 Cobb, a process theologian, has been at Both Allen and McClure, like Brueg- the forefront of the battle being waged gemann, affirm that the postmodern over pluralism within theology. preacher must recognize that all state- The Claremont School of Theology ments are negotiations of positions within would probably be considered the “hub” a larger communicative field. Just how of process theology today. It is no coinci- wide open is this hermeneutical commu- dence then that the foremost book writ- nicative field? The last chapter of Allen’s ten by a homiletician on the subject of book Patterns of Preaching: A Sermon Sam- preaching and pluralism comes from pler is entitled “Preaching in a Postmodern Joseph Webb, a Claremont professor. Perspective” and includes a sermon by Webb is a thoroughgoing advocate of John McClure on Philippians 2:5-11. pluralism à la Cobb and his book (already Allen’s introductory remarks to the referenced) seeks to tell preachers how sermon include the following: “This ser- one can preach to a pluralist culture. His mon … makes use of the postmodern purpose in writing the book is to quell decentering of the self to reinterpret Paul’s the fear among preachers that, once we language of self-emptying in Philippians give up the “certainties” of the Christian 2.”49 McClure states in his sermon that tradition, we will have to give up preach- Christ emptied himself of his desire to use ing. Webb believes that such a fear is his power for domination, to use others unjustified.51 for his own ends. He further states that, Taking his cue from process sociology being born in human likeness, “Jesus had developed at the Chicago School of Soci- no assurance that he could empty him- ology, Webb constructed his approach to self of these evil patterns of dominating pluralism and preaching as the theme of power.”50 It would be difficult to imagine his book. Pertinent to our discussion is a more convoluted Christology. Webb’s final chapter “Pluralism and the 71 Gospel: Prophetic Otherness for the Spirit is active in our world not only in Postmodern Pulpit.” When we ask the Christianity, but in political parties, libera- question, “What is the gospel?,” we are tion movements, and other religions.56 forced, Webb says, to respond that there is Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, dean and pro- no consensus concerning a single answer. fessor of theology at Claremont, asked in Traditionally, Christianity has been based a sermon, “What are we to do theologi- on an absolute sense of the gospel. This is, cally about those who exhibit a righteous according to Webb, a mirage. life but do not accept this particular faith of ours?” Her answer: “Pluralism!”57 What we have believed, particularly Joseph Webb suggests that although about Jesus, we can continue to believe as a way to give spiritual prophetic preaching after the model of the meaning and substance to the lives Hebrew prophets is no longer viable, pro- we live. We can even take our phetic preaching is still needed. Webb beliefs as ultimate for our own lives, as we choose to do. But it is no longer redefines it as preaching in a pluralist vein, tenable for us to assert our beliefs which becomes a “call to uncertainty.”58 about Jesus—about divinity, about Perhaps the door of pluralism is opened resurrection, about his being the only path to God—as final, com- wider than I thought in the New Homi- plete, and unalterable for every letic. After all, I do see many unusual dance human being everywhere.52 partners here at the dance marathon.

A remarkably totalizing statement for a Relativism postmodern homilete. The theologian, Mark Taylor, wrote Although many in the New Homiletic “Everything in the divine milieu is thor- (thankfully) will not go all the way with oughly transitional and radically rela- Webb on the issue of pluralism, there is tive.”59 One clear dividing line between growing evidence of a leaning towards his modernism and postmodernism is that direction. For example, Ronald Allen the former believed in absolutes, while the cracks the door open when he informs us later contends that absolutes are dead. The that the “literary discord” that we find in extent to which relativism pervades the the Scriptures, particularly in the gospel postmodern milieu, i.e., whether it is a accounts of Jesus, “makes it difficult to radical relativism or not, remains a mat- argue that the Bible is equipped to articu- ter of debate. But all postmoderns are late a unified, definitive portrait of God finding it difficult to avoid the slippery all on its own.”53 As a matter of fact, Allen slope of relativism, regardless of their finds fissures in each of the five basic positions. sources for Christianity: Scripture, tradi- The New Homiletic has not escaped the tion, reason, experience, and community, decentering of authority in postmodern- and argues that they do not provide a ism. Ronald Allen avers that “all language sufficient foundation “for determinative about God is relative.”60 Of course this words about God.”54 Paul Scott Wilson means that all theological language about likewise leans in a pluralist direction God is relative and that all preaching when he remarks that it is the same God about God must partake of relativity as who speaks not only in Scripture, but also well. Preachers of the New Homiletic find in other faiths as well.55 it difficult to avoid bi-polar tendencies David Buttrick suggests that the Holy 72 when it comes to the issue of relativism. oft-repeated statement: “the house of On the one hand, they don’t want to give authority has collapsed.”67 The issue of up the core of Christianity; on the other authority was the quintessential issue of hand, they disparage propositional truth. modernity with its celebration of the William Willimon is a prime example autonomy of reason over the authority of of this schizophrenia in his Christianity revelation. Modernity distrusted author- Today article “Jesus’ Peculiar Truth.” He ity. Postmodernity dismantles authority. wants to claim that Jesus did not arrive Biblical authority particularly suffers enunciating a set of propositional truths under the weight of postmodernity. Lyo- to be believed, but rather presented Him- tard refers to the Bible as fable with “its self as the truth to be followed.61 Willimon despotic deposit of divine utterance.”68 recognizes the low intellectual and moral Recently, I have devoted an entire state of our culture, but doubts that the article to the issue of biblical authority and problem is relativism. He fails to realize homiletics.69 I shall draw some comments that his own epistemological and theologi- from homileticians referenced in that cal assumptions (and that of his fellow article and add a few more. adherents of the New Homiletic) makes Let’s begin with the dean of homi- relativism in preaching inescapable.62 leticians, David Buttrick. For him, the idea Joseph Webb attempts to confront rela- that Scripture is the Word of God is a tivism head on in Preaching and the Chal- “groundless notion of Biblical author- lenge of Pluralism. Relativity is not ity.”70 “destructive” for homiletics; preaching “There is no pure gospel; no, not even must be reevaluated and reworked in the Bible. To be blunt, the Christian against its background.63 Webb tells us Scriptures are both sexist and anti- that in light of pluralism, preaching must Semitic.”71 Paul Scott Wilson’s notion of take full account of the “axiom of relativ- biblical authority is scarcely different from ity,” i.e., all meaning, including biblical Buttrick’s. He appeals to Buttrick for sup- and theological meaning, is a human con- port of the statement “the authority of struct.64 Symbolic absolutes do not and Scripture derives from the nature of cannot exist.65 For him, two streams feed preaching as divine event.”72 This is a into the approach to preaching he advo- total reversal of the historic orthodox cates: process theology and narrative position. theology.66 Ronald Allen, referring to the Exodus Thus, it would seem that the New account of the Israelites’ escape through Homiletic, however much it struggles to the Red Sea, says “we can no longer evade the tentacles of relativity, has in determine exactly what happened at some ways succumbed to it. How well the the Red Sea. Apparently a small band of dance partners of postmodernism and Hebrew slaves who were escaping from the New Homiletic will fare in the future Egypt were on the verge of capture.… relative to relativism is unclear. Something made it possible for them to escape.”73 How would a sermon making Authority these assertions fare? Apparently quite The dawning of the twenty-first well in today’s postmodern climate, we century has confirmed Edward Farley’s are told, because authority no longer rests 73 in the pulpit or in the Bible, “but in the ern homiletic.79 Many within the New conversation of gospel, preacher, and Homiletic today, however, have indeed listening community.”74 If the preacher or constructed “postmodern” homiletical the listening community or both find the theories building on both Craddock as biblical account too fantastic to believe, well as many elements of postmodern- well, so be it. ism.80 Buttrick’s summary treatment “On Building on Buttrick and Farley, Allen Doing Homiletics Today” outlines the claims that preaching’s relationship to the theoretical and methodological concerns Bible can be summed up in one statement: that a postmodern homiletic should “The authority of the gospel supersedes include, such as theological revision, cul- that of the Bible.”75 In other words, tural formulation, a social hermeneutic, preaching should focus not on texts of and the preacher as symbol-giver.81 Like- Scripture, which are expounded, but on wise, Walter Brueggemann’s article, “the gospel.” (Allen’s definition of the “Preaching as Reimagination,” is one of gospel is somewhat truncated, suffering the best illustrations of what a postmod- from his adherence to process theology, ern homiletic looks like.82 Most of the ten but that’s a discussion for another time.) commandments of postmodernism I posit Scott Black Johnston compares post- are affirmed from a homiletical perspec- modern notions of authority to con- tive there. temporary homiletics and finds some Buttrick and Brueggemann both illus- correlation. While he rejects the hard-line trate the radical change in the issue of a/theological stance of Mark Taylor, who authority for preaching. In the postmod- pronounced that God as Author is dead, ern world of homiletics, look for sermons he finds some aspects of postmodern and to be tentative, less authoritative and more homiletical views of authority to run on humble with lines like, “If you don’t parallel tracks. The most significant point repent, so to speak, you might go to hell, of contact occurs in their emphasis on the as it were,” (if such notions as repentance listener.76 Barbara Blaisdell likewise sees and hell are mentioned at all). authority for homiletics to be rooted in the community of listeners.77 Ronald Allen Conclusion concurs and suggests that the sermon may A few closing (apologies to decon- be monological in form but should be dia- structionists again) observations are in logical in character.78 order. First, it would be incorrect to con- Here we find ourselves at the fountain- clude that the New Homiletic is thor- head of the New Homiletic in many ways. oughly postmodern in its orientation. It Remember that it was Fred Craddock’s is not. Although we have noted many cor- 1971 book, significantly titled As One ollaries, it is doubtful that one could find Without Authority, which gave birth to the many homileticians who would affirm all New Homiletic. What did Craddock mean ten of these postmodern commandments. by this title? He meant to signal a shift, a The first three especially create problems shift in authority from preacher to congre- for most. To homiletically paraphrase gation. Johnston rightly notes that it Robert Frost in “Mending Wall,” “Some- would be inaccurate to conclude that thing there is about preaching that does Craddock’s work represents a postmod- not love an unsure Word from God.” 74 Second, from an evangelical homileti- powerful words in Scripture is right on cal perspective, many of the insights of the the money. New Homiletic are valuable, e.g., But- trick’s concept of sermon moves, the … in all that confused prattle of an entire guild of interpreters, amne- proper treatment of the narrative genre of siac, and reading only themselves, Scripture, the importance of the listener in a frenzy to tell or hear something in the sermon event, and the role of imagi- new, but emerging only with “the same song, second verse, a little nation in preaching. Evangelical preach- louder, and a little worse.” … Who- ers should learn from our counterparts in ever you are, if you do not repent the New Homiletic. (After all, some of our and believe the testimony laid down in this book [the Bible] concerning preachers are closet members of their God and his Christ, it will judge you society!) to inconsequence, render your read- ing of it, your interpretation of it, Third, to the extent that New Homi- your preaching on it a comic spec- leticians have imbibed the postmodern tacle to the world to which you academic culture theologically and philo- believed you had to adjust it, and your church will die. As well it sophically, their homiletical theory and should.83 practice will continue to be seriously flawed. This is especially evidenced in Human pride … is in our time the terrible disease of the mainline commandments 4-10. Reality and truth churches.…It is not only the histori- are not socially constructed, objectivity cal critics who are to blame, of when balanced with subjectivity is pos- course, but also those preachers in countless churches who, instead of sible, narrative is not everything and some preaching from the Scriptures, are metanarratives are true, there are valid as preaching from the commentaries.… To be sure there are hundreds of well as invalid interpretations, pluralism faithful preachers in this country. and relativism have not won the day But there are also hundreds who philosophically or theologically, and as would be astounded to think that God actually speaks through the long as there is a God heaven, there is a Bible and who have never had that final authority. If indeed God is our final expectation.84 authority, then as the author of Hebrews Throughout the history of church reminds us in the macrostructure of his the greatest preachers have been epistle, when God speaks, we better listen. those who have recognized that they Before we leave the dance floor, I have no authority in themselves and have seen their task as being to would like to conclude this article with explain the words of Scripture and three quotes from authors representing apply them clearly to the lives of their hearers. Their preaching has different theological traditions, but who drawn its power not from the proc- speak with a unified voice on the issue of lamation of the their own Christian preaching. Few would be as bold as Roy experiences or the experiences of others, nor from their own opinions, Harrisville, but, in my view, his directness creative ideas, or rhetorical skills, is matched by his correctness. Elizabeth but from God’s powerful words. Achtemeier offers a needed word about Essentially they stood in the pulpit, pointed to the biblical texts and said the hubris that afflicts some of us who in effect to the congregation, ‘This is preach. Finally, systematic theologian what this verse means. Do you see Wayne Grudem’s salient connection of the meaning here as well? Then you must believe it and obey it with all the authority of preaching and God’s your heart, for God himself is say- 75 ing this to you today!’ Only the writ- Preaching the Worlds that Shape Us (Min- ten words of Scripture can give this kind of authority to preaching.85 neapolis: Fortress, 1995); Mark Ellingsen, The Integrity of Biblical Narrative: Story in Shall we dance? Theology and Proclamation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); Robert Stephen Reid, ENDNOTES “Postmodernism and the Function of the 1David Buttrick, Homiletic: Moves and New Homiletic in Post-Christendom Structures (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) Congregations,” Homiletic 20, no. 2 (1995) 189. 1-13; Robert Reed, Jeffrey Bullock, and 2Eugene Lowry, The Sermon: Dancing the David Fleer, “Preaching as the Creation Edge of Mystery (Nashville: Abingdon, of an Experience: The Not-So-Rational 1997); Cornelius Plantinga, “Dancing the Revolution of the New Homiletic,” Jour- Edge of Mystery,” Books and Culture nal of Communication and Religion 21, no. (September/October, 1999) 16-19. 2 (1998) 1-9. 3For introductory and detailed discus- 6Stephen Crites, “The Narrative Quality sions of postmodernism, mostly from an of Experience,” Journal of the American evangelical perspective, the following Academy of Religion 39 (1971) 291-311. can be consulted: Gene Edward Veith, 7See especially Reed, et al. on this point. Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to 8Emil Brunner, Truth as Encounter, 2nd ed. Contemporary Thought and Culture rev., trans. by David Cairns & T. H. L. (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994); Parker, from Wahrheit als Begegnung David S. Dockery, ed., The Challenge of (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964); H. Postmodernism: An Evangelical Engage- Richard Niebuhr, The Meaning of Revela- ment (Wheaton: Victor/Bridgepoint tion (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1941). Books, 1995); Dennis McCallum, ed., The 9Eslinger, Narrative and Imagination, 7. Death of Truth (Minneapolis: Bethany, 10Lowry, The Sermon, 19. 1996); Terry Eagleton, The Illusions of 11Ibid., 20. Note also Heidegger’s Being Postmodernism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996); and Time, trans. Joan Stambaugh from Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay: Defend- Sein und Zeit (Albany, NY: State Uni- ing Christianity Against the Challenges of versity of New York Press, 1996) and Postmodernism (Downers Grove/Leices- Ricoeur’s Time and Narrative, trans. ter: InterVarsity Press, 2000). Kathleen McLaughlin and David 4Eugene Lowry, “The Revolution of Ser- Pellauer from Temps et Récit (Chicago: monic Shape,” in Listening to the Word: University of Chicago Press, 1984-1988) Studies in Honor of Fred B. Craddock, Gail for the philosophical background to O’Day and Thomas Long, eds. (Nash- what Lowry, Eslinger, and a host of other ville: Abingdon, 1993) 95-96. New Homiletes are saying. 5A plethora of books and articles that 12Lowry, The Sermon, 28. address one or more aspects of the New 13The best literary anthology on Homiletic could be listed. The following postmodernism to my mind is that of is a limited, but helpful, listing. Richard Lawrence Cahoone, From Modernism to Eslinger, A New Hearing: Living Options Postmodernism: An Anthology (Malden, in Homiletical Method (Nashville: Abing- MA: Blackwell, 1996). For a critique of don, 1987) and Narrative and Imagination: anti-foundationalism and the best over- 76 all evangelical critique of postmod- 25David Allen, “A Tale of Two Roads: move sermon, and the conversa- ernism to date, consult Groothuis, Homiletics and Biblical Authority,” tional-episodal sermon (20-28). Truth Decay. Stephen Moore’s Journal of the Evangelical Theological 40Paul Scott Wilson, The Practice of Poststructuralism and the New Testa- Society 43:3 (September 2000) 499. Preaching (Nashville: Abingdon, ment (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 26Groothuis, 230-231. 1995) 208. See also Eugene Lowry, has an excellent annotated bibliog- 27Ibid., 129. “Narrative Preaching,” in Concise raphy on postmodernism through 28Ibid., 83-110. Encyclopedia of Preaching, William H. 1993. 29Robert Longacre, Review of Lan- Willimon and Richard Lischer, eds. 14John McClure, Homiletic 25.2 (2000) guage and Reality, in Language 32 (Louisville: Westminster/John 48-54. (1956) 304. Knox, 1995) 342-344. 15Ibid., 54. 30Robert Longacre, The Grammar of 41See David Cairns trenchant critique 16Groothuis, 93. Discourse (New York/London: Ple- of Bultmann on this issue in his A 17One of the best critiques of Derri- num, 1983) 337-356. See also Noam Gospel without Myth? Bultmann’s dian deconstruction I’ve ever read Chomsky, Language and Mind, Challenge to the Preacher (London: comes from the pen of a linguist, enlarged ed. (New York: Harcourt SCM Press, 1960) 213-218. Robert Hall, “Deconstructing Brace Jovanovich, 1972). 42Craig Loscalzo, Apologetic Preaching: Derrida on Language,” in Linguis- 31John McClure, “Conversation and Proclaiming Christ to a Postmodern tics and Pseudo-Linguistics: Selected Proclamation: Resources and World (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Essays 1965-1985, Amsterdam Stud- Issues” Homiletic 22, no. 1 (1997) 1. Press, 2000). ies in the Theory and History of 32Lowry, The Sermon, 40. 43David Larsen, Telling the Old, Old Linguistic Science, Vol. 55, ed. E. F. 33Allen, et al., 137-160. Story: The Art of Narrative Preaching Konrad Koerner (Amsterdam/ 34Thomas Long, “And How Shall (Wheaton: Crossway, 1995). Bryan Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1987) They Hear: The Listener in Contem- Chapell also offers a valuable 116-122. porary Preaching,” in Listening to the critique of narrative preaching in his 18Joseph Webb, Preaching and the Word, 167-188. “When Narrative is not Enough,” Challenge of Pluralism (St. Louis: 35Lucy Atkinson Rose, Sharing the Presbyterion 22, no. 1 (1996) 3-16. Cri- Chalice, 1998) 92. In addition, see his Word: Preaching in the Roundtable tiques of narrative preaching by “Deconstruction/Reconstruction: Church (Louisville: Westminster/ those within the New Homiletic New Preaching from Old Texts,” John Knox, 1997). are hard to come by, but see, for Quarterly Review 16.4 (1996) 425-450. 36Allen, Theology for Preaching, 66, 169. example, Scott Johnston, “Who 19Ibid., 98. See also David Timmer- 37Schuyler Brown, Text and Psyche: Listens to Stories? Cautions and man, “Avenues of Invention for Experiencing Scripture Today (New Challenges for Narrative Preach- Contemporary Preaching: Burke’s York: Continuum, 1998) 29. ing,” Insights 111, no. 2 (1996) 4-13. Theory of Form and Christian 38Ibid., 141. 44Brown, 136. Homiletics,” Journal of the American 39In his The Sermon: Dancing the Edge 45Walter Brueggemann, Texts Under Academy of Ministry 3.3 (1995) 34-45 of Mystery, Lowry acknowledges the Negotiation: The Bible and Postmodern who applies Burke’s approach to plurality of voices in the field and Imagination (Minneapolis: Fortress, homiletics. attempts to chart the current shape 1993) 8-10. 20Ibid., 99. of the New Homiletic by identify- 46John McClure, “Conversation and 21Ibid., 100. ing six types or models of sermons: Proclamation: Resources and 22Ibid., 101. the inductive sermon, the story ser- Issues,” Homiletic 22, no. 1 (1997) 7. 23Ibid., 101-102 mon, the narrative sermon, the 47Allen, Theology for Preaching, 70. 24Johnston, Theology for Preaching, 74- transconscious African American 48Kevin Vanhoozer, Is There a Mean- 75. sermon, the phenomenological ing in this Text?: The Bible, The Reader 77 and the Reality of Literary Knowledge 515. Reclaiming the Bible for the Church, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998). 70Buttrick, A Captive Voice, 30. 121-122. 49Ronald Allen, ed., Patterns of Preach- 71Ibid., 75. 85Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theol- ing: A Sermon Sampler (St. Louis: 72Wilson, 137. ogy: An Introduction to Biblical Doc- Chalice, 1998) 247. 73Ronald Allen, Contemporary Biblical trine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 50Ibid., 249-250. Interpretation for Preaching (Valley 1994) 82. See also Peter Adam, 51Webb, 2. Forge: Judson, 1984) 65. Speaking God’s Word: A Practical 52Ibid., 103-110 74Blaisdell, Theology for Preaching, 47. Theology of Expository Preaching 53Allen, Theology for Preaching, 125. 75Ronald Allen, “Why Preach from (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 54Ibid., 127. Passages in the Bible?” in Preaching 1996) 15-26. 55Wilson, 75. as a Theological Task: World, Gospel, 56David Buttrick, A Captive Voice: The Scripture in Honor of David Buttrick Liberation of Preaching (Louisville: (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, Westminster/John Knox, 1994) 106. 1996) 178. 57Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, “Preach- 76Johnston, Theology for Preaching, 50- ing from the Perspective of Revi- 51. sionary Theology,” in Patterns of 77Ibid., 44. Preaching, 240. 78See the entire discussion on this 58Webb, 108. issue of authority in homiletics by 59Mark, Taylor, Erring: A Postmodern Allen, et al. in Theology for Preach- A/theology (Chicago: University of ing, 35-57. Chicago Press, 1984) 16. 79Ibid., 52. 60Allen, Theology for Preaching, 122. 80The best single source to illustrate 61William Willimon, “Jesus’ Peculiar the various homiletical styles today Truth,” Christianity Today, 4 March would be the thirty-four different 1996, 21. annotated sermon examples col- 62Ibid., 21-22. See Groothuis’s critique lected by Ronald Allen in Patterns of Willimon’s Christianity Today of Preaching: A Sermon Sampler. article in his Truth Decay, 140-145. 81David Buttrick, “On Doing Homi- 63Webb, 14. letics Today,” in Intersections: Post- 64Ibid., 105. critical Studies in Preaching, Richard 65Ibid., 106. Eslinger, ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerd- 66Ibid., 118-119. mans, 1994) 88-104. 67Edward Farley, “Scripture and Tra- 82Walter Brueggemann, “Preaching dition,” Christian Theology: An Intro- as Reimagination” in Theology Today duction to Its Traditions and Tasks, 52, no. 3 (1995) 313-329. 2d ed., Peter Hodgson and Robert 83Roy Harrisville, “The Loss of Bibli- King, eds. (Philadelphia: Fortress, cal Authority and Its Recovery,” in 1985) 76. Reclaiming the Bible for the Church, 68Jean-François Lyotard, “Retortion Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson, in Theopolitics,” Toward the Post- eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, modern (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: 1995) 60-61. Humanities, 1993) 122. 84Elizabeth Achtemeier, “The Canon 69Allen, “A Tale of Two Roads,” 489- as the Voice of the Living God,” in 78