SHAPED FOR FAITHFUL WITNESS: MISSIONAL HERMENEUTICS AND THE TASK OF PREACHING
DAVID ROSS FIELDS
B.Sc., UNBC, 2004
M.Div., McMaster University, 2007
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Ministry
Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University Spring Convocation 2017
© DAVID ROSS FIELDS 2017
This thesis by David Ross Fields was defended successfully in an oral examination on 22 March 2016.
The examining committee for the thesis was:
Dr. Anna Robbins, Chair
Dr. Stephen Elliott, External Examiner
Dr. Steve McMullin, Internal Examiner
Dr. Stephen Holmes, Supervisor
Dr. John McNally, DMin Program Director
This thesis is accepted in its present form by Acadia Divinity College, the Faculty of Theology of Acadia University, as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of Doctor of Ministry.
ii
I, David Ross Fields, hereby grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia University to provide copies of my thesis, upon request, on a non-profit basis.
David Ross Fields Author
Dr. Stephen Holmes Supervisor
22 March 2016 Date
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………ix
Abstract…………..……………………………………………………………………xi
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………….xii
Chapters
INTRODUCTION
Why Preaching? ………………………………………………………………1
Why Missional Preaching? …………………………………………………...6
Why Missional Hermeneutics? ……………………………………………….9
The Project and Research Study………………………………………………10
Why a Preaching Manual? ……………………………………………………11
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….12
CHAPTER ONE: MISSIONAL HERMENEUTICS
Introduction……………………………………………………………………14
The God of Mission and the Missio Dei………………………………………17
The Bible as a Document of Mission……………………………………….....21
The New Testament as a Document of Mission……………………….21
The Old Testament as a Document of Mission……………………...... 23
Jesus as the Authoritative Hermeneut and Hermeneutical Key……….25
The Bible as a Narrative of Universal Intent…………………………………..28
The Bible as The Story………………………………………………...28
Does Viewing the Bible as Narrative Mean it is Oppressive? ………..29
iv The Bible as a Unified, Yet Diverse Story…………………………33
The Kingdom as the Central Motif in the Storyline………………..35
Jesus – God’s Messiah – as the Good News……………………….38
The Nature of the Bible’s Authority……………………………………….40
Jesus, the Word of God…………………………………………….41
The Role of the Spirit in Revelation……………………………….44
The Spirit and the Materiality of the Gospel………………………46
The Spirit as Interpreter……………………………………………47
The Spirit and The Limits of Human Knowledge…………………48
An Incarnational View of Scripture……………………………….50
The Bible as an Authoritative Story……………………………….53
The Bible as a Five-Act Play………………………………………56
Summary and Discussion of Missional Hermeneutics…………………….61
CHAPTER TWO: PREACHING AND THE MISSION OF GOD
Introduction………………………………………………………………..63
Part One: A Missional Theology of Preaching……………………………63
What Preaching Is…………………………………………………63
How a Missional Hermeneutic Shapes the Preacher……………...65
Where Preaching Centers…………………………………………69
What Preaching Does……………………………………………..72
How Preaching Does It: Contextualization……………………….80
Paul’s Athenian Ministry as a Paradigm of Contextualization…...81
1. Speaking in a form that fits the context………..83
v 2. Gaining familiarity with the culture(s) we engage…84
3. Offering an epistemological challenge……………..87
4. Connecting without capitulating…………………...89
5. Offering opportunity for appropriate response…….94
Part Two: A Manual for Missional Preaching………………………………..99
Rationale for the Handbook…………………………………………..99
Pedagogical Approach and Outline of the Handbook……….………..101
Book Format Considerations………………………………………....102
Content of the Handbook……………………………………………..104
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………....109
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY AND STUDY DESIGN
Introduction…………………………………………………………………...110
Research Question and Aims of the Study…………………………………...110
Ethical Considerations………………………………………………………..112
Study Design……………………………………………………………….....113
Shift in Study Focus…………………………………………………………..123
Participants Reasoning for Low Response Rate…………………...... 124
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………....129
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Introduction…………………………………………………………………...130
Part One: Educational Factors………………………………………………...131
A. Starting Place……………………………………………………....132
B. The Place of Missional Thought in the Preacher’s Church………..138
vi C. Confidence in the Material…………………………………….142
D. Clarity of the Material…………………………………………145
E. Level of Engagement with the Material……………………….149
F. Personal Expectations Regarding the Role of the Pastor/Preacher………………………………………………...152
Part Two: The Impacts of the Handbook and Study Process……………..159
Mark’s Experience………………………………………………..162
Grace’s Experience……………………………………………….168
Chris’ Experience…………………………………………………173
Summary of Findings……………………………………………………..178
Conclusion………………………………………………………………..179
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Introduction……………………………………………………………….180
The Project in My Ministry Context……………………………………...180
Changes to the Handbook………………………………………………...181
Changes Suggested by the Participants…………………………..182
Additional Changes Recognized by the Researcher……………...184
Findings of this Study for Education and Mentoring…………………….187
Conclusion………………………………………………………………..192
CONCLUSION
Chapter Summary………………………………………………………...193
Suggestions for Future Research………………………………………....196
vii APPENDICES
Appendix 1 – Additional Missional Hermeneutics Questions…………..200
Appendix 2 – Is Paul’s Athenian Ministry a Legitimate Paradigm for Contextualization?...... 201
Appendix 3 – Preacher Initial Interview...... 206
Appendix 4 – Preacher Post-Intervention Interview...... 207
Appendix 5 – Congregational Sermon Evaluation Form...... 208
Appendix 6 – Preacher Follow-Up Interview...... 213
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………..215
viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I started this educational journey with a desire to explore the question of how, within the role of pastor, to best equip God’s people to be faithful in our communal vocation of bearing witnesses to the good news, and in particular, how the ministry of preaching supports that equipping. I want to thank the congregation and leadership of
Summit Drive Church for sharing that vision with me and releasing me, encouraging me, praying for me, and financially supporting this endeavour. This project has truly been done together. In particular I want to acknowledge the support of Pastor Harry Bicknell who whole-heartedly and joyfully encouraged me to pursue this learning opportunity and kept asking me good questions and steering me back to my passion in the moments I needed that. What a great model and mentor! I also want to acknowledge the work of a co-minister at Summit Jill Enns, and my father in law, Dr. Kevin Hall, for proof reading this document. Any remaining errors must be attributed to my own final editing choices.
I am very grateful to my family for their prayers, encouragement and for helping my wife
Kathryn to manage while I was away for school or writing.
I am so thankful to my supervisor of Dr. Stephen Holmes for not only giving of his time and efforts in supporting the writing of the thesis, but for his advising in the process of writing of the handbook project. Despite his very busy schedule Dr. Holmes made time to add important pieces to the handbook, recommended it to publishers, and without knowing it, instilled confidence in me at the moments it was most needed.
For our two boys, Connor and Adam, I am so thankful for their patience with daddy, and for keeping me grounded in the real world. I hope that in some small way this work will perhaps help encourage the church they are growing up in to know, love and
ix follow Jesus wholeheartedly. Most of all, I need to acknowledge my partner in ministry, best friend, editor, research assistant, and in many ways, advisor, my wonderful wife,
Kathryn Fields. She released me for weeks at a time while caring for our two small boys, proofread all my papers, and encouraged me throughout the process. This work has cost her infinitely more than anyone else, and for that self-giving, sacrificial love – modeled after Jesus himself – I am truly grateful.
x ABSTRACT
SHAPED FOR FAITHFUL WITNESS: MISSIONAL HERMENEUTICS AND THE TASK OF PREACHING
David Ross Fields
The aim of this study is to further the development of a missional theology of preaching and extend the practice of preaching that employs a missional hermeneutic. The thesis of this work is that preaching that utilizes a missional hermeneutic will serve to form a missional identity in a congregation, including the preacher, and prepare God’s people to engage in faithful witness to Jesus. This thesis was explored by preparing a handbook that introduces a missional hermeneutic and develops a theology and practice of preaching from this perspective. The handbook was introduced to a study group of three preachers for a period of five weeks. Interview data was collected and analyzed to examine the educational process for preachers exploring a missional hermeneutic and to determine the impacts of the handbook on their perspectives and practices. The study noted six significant educational factors involved for preachers exploring and adopting a missional hermeneutic and discussed six major impacts of the handbook for the study group. The results of the study, and feedback from preaching participants, were used to revise the handbook project, sharpening the tool for future use with preachers.
xi
DEDICATION
To my grandmother, Florence Worobey, who consistently demonstrated, in word and deed, that participating with God in his mission is the business of every believer; and to my boys, Connor and Adam, that you would grow to be continuously captured by the love of God expressed in Jesus, and be moved by the Spirit to play your part in the unfolding drama of God’s redemption
xii
INTRODUCTION
Why Preaching?
Since joining the staff team at Summit Drive Church in Kamloops, British
Columbia in 2007, and more particularly since having a key role on the preaching team for the past three years, I have been considering how the preaching ministry functions to help form a missional identity and missional practices within our congregation.1 My questions have been: How well does our gathered life in worship, including our preaching, equip our community to join in God’s mission in the world, our neighbourhoods and workplaces (see Eph 4:11ff.), and, are there particular approaches to reading the Bible and preaching that will best shape the congregation to live as faithful
Christian witnesses to our city and world?2
Though there are many practices in a local church that form the identity and function of the community,3 there remains a deep connection between our weekly times of gathered worship, and our work of witness in the world. As Lesslie Newbigin puts it:
“The Church gathers every Sunday, the day of resurrection and of Pentecost, to renew its
1 See Michael Goheen. A Light to the Nations: The Missional Church and the Biblical Story. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011). 2 See the discussion of the church “gathered’ and the church ‘dispersed’ as the breathing life of the church in R. Paul Stevens, The Other Six Days: Work, Vocation and Ministry in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 211. 3 These include the systems and governance of the church, “off-stage” leadership, and daily practices of prayer, Bible reading, and life in community groups – to name just a few. 1 participation in Christ’s priesthood. But the exercise of this priesthood is not within the walls of the Church but in the daily business of the world.”4
Implicit in Newbigin’s statement is that our worship, including engagement with the Bible through Scripture readings and the sermon, is a significant factor for empowering God’s people for missional participation beyond the walls of the church building.5 Newbigin elsewhere states: “…the weekly gathering for worship is by far the most important thing we do.”6 I think Newbigin is right, and as Michael Goheen argues, preaching is one element of our weekly worship that “deserves special attention,” for preaching is “a powerful means by which God’s people may be nurtured and empowered for the missional call.”7 The function, or “primal task” of preaching, as Walter
Brueggemann puts it, is “the narration and nurture of a counter identity.”8 Preaching has the potential to reinterpret the self-understanding of the people of God and their place in
God’s world and mission.
The function Brueggemann describes, however, is not automatic. Commenting on Bruggemann’s statement, Barry Jones chides: “Sadly, the most esteemed preachers of our day are often not the ones preaching…provocative, countercultural sermons but those who have mastered the art of making Christianity palatable to savvy religious
4 Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1989), 230. 5 See also, Ross Hastings, Missional God, Missional Church: Hope for the Re- Evangelization of the West (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2012. Kindle Edition), loc. 487 of 4119. 6 In Goheen, A Light to the Nations, 202. 7 Goheen, 204. 8 Walter Brueggmann, Cadences of Home: Preaching Among Exiles (Louisville, KN: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 12. 2 consumers.”9 Likewise, John Wright argues that contemporary American preaching seeks a “comedic ending,” by which he does not mean that it is humorous (though congregations enjoy a funny preacher), but that like in the genre of comedy,10 there is relief for the interpreter/hearer when the tensions raised in the text are brought into harmony with the world of the hearers, and no fundamental shift in the world of the interpreter is required.11 The sermon, in this comedic mode, simply reinforces the world of the interpreter/hearers rather than calling it into question, whereas the genre of tragedy
(a mode of interpreting/preaching for which J. Wright argues)12 shatters the hearers’ presuppositions and opens the possibility of a new kind of future. In the comedic mode, the “text becomes incorporated into the convictions of the interpreter,” so that at the end
“of the interpretive event, all seems right in the world.”13
Addressing the impulse toward preaching that merely confirms the status quo and leaves the social imaginaries14 of modern Western cultures unchallenged, on the one
9 Barry Jones. Dwell: Life with God for the World (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2014), 153. Jones’ comment may be overstated to some extent, but is still worthy of our consideration. We may consider preachers such as Timothy Keller, Darrel Johnson and Walter Bruggemann as notable exceptions; but perhaps exceptions that prove the rule. 10 J. Wright gives the example of the comedy Everyone Loves Lucy, but a more contemporary – though slightly less appropriate – example that makes the point even more clearly, might be Happy Endings. John W. Wright, Telling God’s Story: Narrative Preaching for Christian Formation (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2007), 34. 11 J. Wright, 34. 12 Ibid, 34. 13 Ibid, 34-35. 14 “Social imaginary” is a term used by philosopher Charles Taylor to recognize that it is not only thinking that shapes how a society functions, but it is through embodied practices that norms become engrained in a society, and are engrained in such a way that we can no longer “see” them. As Taylor puts it: “The social imaginary is not a set of ideas; rather, it is what enables, through making sense of, the practices of a society.” Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004. Electronic edition), loc 26 of 2189. See also James K.A. Smith who draws on Taylor’s 3 hand, or that looses touch with the world God loves and calls his church to reach, on the other, requires consistent evaluation of our church cultures and the factors that form these cultures. As Ross Hastings states: “Forms or subcultural norms must ever be under scrutiny with respect to how they fulfill the functions of the church. When a church loses its sense of connectedness to humanity and its missional telos, it can easily lose touch with the fact that the customs of its subculture are alienating to the world it has been designed to reach.”15 This calls for constant reflection on our forms of worship since:
“worship redefines our identity, worship reorders our affections, worship repatterns our imagination, and worship reorients our life in the world.”16 This reflection certainly includes how we approach preaching and even how we think about and interpret the
Bible.
Sermons do shape “how we do things ‘round here”, 17 as they contribute to the language of the faith community, help form the identity of a congregation, provide the biblical and theological foundation for the way the church functions, interpret both the world and the Bible in a particular way, and provide a model for discourse around issues of faith that the congregation will take with them into their neighbourhoods and
work to focus on the meaning of humanity beyond humans as primarily thinking animals or even believing animals, but as lovers – what he calls homo liturgicus. His cultural theory views “human persons as embodied actors rather than merely thinking things.” James K.A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview and Cultural Formation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 35. 15 Hastings, loc. 487 of 4119. 16 Jones, 142. 17 Derek Warlock, Roman Catholic bishop of Liverpool, England, once defined culture as “the way we do things round here”. In John P. Bowen, Evangelism for “Normal” People: Good News for Those Looking for a Fresh Approach (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress 2002), 93. 4 marketplace.18 The regular preaching as a part of a worshipping body has the power to reframe how a congregation relates to God, to each other, and to the world in which we have been called to bear witness to the good news of Jesus.19
As I continue to mentor preachers, and hone my own practice of preaching, I am interested in exploring, not only missional homiletics, but specifically how preaching that utilizes a missional hermeneutic20 could best equip and empower a community for faithful witness in the world. Hastings reminds us that the relevance of a study on preaching goes beyond sermons: “Preaching is not reserved for the public teacher but is the essence of what all God’s people do as they articulate the shalom they have entered, and as they explain their nonverbal missional endeavors.”21 Sermons must not only reach those unbelievers who are listening-in during the Sunday service with the good news of
18 See, for example, Jeff Cook’s concerns about how the typical sermon form sets a pattern for engagement with neighbours that is akin to sermonizing rather than dialogical/conversational in nature. Jeff Cook. “Is the Sermon Toxic? July 27, 2015
Jesus but also inspire and prepare God’s people to articulate that same good news in the
“other-six-day” spaces of their neighbourhoods and work places.22
Why Missional Preaching?
The word “missional” became popularized with the publication of the edited work
Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America in 1998.23
Darrell Guder and the co-writers of Missional Church focus on the development (or recovery) of the church’s missionary identity, noting that faithful participation in the missio Dei requires the church to recapture a robust self-understanding, particularly the integration of mission and ecclesiology.24 In various ways,25 voices within the missional conversation are wrestling with how to articulate a robust ecclesiology and then work out how the church might faithfully participate with God’s mission in the post-Christendom
Western world.26
22 Timothy Keller describes “word” ministry at three levels: 1. Informal, personal interaction; every Christian should be able to counsel and instruct others from the Bible. 2. Leading or teaching in a small group or seminar setting; and 3. The more formal exposition of the Bible in an assembly of believers; what we usually call preaching. Timothy Keller, Preaching: Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism (New York, NY: Viking, 2015), 2-7. 23 Darrell L. Guder, ed. Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America, contributing authors, Lois Barrett, Inagrace T. Dietterich, George R. Hunsberger, Alan J. Roxburgh and Craig Van Gelder (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998). 24 Guder et al. Missional Church, 10-11. 25 For the primary impulses that make up the missional conversation see the “map” provided in chapter 3 of Van Gelder and Zscheile, 67-99. Craig Van Gelder and Dwight J. Zscheile’s, The Missional Church In Perspective: Mapping Trends and Shaping the Conversation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011). For example, see Lois Barret et al, Treasures in Jars of Clay, which seeks to ascertain twelve signifiers of “missional faithfulness” (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2004). 26 A note on the “Western world,” perhaps a better way of reframing the language is to use Northern vs Southern, or “North Atlantic”, see Darrell L. Guder, “Missional 6
Offering a succinct definition of “missional” has proven difficult. Van Gelder and Zscheile, writing in 2009, note that the word “missional” has essentially lost definitional value due to the explosion of divergent uses and applications in the literature in the decade since Missional Church was published. In place of a definition these authors provide a constellation of six concepts that shape the conversation: (1) The
Church and Mission/Missions (overcoming the dichotomy between these two); (2)
Trinitarian Missiology (the Trinity introduces us to a sending God who is also a missionary); (3) The Missio Dei (the mission of God reframes our concept of mission as church-centric to being theocentric); (4) Reign (Kingdom) of God (the teaching of Jesus centers on the Kingdom of God, that is already but not-yet); (5) The Church’s Missionary
Nature (God’s church is a mission church because God is a missionary); and (6)
Missional Hermeneutic (it is necessary to use a missional hermeneutic to read Scripture in order to understand the full intent of God’s mission).27
As noted, the missional conversation is, at heart, an invitation for the church to frame our ecclesiology and practice of ministry in explicitly theological terms rather than asking primarily pragmatic questions of ministry practice, such as: “Does it work?” And
“How do we make our church grow?”28 In a foundational document relating to missional
Theology for a Missionary Church.” Journal for Preachers 22, no. 1 (1998), 8. What it means to be the church in a post-Christian setting is, as Walter Brueggemann suggests, not only a question of shrinking congregations or budgets, but more significantly (and pastorally), the experience of Christians as being on the margins of society where at one time the treasured and trusted symbols of faith were honoured, they are now mocked, trivialized and dismissed. Walter Brueggmann, Cadences of Home: Preaching Among Exiles (Louisville, Kn: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 2. 27 Van Gelder and Zscheile’s, 41. 28 Lesslie Newbigin, The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978, revised edition, 1995. Kindle Edition), loc 1666 of 2614. 7 theology, The Open Secret, Lesslie Newbigin discusses the distinction between the missionary theology he is suggesting and the church growth movement connected with
The Institute of Church Growth of the School of World Missions at Fuller Seminary under the leadership of Donald McGavran. Here Newbigin affirms some of the assumptions McGavran’s approach raises, particularly that the church should ask questions about why it is not growing. But what Newbigin shows is that Paul, in his
Epistles, does not seem concerned with rapid church growth or expansion. Paul’s primary concern for the church “is with their faithfulness, with the integrity of their witness.”29 Newbigin argues that in the New Testament there is joy at the rapid, numerical growth of the church, but rapid numerical growth is not a basis on which Paul judges the “effectiveness” of churches. Paul is primarily concerned with their faithfulness to God.30
The missional church movement is born out of the convictions shared by
Newbigin here, and focuses on the nature of the church by asking: “Who is God? What does it mean to be God’s People, the Church? What would faithfulness to God mean for our life together? How does faithfulness to God work itself out in our relationship to the world as God’s people on mission?” The purpose of this study, therefore, is not primarily to find a more effective strategy or model for preaching – though I hope it might mean the church has a greater impact in and for the world. Nor is it, first and foremost, to help the church grow numerically or to be healthier – though again, I desperately hope that it might contribute to both growth and health. The purpose of this study is to encourage ministry leaders, and those who preach in particular, to be faithful to the God of mission
29 Newbigin, Open Secret, loc 1709 of 2614. 30 Ibid, 1719 of 2614. 8 in the practice of preaching, and in so doing, prepare and equip God’s people for faithfulness in their missional vocation – for the sake of the world.
I have, in part, given reason for focusing this study on preaching – including its central role in helping form the identity and culture of a congregation, as well as making the good news of Jesus known and equipping God’s people to live in faithfulness to God throughout the week. That is, to adopt a missional frame for the life of a church. Next, we will focus on why missional hermeneutics are necessary in the renewal of preaching, and the renewal of the witness of the whole church.
Why Missional Hermeneutics?
As mentioned by Van Gelder and Zscheile, missional hermeneutics are a significant feature within the missional conversation but an area still relatively unknown in the biblical studies world. One reason for focusing on missional hermeneutics in relation to preaching in this study is that this is a relatively new field of inquiry that requires more attention for ministry practitioners and those who are tasked with instructing them. Drawing together these areas of preaching and missional hermeneutics, and examining the implications for preaching that arises from a missional reading of the
Bible, seems to suggest a fruitful way forward in the larger goal of equipping and empowering congregations for a life of missional faithfulness.
Michael Goheen provides one example of the need for a missional approach to reading and preaching from the Bible. He argues, and urges, that we can only understand the authority of the Bible, and allow it to function authoritatively in the worshipping
9 community, when we read it as a single story.31 This is so since the Bible is, in its very nature, a story. Goheen rightly argues that all of life is shaped by some story; the question is which story will give shape to our lives.32 Reading this story, and allowing it to rightly exercise its authority as a story, is necessary if the church is to develop its missional identity and resist the cultural captivity and idolatry that has come to dominate the church in the West.
The Project and Research Study
The purpose of this study is to explore how preaching that draws on a missional hermeneutic might help form a missional identity in a congregation and call the church to embrace a life of faithful witness in and for the world. It aims to further the development of a missional theology of preaching and extend the practice of preaching that employs a missional hermeneutic.33 This study will include the development and use of a handbook on missional preaching written for local church pastors/preachers described in Chapter
Two. The study process, described in Chapter Three, involved inviting local church pastors/preachers to make use of the manual in their preaching for a period of one month, and included two group meetings to discuss and evaluate the handbook.
The central research question is: how might preaching with a missional hermeneutic aid the formation of both the preacher and the congregation for greater
31 Goheen, Michael. “The Urgency of Reading the Bible as One Story,” Public Lecture Given at Regent College, Vancouver BC, November, 2006. Later published in Theology Today, 64, 4 (January, 2008). 5. 32 For this point, Goheen is drawing on Alasdaire MacIntyre’s significant work After Virtue. Goheen, “Urgency”, 13. 33 This study aims to contribute to the “extending” arm of the missional conversation, as described by Craig Van Gelder and Dwight J. Zscheile, 90ff. 10 missional faithfulness? Restated in thesis form: Preaching that utilizes a missional hermeneutic will serve, in part, to form a missional identity in a congregation, including the preacher, and prepare God’s people to engage in faithful witness in and for the world.
The following research study will seek to examine this claim.
Why a Preaching Manual?
There are several reasons why the project I have chosen is a handbook on preaching that employs a missional hermeneutic. The need for this type of handbook arose directly from my local ministry context where we have not limited the ministry of preaching to one or two preachers on staff, but include up to ten additional preachers from our congregation in any given year. This has been our practice for over a decade, and has raised the question of how we are to best equip gifted members of our congregation to preach faithfully.
The significance of this handbook is its focus on missional hermeneutics and what this interpretive lens might mean for preaching. The book seeks to both extend the conversation around the area of missional hermeneutics, making the major themes of this interpretative lens accessible to those unfamiliar with the field, while it also develops the theology of preaching based out of a missional hermeneutic. The hope is that this handbook will provide a helpful introduction to a missional approach to preaching while also serving to equip preachers to nurture a shared preaching ministry in his or her setting.
Patrick W.T. Johnson rightly argues in his book, The Mission of Preaching, that this form of communal preaching ministry is a necessary element of missional
11 faithfulness. A shared preaching ministry “brings multiple voices into the process of interpretation and preaching, which guards against any one perspective totalizing the gospel discourse in a community.”34 In addition to guarding against a clerical paradigm
“in which only a special caste of Christians are allowed to ‘minister’”,35 a joint preaching ministry requires preachers to learn to affirm the ministry of those with whom they share the pulpit. Further, P. Johnson argues that this approach to ministry would also require a change for homileticians who teach preachers, as students of homiletics would also need to learn how to teach and nurture other preachers.36 The idea of a project that takes the shape of a handbook arose as a response to this issue: how do we equip those preachers with whom we share the ministry of preaching? The hope is that this handbook would be useful in our setting – to nurture our own preaching ministry – but also that its usefulness would be extended to other church settings where preachers are seeking resources to help equip and nurture other preachers.
Conclusion
There is a significant need for ministry practitioners to be introduced to a missional hermeneutic as a reading strategy, which provides implications and perspective for a robust preaching ministry in the post-Christendom West. The preaching handbook project is designed to help move practitioners in this direction. The next two chapters will provide the theoretical background in the development of this handbook. Chapter
One will begin by examining the relevant background literature, noting the recent
34 Patrick W.T. Johnson, The Mission of Preaching: Equipping the Community for Faithful Witness (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2015), 219. 35 P. Johnson, 218. 36 Ibid, 219. 12 paradigm shift in the theology of mission, and then trace some of the key lines of thought in the still-developing portrait of missional hermeneutics. Chapter Two will attend to the development of a theology of preaching based in this missional hermeneutic and then discuss the pedagogical approach of the handbook project. Chapters Three, Four and
Five will then describe how the handbook was used with a group of local church preachers in order to analyze the learning experience for those exploring a missional hermeneutic in their preaching. Chapter Three introduces the methodology of the study, and Chapter Four reports the findings. Chapter Five will provide further analysis of the findings, discussing the findings in relation to the educational process and describing how the research can sharpen the handbook for future use.
13
CHAPTER ONE: MISSIONAL HERMENEUTICS
Introduction
In broad terms, the following chapter on missional hermeneutics will discuss the focus and the function of the Bible.37 This will lay the groundwork to set up a discussion of the focus and function of preaching in Chapter Two. As Patrick Johnson notes, for decades homiletics as a discipline has been more focused on the questions of “who is the preacher?” and “how do we prepare sermons?” than on the arguably more important question of “what is preached?”38 Discerning the “what” of preaching – where preaching is to focus, and the sort of function it is to have in the life of the church – requires an approach to reading the Scriptures that deals seriously with those same questions: what is the focus of the biblical narrative, and what is the aim of this document – how does God intend it to function in his people and for the sake of the world?
A missional hermeneutic provides a helpful starting place to address these questions adequately, since it takes seriously the missionary nature of God, the missionary nature of the church, and provides an approach to the Scriptures that seeks to discern how God intends the text to prepare his people for engagement in his mission.
Harry Daniel Beeby offers three significant reasons for adopting a missional interpretive lens. First, a missional hermeneutic is internal to the Scriptures (i.e. Luke 24; John 5; 14-
37 I am borrowing the language of “focus” and “function” from Thomas Long, The Witness of Preaching (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005). Long uses these in reference to sermon preparation, but it seemed an appropriate way to get at the right sort of questions we need to ask if we are going to read the Bible faithfully, and thus, develop theology, and preach faithfully too. 38 P. Johnson, 220. His point may be overstated, but it still stands that, perhaps, more attention to the question of “what is preached” can be given within preaching books. 14
16). As Beeby argues, it has a normative function, positively affirming “all that supports the belief that the verbum Dei truly expresses the missio Dei.”39
Second, a missional hermeneutic functions negatively to critique interpretative methods external to the Bible that have little or no room for the missio Dei “or that are controlled by ideology or concepts that are unsympathetic to the main thrust of scriptural meaning or even inimical to it.”40 Any reading, then, which does not recognize and give priority to God as a missionary God who prepares his missionary people through the
Bible to engage in his mission, is critiqued accordingly.
Third, yet recognizing there are more reasons, Beeby goes on to make the important point worth quoting in full:
A missionary hermeneutic combines the conceptual with action….It does not end in thought but moves to decision and action. It is not governed by the world’s understanding of the world’s need but meets that need as it is seen and interpreted in the light of the gospel. It is not satisfied with anything less than the most significant, demanding, sacrificial, all-embracing praxis, but it does not begin in praxis or with any praxis-dominated ideology. It attempts to be faithful to the creative and redemptive word of the missionary Trinity who promises his disciples into mission: ‘You will be my witnesses.’41
Reading the Bible as a document of mission recognizes how the Bible asks us to read it, and enables the Bible to function as intended: to bring life and healing through the gospel, and release the people of God to participate fully in God’s mission by the power
39 Harry Daniel Beeby, “A Missional Approach to Renewed Interpretation” in Eds. Craig Bartholomew, Colin Greene, Karl Moller Renewed Biblical Interpretation. Scripture and Hermeneutics Series Volume One (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 2000), 282. 40 Beeby, 282. 41 Ibid, 283. 15 of the Spirit. The intent of this project is to draw out the findings of the still-developing field of missional hermeneutics, and then examine the implications for preaching.42
Before proceeding to discuss missional hermeneutics in particular, a brief note on how the word hermeneutics will be used is in order. Hermeneutics is sometimes used to describe the process of interpreting or explaining the meaning of a text, making it essentially synonymous with exegesis. 43 It can also be used to focus on meaning as an existential reality; for example, on what an ancient text means for a contemporary reader.44 For this study hermeneutics will be used in relation to exegesis and interpretation in the way Anthony Thiselton suggests:
Whereas exegesis and interpretation denote the actual process of interpreting texts, hermeneutics also includes the second-order discipline of asking critically what exactly we are doing when we read, understand, or apply texts. Hermeneutics explores the condition and criteria that operate to try and ensure responsible, valid, fruitful, or appropriate interpretation.45
The following chapter will say little in regards to exegesis and give most attention to discussing the “conditions and criteria” for readings that are responsible, valid, fruitful
42 At the time of publication in 2015, Patrick Johnson writes that his work on missional hermeneutics and preaching is “unique in the homiletical discussion”, and a “distinct contribution of this project.” (222). Johnson concludes: “I am hopeful that I and perhaps others will do more in developing a missional hermeneutic for preaching” (222). Of note, I received Patrick Johnson’s book in January of 2016 – well after the proposal for my thesis project was underway, and agree wholeheartedly that there is much needed work in this combination of missional hermeneutics and homiletics. 43 See, for example, William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg and Robert L. Hubbard Jr. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation: Revised and Updated (Nashville, TN; Thomas Nelson, 2004), 4. 44 See, for example, Gordon Fee, New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors, Third Edition (Louisville, KN: WJK, 2002), 1. 45 Anthony Thiselton Hermeneutics, in Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views. Eds. Stanley E. Porter and Beth M. Stovell (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2012), 9-10. Emphasis in the original. 16 and appropriate. We begin by examining the basis for understanding the God who has spoken and continues to speak.
The God of Mission and the Missio Dei
Central to considering what it means to be faithful as God’s people is the question of God’s own nature and theological method. A missional hermeneutic begins with an understanding of God as a missionary God.46 Rowan Williams has said: “The church of
God does not have a mission, the God of mission has a church.”47 This turn of phrase reflects the significant shift in modern theological discourse from “a theology of mission to mission theology”48 that had its beginnings in the early Twentieth Century, and can be traced to Karl Barth’s work in Trinitarian theology.49
Barth was influential in shifting the rationale and agency of mission from the church to the life of the triune God.50 In his 1932 address to the Brandenburg Mission
Conference, Barth emphasized that: “the term missio was in the ancient Church an expression of the doctrine of the trinity – namely the expression of the sending forth of self, the sending of the Son and Holy Spirit to the world.”51 To speak of the missio Dei, then, is to say the agency of mission belongs to God. Barth’s emphasis on the triune God
46 See Stephen R. Holmes, “Trinitarian Missiology: Towards a Theology of God as Missionary” International Journal of Systematic Theology Vol 8, No 1 (Jan 2006) p. 72. Gary Tyra, A Missional Orthodoxy: Theology and Ministry in a Post-Christian Context (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2014), 25; Van Gelder and Zscheile’s, 27. Hastings, preface. 47 Rowan Williams in Alan Roxburgh and M. Scott Boren, Introducing the Missional Church, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2009, Kindle Edition) Location 229 of 3011. 48 Van Gelder and Zscheile, 26. 49 Ibid, 23-26. 50 Ibid, 26. 51 Karl Barth as quoted in Van Gelder and Zscheile, 26-27. 17 as a missionary continued to shape the conversation of ecclesiology and missiology through the 1950’s and 1960’s.52 Van Gelder and Zscheile note that Barth’s emphasis on the nature of God as a missionary God contributed to a vision of the church as a missionary people.53
These theological convictions regarding the nature of God, and God’s church as missionary in nature, contributed to a shift in hermeneutics whereby the Scriptures were beginning to be viewed from the perspective of the mission of God.54 Missiologist and biblical scholar David Bosch, beginning in the 1970’s, worked toward defining a missionary self-understanding of the church, starting with the conviction that the New
Testament was a document of mission.55 In his landmark work, Transforming Mission,
Bosch describes the shift from a ‘theology of mission’ to ‘mission theology’ when he writes: “…theology, rightly understood, has no reason to exist other than critically to accompany the missio Dei: So mission should be ‘the theme of all theology’”.56 In this view, mission cannot be relegated to a subset of theology, but must be central to all theological work. Assuming this starting place with the missio Dei, a set of entangled questions emerge: How will our theological agendas be challenged and formed in light of this paradigm shift in mission theology? And, at the most basic level, what will this mean for our interaction with the Bible and our hermeneutical assumptions? Also, what
52 Van Gelder and Zscheile, 31. 53 Ibid, 31. 54 Ibid, 32. 55 Girma Bekele offers a helpful discussion on Bosch’s approach. Girma Bekele, “The Biblical Narrative of the Missio Dei: Analysis of the Interpretive Framework of David Bosch’s Missional Hermeneutics” International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Vol. 35, No. 3 (July, 2011), 153. 56 David Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991), 506. Here Bosch is citing Gensichen. See also Van Gelder and Zscheile, 26-27. 18 then will be the resultant practical nature and shape of our participation with God in his mission?
Since the Scriptures “are the normative and authoritative witness to God’s mission and its unfolding in human history,”57 one of the most pressing issues is the need to further develop and define a missional hermeneutic. Jim Brownson, writing in 1994, is likely the first writer to use the term “missional hermeneutics,”58 and in the following years scholars would continue to consider how to read the Bible with the missio Dei as a starting place. In 2009, George Hunsberger offered a helpful summary of much of the material presented to that date.59 Yet given all the previous work, in their 2011 publication Van Gelder and Zscheile continue to point to the “critical agenda remaining” from the initial conversation to “formulate a missional hermeneutic as the basis for developing a missional theology.”60 Likewise, in his 2015 publication The Mission of
57 Darrell L. Guder, ed. Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America, contributing authors, Lois Barrett, Inagrace T. Dietterich, George R. Hunsberger, Alan J. Roxburgh and Craig Van Gelder (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998), 10-11. 58 Jim Brownson, “Speaking the Truth in Love: Elements of a Missional Heremeneutic” International Review of Mission, Vol. LXXXIII no. 330 (1994) pp. 479- 504. His initial article laid important groundwork for the continuing study of missional hermeneutics, particularly in focusing on the gospel as the “interpretative matrix” employed by the New Testament authors in their interaction between their received tradition and their cultural moment. 59 The Gospel and Our Culture Network (GOCN) hosted a conversation through annual gatherings of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature from 2005 to 2008 (Van Gelder and Zscheile, 91). George Hunsberger defines four primary “streams of emphasis” that have emerged in the literature, including: 1. The missional direction of the story; 2. The missional purpose of the writings; 3. The missional locatedness of the readers; and, 4. The missional engagement with culture. George R. Hunsberger, in his, “Proposals for a Missional Hermeneutic: Mapping the Conversation, published on The Gospel and Our Culture Network (http://www.gocn.org), 2009. 60 Van Gelder and Zscheile, 91. Emphasis mine. The variety of significant exegetical, interpretive and hermeneutical issues raised by scholars in this field ought to 19
Preaching, Patrick Johnson states that, “the very concept of a missional hermeneutic is in the early stages of development.”61
Those arguing for a missional hermeneutic do so based on an understanding of the
Bible as a document that results from the mission of God, and that functions – through the ongoing work of the Spirit – to shape, equip and enable the church to participate in the mission of God. As such, Michael Barram argues that it is methodologically reductionistic to relegate mission to a few “missionary texts.”62 He continues: “Put simply, from the perspective of missiology, a biblical text does not have to be focused on outreach to non-Christians in order for it to have an inherently missional character.”63
The primary methodological problem for many in the field of biblical scholarship, according to Barram, is that many scholars remain unconvinced “that mission can and should serve as a fundamental rubric for biblical interpretation.”64 However, recognizing the nature of God as a missionary, and the church as a missionary people, has called
give us pause for humility while proceeding to outline the key contours of a missional hermeneutic. When such scholars as N.T. Wright have been drawn, even unwittingly, into the force field of this endeavor, the potential and promise of the project ought not be downplayed. N.T. Wright presented on missional hermeneutics at the SBL meetings in the fall of 2014, specifically on Paul and his missional hermeneutic. See Andrew Wilson’s Blog Think Theology
The Bible as a Document of Mission
God inspired the Bible to be written, that through it, he might reveal himself and bear witness to his redemptive movement toward his loved, but fallen creatures. As
Charles R. Taber puts it: “The very existence of such a collection of writings testifies to a
God who breaks through to human beings, who discloses himself to them, who will not leave them unilluminated in their darkness.”65 It is God’s initiative in seeking to restore and renew humanity and his good creation - that is, God’s mission – that gives rise to the
Biblical witness.66
The New Testament as a Document of Mission
The New Testament is developed in continuity with God’s redemptive work that begins in Genesis, comes to its climax in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus - God’s promised Messiah – and is finally realized in the New Creation. As David Bosch argues, the New Testament writings are not the product of “inner-Christian doctrinal struggle,” or a “confessional history,” but rather, “the history and the theology of early Christianity are, first of all, ‘mission history’ and ‘mission theology’.”67 This interpretative framework, then, assumes the New Testament documents are written to communities
65 In C. Wright, 48. 66 That the Bible is witness to God’s actions in history leads Bosch to propose that it may be better to call the Bible the “Acts of God” rather than the “Word of God.” Bosch, 17. As Christopher Wright puts it: “A missional hermeneutic of the Bible begins with the Bible’s very existence.” C. Wright, 48. 67 Bosch, 15. 21 defined by their missionary calling. As Darrell Guder summarizes, the churches being addressed in the New Testament are “apostolic communities, that is, churches founded by the apostolic proclamation with the purpose of continuing that witness in their particular contexts.”68
I.H. Marshall makes a similar argument in his New Testament Theology.69 He describes the New Testament writings as the “documents of a mission,”70 meaning, that the New Testament
…came into being as the result of a two-part mission, first, the mission of Jesus sent by God to inaugurate his kingdom with the blessings that it brings to people and to call people to respond to it, and then the mission of his followers called to continue his work by proclaiming him as Lord and Saviour, and calling people to faith and ongoing commitment to him, as a result of which his church grows.71
Thus, recognizing the missionary character of the New Testament enables the reader to see the texts in their “true perspective and to interpret them in the light of their intention.”72 In this way, the New Testament documents “are at one and the same time the product of a dynamic process of evangelism and nurture, and the tools of accomplishing that process.”73 A faithful reading of the New Testament, then, is one that acknowledges the missionary nature and intent of the text:
1) To bear faithful witness to the salvific work of God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and,
2) Through the ongoing work of the Spirit, to equip the church in every subsequent generation to participate with God in his mission.
68 Guder, “Missional Theology for a Missionary Church.” 6. 69 I.H. Marshall, New Testament Theology: One Gospel, Many Witnesses (Downers Drove, IIl: IVP, 2004), 34. 70 Marshall, New Testament Theology, 34. 71 Marshall, 35. 72 Ibid, 35. 73 Ibid, 35. 22
In a footnote, Marshall claims that the missionary character of the New Testament
“distinguishes it from the Old Testament, where, although the missionary motif is by no means absent, it certainly could not be said to exercise a decisive influence over the action generally.”74 In response to Marshall, C. Wright goes on to claim that the missionary character of the New Testament can also be claimed (though in a less obvious way) for the Old, as many of the texts produced bear witness to Israel’s interaction with the surrounding nations.75
The Old Testament as a Document of Mission
An organizing motif that bridges the missionary nature of the Old and New
Testaments is the various ways that the biblical narrative describes the movement from the particular to the universal.76 Richard Bauckham sketches the various ways this movement occurs throughout the storyline of the Bible, including:
1) Temporal movement - from creation to the eschatological future; 2) Spatial movement - from one place to every place; i.e. from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth, and; 3) Social movement – from one person, one nation, to all people – all nations.77
This movement is evident as God chooses Abram and his family to be a blessing to all nations (Gen 12:1-3). Further, the particularity of God’s interaction with Israel is meant to be universally revelatory. For example, Ezekiel prophesies that Israel will be restored following the exile, not for Israel’s sake alone, but that “they [the nations] shall know that
I am the LORD” (Ez 36:22). Similarly, the particularity of David’s kingdom moves
74 Ibid, 35, fn.24. 75 See his discussion in C.Wright, Mission, 50. See also Goheen, Light. 76 See Newbigin, Open Secret, loc 700 of 2614. 77 Richard Bauckham, Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 25-48. 23 toward God’s universal reign in the day God sends his Anointed One, who will rule from
David’s throne forever (Isa 9:7; Matt 1).78
The move from the particular to the universal is likewise evident as Israel is called a “light to the nations” so that God’s “salvation may reach to the ends of the earth”
(Isaiah 49:6): a crucial element of Israel’s vocation (cf. Matthew 5:14). As we see demonstrated throughout the Old Testament, Israel’s participation in God’s mission is primarily centripetal (movement from the periphery to the center). Michael Goheen reflects on this missional element in Israel’s identity as they are called to be a holy nation and priestly kingdom (Exodus 19): “Israel is to embody God’s creational intention for all humanity for the sake of the world, living in such a way as to draw the nations
[centripetal movement], into covenant with God.”79
Of note, the pattern of mission in the New Testament continues to have centripetal element; God’s people are still a holy nation and priestly kingdom (i.e. 1 Peter 2:9-10), and the corporate life of God’s people remains an essential element of their witness. As
Newbigin argues, the “congregation is the hermeneutic of the gospel;”80 meaning, only when signs of the kingdom are visibly present in a believing congregation will the good news of Jesus been seen as a plausible, alternate framework. The centrifugal element
(movement from the center to the periphery) of mission is more obvious than the centripetal in the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8; Matt 28:18-20; John 20:21-
23), but it does not replace or make invalid the centripetal element (i.e. Matthew 5-7, especially 5:13-16; Col 4:5-6).
78 Bauckham, Bible and Mission, 25-48. 79 Goheen, Light, 39. 80 See Chapter 18 of Newbigin, Gospel, 222-233. 24
A missional hermeneutic views the Bible – Old and New Testaments – as a missionary phenomenon, produced out of, and to advance, God’s mission. It is a hermeneutic that acknowledges and appropriates what Lesslie Newbigin calls the ‘logic of election.’81 The logic of election is evident in God’s choosing some (i.e.
Abraham/Israel; the Church) for the sake of all (Gen 12:3; Is 49:6; Eph 3:6). God reveals himself in covenant relationship with some, that through this select group he might reveal himself and make his redemption available to all humanity.82
Jesus as the Authoritative Hermeneut and Hermeneutical Key
A missional hermeneutic not only views the Bible as a missional phenomenon, but also recognizes the role Jesus plays as the authoritative hermeneut of the Scriptures and the Bible’s hermeneutical key, which the end of Luke’s Gospel clearly illustrates.
Following his resurrection, Jesus describes himself as the one to whom the whole canon of the Hebrew Bible is pointing (Lk 24:27; 44). As Richard B. Graffin Jr. puts it, God’s
“revelation is…a historical phenomenon,” and “God’s Son is the consummate and integrating focus of this history.”83 But as C. Wright shows, not only is Jesus giving a messianic centering to the Old Testament, but also a missional one.84 Luke records the
81 Newbigin, Gospel, 80-88. 82 Newbigin, as a Reformed theologian, is often considered to hold a revisionist Reformed theology, as his emphasis is not on “who” is elect, but on God’s electing purposes; that is, on “why” God elects. Newbigin eschews what he considers to be a false view of election: “The idea that election is election to privileged status before God. This false belief is something against which the prophets of Israel had constantly to contend.” Newbigin, Gospel, 84. 83 Richard B. Graffin Jr. “The Redemptive-Historical View” in Porter, Stanley E. and Beth M. Stovell, eds. Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views. (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Academic, 2012), 94. 84 C. Wright, 30. 25 hermeneutical orientation Jesus offers his disciples, as he “opens their minds to understand the Scriptures” (Lk 24:45):
“This is what is written [in the Hebrew Bible]: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day [the messianic thrust], and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem [the missional thrust].” (Luke 24:46-47)
Jesus is saying, in essence, “the whole of the Scriptures…finds its focus and fulfillment both in the life and death and resurrection of Israel’s Messiah, and in the mission to all nations, which flows out of that event.”85 Jesus offers both his own person as the messiah, and the mission of God (with himself as the climax of that mission) as providing the hermeneutical key to the Scriptures.
C. Wright furthers his argument for a missional reading of the Hebrew Bible by noting the work of James Brownson, who argues that the gospel provides the hermeneutical matrix for assessing “all claimed readings of the texts.”86 C. Wright agrees with this perspective but notes that Brownson limits his discussion of the gospel to
New Testament texts. C. Wright argues, however, that according to Paul, the gospel does not begin with the New Testament text, but in Genesis.87 For example, in Galatians Paul is dealing with those who argue that Gentiles must follow the Law of Moses and be circumcised. To those who are saying “What about Moses!” – Paul’s answer, with a gospel hermeneutic is; “What about Abraham!” at which point he argues, previous to the
85 Ibid, 30. Emphasis in the original. 86 C. Wright, 41. 87 Here Paul cites the promise of God to Abram: “All nations will be blessed through you.” See Gen 12:3; 18:18; and 22:18. 26 law, Abraham’s right-relatedness with God is appropriated through faith, not obedience to the law (Gal 3:6-9ff; cf. Rom 4).88
Thus, the hermeneutical coherence that Brownson argues for – that of the gospel – is applicable to the whole of the Bible. Chris Wright says it this way: “Jesus himself provided the hermeneutical coherence within which all disciples must read these texts, that is, in the light of the story that leads up to Christ (messianic reading) and the story that leads on from Christ (missional reading).”89 According to Jesus, the Bible is telling a story that finds its climax in his own life, death, resurrection, and that now prepares his community for their ongoing witness to him. Of course, as will be discussed later in this chapter, the ongoing witness to Jesus will be accomplished with Jesus’ ongoing presence
(Matt 28:20), mediated by the presence of the Spirit (John 14:15-18).
The phenomenon of the Bible – Old and New Testament – is a missional phenomenon.90 As Al Tizon summarizes; “God’s saving acts came first; the complex, human-and-divine processes that produced what we now call the Bible bears witness to them.”91 As we see in Luke 24, Jesus himself defines the hermeneutic for opening the
Hebrew Bible as centering on himself as messiah and the announcement of his reign in mission. If God’s mission – climaxing as it does in the reign of God, inaugurated in the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and anticipating its eschatological fulfillment in Jesus’ parousia – is the hermeneutical key of the Bible, how will his framework set the agenda for how the church reads the Bible, and responds as
88 C.Wright, 193-195. 89 C. Wright, 41. Emphasis in the original. 90 Ibid, 50. 91 Al Tizon, Missional Preaching: Engage, Embrace, Transform (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 2012), 13. 27 participants in God’s mission? First, this description of the Bible assumes a narrative shape, and second, it assumes that the Bible is telling a story that makes claims of universal intent. As N.T. Wright notes, the divine drama told in the Bible “offers a story which is the story of the whole world. It is public truth.”92
The Bible as A Narrative of Universal Intent
In his book The Open Secret, Lesslie Newbigin describes the Bible as “universal history.” By “universal history” he means that the Bible “claims to show us the shape, the structure, the origin, and the goal not merely of human history, but of cosmic history.”93 Newbigin points out that the Bible contains many different genres (poetry, prayer, legislation, ethics etc.), but notes that the Bible “is essentially narrative in form…it is a story.”94
The Bible as The Story
Newbigin helpfully draws a distinction between a Greco-Roman and Jewish understanding of the truthfulness of stories. He argues that Greco-Roman philosophy has conditioned those in the West to read the “truth” of a story as independent from the story itself, as though the truth of stories “is to be found in that which they point to and illustrate and can be verified now and always in experience.”95 But, citing Blaise Pascal,
Newbigin notes that the God of the Bible is not the God of the philosophers – positing
92 N.T. Wright, cited in Goheen, Michael. “Urgency”, 2. 93 Newbigin, Open Secret, loc 408 of 2614. 94 Ibid, Loc 1126 of 2614. 95 Newbigin, Open Secret, loc 1135 of 2614. 28 ahistorical, free-floating propositions – but the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.
The God engaged in history.96 Thus, Newbigin argues:
The Bible does not tell stories that illustrate something true apart from the story. The Bible tells a story that is the story, the story of which our human life is a part. It is not that stories are a part of human life, but that human life is a part of a story. It is not that there are stories that illustrate “how things are”; it is that we do not begin to understand how things are unless we understand how they were and how they will be.97
The Bible is not just a particular story about a particular people at a particular time in history but the universal story in which our own particular stories find their meaning. It claims to be telling us not only where we come from, and where we are now, but also, where history is heading. The difficulty in claiming to have a story of universal intent is that, normally, we only understand the meaning of a story at the story’s end. Yet the Christian claims that even in the “middle of the story” we can know the meaning of history, since the end has been revealed; “in Jesus the beginning and the end of the story, the alpha and the omega, are revealed, made known, disclosed.”98 A missional hermeneutic recognizes that the Bible is a story with universal intent, and thus, must be read as presenting a vision of reality that addresses the deepest worldview questions:
Where are we? Who are we? What’s gone wrong? What is the solution?99
Does Viewing the Bible as Narrative Mean it is Oppressive?
This claim of the Bible to be universal history presents the problem of how this narrative – with all its particularities of time and culture – relates to other narratives,
96 In Newbigin, Open Secret, loc 1135 of 2614. 97 Ibid, loc 1135 of 2614. 98 Ibid, 1184 of 2614. 99 As C.Wright points out, though including the answers the Bible gives. 55. 29 since there are “other ways of telling the story of the world.”100 Thus, Newbigin argues,
“Christian faith…is a way of understanding world history that challenges and relativizes all other models by which the meaning of history is interpreted.”101 It seems that
Newbigin is addressing the metanarrative of Enlightenment progress as the main story the
Christian narrative “challenges and relativizes.”102 More recently others have pointed to the liberal capitalist story, the Muslim story, and the Marxist story as the “leading contenders” for which story will narrate the world.103
Significantly, just one year following the publication of The Open Secret
(published in 1978), Jean-Francois Lyotard published a definition of postmodern as
“incredulity toward grand narratives or metanarratives.”104 Bauckham notes that one reason Lyotard is concerned about metanarratives is that they are projects of power and domination.105 Richard Bauckham describes the charge offered by Lyotard and others as such: metanarratives are “attempts to universalize one’s own values or culture,” and are therefore “necessarily authoritarian or oppressive.”106 Is the Christian story, as narrated in the Bible, a totalizing narrative? Is it oppressive? As Bauckham notes, Lyotard’s critique is not initially directed toward the Christian story, but toward the Enlightenment project, specifically,
100 Ibid, loc 1145 of 2614. 101 Ibid, loc 1230 of 2614. 102 See Newbigin’s discussion, Open Secret, on loc 1197 of 2614. 103 Here Goheen is citing Bob Webber and Phil Kenyon’s A Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future (2006). Goheen, “Urgency”, 1. 104 Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Translation from the French by Greoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984 (Originally published in Paris, FR: Les Edition de Minuit, 1979). Introduction. 105 As summarized from Bauckham, Bible and Mission, 87-88. See Lyotard. Introduction. 106 Bauckham, Bible and Mission, 88. 30
…various forms of the project of modern reason that aspires to a comprehensive explanation of reality, including the human condition, and seeks thereby rationally based universal criteria by which to order society and to liberate humanity through technology. A modern metanarrative is a totalizing theory, which aims to subsume all events, all perspectives and all forms of knowledge in a comprehensive rational explanation. It presumes that reality, both nature and human history, is fundamentally comprehensible to reason, and can therefore be subjected to rational mastery in the interests of human progress. In the postmodern critique, such a metanarrative is an ideological tool of western domination of the world.107
Bauckham warns against aligning Christianity with the modernist story of progress. In important ways, the narrative of the Bible likewise critiques the modernist vision of human progress. There is common ground between a Christian reading of history and this postmodern critique of the human will to power through technological means.108 Though the postmodern critique of metanarratives is directed particularly at the modernist project, the claim that the Bible offers a universal history – and especially in light of the fact that in the hands of the imperialistic Western project the Bible has been used as a tool of oppression109 – there is a need to carefully assess how reading the
Bible as a single story can function, not as a tool of oppression, but as a word of liberation and healing. But this begs the question as to what sort of story this narrative tells, and how it is intended to function in the lives of its adherents.
107 Ibid, 90. 108 Bauckham summarizes some of these qualities of the Christian worldview that distinguish it from the modernist story: “…the kingdom of God is not a matter of cumulative progress over time,” and the Christian view sees “history in terms of the freedom and purpose of God and of human freedom to obey or resist God.” 91. For a more in depth discussion see Craig M. Gay, The Way of the (Modern) World: Or, Why It’s Tempting To Live as if God Doesn’t Exist (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998). 109 Goheen points out some of these ways specifically, starting with Constantine and the use of the Chai/Rho as a sign of victory and conquest. See Urgency, 11. 31
As we see in Luke 4:18-21, Jesus describes his coming as the dawning of God’s eschatological reign, as described in Isaiah 61:1-2. Jesus is implicitly stating that the
Hebrew Bible is telling a story that narrates history, and that it has a direction and goal that is coming to fulfillment in his own life. But it should be noted that the sort of kingdom Jesus is inaugurating, as unveiled in this story, is to be one of truly good news and liberation. Citing the Isaiah text,110 Jesus describes his own Spirit-anointed ministry in terms of being sent to “proclaim good news to the poor…freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight to the blind, to set the oppressed free and proclaim the year of the
Lord’s favour” (Luke 4:18-19). The rest of Jesus’ ministry, climaxing as it does in his defeat of the final oppressor – death itself – demonstrates God’s concern for the poor, oppressed, and marginalized, and calls his followers to join in his own pattern of self- giving humility as they align their lives with God and his rule.
Newbigin, not having access to Lyotard’s critique of metanarratives at the writing of The Open Secret, still concludes his discussion on the Bible as universal history with this concern in mind:
The question of the relation of the biblical story to the whole story of humankind is a question that has to be answered in action. The Christian confession about the meaning and end of history can make good its claim over against other interpretations of human history only through actions in which this confession is embodied in deed – and in suffering.111
110 Of note, Jesus offers a significant modification of Isaiah’s text, as he eliminates the reference to “the day of vengeance of our God.” See the discussion in Joel Green, The Gospel According to Luke: New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 213. 111 Newbigin, Open Secret, loc 1240 of 2614. 32
The biblical narrative does present the claim to be universal history – to be public truth – yet, the central character and message of this narrative invites the very opposite of oppression. Bauckham notes,
Here, in the crucified Christ, is God’s self-identification as one human being identified with all human beings, the particular which is also the universally salvific….All attempts to co-opt this message to projects of the will to power, to make it an instrument of oppression, can do so only by hiding the cross itself.112
Further, Bauckham goes on to conclude: “Indeed, it may be the power of the cross that can most effectively break through the corrosive cynicism of much contemporary
Western culture, the suspicion that the will to power is the hidden agenda in all human relationships however apparently altruistic.”113 A missional hermeneutic, then, requires those bound to this story to be deeply shaped by the ethic of the story. Perhaps when understood with the aims of the biblical material in mind – and the shape of life it calls adherents to pattern their lives after – the Bible is not open to the critique of metanarratives, at least according to Lyotard’s definition.114
The Bible as a Unified, Yet Diverse Story
A further question of reading the Bible as a single story must be addressed: Does adopting a narrative reading become reductionistic in dealing with the rich diversity of biblical material? Jim Brownson, notes: “If a missional hermeneutic is going to avoid
112 Bauckham, Bible and Mission, 102. 113 Ibid, 102. 114 Tom Sherwood argues: “Correctly understood, the Bible is not a metanarrative. Lyotard would not reject it as a metanarrative, as it is neither inherently oppressive or self-legitimating using universal reason.” Tom Sherwood < https://tomsherwood.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/lyotards-postmodern-critique-of- metanarratives-and-the-proper-christian-response/> accessed April 21, 2016. 33 becoming either a totalizing narrative that suppresses difference, or a pastiche that simply satisfies for the moment, a missional hermeneutic must take the reality of difference with utmost seriousness.”115 The “difference” must include making space for the diversity of valid readings of the Bible.116 For Brownson, “valid interpretation” means reading the text with the gospel as the hermeneutical matrix where the interpretation hinges on the good news of Jesus and leads to an ethic that is paradigmatically centered on Jesus.117
Bauckham notes that though there is a need to read the Bible as a single narrative, what the Bible does not give us is a predetermined roadmap from “Pentecost to the kingdom,” nor does it offer a “carefully plotted single storyline like a conventional novel.”118 Instead, “it is a sprawling collection of narratives along with much non- narrative material that stands in a variety of relationships to the narratives.”119 He points out that there are a plurality of ways that the Bible tells the same stories, such as the four gospels (not harmonized into a tidy single story) or the books of Kings and Chronicles.
Bauckham concludes that, “all this makes any sort of finality in summarizing the biblical story inconceivable.”120
Though offering summaries is necessary, these summaries cannot be presented as final. Further, a summary must not replace what it summarizes, namely, the text must be
115 James Brownson, “A Response at SBL to Hunsberger’s ‘Proposals…’ Essay” (paper presented at the Gospel and Our Culture Network, 2009)
The Bible does, in some sense, tell an overall story that encompasses all its other contents, but this story is not a sort of straightjacket that reduces all else to a narrowly definable uniformity. It is a story that is hospitable to considerable diversity and to tensions, challenges and even seeming contradictions of its own claims.121
A missional hermeneutic gives us a frame to approach the Bible in a canonical and narrative way,122 yet recognizes the particularity of the small, untidy stories, and resists the desire to assimilate these where they create tensions.
The Kingdom as the Central Motif in the Storyline
Al Tizon is right to argue that the unity and diversity of the Bible are not mutually exclusive, but that the “various perspectives within Scripture form what Vern Poythress calls a ‘symphonic theology’ – a cohesive, and profoundly moving unity that acknowledges the contribution of each and every instrument.”123 On this note, Timothy
Keller cites a study by D.A. Carson who points to over twenty inter-canonical themes
(such as the Kingdom of God, Exile/Homecoming, Yahweh/Covenant etc.) that can be traced through the narrative of the Bible.124 Keller goes on to note that the Bible’s storyline expresses at least four elements: 1. What God wants for us (Creation); 2. What happened to us and what went wrong with the world (Fall); 3. What God has done in
121 Ibid, 94. 122 Ibid, 12. 123 Tizon, 15. Tizon then goes on to argue that “kingdom” is the greatest of unifying theme, though it does not preclude others. 124 Timothy Keller, Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2012), 40. 35
Jesus Christ (Redemption); and 4. How history will turn out as a result (Restoration).125
Each of the inter-canonical themes addresses these four elements of the biblical narrative in diverse, yet harmonious ways. As Keller summarizes: “This story [of Creation, Fall,
Redemption and Restoration] can be – and is – told in multiple ways, using multiple themes, since both sin and salvation are multidimensional.”126
The polyphonic voice of inter-canonical themes must be recognized, celebrated, and appropriated within a missional hermeneutic (and missional preaching). Yet, it seems that the theme of God’s kingdom emerges as the key motif or – to switch analogy from classical music to the musical world of rock or blues – the main “riff” of biblical narrative; the consistently repeated and cohesive element that ties together the other elements.127 As Bauckham writes, “The Bible is a kind of project aimed at the kingdom of God, that is, toward the achievement of God’s purposes for good in the whole of God’s creation.”128 Likewise, Tizon argues that amidst the various themes present in the narrative, the kingdom of God is central to the “life, teaching, and overall mission of
Jesus,” and likewise, should be to the church of Jesus.129
When Jesus takes the public stage he comes: “proclaiming the good news of God.
‘The time has come,’ he said, ‘the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news’” (Mark 1:15). Jesus’ first century Jewish audience would hear in his kingdom announcement the claim that the long-awaited time of God’s intervening in
125 Keller, Center Church, 43. 126 Ibid, 43. 127 For an example of a memorable, repeated riff, consider the main guitar line Jimmy Page plays in Led Zepplin’s “Whole ‘Lotta Love”, or the repeated guitar phrase of Creams’s “Sunshine of Your Love”. 128 Bauckham, Bible and Mission,11. 129 Tizon, 15. 36 history, to bring about God’s reign over the whole world – “all creation, all nations, all human life” – had finally dawned.130 Yet, as we see throughout the gospel narrative, the kingdom that is already inaugurated in Jesus has a future horizon that is not yet finally and fully established.131 The “already-and-not-yet” element of the kingdom is significant for a missional hermeneutic, as we must confess that Jesus is Saviour of the world, and, in hope declare that while we still experience “death…mourning…crying or pain” they will one day be “no more” (Rev 21:4). Jesus has already won the victory, since in Christ
God was “reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor 5:19). It is in this “time between the times” that the church is called to missional faithfulness, and called to act appropriately in this “stage” of the story, until the final act of God’s drama is drawn to fulfillment with the coming of the New Heavens and New Earth (Rev 21:1-5).
Worthy of note at this point is the caution that Patrick Johnson raises for speaking of the kingdom of God. He points out that Al Tizon, in Missional Preaching, describes
Jesus as “the incarnation of the kingdom of God,”132 which could be perceived as different from saying Jesus is “the incarnation of God.”133 Johnson concludes that in speaking of the kingdom of God, we must be clear to say: “Jesus Christ is the incarnation of God and thus also of God’s will and way.”134 And to this point we now turn.
130 Goheen, A Light to the Nations, 17. 131 Morna Hooker helpfully traces the modern/critical interpretive history that has lead to the common “already-but-not-yet” tension of the Kingdom. Morna Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark: Blacks New Testament Commentaries. Gen. Editor: Henry Chadwick (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 55-58. 132 Tizon, 18. 133 P. Johnson, 178. 134 Ibid, 178. 37
Jesus – God’s Messiah – As the Good News
In Mark 1:14-15, Jesus does not yet express the content of the gospel he announces in this brief declaration, or reveal how the kingdom is “near”, yet the rest of
Mark’s narrative demonstrates that it is in the person of Jesus himself that the kingdom is arriving. Morna Hooker puts it like this:
Jesus is the very embodiment of the Kingdom. Thus, although Jesus speaks of the Kingdom, and not of himself, his words are nevertheless an indirect testimony to himself; it is because he himself lives in obedience to God’s rule that he can announce the dawning of God’s Kingdom and demonstrate its presence in his miracles.135
By announcing the coming of God’s kingdom, Mark tells us that Jesus is
“proclaiming the good news of God.” And for Mark, and the rest of the New Testament, the gospel to be announced is Jesus himself – his identity as Messiah, his death, resurrection (Lk 24:46) – and the redemptive implications of his work and reign (Lk
24:47). For example, Paul’s summary of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-19 likewise presents Jesus as Messiah, his death and resurrection as the means of forgiveness and promise of hope for resurrection.
The angels can also be said to herald “good news that will cause great joy for all the people” to the shepherds in Luke 2:10, declaring that: “Today in the town of David a
Saviour has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord” (Lk 2:11). It will take the rest of Luke’s narrative to flesh out exactly what it will mean that Jesus is “Saviour, Messiah, and Lord,” but Jesus’ own presence as the King of the kingdom is already announced as good news (Lk 1:32-33). This finds resonance with Isaiah 40:9 in the LXX which, like
Luke here, uses the verbal form euaggeli/zw to express the declaration of “good news”
135 Hooker, 57. 38 as being summarized by God’s own presence: “You who bring good news to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah,
“Here is your God!” (Is 40:9b). In announcing Jesus’ coming, the angels, and later the shepherds, are announcing the same good news as the Isaianic herald; “Here is your
God!”136
Telling this story – that the Messiah, God’s promised Rescuer and Ruler has indeed arrived – subverts all other ways of narrating history; this announcement comes as a counter-narrative to all claims to power. It is significant that Luke mentions that Caesar
Augustus calls a census in Luke 2:1. The narrative of the Roman Empire – of Pax
Romana – included the heralding of the good news that Caesar is born, as the “Saviour” and “Lord” of the whole world. The goods news that the angels announce in Luke 2:10-
11 – the coming of Jesus as the true Saviour, King and Lord of the world – stands as a socio-political counter-claim against the Empire.137 Telling the story of the Bible – as a narrative of universal intent – will have the same effect today. Indeed: “An essential part of our theological and missional task today is to ‘tell this story as clearly as possible, and to allow it to subvert other ways of telling the story of the world…”138
The Bible is a document of mission, presented as a story – the true story – of
God’s world, and his movement toward the world in love. The outstanding issue to be addressed is the nature of the Bible’s authority. Addressing this includes discussing: 1)
136 Joel Green discusses how Luke is presenting a high Christology and bearing witness, implicitly, to the divinity of Jesus. For instance, “Saviour”, in the OT is used especially of God (1 Sam 10:19; Is 45:15; 21) and here in Luke’s gospel in 1:47. Yet as we read, “…in 2:11 this role has been transferred to Jesus, and subsequently in Luke-Acts “Saviour” is a designation of Jesus (Acts 5:31; 13:23). Green, 135. 137 Green, 113; See also Bauckham, Bible and Mission, 107. 138 Goheen, 4, citing N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 132. 39 the person of Jesus as the Word of God, and what that means for our view of the
Scriptures; 2) the role of the Spirit in revelation; 3) an “Incarnational” view of Scripture; and, 4) how God exercises his authority through the Bible in the form of a story.
The Nature of the Bible’s Authority
The Gospel of John purposes to encourage the late first-century church to continue confessing (20:30-31) Jesus as “Lord and God” (20:28: cf. 1:1-18) and to equip the audience to share the Good News of Jesus with their unbelieving neighbours. As Ben
Witherington III points out, the genre and purpose of the Fourth Gospel is best seen as a
“dramatic biography written for Christians to use for evangelistic purposes.”139 Since
John’s Gospel is transparently missional in its intent and draws significant correlation between Christology, Pneumatology, missiology and the Scriptures,140 it will serve as a basis to address several key issues pertinent to missional hermeneutics, including Jesus’ identity as the “Word of God” (John 1:1-4), and how the description of the Spirit’s work in John’s Paraclete passages shape how we view, read, and appropriate the Bible for our participation in God’s mission today.
139 Ben Witherington III, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 4. 140 Jesus credits the Spirit with enabling the disciples to: a) faithfully remember his teachings (14:26); b) understand the meaning of the Scriptures – which find their fulfillment in Jesus himself (5:39-40; 2:22; 12:16); and then, by extension, c) to enable the Beloved Disciple, most likely Lazarus, to recount and record his testimony in the words of this Gospel (21:24; later compiled and edited primarily by “John,” perhaps John of Patmos). By doing so, the seven witnesses who testify during the first phase of the trial motif – those during Jesus’ life– are given voice to continue their testimony by the ongoing reading and preaching of this Gospel; the second stage of witness that follows Jesus’ earthly life. See Richard Bauckham, “The Fourth Gospel as the Testimony of the Beloved Disciple” in The Gospel of John and Christian Theology eds. Richard Bauckham and Carl Mosser (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 124. 40
Jesus, the Word of God
The Bible refers to the “word of God” in reference to the message God spoke to, and through, the prophets and later apostles (see 2 Peter 3:16 where Paul’s letters are considered “Scripture” alongside of the Old Testament), and in reference to the written record of God’s word in Scripture. However, as Newbigin puts it, within a Christian understanding, the “Word of God is Jesus Christ.”141 In John’s Gospel in particular, we see the distinction between Jesus, the incarnate Word, and the Scriptures, the written word. As the Gospel states: “In the beginning was the Word,” and yet the author does not conclude “and the Word was written down,” but instead: “and the Word became flesh…” (John 1:1;14). Further, Jesus’ words about himself make explicit the priority of his own person as the climax of God’s revelation when he says to the religious leaders who were questioning him: “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me and have life” (John 5:39). Jesus places his own person, as God’s living Word, as the center and climax of the Biblical storyline, as the true source of life, and God’s fullest revelation of himself (cf. John 14:9; Heb 1:1-3).142
141 Lesslie Newbigin, Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt and Certainty in Christian Discipleship (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 88. 142 Michael Bird provides the following helpful framework: The Word of God exists in three forms. “(1) There is the eternal Word of God, Jesus Christ, who in his incarnation was the “Word made flesh”; (2) There is the spoken prophetic word for admonishing Israel and the apostolic word of the gospel; and (3) There is the inscripturated revelation of the writings of the Old and New Testaments that make up the Word of God in written form.” Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013, Kindle Edition), loc 1195 of 22001. 41
In terms of hermeneutics, we need the whole story of the Bible (i.e. the written word, OT and NT) in order to know Jesus, and we need Jesus (the Living Word) to understand the storyline of the Bible. Noting that Jesus is God’s word means that “…the reading of the Bible involves a continual twofold movement: we have to understand Jesus in the context of the whole story, and we have to understand the whole story in light of
Jesus.”143 But the point of understanding the Bible is, of course, to know God personally
(17:3) and so experience life in Jesus (5:39ff.). Further, we are prepared and enabled by the Spirit’s work, in large part, through the Scriptures, to become active participants in
God’s mission. N.T. Wright summarizes this view well: “Jesus thus does, climactically and decisively, what Scripture had in a sense been trying to do: bring God’s fresh
Kingdom-order to God’s people and thence the world.”144 Understanding this distinction functions to safeguard against “bibliolatry” – confusing the written words of Scripture with the Living Word whom we are to worship.
Coming back to the critique raised by Lyotard, understanding that God’s revelation is self-revelation, which invites trust, begins to address the substantive concern regarding the postmodern view of the incredulity of metanarratives, since Lyotard’s concern revolves mostly on the self-legitimation of metanarratives based on universal reason.145 Christian-knowing, however, is essentially personal knowledge – that is, it is not in the end about universal, free-floating propositions, or based on ‘universal reason’, but is about the personal experience of the One who reveals himself and invites the trust of the “other.” Claiming that Christian knowing is personal knowledge, however, does
143 Newbigin, Proper, 88. 144 N.T. Wright, Final Word, 43. 145 See Lyotard, introduction. 42 not leave us in the realm of subjectivism – as though there is no reality to be known. But what is known is a matter of faith, not self-legitimated reason. Newbigin contrasts the classical view that true knowledge is vision, theora, and what we find in the Biblical text
– that is a sort of “knowing involved in personal relations.”146 Newbigin goes on to state:
“Because ultimate reality is personal, God’s address to us is a word conveying his purpose and promise, a word which may be heard or ignored, obeyed or disobeyed.”147
Believing this story of universal intent is an act of trust in the end.
Newbigin’s approach does not abandon the notion of reason, however, but it does not give ground to self-legitimated ‘pure reason’. He quotes Michael Polanyi, who argues, rightly, that the personal commitment of knower
does not make our understanding subjective. Comprehension is neither an arbitrary act nor a passive experience, but a responsible act claiming universal validity. Such knowledge is indeed objective in the sense of establishing contact with a hidden reality, contact that is defined as the condition for anticipating an indeterminate range of as yet unknown (and perhaps yet inconceivable) true implications. It seems reasonable to describe this fusion of the personal and the objective as personal knowledge.148
Christian knowledge of God is personal knowledge – knowledge of God’s own person, revealed in Jesus, in continuity with the whole story of the Bible. In the end, the Bible does not come to humanity as a document that claims to be legitimated by pure reason.
Instead, as James K. A. Smith says, “...the biblical narrative and Christian faith claim to be legitimated not by an appeal to a universal, autonomous reason but rather by an appeal
146 Newbigin, Proper Confidence, 10. 147 Ibid, 14. 148 In Newbigin, Proper, 43-44. 43 to faith.”149 This faith is the sort of trust involved in personal relationship – the centre of
Christian experience.150
The Role of the Spirit in Revelation
In the Paraclete passages of John’s Gospel, Jesus assures his disciples: 1) of his continued presence with them, mediated by the Spirit (the Paraclete); 2) that the Spirit will enable their understanding and remembrance of him; and 3) that the Spirit will continue to testify about him (15:26) and enable the ongoing witness of Jesus’ disciples concerning him (15:27). Further, 4) the Spirit will, primarily through the proclamation of the church and also through the powerful manifestations of the Spirit (Rom 15:19; 1 Cor
2:4-5), convict the world concerning sin, righteousness and judgment (16:8ff.); and 5) the
Spirit will lead them to understand the “truth” of God’s salvation, which is found through
Jesus’ triumphant death and subsequent vindication.
In John 14:25-26 (cf. 16:14), Jesus tells his disciples: “All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (14:26). Lesslie Newbigin is right to point out that when Jesus says “All this I have spoken to you,” he grounds his ministry in his first century, Palestinian context, and not otherwise. This is in line with John’s purpose of emphasizing the “concrete particularity, the historicity, the factuality of what he records.”151 What the disciples come to understand of Jesus’ teaching, and what they
149 James K.A. Smith, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 68. 150 As noted above, in reference to an epistemology of critical realism, there are legitimate reasons to consider the Christian story as really real, and truly true. 151 Lesslie Newbigin, The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1983), 189. 44 remember (and thus proclaim and record; 15:27: 21:24), are both the historical
“happenings” and teachings of Jesus, and also what they mean. Jesus’ disciples will testify to objective reality: public truth that is binding and true for all humanity.152
As Jesus states in 14:26, and again in 16:12-15, the Spirit will reveal what Jesus said (14:26b), and what Jesus wants his disciples to know about him, both in the present and the future (16:13).153 The role of the Spirit here is to testify to Jesus (15:26), and enables the disciples to faithfully do the same (15:27). Further, in 1 John 4:2, the author
– likely the same as John’s Gospel – makes the naming of the true identity of Jesus the litmus test for any claims that the Spirit has spoken.154
It is through the work of the Holy Spirit that Jesus’ life and teaching have been remembered (14:26) and recorded (21:24). Through the written testimony of the Beloved
Disciple, the testimony presented during Jesus’ earthly ministry continue to bear witness after his ascension, and even beyond the lives of the Apostles.155 Thus, it is through the
Spirit-reminded testimony (14:26; 15:26-27; 16:12-15) that all subsequent generations
152 Newbigin, Fourth Gospel, 190. The Paraclete will enable these disciples to remember and thus boldly testify (15:27) that in this one-time act of God-in-the-flesh (1:14), who lays down his life (10:11) so that all of humanity can recognize, by the enlightening, convicting work of the Spirit (16:8-15), that Jesus is indeed the exalted King (19:22; noting the irony of Pilate’s comment), who now lives (20:1-28) to give life to all who trust in his name (20:30-31). 153 This future orientation may account for the vision of the eschaton given to John of Patmos and recorded in the book of Revelation. It is possible that John of Patmos is the “John” who is final editor of the Fourth Gospel. Ben Witherington III, argues that the Beloved Disciple, most likely Lazarus, wrote what we call “1 John” in the mid-80’s and then a version of the Fourth Gospel, which was then edited and published after his death by “John”, who may be John of Patmos. For a fuller treatment of this theory, see Witherington, Invitation, 125-129 and Lecture notes from Ben Witherington III, “Gospel of John”. Lecture, Acadia Divinity College, Wolfville, NS, June 6-10, 2015. 154 See also 1 John 4:2-3a; cf. 4:13-16; 5:6-12; 1 Cor 12:3. 155 Bauckham, “The Fourth Gospel as the Testimony of the Beloved Disciple”, 137. 45 can know the words and teachings of Jesus, and then adequately assess the veracity of any claims made about the Spirit’s leading; i.e. “Do these claims cohere with the person and ways of Jesus as revealed in the Spirit-inspired testimony of the Gospels?”
The Spirit and the Materiality of the Gospel
The incarnation (Jn 1:14), and later bodily resurrection of Jesus (20:1-29)156 mean that any claimed reading of the text must affirm the goodness of God’s material world
(Gen 1-2) and not fall prey to “spiritualizing” the work of the Spirit. By “spiritualizing” I mean seeking to divide the “spiritual realm” from the physical realities of embodied life
(a significant issue Paul must deal with in his Corinthian correspondences; see esp. 1 Cor
2-3; 7). Though the Spirit is spirit, and not flesh (Jn 3:6; cf. 2 Cor 3:17), the work of the
Holy Spirit is with and for the material world. The creative work of the Spirit in the
Genesis narrative (Gen 1:2),157 the physical conception of Jesus (Lk 1:35), the anointing of Jesus at his baptism (Jn 1:32), and the character transformation in, and effective work of the early church (Acts 2) all demonstrate the powerful work of the Spirit in the concrete and material world.158 Thus, any readings of the text that denies Jesus’ own physicality (as Docetism; cf. 1 Jn 1:1ff.), or the goodness of the material world (as
156 Speaking of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, N.T. Wright notes: “The resurrection matters for John because he is, at his very heart, a theologian of creation. The Word, who was always to be the point at which creator and creation came together in one, is now, in the resurrection, the point at which creator and new creation are likewise one.” N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MI: Fortress Press, 2003), 667. 157 Anthony Thiselton, The Holy Spirit – In Biblical Teaching, Through the Centuries, and Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014), 4. 158 Eugene F. Rogers Jr. After the Spirit: A Constructive Pneumatology from Resources outside the Modern West. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 2. 46
Platonism; cf. Gen 1), or any reading of the text that merely acts to internalize or privatize the Gospel, ultimately denies the nature and work of God the Holy Spirit, who actualizes the new birth of believers (Jn 3:6) and calls forth new life in the concrete realities of embodied living (14:21).
A missional reading of the Bible must lead to the concretization of mission in the local, everyday setting of each congregation.159 Authentic life in the Spirit includes obedience to Jesus, which calls for Jesus’ own paradigm of self-giving love to be expressed in relation to God’s community (Jn 14:21) and all of creation (Pr 12:10), and thus, a community that bears witness to Jesus before the watching world (Jn 13:34;
17:21-23). Further, as Barrett argues, the primary way that the Spirit will “prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment” (16:8) is through the life and preaching of the church.160
The Spirit as Interpreter
The coming Paraclete is the one who “will teach” (dida¿xei) the disciples, enabling Jesus’ witnesses to reflect theologically on the meaning of Jesus’ life within the overarching story of God presented in the Hebrew Bible (Jn 20:9; cf. 5:39-47). So it is that when the Paraclete comes, he “will serve them, in other words, as remembrancer
159 For an example of the significance of local theology, see Clemens Sedmak Doing Local Theology: A Guide for Artisans of a New Humanity (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002). 160 C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St.John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text: Second Edition. Philidelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1978), 90. See also Witherington, John’s Wisdom, 239. 47 and interpreter” (emphasis mine).161 As Keener notes, the author of the Fourth Gospel is enabled to interpret this same history of Jesus with distinct language and concepts from the other Gospels.162 The author of the Fourth Gospel likely knows the Synoptic tradition
– probably Mark’s Gospel163 - yet he tells the story from a distinct angle. Thus each
Gospel is able to tell the Jesus-story, interpreting the historical “happenings” with distinct aims and elements, for the various receiving audiences. The polyphonic voice of the
Gospel witnesses, like the varied genres of the Scriptures as a whole, acts, on the one hand, to “harmoniously…convey a reality or situation which is far too profound or complex to be communicated through a monophonic discourse,”164 and yet on the other hand, maintains tensions with all of the untidy elements of the Bible too.165 As
Bauckham puts it: The Bible “is a story that is hospitable to considerable diversity and to tensions, challenges and even seeming contradictions of its own claims.”166
The Spirit and The Limits of Human Knowledge
Even though the Spirit enables the disciples to faithfully interpret the nature and meaning of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, this does not mean that those who have the
Spirit have insight into everything.167 Jesus tells his disciples in 16:13: “But when he, the
161 F.F. Bruce, The Gospels and Epistles of John. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983), 305. 162 Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Volume One and Volume Two. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003) 17. 163 Ben Witherington III, Invitation to the New Testament, First Things (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014), 125. 164 Thiselton, 500. 165 See Bauckham, Bible and Mission, 94. 166 Bauckham, Bible and Mission, 94. 167 Against the Gnostic heretics of the second century, Irenaeus argued that a full understanding, or “knowledge”, is not possible in the present. Thiselton summarizes: 48
Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” Witherington notes that the background of the use of aletheia (truth) in the Fourth Gospel is shared with late Jewish wisdom and apocalyptic literature.168 Truth in this case is not the same as the Greek understandings as “divine reality”, but rather “knowing the truth refers to knowing the mysteries of the way God has chosen to deal with humankind and offer salvation.”169 What is revealed as “the truth” in John’s Gospel is none other than Jesus himself (cf. 14:6). So it is that Jesus “is both revealer and the revelation, for in him the divine plan of revelation and salvation is unveiled and comes to fruition. While in early
Judaism it was Torah that was truth, and studying it made a person free (cf. Ps 119; Pirke
Aboth 3:5), here the claim is that believing in Jesus and his story has this effect.”170
The Spirit led his first disciples into all “truth”, and continues to do so today. But
“the truth” in question refers to all that is necessary to come to salvation in Jesus; a function Paul clearly ascribes to the Holy Scriptures in 2 Timothy 3:10-15. The
Scriptures function to “make us wise for salvation”, to equip us with all we need to live a life that lines up with God’s ways (2 Tim 3:16-17), and to lead us to participate in his mission. Dependence on the Spirit to illuminate the Gospel to our hearts is an ongoing dynamic of the Paraclete (cf. Eph 1:17-18).
“Irenaeus endorses Paul’s assertion that “the Spirit…searches all things” (1 Cor 2:11). Nevertheless, the Spirit gives “diversities of gifts, differences of administrations, and diversities of operations” (1 Cor 12:4-6), not a conveyance of all knowledge ([Against Heresies] 2:18:7). Now we know only in part “and prophecy in part” (1 Cor 13:9; 2:18:7).” Thiselton, 175. 168 Witherington, John’s Wisdom, 176. 169 Ibid, 176. 170 Ibid, 177. 49
An Incarnational View of Scripture
John’s Gospel is clear that it is very human disciples who will bear witness to
Jesus (15:27), including the written testimony of the Fourth Evangelist (21:24). They are promised “remembrance” and “teaching” not a verbal dictation. The testimony is truly that of the human witnesses, and yet at the same time, the work of the Spirit as reminder and interpreter ensures that this writing be considered “God’s word”, since, like the Old
Testament, the Holy Spirit is credited as enabling the truthfulness of the interpretation of
God’s work in the world (cf. 2 Peter 2:20-21). Gary Tyra, reflecting the thoughts of
Thomas Torrance, notes that because of the incarnation of Jesus, and the inspiring work of the Spirit, “it is possible for God to use the speech of fallible human beings, causing it to “rightly and properly speak of God”.”171
God invests the Scriptures with his own authority, working through his human agents (see 2 Peter 1:21). It is a false antithesis to stress either the “divine” element of the Bible (as “conservatives” often do) or the “human” element (as “liberals” often do) over and against the other.172 An “incarnational” view of Scripture, borrowing the analogy from the hypostatic union of Jesus’ divine and human nature, provides a helpful analogy, so long as it is left on the level of analogy.173
Just as Jesus is both “fully divine” and “fully human”, so too the Bible is both fully “God’s Word” and fully a “human document.” Gary Tyra describes this analogy by noting that Jesus’ body had physical uniqueness (e.g. his gait, perhaps left-handedness
171 Tyra, reflecting on the work of Thomas Torrance, 136. 172 See Tyra, 136. 173 A point N.T. Wright stresses. Final Word, 130. See Tyra’s more detailed discussion of the ontology of Jesus in relation to an incarnational view of Scripture, 135. 50 etc.), and even some imperfections (facial pock marks, facial asymmetry etc.); he was nonetheless able to provide his witnesses with a faithful revelation of God (cf. Heb
1:3).174 Likewise, the Bible, with all the easily discernable human elements (i.e. unique personal vocabulary, syntax, pre-modern understanding of the cosmos, cultural conditioning), is yet able to bear faithful witness to Christ due to the inspiring and illuminating work of the Spirit.175
An incarnational view of Scripture holds together the divine and human element.
But how do we know that the Scriptures are “God-breathed”? In reference to John 16:13, the Westminster Confession 1.5 states: “Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.”176 The veracity of the Scriptures may be tested, to some extent, by weighing the history they present against archaeological information, or by apologetic arguments. However, even this process does not ensure any sort of indubitable proof of the authenticity of God’s voice, since the historiography of the ancient world, and the intent of the original authors, may not easily lend themselves to “testing” by the standards of modern, and often reductionistic historiography. In the end, then, as the Westminster Confession states, it is a commitment of trust to accept that God could, and does, speak a living word about his
174 Tyra, 136. 175 Ibid, 136. In their classic introductory textbook, Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart helpfully describe how the Bible is universal in scope and intent as God’s Word, and historically particular as recorded by human authors in their specific time and place. See How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth, 3rd Edition (Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan, 2003), 21. 176 In Bird, Loc 14642 or 22001 51
Son, in the power of the Spirit, through the Scriptures, which find the Triune God as their goal and ultimate authority.177
In a local church setting, an incarnational view of Scripture will be challenging for those who assume, or have been taught, that the Bible is mechanically inspired – viewing the production of the Bible similar to that of the Qur’an.178 But as we see in 2
Peter 1:20-21, God inspires people not pages, and thus a view that honestly considers the human dynamic best accounts for the process God used to produce the Bible. 179 B.B.
Warfield offered a healthy approach, that accords well with the meaning of the Paraclete passages of the Forth Gospel: “If God wished to give his people a series of letters like
Paul’s He prepared a Paul to write them, and the Paul He brought to the task was a Paul who spontaneously would write just such letters.”180
An incarnational view of Scripture allows for the tensions of the text to naturally be a part of the Biblical witness. This view also allows the Living God to exercise his authority through Scripture as the reading community is shaped by the story and takes up their part in it. As Newbigin puts it: “We grow into a knowledge of God by allowing the
177 See Bird, loc 14642 of 22001. Lesslie Newbigin puts it plainly: “The only possible responses to the claims that the Bible makes are belief or unbelief. There can be no indubitable proofs. No one has seen God so as to verify the claim that he exists [and I would add, in light of the Gospel of John, those who had seen Jesus – who claimed to be revealing the Father (14:12) – also had to make a faith commitment as to whether they believed his claim or not (cf. 20:28)]….There is no scientific way of testing the claims and promises the Bible makes…It must be, as the church has always said, a matter of divine revelation accepted in faith (John 1:18). Proper Confidence, 54-55. 178 Newbigin, Gospel, 97. 179 See Bird’s discussion in Evangelical Theology, loc 14516-14570 of 22001. 180 B.B. Warfield quoted by J.I. Packer “The Inspiration of the Bible” in The Origin of the Bible ed. Philip Comfort (Wheaton, Ill: Tyndale House, 2003), 36. 52 biblical story to awaken our imagination and to challenge and stimulate our thinking and acting.”181
By the Spirit, Jesus continues to be present and continues to give understanding and illumination to us, who access the Living Word, through the written word, as we continue on mission with God. Dale Brunner puts it well:
The Spirit will lead his faithful Church into the future by reminding her of all the things Jesus said in the past, which data are now faithfully recorded for us in the Gospels. If we are loyal apprentices to the Lord Jesus of the New Testament (which it is the main mission of the Holy Spirit of Truth to make us), we will be led by this same Spirit into a faithful missionary future.182
The Bible as an Authoritative Story
Consonant with what has been presented to this point, a missional hermeneutic views the Bible as a document shaped by, and for, God’s loving, just, and redemptive movement at work to judge evil and restore his good creation. As we have been arguing throughout, the form that the Scriptures take contains a vast array of genres, but it is not essentially a “compendium of factually inerrant propositions about everything in heaven and on earth,”183 nor is it a book about religious experience,184 or a book of ‘timeless truths’, or even a rulebook (though, of course, the Bible does contain facts, religious experience, and some rules too), but it comes to us primarily as a story.185 Certainly, the
181 Newbigin, Proper Confidence, 91. 182 Fredrick Dale Bruner, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), 866. 183 Newbigin, Gospel, 97. 184 Ibid, 97. 185 For an example of how the Bible can be presented around the gospel as a single narrative, see Sally Lloyd Jones’ The Jesus Storybook Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Kidz, 2007). 53
Bible does contain propositions that must be believed,186 but I am arguing that propositions are only meaningful in relation to the larger narrative world in which they are couched.187
As argued above, the God of mission has acted in real history – a movement of his divine self-giving to win back his loved, but now sin-broken world – intending that once again his shalom will rest on his creation. God’s real interaction with his world, and the text that bear witness to this movement of love, is best described as a narrative – a story. Philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre rightly argues that we make meaning, and come to understand, through the process of ‘connecting the dots’, and that happens through narrative.188 But we do not often think of ‘narrative’ as something authoritative. The final question we will examine in this chapter is simply: how can the Bible, seen as a story, be authoritative? To answer this we will look at N.T. Wright’s analogy of the
Bible as a Five Act Play, but three initial points are first in order.
First, the Bible is an authoritative story because it is God’s story: it is God’s activity in history which it records, and God the Spirit who inspires the human authors to bear witness, to God the Son. As Chris Wright states: “The authority of the Bible is that
186 Gary Tyra helpfully argues that it is a false antithesis to pit narrative and propositional readings of the Bible against each other. Tyra, 139. Tyra provides just a few examples from the NT. For example, John’s Gospel provides numerous examples where propositions are stated and the hearer faced with the need for both assent to, and trust in, certain propositional statements. These include John 1:12; 11:25-27; John 20:30- 31. Other NT authors present Christian faith as a matter of assent and trust, including 1 Thessalonians 4:13-14 and Hebrews 11:6. Tyra, 141. 187 This goes the other way too, of course since this raises the question: why would I trust this story to lead to these propositions? The answer is, as N.T. Wright is as pains to show in his historical work The Resurrection of the Son of God, that the story and the propositions the story contains, are historically grounded. 188 Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue. Second Edition (Notre Dame: Notre Dame Press, 1984), 210-211. 54 it brings us into contact with reality – primarily the reality of God himself whose authority stands behind even that of creation.”189 In a similar way, N.T. Wright points out the phrase “the authority of Scripture” is always shorthand for “the authority of God exercised through Scripture.”190 We must say: “authority, according to the Bible itself, is vested in God himself, Father, Son and Spirit.”191 And, as such, the character of God’s authority is always in line with God’s own being; “God is the loving, wise, creator, redeemer God.”192
Second, God’s authority is functioning through the Scriptures in accord with his missional purpose:
…to liberate human beings, to judge and condemn evil and sin in the world in to set people free to be fully human....This is what authority is there for. And when we use a shorthand phrase like ‘authority of Scripture’ that is what we ought to be meaning. It is an authority with this shape and character, this purpose and goal.193
Understanding the shape and goal of God’s authority is a necessary element of describing an accurate view of the authority God has vested in the Bible (see 2 Tim 3:14-4:5).
Third, the Bible is not merely an interpretation of God’s actions in history; God has chosen this story as a means of revelation. David Bosch, one of the first to propose and work with a missional hermeneutic, viewed the Scriptures as an interpretation of
God’s revelation, but not revelation itself. J.G. Du Plessis has responded to this view,
189 C.Wright, 53. Christopher Wright reminds us that when we speak of “God’s authority”, we mean, specifically, the Triune God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit; “the very specific, named and biographied God known as YHWH, the Holy One of Israel....worshiped as the Lord by Israelites and as Father, Son and Holy Spirit by Christians. This is not a generic god at all.” 54. 190 Wright, Last Word, 25. 191 N.T. Wright, “How Can the Bible Be Authoritative?” Vox Evangelica Vol. 21 (1991), 14. 192 Ibid, 14. 193 Ibid, 14. Emphasis in the original. 55 saying: “To speak of the Bible as interpretation of revelation and not a recording of it only suspends the question of its status.”194
Many scholars who are advancing a missional hermeneutic do not, however, share
Bosch’s approach. Christopher Wright, for example, says: “The authority for our mission flows from the Bible because the Bible reveals the reality on which our mission is based.”195 C. Wright goes on to name that “reality” as follows: the reality of this God
(meaning, Israel’s God, YHWH, and worshipped as Father, Son and Holy Spirit by
Christians), the reality of this story (the narrative of the Old Testament, coming to fulfillment in the New, is a story that encompasses all of history), and the reality of this people (the people of God).196 C. Wright’s missional view of the Bible maintains the
Bible as having a revelatory nature and function.
The Bible as a Five-Act Play
N.T. Wright provides an (increasingly famous) analogy of a five-act play that helps illustrate in what way the Bible as a story functions authoritatively.197 Suppose a
Shakespeare play has been discovered, but the final fifth act is missing. The first four acts provide the necessary characterization and plotline, but rather than write out a final act, and so “freeze the play into one form” that is not actually Shakespeare’s work, it is
194 Girma Bekele, “The Biblical Narrative of the Missio Dei: Analysis of the Interpretive Framework of David Bosch’s Missional Heremeneutic.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Vol 35, no. 3. p. 155. 195 C. Wright, 54. Emphasis mine. 196 Ibid, 54-57. 197 Wright provides the basic analogy of the Five Act play in his 1991 paper “How can the Bible Be Authoritative?” and expands this approach in his more technical work, The New Testament and the People of God (1992). In a more popular level work, Scripture and the Authority of God, 2011 (It was first published in the UK in 2005 and in North America under the title, The Last Word that same year). 56 decided that the actors ought to immerse themselves in the first four acts – in the
“language and culture of Shakespeare and his time” – and so be prepared to improvise the final act.198 In this case, the first four acts are “authoritative” for their task of providing the actors with what they need for their improvisation of the final act. The actors must responsibly and sensitively enter the story as it stands, immersing themselves in the tone and cadence and rhythm of the movements, and are thereby furnished with an
“understanding of how the threads could appropriately be drawn together.” 199 Because of their immersion in the previous acts of the story, they are now able to act and speak with both “innovation and consistency.”200
Applying this analogy, the Bible makes up the first four acts (1. Creation, 2. Fall,
3. Israel, and 4. Jesus), with the New Testament forming the first “scene” in the fifth act, with hints of how the play is to end (Rom 8; 1 Cor 15; parts of Revelation).201 The temporal location of the church is now in the continuing fifth act. The conclusion – or better, lack of conclusion – of Luke’s Acts of the Apostles, seems to affirm this approach.
There, Luke ushers an invitation for his audience to join in the still-to-be-completed mission of God; to adopt the same stance as Paul in proclaiming “the kingdom of God” and teaching about “the Lord Jesus Christ – with all boldness and without hindrance!”
(Acts 28:31).202
198 N.T. Wright, “How can the Bible be Authoritative?”, 16. 199 Ibid, 17. 200 Ibid, 17. 201 Ibid,17. 202 Brian Rosner puts it well: “The approach to narration in Acts encourages the reader to take the point of view of those taking the witness forward.” Brian S. Rosner, “The Progress of the Word” In Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts edited by I.H. Marshall and David Peterson. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998), 323. 57
Like the actors in the play, the church now lives “under the authority” of the previous acts. Like these actors, faithfulness to the authoritative Scripture means creatively enacting the next stage in God’s unfolding mission in new cultural and historical circumstances. As N.T. Wright argues, if someone in the fifth act of All’s Well
That Ends Well were to begin simply repeating the words and actions of the first act, the play would unravel.203 A lack of innovation in “improvising the gospel”204 for new situations, is in essence, deeply unfaithful on the part of the actors because it is God who has issued forth the summons to engage in his mission and calls his people to play our part in our particular time and place.
But the innovation of the early church, of course, does not mean freedom to act or speak in any way possible, just as improvisation in jazz does not mean a “free-for-all” where musicians simply play-whatever-they-want.205 In fact, those able to properly improvise are those who have most successfully mastered the technique of their instrument and who best understand and have rehearsed the appropriate modes and scales in their genre. In the same way, the “script” of the Bible functions to keep the actors living in consistency with the trajectory and aims of the story, of Israel, Jesus, and then the early church.206 This calls for a deep engagement with, and immersion in, the text. It certainly means a more robust reading strategy than simply dipping into the Bible for ready-made answers, or trying to mimic the actors in the previous acts in a carbon-copy fashion.
203 N.T. Wright, Last Word, 123. 204 To borrow the phrase from Stephen R. Holmes sermon on Acts 3, delivered at Acadia Divinity College, June, 2014. 205 Wright, Last Word, 126. 206 As Goheen summarizes in “Urgency”, 6. 58
Because of the dawning of the new age of the Spirit, the early church needed to reinterpret their foundational text in light of God’s mission, climaxing as it does in the person and work of Jesus. Harry Beeby argues that the New Testament transforms the
Hebrew Scriptures into the Old Testament – at the dawn of God’s work in Jesus they are turned into “an unintended prologue to the New Testament.”207 This view accords with
Jesus’ own treatment of the Hebrew Bible (i.e. Luke 24; John 5; Mark 7), as Beeby remarks: “Beginning with our Lord himself, they [the Hebrew Scriptures] are now seen as prophecy and preparation for the coming of Jesus”.208
There is a need, in light of Jesus – who himself brings to its climax the first covenant – to recognize the ways in which there is both continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament certainly remains ‘Scripture’ and ‘authoritative,’ not to mention necessary, as it leads to, and makes sense of, the New
Testament. Yet a decisive break has occurred between the Old and New – the long awaited age of the Spirit has come (Heb 8:7-13, quoting the promise of Jeremiah 31:31-
34). Beeby is right when he argues:
The Hebrew Scriptures were historically prior but the New Testament is logically and theologically prior because it is the new which fashions the old….The Scriptures still hold the key to life and identity, lifestyle, continuity and hope, but only if they were now seen to be the Old Testament, which took its place alongside the New Testament as in the greater whole, the church’s canon.209
The whole story is necessary together, as the gospel “belongs to” the larger scriptural narrative. For without the worldview questions raised in Genesis 1-11, the second part of the Bible (Genesis 12 - Rev 22), taken up with God’s mission, would be nonsensical.
207 Beeby, 273-274. 208 Ibid, 274. 209 Beeby, 274. 59
Wright’s proposal has been met with wide acceptance in biblical scholarship, which has included critical engagement, borrowing, and modification. Drawing from
Wright’s work, Kevin Vanhoozer describes Scripture as a “theodrama”. Vanhoozer includes two main modifications. First, Vanhoozer prefers to see the fall, not as its own act in the drama of salvation, but as part of the first act – creation. The reasoning is that as a theodrama, God is emphasized as the primary actor. If the fall is categorized on its own, undue emphasis is placed on the human activity, rather than highlighting God’s role.210 As such, Vanhoozer names the “acts” differently than Wright. His schema includes: creation, election of Israel, Christ, Pentecost and the church, consummation.
Vanhoozer’s second modification is in reference to the work of the church toward the eschaton. Here Vanhoozer offers a slightly different emphasis than Wright: “On my dramatic reckoning, the church does not have to work out the ending so much as live in its light.”211 Vanhoozer has not detracted from Wright’s argument for the need to
“improvise” with innovation and consistency – he goes on to continue to use the language of improvisation in the rest of his essay – but he stresses that we live toward the good future God has promised, even as we improvise.212
210 Kevin Vanhoozer, “A Drama-of-Redemption Model: Always Performing?” in Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology: Counterpoints (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 2009. Kindle Edition), loc. 2958 of 6364. 211 Vanhoozer, “A Drama-of-Redemption Model”, loc. 2958 of 6364. 212 Vanhoozer, in concert with Wright’s proposal, concludes: “The essential thing is to play the right act. The church is no longer in Act 2, under the law, nor in Act 3, in which case it would have to do the work of Christ. Nor is it already in Act 5 [“consummation”], as some in the first-century church at Thessalonica with an overreazlied eschatology mistakenly thought. No, the church in in Act 4, an in-between the first and second comings of Christ time, marked by the first-fruits of the end time but not yet at the end.” Vanhoozer, loc 2958 of 6364. Of note, this improvisation is not without the guidance of the Living God through the Holy Spirit, who acts as the Director. Thanks to Steve Elliot for offering this nuance. 60
Whether we agree with Wright’s schema, Vanhoozer’s modifications, or other suggestions,213 the basic form of the analogy is especially significant in reminding us, like the you-are-here dot on those maps in the mall, that we are “here”, in our time, culture, context, and not in a different time or place. And living “here”, in our unique place in God’s plan of redemption, requires a movement from the Bible to theology: requires improvisation with innovation and consistency.
Summary and Discussion of Missional Hermeneutics
In order to appropriately and faithfully enact the next scene – our scene – in the mission of God, a missional hermeneutic requires deep engagement with the text in what
N.T. Wright calls a ‘totally contextual’ reading of the Scriptures.214 This means maintaining the historical-grammatical tradition of seeking (as much as is realistic and appropriate) to understand the authorial intent by examining the historical, social, and political world – what can be called a “behind the text” reading. 215 We also need to maintain a canonical and narrative hermeneutic that reads each portion of Scripture in light of the whole (a “within the text” reading). But a missional hermeneutic also
213 Other suggestions include seeing a sixth act as “consummation” – the goal toward which the church is living, as Richard Middleton and Brian Walsh propose. Richard Middleton and Brian J. Walsh, Truth is Stranger Than It Used To Be: Biblical Faith in a Postmodern Age (Downers Grove, MI: IVP Academic, 1996), 182-184; Marva Dawn thinks it best to consider there to be seven-Acts. She wants to draw a distinction between act 5 – those in direct contact with Jesus – from act 6, the ongoing life of the church. Dawn also sees act 7, the consummation, as an entirely new kind of drama. Marva Dawn, A Royal Waste of Time: The Splendor of Worshipping God and being Church for the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 53 fn. 25. 214 N.T. Wright, Last Word, 128-130. See also Moritz, 182-184. 215 For a fuller description of the history of hermeneutic perspectives described under the rubric of “behind the text”, “within the text” and “in front of the text,” see Porter and Stovell’s discussion on pp. 12-20. 61 requires taking just as seriously the context of the contemporary reader (an “in front of the text” reading), for the God who inspired the text to be written is the Living God who continues to speak through the text. Merold Westfal applies Jacques Derrida’s doubling hermeneutics to the study of the Bible, noting that “the first hermeneutic asks, “What did the human author say to the original audience” (and thus, acting as a guardrail against
‘anything goes’) and the second, “What is God saying to us here and now through these words of Scripture?”216
Each portion of a faithfully, fully contextual reading of the text must be taken with utter seriousness. And this seriousness includes recognizing the storied nature of knowledge as we examine each element of the interpretive matrix. As Moritz points out:
We cannot interpret properly unless we understand that there is no such thing as propositional truth if by that we mean something other than storied knowledge. Unless, therefore, reading is located within an appreciation of the significance of the stories behind the author (real or implied), and the text (including its history of effect), and the audience (again, real or implied), and the one doing the reading/interpreting, the text read is likely to be misconstrued.217 The seriousness of this task is rooted, to go back to where our discussion began, in the fact that the Bible is a missional phenomenon, given by God to reveal God’s own self, and to equip and enable his people to join in his mission.218 How reading the Scriptures in this way – tapping into the focus and function of the Bible – forms a theology and practice of preaching will be the focus of the next chapter.
216 Merold Westfal, “Philosophical/Theological Hermeneutics” in Porter and Stovall, 78-79. 217 Moritz, 184. 218 “This means that “the authority of Scripture” is most truly put into operation as the church goes to work in the world on behalf of the gospel, the good news that in Jesus Christ the living God has defeated the powers of evil and begun the work of new creation.” N.T. Wright, Last Word, 115. 62
CHAPTER TWO: PREACHING AND THE MISSION OF GOD
Introduction
The following section is intended to explore how the discussion of missional hermeneutics from the previous chapter informs a theology and practice of preaching.219
Part One of this chapter will address the theology and practice of preaching by examining five key areas: 1) What preaching is; 2) How a missional hermeneutic shapes the preacher; 3) Where preaching centres, 4) What preaching aims to do;220 and 5) How preaching accomplishes these aims, which involves a thorough discussion on contextualization based on Paul’s Athenian ministry (Acts 17). Part Two will then move to discuss the theory and development of the thesis project: a handbook on preaching from a missional hermeneutic.
Part One: A Missional Theology of Preaching
What Preaching Is
Darrell Johnson writes: “I believe the preaching of the Word of God changes the world….for in preaching the good news (which is ultimately what any biblical text preaches), it turns out that we are participating with the living God in God’s ongoing
219 This following discussion will focus primarily on preaching within the context of a weekly worship service, by those called to a ministry of preaching (not only paid staff, but those gifted for this ministry), but is not limited to that context. 220 In my first draft of this paragraph I used the two-word phrase “missional preaching”, yet I felt the need to delete “missional” out of the conviction that I am not trying to define a new sort of preaching, but simply outline what it means to preach, albeit, in light of a missional hermeneutic. I may at times refer simply to preaching, or if I feel I need to specify or draw a distinction of some kind, I may add the adjective “missional” to preaching. 63 transformation of the world.”221 This is a bold and broad claim, but I think it is right. In concert with this statement, I offer the following (admittedly too lengthy, and in-process) definition of preaching that is rooted in, and expressive of, a missional hermeneutic (in three main sections):
Preaching is committed participation in God’s mission to transform the whole world, announcing the good news that Jesus is Lord and Saviour, an announcement bound to the whole story – as one story: Creation, Fall, Redemption, and holding out the hope of God’s New Creation, already inaugurated, but awaiting final consummation in Jesus’ return.
Preaching is, then, evangelistic, as the announcement “Jesus is Lord” calls every person to respond to him, receiving his atoning work on his or her behalf, to be renewed in relation to God, others, self, and creation, to be enfolded into the community of God, and by the power of the Spirit, to be transformed in character and vocation.
Preaching the good news weekly calls the people of God to “constant conversion” 222 – to let the good news of Jesus reframe and transform every part of life, addressing idolatries and cultural captivities, calling the church back to its missional vocation - a comprehensive vocation that spans every area of life, equipping every member for evangelism, social action, and engaging cultural transformation through their work. By learning to indwell the story in community, preaching functions to equip God’s people to be a contrast community, distinct from the world, for the sake of the world.
In shorter form, the three main sections of this definition are:
1) Preaching is participation in God’s mission by announcing the single story culminating in Jesus as Lord and Saviour (what preaching is),
2) Preaching calls for repentance (as Jesus says: “repent and believe the good news”) that will mean receiving new life and forgiveness, entering into a reconciled relationship with God, and living in the reality of God’s kingdom rule;223 (where preaching centres), and;
3) Preaching empowers God’s people for full-life engagement in God’s mission, in distinction from the surrounding world, for the sake of the world (what preaching does).
221 Darrell Johnson, The Glory of Preaching: Participating in God’s Transformation of the World (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2009), 7. 222 Guder, “Missional Theology”, 9. 223 Goheen, Light, 80. 64
Having now briefly introduced what preaching is, the following sections will further unpack these elements in more detail, starting with the question of how a missional hermeneutic shapes the preacher, for as Bishop Quale said: “The art of preaching is to make a preacher and deliver that.”224
How a Missional Hermeneutic Shapes the Preacher
As previously noted, the claim of the Christian story to be public truth is valid
“only through actions in which this confession is embodied in deed – and in suffering.”225
The shape of life embodied by those claiming the truth of this story is not what makes the story true, but it is, in part, what validates the truthfulness of the claim that this is the true story – a non-oppressive story. For in this story, the central character, and the gospel he embodies and proclaims, calls his followers to love and forgive, not only their friendly neighbours, but their enemies too (Matt 5:43-48; cf. Rom 12:17-21).226 The one who makes the exclusive claim to be the world’s True King is also the one who looked down from the cross and prayed, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they are doing”
(Luke 23:34), and then invites his followers to live in the same way – the way of the cross (Luke 9:21-25; 1 Peter 2:21-22). As Bonhoeffer reminds us: “…the call to follow
Christ always means a call to share the work of forgiving men [sic] their sins.” 227
224 In Michael Quicke, 360 Degree Preaching: Hearing, Speaking, and Living the Word (GrandRapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 93. 225 Newbigin, Open Secret, loc 1240 of 2614. 226 Note, Ben Witherington III argues that in Romans 12 Paul is summarizing many of the teachings of Jesus. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 282. 227 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (New York, NY: Touchstone, 1990), 90. 65
Reading the Bible through a missional hermeneutic, then, must give shape to how those indwelling that story live.228 The cruciform way of perceiving life is vividly portrayed by Paul in Philippians 2:5-11, and the co-text of 3:10-11, where Paul claims this cruciform pattern of life as his own. The fronew – “attitude of mind” (NIV) or better, “pattern of thinking, feeling and acting”229 (Phil 2:5) – that was demonstrated in
Jesus’ own life, is now paradigmatic for all who are citizens of God’s polis (1:27).230
Paul’s narration of Jesus’ story in 2:6-11 provides the reader with both the means of redemption (Jesus’ humility, death, and subsequent vindication and enthronement), and the shape of life this conversion will take (self-giving love and servitude to all others).
Paul further notes that it is God who ultimately enables his people to actualize this pattern of life (cf. 2:12-13). Brownson is right when he concludes:
It is ultimately through our lives, in all of their contingency and local particularity, that the universal claims of the gospel will find a credible voice in the midst of our fragmented and suspicious world. It is only when the announcement “Jesus is Lord” is spoken by someone who takes the posture of a servant that it can ever be heard as the gospel. It is only through the convergence of word and deed that the fragmented suspicions of our postmodern world will be able to discover a new Way that is also Truth and Life.231
The way that the church announces “Jesus is Lord” is done with authority, granted by Jesus, the one to whom all authority has been given (Matt 28:18). God’s people, and his preachers, are “authorized” by God, empowered by his Spirit, to make this claim the
228 See Newbigin, Gospel in a Pluralist Society, 97. 229 This is Stephen Fowl’s translation of fronew. Stephen E. Fowl, Philippians (THNTC; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing, 2005), 6. See David R. Fields, The Logic of Knowledge in Philippians. MDiv Thesis, McMaster Divinity College, 2006. 19-20; 56-60. 230 The word Paul uses in 1:27, often translated “walk in a manner” is politeuomai, and could be translated “live as a citizen”, and in this context, “live as a citizen of God’s city”, not just a citizen of Philippi; for this kingdom is not of Caesars! 231 Brownson, “Speaking the Truth”, 503-504. 66 universal claim that Jesus truly is Lord of the whole world. Yet, the model of authority, the type of power that the Bible itself sets forth, is not the sort of authority or power that the world wields. For, as Paul says to the church of Corinth, infatuated as they were with seeking the power of status as defined by their cultural setting: “Jews demand signs and
Greeks look for wisdom [both signs of “authority” or “power” in their own ways], but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:22-24).
In Christ, and him crucified, this is “where all power, all real power, is congregated.”232 As Bauckham points out, the scandal of particularity in the gospel is not just that God’s purpose “pivots on one particular human being…but, much worse, that
God’s universal purpose pivots on this particular human being, the crucified one. No wonder the rulers of this age did not recognize him (1 Cor 2:8). For those who see God in the image of their own power and status, there could be no recognition of God in the cross.”233 A missional hermeneutic requires adopting the narrative of Jesus’ humility and subsequent exaltation as paradigmatic in the lives of God’s people, and redefines the meaning and use of ‘authority’ and ‘power’. Authority is God-given, Spirit-empowered, authorization to live in a way consonant with the self-giving love demonstrated by the one to whom all authority has been given (Phil 2:13), in order that God’s community might be so formed as to truly be able to “shine among them like stars in the sky as you hold firmly to the word of life” (2:15b-16). How then will preachers be formed? By
“indwelling the story” as they live in union with Jesus (John 15:1-17).
232 N.T. Wright, “How can the Bible be Authoritative?”, 23. 233 Bauckham, Bible and Mission, 52. 67
Newbigin speaks of the need for God’s people not to simply read and study the
Bible, but to “indwell” the narrative. By “indwelling the text”, Newbigin argues, we are furnished “with a new plausibility structure” – a new way of seeing the world, of making sense of our existence.234 We must not simply read the text but be read by the text: to let the text change our way of seeing. The living God as the active agent in transforming his people is surely working through his story to renew our minds (Rom 12:1-2).
Indwelling the story requires adopting an “I-Thou” relationship with the text, rather than “I-It” relationship, where the text can be studied at an arms length, and remain an object of inquiry rather than the means of God addressing the reader and demanding a response.235 Adopting an “I-Thou” relationship removes the safety of objectifying the text as something to be studied, examined, dissected, and draws us to experience the text as it is: “living and active, sharper than a double edged sword,” (Heb 4:12) and working in such a way as to dissect us. Being God’s people for the sake of the world requires being people “scripted” by this story.236 It is this story that needs to give shape to preachers, so that they stand in the pulpit and deliver more than a message; they deliver themselves, becoming exemplars of those shaped by the gospel (cf. Phil 3:17), able to say, as Paul does: “Follow my example as I follow the example of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1).
Preaching is faithful participation in the mission of God, requiring preachers who are shaped in their identity and behaviour by the good news that they have been called to
234 Newbigin, Gospel, 97-99. Here, Newbigin is drawing on the work of Michael Polanyi who argues that we “indwell” ways of being in the world that we are not normally aware of; that is, we are working out of tacit knowledge. 235 Ibid, 98. See also Tyra, 140. 236 For the Bible is in form a story, and it is in learning the story that is our story, and the story each of our stories is connected to, that we can finally answer that question: “Who am I?” See Newbigin, Gospel, 100. 68 announce. It is to the central element of preaching – the good news of Jesus – to which we will now turn.
Where Preaching Centres
Where will preaching that arises from a missional hermeneutic focus? If missional preaching is participation in God’s mission, exercised by telling the story, the centre and climax of this story is “the gospel: that person in whom we find the fullest revelation of God and of his purpose for the entire creation.”237 The centre of preaching, then, can be stated this way: the larger story leads to the good news of the kingdom, centered in Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, and this good news affects everything – has missional implications for all of life. “Preaching that nurtures a missional identity,” writes Goheen, “will be narrative, centred in Christ, and missional – all three in all sermons.”238 Yes, all three in all sermons.239
First, preaching tells the story.240 To announce the good news of Jesus, and the unfolding implications of life under his reign, the story of the Bible needs to be told to give the context by which the good news can be seen for what it is, and Jesus can be seen for who he is. As Lesslie Newbigin puts it: “Preaching is the announcing of news; the telling of a narrative. In a society that has a different story to tell about itself, preaching
237 Michael Goheen, Light, 17. Emphasis mine. 238 Goheen, Light, 204. 239 See Appendix 1 below for a set of interpretive/homiletical questions for preaching from a missional hermeneutic. 240 “An essential part of our theological and missional task today is to ‘tell this story as clearly as possible, and to allow it to subvert other ways of telling the story of the world…” Goheen, “Urgency” 4, citing N.T. Wright. 69 has to be firmly and unapologetically rooted in the real story.”241 N.T. Wright reminds us of the way a narrative reading – and as such, narrative preaching – has transformative authority:
Story authority, as Jesus knew too well, is the authority that really works. Throw a rule-book at people’s heads, or offer them a list of doctrines, and they can duck or avoid it, or simply disagree and go away. Tell them a story, though, and you invite them to come into a different world; you invite them to share a world-view or better still a ‘God-view’….Stories determine how people see themselves, and others.242
To say that preaching is “narrative”, however, is not to say that preaching is simply “telling stories” – it is telling this story; the story. It is also significant to note that
“telling the story” does not preclude giving reason why this story is worthy of our trust, for assensus to this story must accompany notitia and fiducia in order to support a fully- functioning life of faith.243 Though post-modernism has helpfully critiqued the modernist project where pure reason was viewed as the only way of knowing, Gary Tyra argues that, generally, people in our post-Christian setting are not studied and committed epistemic relativists.244 There is a hunger for encountering the world as it really is.245
Citing the opening chapters of Newbigin’s, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, Tim Keller notes that a missionary encounter in the West will require telling the story and making a reasonable case for the good news.246 As Newbigin argues, the Christian faith is not held
241 Lesslie Newbigin, “Missions,” in Concise Encyclopedia of Preaching cited in Goheen, Light, 204. 242 N.T. Wright, “How can the Bible be Authoritative?”, 19. 243 See Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 408-409. 244 Tyra, 150. 245 Christopher Wright, in his discussion of authority, points to creation as a space where we recognize authority, giving the example of gravity as giving us boundaries and limits in the physical realm. C. Wright, 53. 246 See Keller, Center Church, 272. 70 as personal opinion but with universal intent and “it must therefore be publically affirmed, and open to public interrogation and debate.”247 In a society where religious pluralism is the reigning plausibility structure, those who choose not to ‘buy into’ this paradigm must give sufficient reason not to.248 The sermon, then, needs to tell the story and give reasons why we can, and must, believe it and so enter into the story.
Second – truly the ‘centre’ of the centre – is Jesus and the event of cross and resurrection. Edward Farley, likewise, notes of the apostolic preaching in the New
Testament: “That-which-is-preached is not the content of passages of Scripture. It is the gospel, the event of Christ through which we are saved.”249 Jesus’ preaching is a prophetic proclamation of the impending reign of God. This tradition, Farley argues, is continued in the preaching of the early church; which “proclaimed the good news of salvation through Jesus.”250 A sermon is not a Christian sermon until it preaches the good news of Jesus, since “the business of the sermon is to bring hearers face to face with
Jesus as he really is.”251 And this will require telling his story and making truth claims about him, about history, and about the meaning of history in light of Jesus’ coming.
Preaching with missional intent will mean continually “evangelizing” a congregation, as:
“Only a congregation that is continually being evangelized will itself be evangelistic in its witness. Gospel proclamation, linked with the evangelizing experience of the
247 Newbigin, Gospel, 50. 248 Newbigin helpfully discusses how to understand “revelation in history” in his excellent chapter by the same name. Newbigin, Gospel, 66-79. 249 Edward Farley, Practicing Gospel: Unconventional Thoughts on the Church’s Ministry (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 74. 250 Farley, 74. 251 Newbigin cited in Michael Goheen, 206. 71 sacraments, is the constant formation, in and through the word of God, of God’s missionary church.”252
Third, a sermon must be missional. Because the sermon tells the story that culminates in the good news of Jesus, it calls the people of God to embrace their true identity as sons and daughters of God – an identity gifted by grace – and to embrace their vocation as participants in his mission.253 It is truly by grace that we are saved, through faith, and it is not of ourselves but sheer gift from God (Eph 2:8). This means that the gospel indicatives always precede the imperatives (as we see in the structure of
Ephesians). Yet in missional preaching the indicatives move to the “obeyable imperatives,” as such imperatives are what shape God’s people for their faithful witness.254 The final section will now discuss several specific implications for preaching with missional intent.
What Preaching Does
First, preaching forms and nurtures the missional identity of the community.255
The church’s participation in God’s mission is clearly centrifugal (eg. Acts 1:8; John
20:21; Matt 28:18-20), but it must, in continuity with Israel, maintain its centripetal attractiveness (eg. Matt 5:14; 1 Peter 2:9-12).256 Newbigin’s now famous phrase is worth
252 Guder, 9. 253 See Tim Chester and Steve Timmis, Total Church: A Radical Reshaping Around Gospel and Community (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2008), 40. 254 “Gospel preaching is…always ethical in its orientation, because it addresses the shape and behavior of Christian witness.” Guder, 9. 255 As Guder says: “Gospel preaching….calls for the conversion of the church to its missionary vocation.” Guder, 9. 256 Richard Bauckham, in discussing geography and mission comments: “Also implying the centripetal image is Jesus’ saying about the community his disciples should compose: ‘A city set on a hill cannot be hidden’ (Matthew 5:14). It recalls the prophecy 72 repeating: “the only hermeneutic of the gospel is the life of the congregation which believes it.”257 Thus, the formation of a community that believes the gospel, and lives in response to it, is a central task of preaching since it is central to God’s mission in the world.258 But what is the best terminology for this identity?
Heinrich Kasting states: “Mission was, in the early stages, more than a mere function; it was a fundamental expression of the life of the church.”259 Kastings’ use of the phrase “a fundamental expression” is appropriately nuanced, as the ontology of the church is not solely rooted in its instrumentality. Other authors in the missional conversation, however, have pushed too far in describing this instrumental view of the church. For example, Darrell Guder et al., in Missional Church, see the instrumentality of the church as its fundamental identity: “We have begun to see that the church of Jesus
Christ is not the purpose or goal of the gospel, but rather its instruments and witness.”260
Al Tizon is right to note that an either/or dichotomy is mistaken. The church is both the fruit and primary instrument of the gospel.261 Simon Chan makes the case that the church
(in continuity with Israel) is logically prior to creation (from Eph 1:4; Rev 13:8). Citing the work of Robert Jenson, he argues that the world is the “raw materials” out of which
found in both Isaiah and Micah about mount Zion, standing as the highest of all mountains, so that all the nations stream to it (Isaiah 2:2; Micah 4:1). Jesus’ disciples are to be a center of attraction to which others will come.” Bauckham, Bible and Mission, 73. 257 Newbigin, Gospel, 234. 258 As in two of the foundational texts in Israel’s life – Genesis 12:1-3 and Exodus 19:3-6 – the people of God under the new covenant are still chosen as a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession so that they might bring praise to the God who rescues (1 Peter 2:9-10). But not only that, they maintain this call to be distinct from the world for the sake of world (2:11-12ff.). 259 In Bosch, 15. Bosch goes on to state: “Mission is thereby seen as a movement from God to the world; the church is viewed as an instrument for that mission.” Bosch, 400. 260 Guder et al., Missional Church, 5. 261 Tizon, 8. 73
God will bring the church to perfection in Christ. 262 Therefore, an overly instrumental understanding of the church, whereby ‘relevance’ is interpreted as the church’s raison d’ etre, misreads God’s elective purposes.263 Newbigin is instructive: “It is the universality of God’s saving love which is the ground of his choosing and calling a community to be the messengers of his truth and bearers of his love for all peoples.”264
Mission is a fundamental expression of the life of the church, but it is not the ground of it: God’s love is. Preaching the missional implications of the story does not make relevance the center of the church’s identity: instead it is God’s love for his beloved, expressed in Christ. Mission is the logical outflow. God’s love toward his redeemed people spills out into the world, for the sake of the world, as loving response to the direction of the Sent-Sender: “As the Father sent me, I am sending you” (John 20:21).
Second, preaching provides a “Christian worldview” enabling us to “think
Christianly” about our lives, or as Newbigin puts it, the story furnishes us with a plausibility structure from which to make sense of life.265 Christopher Wright offers a list of worldview-oriented questions, which all metanarratives seek to address: 1. Where are we? 2. Who are we? 3. What’s gone wrong? 4. What is the solution?266 Preaching the
262 Simon Chan Liturgical Theology: The Church as Worshipping Community (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2006), 23. 263 Chan, 24-27. 264 Newbigin, Gospel, 85. Bauckham says it well: “God never singles out some for their own sake alone, but always for others. So the church should be the community from which the blessing of Abraham, experienced in Jesus, overflows to others. The church should be the people who have recognized God as he truly is in God’s revelation in Jesus and therefore make that revelation known to others. The church is those people who, so far, acknowledge God’s rule as he is implementing it in Jesus and live for others in the light of the coming of his kingdom in all creation.” Bauckham, Bible and Mission, 49. 265 Newbigin, Gospel, 97-99. 266 C. Wright, 55. 74 gospel, built upon the biblical narrative, likewise answers these questions, and enables
God’s people to engage with culture in a way that both challenges and heals.267 N.T.
Wright puts it well:
The gospel of Jesus points us, and indeed urges us,” to be at the leading edge of the whole culture, articulating in story and music and art and philosophy and education and poetry and politics and theology and even, heaven help us, biblical studies, a worldview which will mount the historically rooted Christian challenge to both modernity and postmodernity.268
In order for the church to engage culture with both humility and confidence, preaching must equip and empower the people of God in relation to the Bible. Preaching can disempower congregations if the relationship of the preacher with the congregation is viewed primarily as “teacher/student”, rather than a relationship of mutual missionaries with different roles. Perhaps a better metaphor is something like a coach and the players in a team setting, where the congregation are those on the pitch and the coach is encouraging the players, helping them improve their game and work better together as a team. Within a missional frame, the coach (pastor) would also don a jersey and actively engage with the game alongside the players, while his or her primary role would still be the work of coaching. Preaching with missional intent, then, ensures that God’s people are not addressed as passive recipients of interpretation, but are empowered to listen to the text, in community and in relation to the worshipping community, and so be strengthened through their indwelling of the story.269
267 Keller, Center Church, chapter 26 “Connecting People to Culture” offers a helpful, practical guide for the integration of faith and work. 330-335. 268 N.T. Wright in Goheen, “The Mission of God’s People and Biblical Interpretation: Exploring N.T. Wright’s Missional Heremeneutic” Scripture and Hermeneutics Seminar Meeting, San Franscisco, Friday 18 Nov 2011, 7. 269 This is partly reflective of Michael Barram’s emphasis on missional hermeneutics being centered on the community that are participants in God’s mission. 75
Third, preaching through a mission lens creates an environment where God’s people are “spiritually formed” for mission. In his book Dwell, Barry Jones offers the metaphor of breathing as an image for our life with God, for the world: “The breathing in is our participation in the divine life. The breathing out, our participation in the divine mission.”270 Preaching with missional intent has a focus on abiding in Jesus; since it is
God’s intention, as the story makes clear, that God’s human creatures share life with him.271 Eugene Peterson writes: “…the way of Christian formation is to tell a story and in the telling to invite the hearer, ‘Live into this – this is what it looks like to be human in this God-made and God-ruled world; this is what is involved in becoming and maturing as a human being’.”272 Connection with God is the energizing centre that is expressed in mission, and a central aim of God’s mission.273 Preaching must help God’s people keep
“first-things-first,” since “spirituality and mission are intimately bound up in each other.”274
Fourth, though humans were made for connection with God, others, our own- selves, and nature, this shalom unravels as humanity has “de-godded God” in our hearts
For Barram a missional hermeneutic is “an approach to the biblical text rooted in the basic conviction that God has a mission in the world and that we read Scripture as a community called into and caught up by those divine purposes.” In Hunsberger, 8. 270 In Jones, 12. 271 Darrell Johnson includes a sermon for preachers in the epilogue of The Glory of Preaching titled, “The Main Thing: Included!” His text is Matthew 11:25-30, where he argues that Jesus’ yoke, the same yoke his disciples are to “take on”, is knowing God and being in deep connection with him. 272 In Jones, 31. 273 I think that Jones is right: “From the beginning of the biblical story to its completion, the emphasis is on God’s desire to be with us.” Jones, 38. In his series The Story, Randy Frazee traces God’s “passion for proximity” with his people as a central motif, or theological theme, that connects the storyline of the Bible. Randy Frazee, The Heart of the Story: God’s Masterful Design to Restore His People (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011). 274 Jones,12. 76
(Gen 3). Preaching with missional intent aims to restore to right-relatedness all of life, and that means consistently confronting idolatry and exposing the ways that God’s people are taken captivity by the idols of their culture, as we see written throughout the story in the words of the Old Testament prophets, and New Testament pastors and apostles.275
Ian Stackhouse puts it well: “Gospel preaching – preaching that recollects and reconnects churches to the main drama of salvation – is crucial in and of itself, for the sake of believers, for it is in the retelling of the gospel that the dominant idols of the culture are brought to account.”276
Fifth, as the church address its own idolatries, the community as a whole, and individuals within it, will be freed to participate with God in bringing justice to bear in the world.277 Al Tizon includes “whole-life stewardship” and “preaching for justice and
275 As Bauckham puts clearly: “Witness to this God is always also witness against idolatry, contending with the false witnesses to the idols who are no-gods. The projects of the idols are indeed often projections of the aspirations and frustrations of the human will to power. We should certainly think today, among others, of the greedy, never- satisfied idols that lurk behind the ideology of consumerism in its project to dominate the whole of life and the whole globe.” (100-101). 276 Ian Stackhouse, The Gospel-Driven Church: Retrieving Classical Ministries for Contemporary Revivalism (Carlisle, United Kingdom: Paternoster, 2004), 94. 277 Timothy Keller gives attention to the need for believers to continually root out the “idols of the heart.” See Timothy Keller, Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope That Matters (River Head Books, 2009). If rooting out the idolatry of our own hearts was not an issue for believers, the warning at the conclusion of 1 John would be non-sense: “Dear children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21). The first command in the Decalogue (Ex 20:3) – given to God’s people – would be clearly in mind for John, as it was for Paul in Athens, and in his letters to the Ephesian and Colossian believers who needed to be reminded that idolatry runs far deeper than participation in the local cults. Paul mentions greed (and possibly the other vices listed) as “idolatry” (Col 3:5), and those who continue in a lifestyle of greed, immorality, or impurity – a list that recognizes how these vices are bound up within each other – Paul would refer to as “an idolater” (Eph 5:5). 77 reconciliation” as two (of his seven) major goals of missional preaching.278 Because the gospel is good news for everyone and all areas of life, preaching for participation in
God’s mission requires joining God’s call to “let justice roll on like a river” (Amos 5:24); to “seek first God’s kingdom and his diakaisune (righteousness or justice)” (Matt 6:33).
The church which is faithful to her missional identity and vocation will be at the leading edge of seeking justice in the world, addressing classism, racism, sexism and environmental issues, and participating in mercy ministries, not in tension with evangelism, but as “two hands” in the logical outflow of the gospel.
Klaus Bochmuehl has pointed out that Christian denominations usually line up their preferences for either seeing their vocation as primarily the Creation Mandate, or the
Great Commission (evangelism). The mainline and European churches tend to emphasize the “Creation Mandate” while evangelical North American churches tend to emphasize the “Great Commission.”279 But as Paul Steven’s points out: “Separating these two mandates has been tragic.”280 We cannot, and must not, separate out our call to care for, and creatively cultivate the Earth and society, on the one hand, and to share the only hope for the renewal of human life through Jesus, on the other. They belong together. The Missio Dei includes both. Stevens rightly concludes:
278 Al Tizon’s complete list of preaching aims include: 1. Inculturation (a theological adaptation of enculturation) amid an us-and-them mentality; 2. Alternative community amid cultural conformity; 3. Holistic transformation amid a false dichotomy of evangelism and social concern; 4. Justice and reconciliation amid gender, race, and class privilege; 5. Whole-life stewardship amid materialism, consumerism, and environmental abuse; 6. Consistent life and peace (Shalom) amid violence and death; 7. Uniqueness and universality of Christ (Scandal of Jesus) amid religious pluralism. 36. 279 Klaus Bochmuehl in R. Paul Stevens, The Other Six Days: Work, Vocation and Ministry in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 89. 280 Stevens, 89.
78
So a biblical theology of the whole people of God is not only a rescue effort but is a re-alignment with God’s ultimate purpose for the world: a transfigured creation. What is truly astounding is that humankind has, through the Spirit’s interruption in our lives, the privilege of participating in the creative work of God.281
Participation in the mission of God cannot narrowly be defined as either evangelism or creation and societal care; it means taking up our fully orbed vocation as God’s image- bearing creatures, and representing God as we fulfill our now-dual mandates.
Sixth (though more could certainly be said on the matter), preaching with missional intent equips the congregation to contextualize the gospel among their neighbours with a posture toward the broader culture that enables authentic friendship and connection. As a cross-cultural missionary will make a great effort to adopt the local language, customs and embed their lives in the host culture, so too, congregations nourished on gospel-preaching will be equipped to contextualize the good news in their setting rather than remaining segregated in a Christian sub-culture.282
The posture of the preacher toward the broader culture – one which affirms all areas that can be affirmed, and seeks to contextualize preaching – will set an example that prepares the congregation to contextualize the gospel in their own setting. In addition, preaching with missional intent will speak in a way that is intelligible to those unbelievers who are exploring faith – since, as argued above, missional churches must also be attractive. In his instructions in 1 Corinthians 14:23-25, Paul assumes that unbelievers and seekers will be “watching in” on the worship, and the church ought to be speaking in the local language so that the unbelievers do understand what is going on in
281 Stevens, 104. 282 See Alan Roxburgh, Missional: Joining God in the Neighbourhood (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2011) for a helpful discussion of the significance of Luke 10 for missional living. 79 the worship service, and are cut to the heart as a result. For this reason, Keller argues, we must use the vernacular in worship – not coded language of the Christian subculture.283
Because of the significance of this final point for the thesis I am advancing, a fuller treatment of Gospel contextualization is necessary.
How Preaching Does It: Contextualization
Cultural contextualization, as argued above, functions to make the gospel accessible, for the sake of the hearers – whether believers or not – and to equip the congregation with an appropriate paradigm for gospel discourse within the broader community. We need only to look at Jesus’ incarnation as the ultimate exemplar of cultural translation (John 1:14; 14:9; Heb 1:1-3). God makes God’s-self knowable by speaking within ancient Israelite culture – “to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways.” The writer of Hebrews will go on to say: “but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” who is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Heb 1:2-3a).
Paul too, convinced that the gospel of Jesus is truly “good news” for every culture
(Acts 11:19-26; 13:46), describes his ministry as requiring that he, the missionary, also be translated, even as he translates the message to reach different cultures:
To the Jew I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law…so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law…so as to win those not having the law. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings (1 Cor 9:20-23).
283 Keller, Center Church, 304. 80
Paul understood this work of translating the gospel in and for differing cultures as essential to the missionary task. As Graham Cray states:
The early Christians did not remain culturally static, but quickly translated the gospel out of the original languages and culture of Jesus [Aramaic and Palestinian], as the Church was planted into non-Jewish cultures [Greek-speaking and Hellenistic]. The gospel can only be proclaimed in a culture, not at a culture.284
As God the Son “translates” himself into a body, a specific body at a specific point in history to accomplish his missionary task in word and deed, so too Paul, as an apostle – a sent one – recognizes the significance of being personally transformed as he worked to make the message of Jesus accessible in each new circumstance. These paradigms – in Jesus’ incarnation and emulated by Paul – raise the question of what contextualization will look like in our preaching and begs us to seek faithful approaches in whatever our own cultural setting.
Paul’s Athenian Ministry as a Paradigm of Contextualization
Paul’s missionary experience in Athens (Acts17:16-34), and especially his speech given to the Areopagus council, have been the focus of extensive research, particularly given its potential to provide a model of contextualization for preaching in non-Jewish settings. 285 As N. Clayton Croy observes: Paul’s speech to the council has gained celebrity status as a result of both the topoi and techniques employed, as well as “the perception that Luke is here presenting a paradigm of Paul’s missionary preaching to
284 Graham Cray, ed. Mission-Shaped Church (London, UK: Church House Publishing, 2004), 87. Emphasis mine. 285 F.F. Bruce offers the assessment that: “Probably no ten verses in the Acts of the Apostles have formed the text for such an abundance of commentary as has gathered round Paul’s Areopagitica.” F.F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 353. 81
Gentiles.”286 This perception is reflected by John Squires, who concludes: “The pattern of Christian preaching which Luke advocates is to be modeled on the preaching of the apostles, as reported in the speeches of Acts.”287 Not all interpreters agree with this point, however,288 and Appendix 2 provides a detailed discussion of this issue.
I have concluded, however, that Paul’s Athenian ministry is intended by Luke to be viewed as paradigmatic. Richard Longnecker rightly concludes: “in his report of this address, Luke gives us another illustration of how Paul began on common ground with his hearers and sought to lead them from it to accept the work and person of Jesus as the apex of God’s redemptive work for humanity.”289 Sharing this view, the following demonstrates how this text in Acts 17 might be legitimately appropriated for framing the ministry of preaching today.
As we engage with the speech, each section will be analyzed with reference to how Paul’s method offers a paradigm for ministry today, seeking to discern a framework for active contextualization of the gospel. The following section will focus on how contextualizing the Gospel today will include: 1) a form that fits the context; 2) a familiarity with the culture(s) we engage; 3) offering an epistemological challenge;
4) connecting without capitulating; and 5) offering opportunity for appropriate response.
Each of these will be discussed in turn.
286 N.Clayton Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies and the Preaching of the Resurrection (Acts 17:18, 32) Novum Testamentum, Vol. 39, Fasc. 1. (Jan., 1997), 21. 287 John Squires, “The Plan of God” in Marshall and Peterson, 39. 288 For example, Eckhart Schnabel argues that Paul is offering a defense speech, and therefore, not a model for sensitive contextualization. Eckhart Schnabel, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Volume 5 – Acts. Gen ed., Clinton E. Arnold. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2012), 728. 289 Richard N. Longnecker, Acts of the Apostles, in The Expositors Bible Commentary, Volume 9 (John-Acts) General Editor, Frank E. Gaebelein, Associate Editor, J.D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1981), 476. 82
1. Speaking in a form that fits the context
In Acts 17:22 Paul begins his speech with a customary greeting (exordium),290 including a commendation of the audience (captatio benevolentiae),291 speaking with reference to the form of speech typical in a Greco-Roman setting. He addresses the council: “People of Athens!292 I see that in every way you are very religious.” Though the word deisidai÷mwn could be taken as superstitious, it is unlikely that Paul intended to begin by offending his audience, and in reference to the commitment of the Athenians, his comment is true (if not somewhat ironic),293 as Josephus calls the Athenians the most pious of the Greeks.294 Paul does not affirm their idolatry, but acknowledges their commitment to worship – however misguided. This acknowledgement sets the stage for his initial point of contact.
As representatives of Christ and his gospel – whether in a formal setting, such as a university presentation/debate, or informally over coffee – we would do well to pattern our address in appropriate convention for the setting, as we see in Paul. This requires an understanding of the customs of appropriate address. In Acts 17, Paul is doing just that: adapting his language and pattern of speech in a way that suits the setting.
290 Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998), 518. My goal is not to delineate all of the rhetorical strategy being used, but simply to draw attention to Paul’s use of appropriate forms of speech in this setting. 291 Schnabel, 729; Witherington, Acts, 518. 292 It might best be translated in a gender-neutral way, “people of Athens” (NIV 2011), or simply “Athenians” (as NRSV), as it is probably that the woman, Damaris who became a believer (17:34) may have heard Paul during the speech. However, the Greek is ⁄Andreß ΔAqhnai√oi, and this may be one of the cases where “men” is more accurately descriptive of Paul/Luke’s intention, as the council itself would have been made up of men only. 293 As William Larkin notes. See William J. Larkin, Acts, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary. (Tyndale Publishing: Carol Stream, Illinois, 2006) 545. 294 Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.130 in Schnabel, 729, fn.40. 83
Further, as those who like Paul will be addressing idolatry in our world, the gospel of grace – when applied to our own hearts – becomes a resource that humbles believers, guarding against any sense of superiority in our attitudes or speaking, since we are aware of our previous idolatry and the continued pressure toward bowing to idols still.295 As we see in Paul’s speech, however, humility does not mean a lack of confidence.296 Paul was able to address his idolatrous neighbours, not out of a sense of superiority, but with humility and confidence, able to adapt appropriately to the setting in which he spoke.
2. Gaining familiarity with the culture(s) we engage
Paul demonstrates why he views the Athenians as “very religious” when he states:
“For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD” (17:23a). The stacking of the participles – which might woodenly translate as “walking around” and “seeing” – emphasizes, as Larkin remarks, that Paul was “looking closely…[he] carefully examined again and again” the objects of worship in Athens.297 In order to speak to the heart issues for the Athenians, Paul cared enough about the glory of God, and the people of the city
(17:16-17) to familiarize himself with Athenian religious culture.
295 See the fifth point of the section above “What Preaching Does.” 296 Timothy Keller puts this gospel-centered approach well: “[T]he gospel (“I am accepted through Christ – therefore I obey”) makes us both humble and confident at once. And these two attitudes are critical for faithful and sound contextualization. If we need the approval of the receiving culture too much (not enough gospel confidence), we will compromise in order to be liked. If we are too proudly rooted in any one culture (not enough gospel humility), we will be rigid and unable to adapt. Only the gospel gives us the balance we need.” Keller, Center Church, 116. 297 Larkin, 545. 84
In order to preach to the heart, and address the idolatry of our culture, we too need to “walk around” and observe the God-substitutes in our society. Darrel Johnson notes that the life of the preacher must be “lived in the culture.”298 He stresses that preachers do need to “see movies, listen to music, read what people are writing, attend concerts, listen to debates, go to sporting events, coach Little League or soccer,” as such activity
“automatically helps us connect and helps us speak in ways that connect.”299 In Acts 17,
Paul models attentiveness to the world around him that enables him to address the heart issues of the receiving culture. This requires attentive listening, to the hopes and desires, as well as the anxieties and fears, of the surrounding culture. What happens in
“listening” to the culture is a hearing of the “stories under the stories” – the narratives of longing for hope and healing, for significance, acceptance and love; all which are addressed by the goods news of Jesus.
Paul not only observed the idolatry of the city, but he used what he found as a point of contact from which to engage his audience: “…I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD”. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship – and this is what I am going to proclaim to you” (17:23b). Though there has not been an altar found with the exact inscription with “God” in the singular,300 a number of ancient writers, including Paursanias (2nd cent. CE), Philostratus (late 2nd cent. CE), and Diogenes Laertius (3rd cent. CE) all speak of Athens containing altars to “unknown
298 D. Johnson, Glory, 201. 299 Ibid, 201. 300 Lee McDonald, “Introduction to Acts” in Acts-Philemon: The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary. General ed. Craig Evans (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Victor, 2004), 121. 85 gods”, or “nameless altars”.301 Of one of these inscriptions, Diogenes Laetius writes:
“Epimenides had ostensibly appeased these unknown gods to avert a plague afflicting
Athens.”302 This inscription conveys the sense of fear – within the context of “animistic, polytheistic idolatry”– of offending a local deity, and what the consequences of not honouring this deity might be.303
The sense of fear built into the idolatrous worldview of ancient Athens may not be unlike the fear that many cultures experience today, including secular304 Western cultures. It may not be local gods that are to be feared, but the more general “terror of history”, as Mircea Eliade called it. This “terror of history” is the (terrifying) necessity within Western modernity of needing to create one’s own meanings and purposes in the world in the absence of revelation and without the aid of any kind of religious understanding. “Humans are left to try and make sense of who we are only on the basis of our own accomplishments and in the light of our own historical striving.”305 The idols of modern Western cultures – power, success, wealth, health, status, comfort, security etc. – are equally unable to abate the fears of their adherents as the Athenians altar to the
“Unknown God”. Like Paul, we too hold out to our world that there is one true God
(17:24ff.), who accepts and saves those who “repent” (17:30), turning from “these
301 McDonald, 120; Clinton Arnold, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary: Volume 2, John, Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2002), 392. 302 Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 1.110 in Arnold, 392. 303 Larkin, 546. 304 Perhaps we should use the word secular, with quotes around it (“secular”) as it may be best to conclude that the notion of “secular” – if we mean religious neutrality – is, as Newbigin puts it, a myth (Newbigin, Gospel, 211-221). As the late David Foster Wallace, the agnostic novelist, put it: “There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships.” From Wallace’s commencement speech given in 2005 at Kenyon College. In Keller, Center Church, 127. 305 Craig M. Gay, The Way of the (Modern) World: Or, Why It’s Tempting To Live as if God Doesn’t Exist (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998), 11-12. 86 worthless things to the living God” (Acts 14:15). Offering this hope will require affirming that we can truly (though of course not exhaustively) know the One True God.
3. Offering an epistemological challenge
In each of Paul’s speeches – whether to Jews in the synagogue, or pagans in the marketplace – Paul in some way offers an epistemological challenge. Stated simply:
“You think you know, but you don’t. Let me tell you.”306 Or, more to the point of the inscription, and agnosticism in our own day: “You think you can’t know, but you can – for God has revealed himself in Jesus”. An epistemological challenge is present in every one of Paul’s speeches in Acts. With his Jewish audiences, Paul challenges their current understanding of the Old Testament, shows how it points to Jesus as Messiah, and their need to trust in what God has accomplished through him. In pagan settings, Paul, does the same thing, but in a different way. As Green puts it: “Among Greek audiences, Paul calls for people to leave the way of idolatry and turn to ‘the Living God’ (Acts 14:15-
16).”307
Paul offers this epistemological challenge to the Athenians: “I even found an altar with this inscription on it: To An Unknown God. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship – and this is what I am going to proclaim to you” (23b). Paul used the admission of ignorance “and applied it in a totally different direction. Their worship of an impersonal deity in self-confessed ignorance actually revealed the incorrectness of
306 Keller, Center Church, 113. 307 Joel Green, “God as Saviour in the Acts of the Apostles” in Marshall and Peterson, 103. 87 their whole approach to worship (cf. Jewish ignorance about God’s work in Christ, 3:18;
13:27).”308
“This” (touvton) is what Paul is “going to proclaim”: not the “god” who needs to be appeased and thus requires an altar erected in his or her honour, but the God who has made himself known as Creator. The description that follows is an explicit statement that
God – the one true God – can in fact be known. For the purpose of defending himself against the potential charge of introducing foreign deities, Paul makes use of the altar to an “UNKNOWN GOD” as a way of saying: “I’m not introducing any new or foreign
‘gods’ as you claim; I’m declaring what you claim to be ignorant of.” But Paul is doing more than defending; he is also declaring. As Bruce puts it: “To those who thus acknowledge that God is unknown to them, Paul undertakes to make him known.”309
As we look to our present setting in the post-Christendom West, bearing witness to the gospel means making a similar appeal: we do not need to remain agnostic about
God, or even tentative about which God is to be worshipped. Lesslie Newbigin argues that religious pluralism is the reigning “plausibility structure,” in Western culture, and if one choses not to accept it, they must give reasons.310 Giving reason to believe that there is one true God who can be known, and that by implication, all other gods are no gods at all (see Isaiah 45 in particular; cf. Phil 2:9-11), is one of the major tasks of sharing the good news.311 The one true God has indeed revealed Gods-self through the history of the
308 Larkin, 546. 309 F.F. Bruce, “The Significance of the Speeches for Interpreting Acts”, Southwestern Journal of Theology. Vol. 33, No.1 (Fall 1990), 23. 310 Newbigin, Gospel, 156. 311 Newbigin offers a very helpful discussion of Christian epistemology using Michael Polanyi’s scientific epistemology as a starting place for placing faith and reason in their proper relationship. See Chapters 3 and 4 in Newbigin’s Proper Confidence. 88 people of Israel (in the Hebrew Bible), and now most clearly through the incarnation of his own Son (See Hebrews 1:1-3). As Paul will go on to tell his audience, God overlooked such ignorance in the past, but “now he commands all people everywhere to repent” (17:30).
4. Connecting without capitulating
The body of Paul’s speech (17:24-31) connects with the language and thought- forms of his audience, but does not capitulate to them. He connects with the culture
(vv.23b, 27, 28) in order to confront the culture (vv.24-26; 29), and then offers the way of correction to that culture (vv.30-31).312 Unlike his sermons to Jews and God-fearers,
Paul offers no direct quotation of the Scriptures. This does not make his appeal any less
“biblical” however. Bruce’s point is significant: “Later apologists like Justin, defending the gospel in treatises addressed to Roman emperors or magistrates, might naively employ the argument from prophecy; Luke knows better than to imagine that this argument could make any impression on pagans lacking the “pre-understanding” to appreciate it.”313
Connecting to a local culture will involve adapting the form of speech to fit the setting (point one above), and gaining a familiarity with the culture(s) we engage (point two), but as Paul insists in Romans 12:1-2, believers must resist capitulation (see also
312 The three “C’s” of Connect to Confront and Connect are borrowed from Darrel Johnson’s sermon on Genesis 1: “Creator Creates Creation” preached September 12, 2010 at First Baptist Vancouver
Psalm 1).314 Paul’s speech remains thoroughly within the thought-world of the
Scriptures, even as he employs points of connection with the culture.
Martin Dibelius argues that Jesus and the resurrection are the focus of Paul’s
Christian preaching in the narrative section (17:16-18), but that “the main ideas of the
[Mar’s Hill] speech, knowledge of God and God’s relationship with man [sic], are Stoic rather than Christian.”315 Though it is true that Paul seeks to speak in language that finds connecting points throughout the speech – particularly with the Stoics in his audience – the thought-world is thoroughly Christian, 316 and it is worth noting the echoes of Paul’s entire Athenian ministry from Isaiah 42-45.
Paul sketches his portrait of Israel’s God, and his interaction with salvation history, in a way that connects with his audience yet stays true to the gospel he was proclaiming. Paul begins in 17:24-25: “The God who made the world and everything in it [see Gen1-2; Isa 42:5; Jer 10:12, 16]317 is the Lord of heaven and earth [see Ex 20:11;
Isa 42:5], and does not live in temples built by human hands [see 1 Kings 8:27]. And he is not served by human hands as if he needed anything. Rather he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else [see 1 Chron 29:14; Ps 50:7-15; Gen 2:7; esp. Isa
42:5]” (NIV). These initial comments that describe the one God as Creator, Sovereign, all sufficient, and the Sustainer of all life, offer a biting critique of idol worship;318 a point
314 A point D. Johnson reiterates as the needed nuance in his encouragement to “live in culture”, Glory, 201. 315 In Hansen, 313. 316 Ibid, 313-314. 317 Arnold offers a helpful chart listing a number of the Biblical references that Paul makes throughout his speech. 391. 318 Arnold, 391. 90 both the Epicureans and Stoics would agree with.319 Though it was Stoics and
Epicureans who first brought Paul to the council, Paul’s audience would have likely included many who were engaged in idol worship, and would have disagreed with Paul’s words.320 Still, Paul does not capitulate but connects in a way that will confront and correct. One of these corrections to Athenian thought is raised in verse 26.
The Athenians believed that they originated from the soil of their own land of
Attica,321 but as Paul says: “From one [man] he made all the nations” (v.26a).322 Paul is drawing on the Genesis account, as he does in Rom 5:12-29 and 1 Cor 15:45-49, to make the point that the whole of humanity is unified in origin.323 Here Paul is countering the ethnic exclusivity present in Athenian beliefs about origins,324 connecting to a significant element of the cultural narrative, but in doing so, corrects the failed understanding of his audience.
The remainder of v.26 and 27 raise some interpretive issues concerning the purposes of God’s creating. It seems best to regard the pairing of katoikei√n and zhtei√n as parallel purpose infinitives.325 The first clause, to inhabit/dwell on the whole earth, may be a reference to the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:27-28, and thus a cue that humans were made to be in fellowship with the God Paul is proclaiming here. Larkin puts it well: “God’s design was ‘for the nations to seek after God’ (17:27)….Yet sin had
319 Arnold, 391. 320 Ibid, 391. 321 Bruce, Acts, 382. 322 The USB4 notes a textual variant for this verse, where some Western and patristic witnesses added aimatos to clarify what e˚no\ß is in reference to. The Tischendorf edition includes aimatos where the USB4 and GNT-28 rightly prefer the shorter (lectio brevia), and therefore more difficult (lectio difficilior) reading. 323 Witherington, Acts, 526. 324 Ibid, 526. 325 Witherington, Acts, 526. 91 interjected itself into the human experience, so that the “seeking” had become “groping” with no certainty, nor indeed likelihood of success, even though God is “not far from any one of us”.326
In the phrase, “he is not far from any one of us,” (27b) Paul, is making another point of contact, especially with the Stoics in his audience. Seneca (4 BC-65 CE), a Stoic and contemporary of Paul’s, wrote: “God is near you, he is with you, he is within you.”327
The sense of God’s immanence would have connected with Stoics, but would have presented a challenge to the Epicureans who saw the “gods” as being distant and living in
“undisturbed happiness without interfering in the affairs of the world through providence.”328 Paul’s statement, though it connects in particular with the saying of
Seneca, is not to be viewed simply as Greek notion; we see clearly in Psalm 145:18 and
Jeremiah 23:23-24 that the notion of God’s nearness is thoroughly Jewish.
Paul next quotes two Greek thinkers to illustrate his point.329 The first quote
“…in him we live and move and have our being” is likely borrowed from Epimenides (c.
600 BC), the Cretan poet. In his poem Cretica, Zeus’ son Minos honours his father with the words “for in thee [referring to Zeus] we live and move and have our being”.330 Paul seeks common ground with his hearers by citing this poet, but he sets the saying within the context of his description of God, “disinfecting and re-baptizing the poets’ words for
326 Ibid, 547. 327 Epistle 41.1-2, LCL in McDonald, 121. 328 Schanbel, 724. 329 Schnabel argues against the view that Paul is citing Epimenides, but does not give convincing evidence. He argues that this is a triadic formulation not a quote from the philosopher. Schnable, 724. 330 Longnecker, 476. 92 his own purposes.”331 Though the Stoics would have heard “in him” in a pantheistic (or panentheistic) way, Paul likely means it to be taken instrumentally (“because of him”), given what he has just said of the one Creator God. Larkin summarizes: “By his power, in dependence on him,” humans live, move and are (Ps 3:3; Hos 1:7; 12:6 LXX; cf.
Sophocles Oedipus Coloneus 1443).332 Paul then quotes the Stoic philosopher Aratus
(c.315-240 BC) for confirmation: “We are his offspring” (from Phenomena line 5).333
Larkin offers a summary of Paul’s use here:
Paul’s introductory remark [about God as the ultimate Creator] cleansed Aratus’s quotation of both its reference to Zeus and its pantheistic metaphysic. The quote could then carry accurate meaning regarding the one true God, the transcendent, personal creator who sustains humans, who are “his offspring” (tou genos) in that they, like any human group (“race” or “nation”), have a common origin and social life – in this case, the source is God and they are made in his image.334
Larkin rightly notes how Paul can truly connect with his audience, yet in a way that does not give up the central theological issues at stake.
As we consider Paul’s approach of connecting without capitulating, two observations are necessary. First, it is by “Living in The Book”, as Johnson puts it, or
“dwelling in the world of the text,”335 that witnesses of the gospel are thoroughly shaped by the world of the text and thus enabled to both live truthfully, and speak truthfully about God.336 Paul has ordered his thought-world around God’s revelation, and this is what flows out of him when he speaks, whether he directly quotes Scripture or not. Paul
331 Ibid, 476. 332 Larkin, 547. 333 Longnecker, 476. 334 Larkin, 547. 335 Roxburgh, Joining God, 76. 336 D. Johnson, Glory, 197-200. 93 is able to authentically connect to his audience in ways that relate, and in language they can hear, while still speaking truthfully of God.
Second, Paul’s quotation of two Greek thinkers truly is “remarkable”, as Stott says: “His precedent gives us warrant to do the same, and indicates that glimpses of truth, insights from general revelation, may be found in non-Christian authors.”337 For preachers it is significant that we recognize that ‘all truth is God’s truth’. Paul’s example shows that finding God’s truth in non-Christian sources is not only possible, but also necessary in our preaching. It is not accurate, however, to say Paul is affirming what the poets have said. Paul’s usage of the poets is qualified by the content of his speech. He thus empties the original statement of its pagan qualities and refills them with the truth of
God as revealed in the Scriptures. That is the model for contextualizing the gospel to connect without capitulation. As D.A. Carson puts it, Paul “displays courtesy and sensitivity, but there is restraint in his tactical alignments, lest he jeopardize the gospel.”338 In Paul, then, we find an example not only of how to proclaim the good news among a pagan audience, but how to be shaped as a person who can bear faithful witness to the gospel.
5. Offering opportunity for appropriate response
Paul moves his speech from a successful defense to bring his own charges against the council.339 Paul begins his challenge by repeating the word ge÷nos from the Aratus quote (in v.28) to emphasize his point: “Since we are the offspring of God, we can’t
337 Stott, 286. 338 In Schnabel, 746. 339 Marion Soards, The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 96. 94 possibly think that God is anything like what is fashioned by human hands!” By quoting
Aratus he points to the logical conclusion with the coordinate conjunction ou™n.
“Therefore, since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone – an image made by human design and skill” (v.29).
In verse 30, Paul reintroduces the word aÓgnoi÷aß (“ignorance”, here in noun form) from v.23, demonstrating where Paul was moving his sermon all along. “In the past,” Paul tells them, “God overlooked such ignorance (cf. 14:16; Rom 3:25), but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.” This call to repentance is spelled out with more detail340 in Paul’s speech in Lystra: “We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God” (14:15b). Repentance (in
17:30, metanoe÷w), as we see in 14:15, is the appropriate response to “the good news” – a call “to turn” (e˙pistre÷fein) from “worthless things” to the living God.341
In 17:31 Paul explains why repentance is necessary. God “has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed.”342 Paul’s final phrase brings the defense-sermon to its close: “He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead” (17:31b). The Epicureans had ruled out life after death entirely, so any mention of a bodily resurrection of an individual would be absurd. It is likely the
340 Paul gave his original audience a more lengthy description of what he meant by repentance if, as is likely, this speech involved more than is recorded here. 341 Paul describes the response of pagans in Thessalonica using a similar description: “you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God” (1 Thess 1:9). 342 Announcing a Day of Judgment would seem strange to both Stoics and Epicureans. See Croy, 30-35. Seneca is likely representative of Stoic views at Paul’s time. He speaks of limited postmortem existence, but not immortal life, and he rejects the popular fears of the underworld (35). The Epicureans believed that death was final and there was no judgment. Fear of death was contrary to the Epicurean ideal of “pleasure” – which was not the pleasure of hedonism, but freedom from anxious thoughts through self-discipline (30). 95
Epicureans who “sneered” when “they heard about the resurrection of the dead” (17:32a).
No Stoic that we know of entertained the possibility of the resurrection of the body, yet if the response in 17:32 can be drawn along the lines of Epicureans and Stoics, it is most likely that the Stoics are the ones who want to “hear you [Paul] again on this subject.”343
Thought it has been argued that the statement is a polite dismissal – that they never want to hear him again on the matter344 - it seems more likely that given the appeals and points of connection with Stoics throughout the speech, Paul may have in fact raised the level of interest for this group in particular, and with whom Paul will share more.345
The council, which initially stands in judgment on Paul, now finds that they are the ones who are liable for their ignorance of the one true God. Witherington puts it well:
“Indeed, the editorial comment in v.21 suggests that they are dilettantes – seekers after the new rather than the true; seekers after the curious rather than the Kurios. In the end they are the ones serving strange gods.”346
Longnecker believes that the Christian mission in Athens must be judged a failure, as it ended before it began. This is not, in Longnecker’s view, because of Paul’s approach or words347 but because of the lack of receptivity on the part of his hearers.348
Failure is the wrong word though. Longnecker may be right in suggesting that Paul and his associates were unable to continue their mission in Athens due to the decision of the
343 Croy, 39. 344 Longnecker is undecided as to whether it was polite dismissal or genuine curiosity (p.478), while Haenchen advocates that the response is one of open rejection vs. polite dismissal, in Croy, 27. 345 See Larkin, 543. 346 Witherington, Acts, 535. 347 As William Ramsey famously argued against Paul’s so called ‘philosophical’ approach. In Stott, 289. 348 Longnecker, 478. Bruce, likewise, concludes with this point, Acts, 365. 96 council following this speech, but Luke does not tell us one way or the other. Nor does
Luke leave his hearers with a word of dismay, but reports that “some became followers of
Paul and believed”, including two who were personally named: “Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus,” and “also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others” (17:34).
Luke intends, rather, that we see Paul’s ministry as successful: the only text in Acts that reports the conversion of two people by name. Joel Green’s summary of the Athenian response is careful, not to mention encouraging for those in ministry today:
The record of reactions to Paul’s preaching at Athens is representative: having heard, some scoffed, others expressed their willingness to hear more from Paul, and some joined him, becoming believers (17:32-33). Such texts witness to the pervasiveness of the motif of response in Acts while exhibiting the diversity of ways in which the message of salvation might be greeted.349
For ministry today there are two notable implications. First, Paul moves his speech from a general description of God, connecting in various ways with this audience, to focus on the significance of Jesus at the end.350 Christian preaching will focus on
Jesus (as drawn out above in Where Preaching Centers), and offer a call to respond rightly to him; which as we see in Paul’s preaching to pagans, involves a call to repent – to turn from idols to the living God (Acts 14:15; 1 Thess 1:9).
Second, Luke’s record of the Athenian address reminds us that we must not feel the necessity to preach everything about Christian belief in one address.351 Depending on
349 Joel Green, “God as Saviour in the Acts of the Apostles” in Marshall and Peterson, 102. 350 “As Paul provides an exposition of the God whom he proclaims – the God acknowledged in Athens as an “unknown god” – he speaks of the one true God and he speaks of Jesus (cf. 1 Cor 8:5-6).” Schnabel, 742. 351 Schnabel, 746. 97 the audience,352 and scenario, sharing at length about Christian belief may actually be detrimental and confusing.353 Paul certainly explained the Christian faith in greater depth with those who came to faith – and it is likely the case that it was only after Paul explains further, following the address, that those mentioned came to faith. Speaking of Paul’s speeches in Acts, Timothy Keller summarizes:
These speeches of Paul give us a strong biblical case for engaging in careful contextualization. They remind us that there is no universal, culture-free formulation of the gospel for everyone….It is clear that Paul does not feel an obligation to give the whole gospel picture to his audience in one sitting. He puts pagans on a very gradual ramp and works to establish foundational principles without necessarily getting to the work of Christ right away.354
Keller captures the essence of what Luke shows us in Paul’s ministry; that Paul provides an appropriate model for preaching in our day.
The conclusion – or better, lack of conclusion – of the book of Acts is an invitation to join in the still-to-be-completed mission of God. Rosner puts it well: “The approach to narration in Acts encourages the reader to take the point of view of those taking the witness forward.”355 If we are encouraged to join with those in Acts, and take the witness forward, Paul’s speech in Acts provide a helpful paradigm for contextualization.
In summary, Paul’s Athenian ministry offers significant points for all ministers of the gospel today.356 We saw that contextualized, gospel-shaped ministry in today’s world
352 Paul’s Athenian address may have very limited direct application to settings today, possibly a civic address, or appeal where the work of the church or Christian organization needs to be defended before political authorities. As Schnabel, 746. 353 Schnabel notes, rightly, that evangelistic preaching may sound vague and incomplete to Christian ears. 746. 354 Keller, Center Church, 114. 355 Rosner, 323. 356 Which, in my Baptist tradition involves every member of the church. 98 will require: 1. A form (and language) that fits the context, 2. A familiarity with the culture(s) we engage, 3. An epistemological challenge, 4. Connecting without capitulating, and 5. Offering opportunity for appropriate response. In the same way that
Paul “proclaimed the Kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ – with all boldness and without hindrance” (28:31), we are likewise empowered by God’s Spirit, as
God’s people, to bear witness to God’s grace and love expressed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
Part Two: A Handbook for Missional Preaching
The biblical and theological discussion offered in the previous sections formed the groundwork for the development of a handbook for missional preaching. The following section will now provide further357 rationale for a handbook and then move to discuss the pedagogical approach of the book while presenting its basic outline and content. Of note, the process of writing the handbook was directly linked to the research
I had engaged in while preparing my thesis. The handbook is, in many ways, a more practical ‘fleshing out’ of the major findings from my directed study and course work.
The description of the content that follows below, therefore, will correspond closely with the biblical and theological chapters (One and Two) above.
Rationale for the Handbook
As described in Chapter One, missional hermeneutics is a still emerging field that is only recently gaining more widespread attention in Biblical studies and theological
357 This discussion is simply adding to the rationale already provided in the Introduction above. 99 reflection. Kevin Vanhoozer, writing in 2009, reflects on the need for more conscious application of missional hermeneutics in this regard, and offers the following remarks in the concluding section of his chapter in Four Views on Moving Beyond The Bible To
Theology:
It strikes me as odd that a volume devoted to going beyond the sacred page lacks the perspective of the missiologist. After all, the first people to take the Bible beyond its original context were missionaries, and generations of missionaries have been going beyond ever since. Surely biblical scholars and theologians can learn something from those who have written on contextualization from the standpoint of Christian missions.358
Vanhoozer’s comment reflects the need for missional approaches to reading the Bible to be more widely considered. That is, in essence, the aim of the project handbook: to extend the discussion of missional hermeneutics by introducing this approach in an accessible form, and drawing out the implications of a missional theology and practice of preaching.
Weekly preaching is one of the primary modes of communal theological discourse and biblical reflection in the life of local churches. Preaching provides theological vision and models a paradigm for biblical interpretation. As such, weekly preaching demonstrates to the congregation appropriate modes of moving from the world of the biblical text to our current setting, sometimes explicitly – showing in a detailed way the necessary moves taken from text to world – but always implicitly. It is the claim of this thesis that perhaps the most faithful way to appropriate the message of the text in weekly preaching involves employing a missional hermeneutic. This means listening for
God’s voice through the Scriptures in each new context, since, as argued in Chapter One,
358 Vanhoozer, “A Drama of Redemption Model,” loc 4628 of 6364. 100
God is still on mission to redeem and restore his creation, and God is still working in, for, and through his people in this redemptive work.359
As described in the introductory chapter, the concept of producing a handbook on preaching and missional hermeneutics comes from my own local church context. To best prepare our preaching team of both pastoral staff and other ministers in our midst, we needed a unified vision for preaching in our setting. This handbook was written largely in response to this need, with an eye toward it being made available more widely in a form that includes updates resulting from the study group.
Pedagogical Approach and Outline of the Handbook
The pedagogical approach of the handbook includes several key features, best discussed in conjunction with the various parts of the book. The following, therefore, will first describe some key features of the book’s layout, and second, discuss the outline of the book, highlighting the key arguments of each section, and briefly elucidating the educational purposes that lay behind each argument. The version of the book described here is the original draft that was used with the study group. Chapter Four below will include a discussion of the additions and changes that were made to the initial version as a result of interacting with the study group.
359 Again, Vanhoozer offers the right theological emphasis to speak of the movement from biblical text to missional engagement in the world: “In the final analysis, it is the triune God who goes “beyond” Scripture each time the Father and the Son send the Spirit to minister the Word in new situations. Questions about how best to apply the text are best handled only in light of this triune mission; going beyond the sacred page is ultimately a matter of missional hermeneutics. May the church’s reading of Scripture enable it to fulfill her mission – to go beyond hearing the Word to understanding and doing it for the glory of God.” Vanhoozer, “A Drama-of- Redemption Model”, loc 4628 of 6364. 101
The title of the handbook, Preaching and the Mission of God: Faithful Witness
After Christendom, speaks to the overarching content: this book is about preaching and the relationship of preaching to God’s mission. The subtitle describes the view of preaching that I am advancing – that of faithful witness – combined with the cultural reality of preaching in the 21st century, Western, post-Christendom setting. The book is
144 pages in total (including endnotes and bibliography), and is divided into three parts with four chapters in each. A brief introduction describes the major features of the missional conversation and seeks to locate the book within that conversation, describing whom the book is for and how it might be most useful as a guide for a group or individual readers. Before describing the content of each portion of the book, a description of the layout and additional features is necessary.
Book Format Considerations
The formatting of the book was designed with some specific goals in mind. First, instead of including footnotes that might disrupt the flow of the argument in each chapter, endnotes were utilized instead. For those readers who may want to interact further with a particular section, the endnotes provide references and often more academic aspects. The uses of endnotes keeps the handbook from feeling overly academic or looking unnecessarily cluttered.
Second, where a more in-depth discussion of a topic was considered necessary, yet was a digression from the flow of the argument, a “Digging Deeper” section was added. The formatting for these includes a heading and title, a different font, and lines that distinguishes these sections from the main text.
102
Third, at the end of each chapter a set of personal reflection questions was included. This was included to invite the reader to reflection on his or her present views and practices, to open up a space for evaluating the arguments of the chapter, and to invite the possibility of new practices or understanding.
Fourth, following each major part of the book is a set of group discussion questions. These questions were aimed at helping a church preaching team, a class of seminary students, or a preaching collective to discuss their interaction with the material.
If a reader did not have a group of preachers to discuss the book with, this feature could further personal reflection and might even serve as impetus for him or her to consider inviting other preachers, within the congregation or from other churches, to create a reading group.360
Fifth, at the conclusion of each major part of the book is a list of further reading suggestions that includes the reasons why I recommend certain books. In this way, the handbook can function as an entry point for readers to further explore the themes of each section.
Finally, I included a basic set of hermeneutical questions (Appendix One) for sermon preparation, and a congregational sermon evaluation form (Appendix Two). I argued in the body of the book that feedback from the congregation helps sharpen and grow our ability to communicate. This evaluation form, however, asks questions specific to the arguments of this book in regards to a missional approach to preaching.
360 A preacher who works primarily at a local mission organization asked if he could participate in the discussion group for this very reason: he wanted to be able to read and discuss the book material with a group of other preachers, though he could not formally participate in the study. 103
Content of the Handbook
Part One, “God’s Book, God’s Story,” aims to describe clearly the nature and authority of the Bible and introduce the reader to a missional hermeneutic. Chapter One begins by defining the three distinct, yet related ways we needed to understand the phrase
“the word of God.”361 Recognizing Jesus as the ultimate expression of “God’s Word” keeps our focus on Jesus, and how the Bible (“the word of God”) is ultimately bearing witness to Jesus (the “Word of God”). The purpose of this discussion is to set up the argument made later that “what is preached” is not the Bible per se, but the good news of
Jesus - the Word made flesh – himself. The chapter ends by arguing that the “authority” of the Bible rests in its ultimate author – with God’s own self.362
Chapter Two addresses the question of inspiration. This chapter introduces an
“incarnational view” of the Scriptures. Using the analogy of the hypostatic union of
Jesus’ divine and human natures, this section argues that it is best to see the Bible as simultaneously fully God’s word and fully the product of human writers. Arguing for an incarnational view offers an honest, nuanced description of inspiration that allows for great confidence in the Scriptures. 363
Chapter Three then introduces one of the most significant elements of a missional hermeneutic: that the Bible is an authoritative story – a narrative. Borrowing from the work of N.T. Wright in particular, this chapter describes the Bible with the analogy of a
361 See the section “Jesus, the Word of God” in Chapter One above. 362 This point about the authority of the Bible resting in the Author is discussed at several points in Chapter One, but perhaps most clearly in the section “The Bible as an Authoritative Story”, noting N.T. Wright’s analogy of the Five Act Play. 363 I argue this point in the section “An Incarnational View of Scripture” in Chapter One above. 104
Five Act drama, and discusses how reading the Bible will require the people of God to play our part in God’s ongoing mission by living with consistency and innovation to the previous parts of God’s drama. The chapter ends by arguing that to speak of the Bible’s authority is to speak of God’s authority exercised through Scripture. The decision to include this element was aimed at emphasizing the reality that the church today in the 21st century must be steeped in, and thus shaped by, the story of what God has done, so as to be prepared to authentically and faithfully live out our vocation as his people in the present.
The homiletical implications of this view establish a framework for later discussing the need to “tell the story”, recognizing each portion of Scripture within its canonical and narrative horizon. Not only does preaching that draws on the narrative nature of Scripture connect the dots for hearers, it also demonstrates how the work of
Jesus brings this story to its climax, and thus, the gospel naturally comes to the fore of every sermon. This focus on telling the story also draws the readers attention to the “not yet” element of God’s kingdom. In this sense, preaching continues to point forward with anticipation, and invites the hearers to embody and “live toward” the kingdom-still-to- come. Here the missional implications are more readily apparent.364 Without the narrative shape of the Scriptures in view, however, these elements can easily be lost.
Chapter Four deepens the discussion of the narrative shape of Scripture by arguing that it is God’s redeeming work that gives rise to the Bible. God acts and the
Scriptures then bear witness to this action. The primary argument of this chapter is that the Bible is a missionary document, and thus, reading it well means reading it as a
364 This three-fold element of preaching is advanced in Chapter Two above, in the section “Where Preaching Centers”. 105 document of mission.365 A “missional” reading of the Bible, as argued throughout the rest of the book, has far-reaching implications for preaching, including that preaching must do what the Bible aims to do. That is, to bear witness to Jesus and his work as the fulfillment of the whole story of Scripture, invite hearers to ‘repent’ and find life in
Christ, and to be renewed in the human and Christian vocations. These vocations are to steward the earth, cultivate human culture, to love God and our fellow humans, and to faithfully speak of Jesus with our neighbours.
Part Two - “Preaching as Participation in God’s Mission” – focuses on the preacher and preaching. Chapters Five, Six, Seven and Eight build upon each other to complete the title of the section: “Preaching as Faithful Witness to Jesus.” First, Chapter
Five makes a case that preachers must continue to grow in their ministry. The conclusion of this chapter highlights the emphasis on faithfulness – that preaching, and the preacher, be lined up with God’s intended purpose – not merely seeking effectiveness, if by that we mean primarily for the purpose church growth or becoming a more dynamic and attractive preacher.366
Chapter Six then introduces the motif of witness. As a witness in court brings their personality and experience to the task of “witnessing”, so too does the preacher.
This leads naturally into the argument presented in Chapter Seven, which focuses on the need for the character of the preacher to be shaped around the story of Jesus. The humility of Jesus, demonstrated by his willing posture of a servant, is here described as the model for Christian leaders. A faithful witness will be one that is, more and more,
365 The missionary nature of the Scriptures is defined and defended in the early parts of Chapter One above, particularly “The Bible as a Document of Mission.” 366 This is reflective, in part, of the section above “How a Missional Hermeneutic Shapes the Preacher”. 106 shaped in his or her character to reflect and resemble Jesus. In order to complete the phrase, “Preaching as Faithful Witness to Jesus”, Chapter Eight focuses on the question:
“what is the content of faithful preaching?” This chapter argues that the focus of preaching is not merely to expound the key idea of any given passage – though it will include that – but that each sermon ultimately move to the Christ-event: to preach the gospel and the implications of the gospel. Further, this chapter offers a definition of preaching.367 Part Two of the book, then, emphasizes the person of the preacher as a faithful witness and offers readers a succinct description of the focus and meaning of
Christian preaching.
Part Three, “Preaching in a Post-Christendom Setting”, moves from the more theoretical discussion of the Bible in Part One and preaching in Part Two, to address specific questions of what preaching with a missional hermeneutic will require. Chapter
Nine first emphasizes the need for preaching that: 1) roots whatever text is preached in the larger story of God’s work; 2) focuses on Jesus – the One through whom the whole story finds its fulfillment – and; 3) sends the church on mission. Second, this chapter highlights the necessity of preaching that is rooted in the local context of the congregation, since, as God’s missionary people, preachers and the rest of the congregation alike are to be equipped, empowered, and sent to bear witness to Jesus within their culture. The task of this chapter in the book is to highlight the need for faithful contextualization of the gospel in each new situation. This leads into the longest chapter of the book, Chapter Ten, which aims to deal with the question of how to contextualize the gospel in our preaching.
367 This involves both the definition and description of preaching offered in the section “What Preaching Is” and “Where Preaching Centers” above. 107
To answer the question of contextualization, Chapter Ten offers an examination of Paul’s Athenian ministry from Acts 17. The five elements described in the discussion above are presented and discussed with practical suggestions for how these might be appropriated in preaching. At this point in the handbook, the tone is decidedly more prescriptive, offering the paradigm of Paul’s ministry as having clear implications for preaching today.
Chapter Eleven adds three additional points necessary for the task of missionary preaching. These include the need to: 1) preach grace; 2) preach for whole life transformation; and 3) preach implication not application. The notion of ‘missional preaching’ could potentially lead unwary preachers to emphasize that what really mattered to God is what we do, rather than resting in, and living from what God has already accomplished in Christ. Responding to the grace of God will mean opening our lives to be transformed by that grace, and preaching the good news of Jesus will mean showing how God both calls, and enables us by grace, to be conformed to the image of his Son (cf. Rom 8:28-29).
Chapter Twelve finally offers readers a guide to preparing sermons that takes into account the suggestions and perspective argued throughout the book. The suggestions for sermon preparation are meant to keep both the formation of the preacher, as well as the missiological questions, in the foreground of the preparation process. By ending with this section, preachers who are newer to the task, or those who are now exploring different options for preparation, are given a relatively straightforward set of steps to follow and some guiding questions.
108
Conclusion
The first part of Chapter Two offered a theology of preaching arising from the discussion of missional hermeneutics offered in Chapter One. This discussion became the theoretical framework out of which the handbook project was developed. Part two of the chapter then described the handbook, discussing the pedagogical choices for each major section developed. Having discussed the theoretical basis of preaching that employs a missional hermeneutic, and providing the rationale and outline of the project intervention document (the handbook), we will now discuss the research study design.
109
CHAPTER THREE
Introduction
The following chapter presents the research methodology for the study, beginning with a brief overview of the research question, the aims of the study and a brief sketch of the study design. Next, a more detailed description of how the study was conducted is offered, including the rationale for each methodological choice. Finally, this chapter examines the reasons the study did not yield the desired amount of sermon survey data, and describes the resultant shift in the emphasis of the research question.
Research Question and Aims of the Study
The research question this study set out to address was: how might preaching with a missional hermeneutic aid the formation of both the preacher and the congregation for greater missional faithfulness? The project, a handbook for missional preaching, was introduced with a group of three preachers who were invited to work with the material within their local congregations during the five-week study period. The study design was a multi-methods, qualitative approach that included pre and post intervention, semi- structured interviews with each of the three participating preachers, two group discussions with the preachers (using discussion questions from the handbook), pre- and post-congregational sermon evaluations, and pre- and post-intervention sermon texts.
The study period began the first week of June 2016, and concluded the first week of July
2016. A semi-structured follow-up interview was added during the data analysis period
(October, 2016) in order to further explore what might have contributed to low sermon
110 survey responses and to provide further information about the impact of the study on the preaching participants’ views and practice of preaching.
The initial study design set out to examine two primary areas. The first was to assess how the congregation perceived the sermons before and after the handbook intervention. This included how culturally accessible they perceived the sermons for people who are not Christians.368 In several ways, the sermon surveys asked congregants how easily their non-Christian neighbours would have accessed or understood the message. The sermon surveys were also designed to assess to what extent the pre and post intervention sermons were perceived as helpful, or not, in equipping the congregation to serve one another and their neighbours. Another element that the survey explored was the extent to which the sermons would inspire and help form a missional imagination, leading to a sense, as Jacque Ellul puts it, of the Christian life as revolutionary,369 shaping God’s people to engage the world “through evangelism and the pursuit of justice.”370
The second area examined the extent to which the handbook helped enrich the preaching participants’ interpretive frame by offering a missional understanding of the
368 As an example of helpful accessibility questions, see John Bowen’s, From Visitor to Disciple: Eight Ways Your Church Can Help. Wycliffe Booklets on Evangelism 6 (Richmond, BC: Digory Publishing, 2005). 369 This is to borrow from Jacque Ellul’s claim: “If the Christian is not being revolutionary, then in some way or another he has been unfaithful to his calling in the world.” Jacque Ellul, The Presence of the Kingdom, Second Edition (Colorado Spring, CO: Helmers and Howard, 1989), 37. 370 Ross Hastings, citing Lesslie Newbigin, points out the twin elements of the “church’s missionary dimension (welcoming outsiders, equipping believers to serve) and the church’s missionary intention (direct engagement in the world through evangelism and the pursuit of justice).” By “missionary dimension”, he means the church in its gathered state – gathered for worship or equipping, and by “missionary intention” he means the practice of joining God’s mission outside of the gathered setting, or as Paul Stevens would say, “the other six days.” Hastings, Loc 502 of 4119. 111
Bible and a missional hermeneutic, by deepening the participants’ understanding of the ministry of preaching, and by re-examining his or her goals for preaching.
Ethical Considerations
Since this project was working with human participants, the project was subject to ethical review by the Acadia University Research Ethics Review Board. One potential risk is associated with the relationship between the preacher and their community members. Because there is an evaluative process (sermon surveys), the preacher may feel he or she is being critiqued unfairly and this may harm the relationship between the preacher and the community members. A further potential risk is that congregational respondents may not feel they can honestly provide feedback if the preacher knew he or she were critiquing their sermons. To mitigate these risks, all the community members were invited to fill out a sermon evaluation anonymously through an online survey data collection program.
Another potential risk was that the findings of the study could have perceived or real repercussions for the preaching participants or the congregations as a result of the thesis being publically available. In order to protect the identities of the preachers and congregations, each was assigned a pseudonym. Before the final publication of the thesis, the preachers were invited to read the draft version of the data analysis that included their responses, and offer any clarifying comments or nuances. Following the successful completion and acceptance of the thesis by faculty, the email account used in communication was deleted, the survey data removed, the audio recordings deleted and the interview notes shredded.
112
The Study Design
The study design had two distinct elements since the study investigated both: 1) the preachers’ experience with the handbook and group meetings, and 2) the responses from the congregations. The following description presents the steps that were taken and the reasons for each methodological choice.
Step One: The initial step was to invite several pastors/preachers in my city
(Kamloops, BC) to participate, with their congregations, in the study. I selected ministers and their congregations by purposive sample,371 engaging with a cross section of denominations (one each from the Baptist tradition, the Pentecostal tradition, and a
Liturgical tradition) and including ministers of differing educational backgrounds
(Undergraduate and Graduate training). The selected ministers included both male and female preachers. I contacted the selected preachers by phone and then set up an in- person meeting to explain the research project, provide a consent form, and then I asked them, after considering their involvement, to respond with their answer. Initially I had five participating preachers and congregations, but due to unforeseen circumstances unrelated to the study, two preachers were unable to continue the study.372 As a result, the project proceeded with three preachers.
371 Tim Sensing, Qualitative Research: A Multi-Methods Approach to Projects for Doctor of Ministry Theses (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2011), 83. 372 The research ethics board application for this study specified the protocol for participants to withdraw his or her engagement with the study, and we followed this procedure. The consent form for participants included the following statement: “You are under no obligation to participate in the study, and you if you do begin to participate you are free to withdraw at any time. If you choose to withdraw your interview data from the study, please indicate to me in an email or by phone within two weeks of completing the second interview (depending on when the interview takes place, likely mid-July, 2016). 113
In order to protect the identities of each preacher and the churches they preach in,
I provided pseudonyms for each preacher and for their respective congregations. Mark is the name given to the preacher from the Baptist tradition, and the church he ministers within will be called Crossway Community Church, a community with regular Sunday attendance at around 160 people. Mark received a Bachelor degree from a Bible college that he referred to as “non-academic”. Grace is the preacher from the liturgical tradition, and the church she preaches in will be called Trinity Church, a community averaging approximately 80 people on a Sunday morning. She has an English degree from a reputable university and an MDiv from her denominational seminary. Chris is the preacher from the Pentecostal tradition, and the church he preaches in will be called Faith
Assembly, a congregation with a regular gathering of about 100 people. He holds a
Bachelor degree from a Bible college with a major in biblical theology.
The primary reason for choosing a relatively diverse group of preachers is that the missional movement values the participation of various traditions and unity of the church universal.373 Missional thinkers often cite the High Priestly Prayer of Jesus recorded in
John 17 (verses 20-23 in particular) as reason for this cross-denominational
If you do consent to participate in the study, you are not waiving any rights to legal recourse in the event of research-related harm.” 373 In narrating the history of the missional movement, Van Gelder and Zscheile note both the convergence and divergence of those in the evangelical tradition and those of the ecumenical and Roman Catholic understanding of God’s mission (ecumenical generally meaning more liturgical traditions such as Lutherans, Anglicans, the United Church etc.). The divergence generally surfaced as suspicion of each side regarding the weight of emphasis given to evangelism on the one hand, and social justice on the other. By the early 1990’s the beginning of The Gospel and Our Culture (TGOC) network began drawing the attention of the divergent groups, in part based on the writings and work of Lesslie Newbigin which have helped to bridge, or at least hold in tension, these various approaches. See Van Gelder and Zscheile, 25-48. 114 engagement.374 The diversity of preachers’ denominational background, differing educational background, and the inclusion of both male and female preachers, was intended to bring a sense of “other-ness” to the study, since reading with those who are different (“other”) helps reveal each participants “blind spots”, assumptions and biases.
In this sense, reading the handbook, and participating together in a group discussion with this relatively diverse group, was itself to engage in one of the features of missional hermeneutics – that is, by reading with the “other” as a mode that reveals and potentially calls into question our previously held assumptions. 375 The denominational distinctness enabled me, as the researcher, to gain a sense of how a minister from each of these traditions would hear and experience the handbook material from his or her denominational perspective. The diversity of denominational perspectives, and the resulting misunderstandings of my book that this diversity raised, signalled elements in the handbook that needed to be rewritten to be more accessible to a wider, more diverse audience. The denominational difference of the participants proved to be a rich source of data (discussed in Chapter Four below).
The reason I chose not to study my own congregation is two-fold. First, I have already been employing a missional hermeneutic in my preaching for several years and therefore, there is not a pre-intervention baseline from which to measure the results.
Second, the Hawthorne Effect says, in essence, that the data could be skewed in the case
374 See, for example, Hastings’ excellent discussion on the role and necessity of being the one holy, catholic, apostolic church. Hastings, loc 3143 of 4119. 375 See Barram, 58. Barram argues that reading the Bible with a set of social locatedness questions in mind as a significant contribution of missional a hermeneutic Though Barram’s discussion is particularly focused on reading the Bible with a missional hermeneutic, reading a work of practical theology like the project handbook in the presence of the ‘other’ will enable us to become more aware of our assumptions, calling these into question. 115 that the congregation I am a part of may not answer as truthfully because they know I will be analyzing the data.376
Step Two: After selecting the participants, and gaining their consent to participate in the study with their congregations, I deployed a pre-intervention (baseline) congregational sermon survey. As Tim Sensing put it, “the purpose of a survey is to describe characteristics or understandings of a large group of people.”377 The initial survey data would provide a baseline measure. The follow-up survey questions were identical to the initial survey, with the exception that the follow-up survey asked if there were any notable differences between the first sermon that was evaluated and the sermon that followed the study period.
I originally intended to invite ten respondents per congregation in order to gain a well-balanced selection of five male and five female respondents, one each from five different age groupings (i.e. ages 18-25; 26-35; 36-45; 46-55; 56 plus). While preparing for the ethics board approval stage, however, it was suggested that in order to maintain the confidentiality of the respondents under this scenario, my design would be overly mechanical and contrived. It was pointed out that it might be better to invite everyone in the congregation to respond, and then to select representative survey results from the various age and genders groupings. I asked the preachers to name a community member to help explain the study and make sure that an invitation to the whole congregation was offered. I then provided each church with a bulletin handout that included the purpose of the study, assurance of the privacy of the reporting, a link to the online survey and contact information for those who had questions about the survey or study.
376 Sensing, 82. 377 Ibid, 115. 116
The online survey was produced in FluidSurveys. The primary reason for choosing an online survey approach was that it would be very difficult to adequately protect the confidentiality of the participants if paper surveys were provided in written form at the worship services (the preacher might see who was, or was not, participating in the survey). It seemed best to provide an online link, listed in the bulletin insert, for people to use after leaving the worship service.
The sermon evaluation survey was initially developed during the writing of the preaching handbook and was intended to ask congregants questions that related specifically to preaching that employs a missional hermeneutic (See Appendix 5).378
Following a click-through consent form describing the study, the sixteen-question survey began with basic demographic information (age, sex). The survey then asked a mix of short answer questions, and Likert-scale (1-10 scale) questions with a comment section attached to each. The sermon survey was estimated to take approximately 20 minutes.
Step Three: Following the initial sermon survey, and before giving the preachers the handbook (intervention), I conducted semi-structured interviews with each preaching participant that took approximately 60 minutes (See Appendix 3).379 The questions were designed to provide a baseline description of each participants’ view of preaching, their default hermeneutical strategies, their current sermon preparation process, to locate the preachers’ in terms of their preaching mentors, and to assess their familiarity with the
378 For example: “How clearly did the sermon help you understand the meaning of the text in relation to the larger storyline of the Bible”; “If your neighbour or co- worker or family member with little or no previous church background had been with you today, how well would they have understood the message?” 379 The initial interview included nine questions, however, being a semi-structured interview I was able to probe further into questions, add clarifying remarks, and seek to draw out more information if necessary. See Sensing’s description of the semi-structured interview, 107. 117 missional movement. The data collection method included hand written notes and audio recordings. The interviews were later transcribed for analysis.
Step Four: After the initial congregational surveys, I gave the pastors a copy of the handbook.380 After briefly orienting them to the book, I invited them to read and make use of the handbook: interacting with the personal reflection questions and employing the ideas presented in the preparation of their sermons during the study period within the limits of their consciences. The handbook has a copy of the sermon evaluation, giving the preachers a guide as to what the follow up survey would be asking their congregations.
Step Five: After introducing the handbook, I hosted two group discussion sessions, making use of the group discussion questions in the handbook. The data collected included handwritten notes and audio recordings. The purpose of the group meetings was, first, that as the writer of the material I could hear how preachers from differing denominational backgrounds interacted with the material. Second, the discussion enabled me as the writer to clarify misunderstandings of the material and to add illustrations and caveats that would help the participants to better grasp the material as they worked with the book in their preaching during the study period. Both of these elements helped me modify the handbook to make the material more clear (the changes are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 below).
Step Six: A follow-up congregational sermon evaluation survey was deployed.
This included another bulletin handout with a new online link. This evaluation included
380 The handbook, Preaching and The Mission of God: Faithful Witness After Christendom, was printed and bound by The Art Book Bindery in June of 2016 following discussion about the content with my supervisor. 118 a seventeenth question: “As you consider the sermons delivered previous to this study period (June, 2016), would you consider today’s sermon to be ‘different’ in any significant ways?” The respondents could mark “Yes” or “No” and then were invited to comment: “If so, in what ways?” The purpose of this survey was intended to determine if there were any significant changes in how the congregation perceived the sermon to accomplish the goals the handbook was seeking to encourage in the preachers.381
Step Seven: I asked the preachers to email me the two sermon manuscripts from the weeks that the congregation were evaluating the messages. Having the pre- and post- intervention sermon notes served as a source of data that could answer why the congregational survey respondents may have reported the way they did on certain topics.
This data set also enabled me as the researcher to analyze the extent to which the preachers appropriated the materials of the handbook and to see the type of shifts that may have occurred in his or her sermon preparation.
Step Eight: Following the four-week use of the manual, I conducted a follow-up semi-structured interview with each preacher (Appendix 4). The questions focused on change-related questions. This interview provided data about the preachers’ experience with the handbook, group meetings and the project as a whole. Here the participants could name specific areas of learning, questions that remained for them about the book or process, and offer feedback to me on the handbook and process. This data set also enabled me to analyze any implicit changes in the language and themes of the preachers.
381 Some of these including: how accessible they thought the message would have been to their un-churched neighbours, to what extent the message helped them understand the text in light of the larger storyline of the Bible, how well the sermon equipped the church for participation in God’s mission in the “other-six-day” spaces of life. 119
Step Nine: Following this data collection period I transcribed the interviews and group meetings from the audio recordings so that I could code the data. The online survey data was intended to serve as a primary source for addressing my primary research lens; namely, the perception of the congregation regarding sermons prepared with a missional hermeneutic. The actual number of responses, however, was much lower than desired. I had hoped to receive at least ten responses per congregation, and ideally more than this in order to select a mix of ages and equal proportion of male and female respondents. The pre and post intervention responses for each church are, respectively:
Crossway Community Church – ten and six; Trinity Church – three and three; and Faith
Assembly – three and one. The potential reasons for the low number of responses are discussed in the section below “Shift in Study Focus”.
As a result of not receiving the amount of data I required, and given the fact that very few of the responses included thoughtful comments, I decided to re-examine the data and ask in what ways I might refocus my research lens. After reading and re-reading the interviews, group meetings, and sermon notes I realized the great potential of this particular set of data was to examine more closely the educational elements of my research question: a focus that has the potential to contribute more significantly to extending the practice of preaching with a missional hermeneutic than focusing primarily on congregational responses. The original study was aimed at investigating both: 1) the preacher’s experience with the handbook and group meetings, and 2) the responses from the congregations regarding their perception of the sermons. The resulting research lens, then, shifted focus to emphasize the first – the preachers’ experience.
120
I then began to read the data with this new emphasis on the preacher’s experience and the primary question was simply: “What is this about?”382 This initial work was primarily a “literal reading,” which Sensing, borrowing from the work of Moschella, describes as highlighting key words, phrases, and language as well as noting interruptions and gestures.383
Next, I re-read all the data and started to make note of the primary themes that were emerging. I noted the distinct issues that arose as themes for each interviewee, and where there was overlap in themes. Next, I made a list of each of the themes, including some quotes from the data, and tagged the data with numbers and letters. The reading at included more interpretive notes and reflexive, personal impressions of the data.384 At this point my research assistant (Kathryn Fields) read through all the data, and coded it for themes and categories. Together we assessed the legitimacy of my categories and themes, and refined some of the groupings until they most adequately reflected the data.385 These are presented in Chapter Four below.
After the data had all been placed into these categories, themes and sub-themes, the study supervisor (Stephen Holmes) read through the data and scrutinized my data schema. He noted that the categorization and themes adequately represented the data and would be sufficient to provide a robust analysis for the purpose of my project.
382 I basically followed the coding procedure offered by Tesch as listed in Sensing, 204. 383 Sensing, 196. 384 Interpretive and reflexive readings are defined by Sensing in this way: Interpretive reading, “allows you to select and organize the document according to ‘implied or inferred meanings.” A reflexive reading “brings to bear your personal feelings and understanding of the data….It will help you locate your role as researcher in the generation and interpretation of the data.” Sensing, 196-7. 385 Sensing describes the value of having a peer researcher check the data to help the researcher avoid imposing his or her biases on the interpretive frame. Sensing, 197. 121
As I tagged the data, two sub-section questions emerged. First, what are the issues or challenges raised for someone beginning to explore missional hermeneutics and preaching? This question examines the educational process for the preachers and the factors that impacted how the material was received and implemented into practice (i.e. assessing the starting place of each participant; confidence in the material). Second, what was the impact of the study (i.e. handbook, group meetings and preparing and delivering sermons) on the participants’ views or practices? This second question included both: 1) the views or practices that were explicitly reported to have changed as a result of the intervention and 2) the more implicit indicators of participants’ changes in views of practices, or indicators that the preacher is gaining a greater ability/desire to work with a missional hermeneutic as presented in the handbook.
Step Ten: I conducted a follow-up interview in October of 2016 since I was further focusing the research question on the preachers’ experience, and needed to account for the low number of congregational survey responses (Appendix 5). This interview had two parts. The first focused on giving the preachers an opportunity to report some reasons for the low number of responses. In particular, I was interested in more closely analyzing the learning culture of each community as one potential factor contributing to low rates of feedback (discussed in the next section below). This yielded a fruitful, diverse conversation with each of the participants, described in more detail below (Chapter Four). The second part of the interview focused on asking specific questions that would deepen my analysis of each preacher’s learning experience, for example: “Are you continuing to seek to preach from a missional perspective/with a missional hermeneutic? What led to your decision?”
122
Step Eleven: The final step in the study design was to confirm the findings of the study with the participating preachers to determine if the participants consider the interpretations to be plausible, and to provide an opportunity for the participants to offer any additional interpretation that I may have missed; a process called ‘reflective confirmation’ or ‘member checking.’386 This process of member checking also functions for the purpose of giving the participants the ability to provide consent for what data would be included in the final thesis, as noted in the research ethics board application
(see the Ethical Considerations section above).
Shift in Study Focus
The ten steps listed above narrated the flow of the study design, including the change in study focus, and gave reasons for each methodological decision. The following section will describe some of the potential reasons for the low amount of survey data and how the study changed emphasis following the data collection period.
This includes my own reflection on the process and the ideas given by the preachers.
There are a number of possible reasons for the low amount of survey data. First, there were a few issues with the FluidSurveys technology. On the day the initial survey was deployed, some respondents were able to access and fill out the survey without any problems. However, I also received three inquires from people who reported that they could not access the survey. I checked the program and tried to access the survey from my devices (Macbook Air, iPhone) and had no problems. I suggested that the respondents use a different web browser (i.e. try Google Chrome instead of Firefox or
386 Sensing, 221. 123
Yahoo), and this seemed to mitigate the issue. A further question is, then: how many people tried to access the survey but upon discovering that the link did not work for them did not take the next step to contact me as the researcher? This could potentially account for a lower respondent rate.
Second, I had one respondent contact me following the post-intervention survey and report confusion regarding the survey as the follow-up survey was still titled “Initial
Sermon Survey”. This was an error on my part as the researcher. It is possible that other respondents experienced the same confusion but did not contact me.
Third, as a methodology for gaining congregational responses to a survey, asking everyone in the congregation likely added to the low reportage. One writer speaks of the
“diffusion of responsibility” to explain the phenomenon that when a large group is assigned a task there is a strong tendency to assume someone else will take responsibility for it, and therefore, it becomes easy to justify non-participation.387 My initial proposal included assigning responsibility to individuals within congregations, but, as mentioned above, this process would complicate the ethical issues with maintaining confidentiality.
Participants’ Reasoning for Low Response Rate
In the follow up interview preachers provided a number of insightful answers.
One of the first reasons for low response rate was due to nice weather in the spring.
Mark answered: “As the weather got better and better, they decided they would take advantage of the nice day.” The days that the surveys were deployed were beautiful,
387 Alex Lickerman, “The Diffusion of Responsibility: Why Assigning Responsibility to Groups Doesn’t Work”, Psychology Today, June 14, 2010.
Mark also offered the notion that congregants may not have wanted to give feedback if their honest answer would be discouraging. He stated: “Or it could have been a pretty poor sermon and people are thinking, “I don’t want to say anything about it...I just want to bow out on this one.” When I asked if evaluation was part of their church culture, his answer was: “Probably not.” He went on to speak in general terms, but is clearly including his community in his comments: “Churches seem to have the opinion that anything that ‘questions’ is not Christian. Often…we don’t like evaluation, it might hurt feelings; it might create animosity.” This likely contributed to the low reporting numbers and is also a significant insight relating to the culture of his community.
Similarly, Chris noted that at Faith Assembly sermon evaluation “is not something they’ve done before.”
Missional church literature speaks of missional churches as those that create a culture that is ripe for experimentation, evaluation, learning, as well as trial and error.388
Both Mark and Chris reported that each of their congregations, to some extent, did not have a strong culture of evaluation. The follow up interview included the following description (Question 4), asking the preachers for their impressions:
Missional models imply that the church must always be learning, always struggling, that we don’t always know how to do church, and so there’s deep openness to learning, growing, experimentation, and measured risk taking. The idea that we have this “sorted” is a Christendom assumption. Living in a post- Christendom setting – where our neighbours often don’t know the Christian story,
388 See Roxburgh and Boren, loc 266 of 3011. “Through trial and error we image new ways of being Jesus’ people.” 125
and thus we are in a legitimately missionary setting – some people in churches feel profoundly threatened, disoriented and confused in trying to live Christian lives in this post-Christendom setting. They want the church to be the harbour in the choppy seas. The idea that the pastor, the ‘expert’, needs to learn, is seeking to grow, and perhaps even “doesn’t know” something, can seem threatening. Being asked to give feedback may feel like there is something ‘wrong’ or that needs to be changed.389
Do you think some people view giving feedback as meaning that there is something ‘wrong’ or that needs to be changed?
In response, Chris described how it is not typical for churches to give safe space for people to dialogue about the sermon, and went on to make the point:
…I think that mindset where a pastor or teacher is always knowledgeable in the things they are talking about is a mindset that needs to be dismantled a little bit…And in my present situation, that is not a culture or mindset that is part of our culture at [Faith Assembly] at this point. Yes, they might have been threatened by this opportunity to give feedback. They wouldn’t have seen it as an opportunity or privilege they would have seen it as something they would have shied away from.
In a similar sense, Mark wondered:
For us to question that [the comfortable tracks we’ve run on], I think that can be unsettling for some church attendees and members…[I]f that is the case, then asking the questions that were asked of them [to evaluate the sermons in light of a new approach]…could possibly cause them to say, “I don’t want to participate in anything that would change what I’m used to.”
For both Mark and Chris, then, they reported that their respective churches lacked a culture that included regular evaluation and this may have been a factor contributing to a lower response rate.
Chris also mentioned that if I, as the researcher, had personally come to introduce myself and explain the research, there might have been more participation. The final point Chris raised was:
389 This line of questioning was suggested to me in a personal conversation with John McNally in September 2016. 126
I think even the phrase “missional hermeneutic” is not a layman’s phrase. So to say to the congregation “here’s a book that I’ll be using over the next four weeks that has to do with applying a missional hermeneutic in my preparation over these weeks”, that would have been enough to turn them off because they wouldn’t understand what a missional hermeneutic is, and even to explain it to them, I don’t know if that would have confused them more.
The bulletin handout that I produced for the congregation included a brief, simple explanation of the phrase “missional hermeneutic,”390 yet Chris’ point about technical language could have been a factor in low participation. If the study were directed to an issue that seemed more immediately relevant, perhaps there would have been greater participation. The communication to the congregations, at least for Faith Assembly, could have been a factor contributing to low response rates.
The answers Grace gave about the low respondent participation were quite different. First, Grace reported that the congregation is consistently asked for feedback from the denomination, and there are structures in place for the congregants to evaluate the leadership, the preaching, and the other elements of church life at regular intervals.
She reported that the congregation may have been experiencing a form of fatigue, since they had filled out the annual pastoral review only a few weeks previously.
Second, Grace thought that the idea of evaluating a sermon right after it was preached is somewhat awkward for many people. She believed that many people in her congregation reflect on a sermon primarily as they find themselves in a situation where the message becomes pertinent in the moment. “The reflection piece: I think that’s the part we’re missing. It’s people not being able to make the connection between what
390 Under the heading: What is the Study About? I included the following explanation: “The purpose of this study is to examine how preaching that draws on a missional hermeneutic (meaning, an interpretation that approaches the Bible as a single story of God’s mission) might help shape and support congregations to embrace a life of faithful witness to Jesus in and for the world.” 127 we’ve heard and how that impacts what they’re doing until it happens.” Grace also thought that for many people they feel like they do not have anything significant to offer in a process like this. Even though they might value the study itself, some people will back away from participating, thinking their answers would not be valuable to the study.
Third, Grace reported that if the survey had been a paper survey right after the message, there would have been dozens of responses. She reported that the technology element was beyond the comfort level of some of the congregants, and the time gap between leaving the church service and then filling out a survey likely made a difference in the number who remembered to do the survey.
Fourth, in response to Question 4 (the statement about the missional church recorded above), she did not believe the congregation would feel intimidated by providing feedback, and therefore, this was not a factor regarding the lack of survey response.
It would not be possible to know with a high level of confidence all the reasons for the low number of survey responses. Most likely a combination of reasons mentioned above account for the low response rates. These include a psychology of diffusion of responsibility, nice weather, technological issues, communication gaps, and, in the case of two churches, a culture not familiar with evaluating sermons.
In the course of reflecting on this changed focus, however, I realized a possible advantage resulting from the failed attempt to gather sufficient survey data. The knowledge that the congregation was evaluating the sermons may have led the participants to place greater emphasis on engaging the material in the book than would otherwise have been the case.
128
Conclusion
The emphasis of the study shifted from the congregational survey responses to focus on the experience of the participating preachers. The study design collected a data set that provided significant insights into the nature of the educational experience of preachers who are examining a missional hermeneutic and a missional framework for their preaching. The pre- and post-interview data, along with the group meeting notes and the sermon texts, were analyzed through an educational lens that will next be presented (Chapter Four). This provided a source of information to help extend the conversation about missional hermeneutics and the implications of this approach for the ministry of preaching (Chapter Five).
129
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Introduction
This study investigated the factors that are involved for preachers as they assess and implement a missional hermeneutic in their preaching ministry and evaluated the impacts and changes that preachers experienced from the use of the handbook. The results of these findings could inform educators – including pastors who oversee a preaching team as well as seminary instructors – when training pastors in a missional approach to preaching. The results are separated into two sections:
Part One. Educational factors that impacted how preachers interacted with the handbook: As preachers interacted with the material addressing missional preaching, what were the major issues or challenges they raised to understanding and integrating the material into practice?
Part Two. Impacts of the study: What were the impacts of the study on the participants’ views or practices? These include the changes or impacts that were explicitly reported as well as implicit indicators of change.
It is important to note that the handbook was presented to the participants as a work in progress, and I, as the researcher, was seeking to learn from the participants what elements of the book were understandable, which parts were unclear, and what I could learn from the data collected through the interviews and group meetings that would enable me to sharpen the handbook-project as a result.
The relationship between me, and the participants, was set up as a mutual learning experience, where I was supplying the information and leading the discussions on the topic, but I was seeking to learn from the study participants in at least three ways. First, I was learning about the usefulness of the handbook and discussions for their intended
130 purpose through feedback given about the book. Second, I was testing the ideas of the handbook against the lived experience of ministry practitioners as they interacted with the book within their preaching ministry and reported their experiences. Third, I was learning about the educational process and factors involved for those engaged in adopting and employing a missional hermeneutic in their preaching ministry. In this sense, I was learning how to teach the information while engaged in teaching it. The following research findings, then, are a description of this interplay between myself as the researcher being both instructor and learner and the participants as learners and my instructors as well.391
Part One – Educational Factors
In this section we will explore the educational issues and challenges raised for preachers who are beginning to explore, or deepening their understanding, of missional hermeneutics and the implications of this approach for preaching. In analyzing the data, six primary themes emerged and are presented in Table 1. Each will be described in detail below.
391 An analogy for this learning environment could be described as similar to a graduate student who is employed by a university as a sessional instructor in the area of land-use planning. The instructor is engaged with adult students who are peers in many respects, but who may not have advanced training in the particular area she is now teaching. Some of these peers – perhaps having worked as technicians in the field – may actually have more field experience than she does, and so she must hold seriously the comments and considerations raised by those taking the course and discern how to integrate these real life experiences into her own set of theory. Therefore, in terms of the content, she is both instructor and, to some extent, a learner at the same time. And though she is the instructor for this set of information, she is also learning how to teach others the material, even as she teaches and refines her own views. This analogy in many ways describes the type of learning environment that I was seeking to establish in the study period. I owe the premise of this analogy to Steven Holmes from a supervisory meeting in November 2016. 131
TABLE 1. Educational factors that impacted how preachers interacted with the handbook material
Themes Sub-Themes
A. Starting place of the • Understanding of the missional church movement preacher • Denominational background
• Understanding of the missional church movement B. Understanding of the and current practice missional movement in the • Church’s expectations of the preacher/pastor preacher’s church community • Process of working toward missional identity and practice
• Trustworthiness of the ideas C. Level of confidence in the View of Scripture presented in the book material • • Questions about human/divine agency
View of Scripture D. Clarity of the material • • The Bible as a story
E. Preacher’s level of • Time constraints engagement with the material • Commitment to learn
• Personal expectations F. View of the role of the Vulnerability preacher/pastor • • Challenge of incarnating the message
A. Starting Place
The first educational factor that was identified in the data was the starting place of each participant, including both their current understanding of the missional church movement and their denominational background. Since the three preachers in the study came from diverse backgrounds educationally, denominationally, and with their unique personalities and learning styles, each interacted with the material from their own starting
132 place. The pre-understanding that each participant brought to this study played a significant role in the experience of each participant and his or her ability or willingness to assimilate the information presented in the handbook and group discussions.392
The participants each came to the study with varying degrees of familiarity with the missional movement that effected how they interacted with the handbook. Chris expressed the least amount of confidence in his answer:
If I were to guess at what it is…it is a church that is aware and practical in its approach to reaching the lost. And that message weighs heavy on their hearts and they do something about it. Biblically, they take the command of Matthew 28 very seriously…very intentional in reaching into the community with the gospel, and reaching unbelievers. That’s my guestimate.
Chris is reflecting what VanGelder and Zscheile call the “Discovering” branch of the missional conversation, which generally uses the popularity of missional language to promote a traditional understanding of “mission” and “church” in a dichotomized sense.
The Great Commission is often cited as a key text to promote “missions”, and
“missional”, therefore, means obedience to the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20). The
“Discovering” branch would also tend to view the church as sent to carry out God’s mission, with the primary agency of mission being the church itself. 393 When asked if
Faith Assembly identifies as a missional church, Chris said: “The bulk of the people would like the idea of being a missional church, but a good number of them wouldn’t know how to do it.”
392 The terms assimilation and accommodation are borrow from Jean Piaget’s theory of the four stages of cognitive development. Though this theory has been challenged as a theory of child development, the theory has proved useful in describing adult learning patterns. See, for example, David C.M. Taylor and Hossam Hamdy, “Adults Learning Theories: Implications for Learning and Teaching in Medical Education: AMEE Guide No.83. Medical Teacher, 2013; 35:e.1561-e1572. 393 VanGelder and Zscheile, 70-71. 133
Mark expressed his view that “the missional church” language seemed to be very broad in the way it is used. He reported:
What I understand is that the mission of the church is beyond Sunday morning – that that doesn’t fulfill what we’re supposed to do. Instead of making the church to be the ‘net’ – bringing people to this place as though this is where God is found. But God is found on the soccer field, the school. The church is the means where the Body comes together for encouragement, love, communion, and then is sent out. Is that a proper definition?
When asked if Crossway Community Church was a missional church, Mark replied:
I would say. It is always the responsibility of the leaders to see that we continue to strive for. The default is just to go back to our four walls. It’s less challenging – so it’s always a push to move toward outward expression of faith in various aspects of the community….But the default is always to come back. So we need to keep pushing the other way. The pull is to be self-focused.
Mark’s starting place in regard to missional language would likewise be in the
“Discovering” branch, with the church as the primary agent of mission (“…the mission of the church is beyond Sunday morning”), and obedience to the Great Commission as the primary meaning of “missional”. Mark provided the example of one of the other pastoral staff as having a particularly “missional” focus in his ministry as he is deeply involved in the community: teaching soccer, and involved with the local schools. At times this associate pastor’s engagement with the community leads him to be involved in the community (i.e. coaching a soccer game) instead of gathering for worship on a Sunday morning. Mark recognizes the missional impulses present in his co-worker, but he reported how this can create some tension in the church community as some congregants might wonder: “Aren’t we paying him to be here on Sunday? Why is he at the soccer field?” Mark noted the tension between some of the ideals of the missional movement
(engagement with the community/neighbourhood) and the expectations of the congregation about the role of the pastor/preacher.
134
Grace, who had graduated from a seminary that emphasized mission, and who works from within a denomination committed to engaging with the missional conversation, had an understanding of the missional movement more closely aligned with the original publication of Missional Church, by Guder et al. She answered thus:
The way I would define a missional church is one that sees all of what it does as being part of God’s mission, and so that would mean that when you worship, your sense of what you’re doing is serving God. When you go home and make lunch for your family, or go to work, or engage with anything, you are aware that it is part of God’s work in the world. And you carry that sense of identity as a person of God into all that you do, and so that would bear out in committees, and various activities, in everything, in the life of the church.
Grace understands the missional church to be a community that is “part of God’s mission”, meaning, God is the primary agent of mission. The members of a missional church, in her understanding, are aware that each area of their lives is “part of God’s work in the world.” Grace also speaks of a sense of identity “as a person of God” that is born out in all areas of life. In VanGelder and Zscheile’s schema, Grace’s understanding of the missional church movement resonates with the “Utilizing” and “Engaging” branches, which emphasize the agency of God (i.e. the mission is God’s), seeing the church as a contrast community, as well as developing congregational practices and church systems that help form a missional identity within the people of God.394
When asked if Trinity Church is a missional church, Grace responded: “I think our church is getting there. I think there are things we do that have that kind of leaning, and yet I think that people are not making that connection fully.” Grace reported that to be a missional church requires the congregation to make the connection between the ideas and ideals of the missional movement, and actually engendering and practicing
394 VanGelder and Zscheile, 70. 135 these ideals. Herein lies her view that being missional means more than simply engaging in “missions” (as dichotomized from the regular functioning of the church), obedience to the Great Commission or simply being evangelistic (though not less than those).
The denominational affiliation of the respondents, and theological emphases that each denominational perspective carries, was another element of the starting place that influenced the participants’ experience. For example, when asked in the follow-up interview, “To what extent were the group meetings or book influential in your decision to continue learning in this area?” Grace responded: “I was surprised that the others in the group were not familiar with this material. Maybe it’s a denominational thing.” Grace went on to speak of how, in her denomination, the missional conversation has been ongoing for a long time. Both from her seminary training and the continued conversation within her denomination, Grace was bringing a different set of educational experiences and commitments to the co-participants, who did not speak of any direct educational or denominational experience with the missional conversation. Certainly, some denominations have fully embraced a missional frame in their training of ministers in seminary and ongoing denominational approaches.
At several points in the interviews and group meetings Grace also spoke of her own denominational theology, in many cases as an example of a distinct perspective, or in disagreement with the perspective of the book (or at least with how I was presenting the material). When asked what was most challenging in the book or study process she reported that it was trying to discern if she disagreed with how I had written about a certain topic or if she was disagreeing with the theology. In particular, the issue of what
“grace” means featured as a strong theme in several of our conversations. In the second
136 group discussion, she focused in on Chapter 11 of the book – a section where I offered additional notes on sermon preparation, including preaching grace, and preaching for whole life transformation – she responded by saying:
You can’t say “preach grace”, and then say “do this”. That’s a contradiction – unless we have a different view of what grace is. The understanding I have of grace, is, simply put: a freely given gift….The “participating” sounds like, “God is over here doing his thing, but we have to do this!”
…Potentially then, this might come down to a difference in our understanding of baptism. There is an understanding that God has already done all of this for us in baptism from the get go. That’s probably important.
In response, I reiterated that I always mean that our participation to mean “God in and through us” and stated that I would not want to be mistaken on that point. I then suggested that if she believed I meant human action was primary that I maybe needed to be clearer on that point. Denominational theological emphasis, or the way theological language is used, was a contributing factor to the learning experience of the respondents.
As discussed in more detail below (Clarity of the Material), both Mark and Grace expressed their disagreement regarding the approach to the Bible I was describing in Part
One of the handbook, though for different reasons. Creating an environment that was open to disagreement and critique provided opportunity to discuss important issues together, gain a greater understanding of those from different backgrounds, and for me as the writer, a chance to clarify my points in person and later in the handbook itself. This ability to disagree and “push back” on the ideas was a significant element of the educational process for all of the learners, including the researcher.
The starting place of each participant regarding their view of the missional church and their denominational background was a key factor that influenced many of the other educational factors in Table 1, including the confidence in the material, the concerns
137 about the content of the handbook, and the view of the role of the pastor/preacher. The preachers’ starting place also influenced the level of change and areas of impact that participants described resulting from the intervention (Table 2). Perhaps quite obviously, but demonstrated again by this study, the starting place of participants will be important for educators to consider when introducing students to missional approaches to preaching. Acknowledging how preaching students or mentees understand the missional church movement, biblical hermeneutics, and understanding the denominational background of the student, will influence the degree of tension they experience when he or she is exploring a missional approach to preaching.
B. The Place of Missional Thought in the Preacher’s Church
The second educational factor raised in the data is the place of missional thought within each participant’s church. Preaching that is “missional”, in the sense of appropriating a missional hermeneutic for reading the Scriptures and seeking to engender a missional identity within a congregation, will likely only find a home in a congregation that is adopting perspectives and practices in “off stage” leadership as well. In this sense, the place of missional thinking in the preacher’s church is a significant factor for preachers who are seeking to engage a missional mode of preaching. This includes the church community’s understanding of the missional church movement, the church’s expectations of the preacher/pastor, and the processes required in working toward a missional identity and practice.
As discussed in Chapter Three above, I described the role of reflection, evaluation, and a willingness to embrace a trial-and-error approach to ministry as part of
138 the posture of missional churches, and asked participants to what extent this missional posture was true within their own congregations. Both Mark and Chris reported that at this point their respective churches did not display this particular missional posture, but each reported at least some desire to see this kind of culture grow. Mark stated:
To an extent, of course….On one level we welcome it [a culture of constant evaluation], probably on another level it’s hurtful but necessary. But if you had to do an evaluation, it’s probably true that instead of people feeling like they can contribute with open minds to be able to evaluate something, probably no.
Here Mark mentions that, theoretically, it would be positive for the broader church community to have more input and ownership, feeling more heard and empowered, but that the leadership may not know how to function in this way. Mark then discussed the expectations of the congregation on the leadership in his community, and the tension between creating a culture where the community is able to contribute and ‘buy in’ more deeply to a missional approach to ministry, and the reality that it is the leadership who are expected to make decisions:
We often evaluate leadership as, you know, strong, “and this is the direction we are going to go” and people want that. But on the other hand, what doesn’t come across is, “we need your ideas. And your mind is a sanctified mind as mine is. And we need to work this through together.”
The culture in Mark’s community expects, to some extent, “strong” leadership, not top- down from one person, but from the leadership team. In this case, preaching with missional intent may be a part of planting seeds of that would lead to changes in how the congregation views themselves, but that would also require a willingness on the part of the leadership to consider what a missional approach to leadership and church structure might entail, including a posture of mutual learning and growth among the whole people of God.
139
Certainly preaching is a key element in cultivating a theological vision for the church that is preparing the ‘seed’ of a missional approach to grow in a church (to borrow an analogy from the Preacher), but perhaps in many ways it is the off stage leadership, along with the ability of the preacher to communicate as a missional act, that will determine the sort of ‘ground’ the seed falls into. And like all seeds, there is a germination period. Forming a missional identity in a preacher and congregation will take time to gestate and grow, and will require tending and care in the form of intentional learning, experimentation, and openness to the leading of the Spirit.
In the follow-up interview, Grace commented that one of her committee members said, unsolicited, that the period before Grace came to the church as the pastor: “We learned the talk, but you showed us how to walk the talk.” Certainly Grace was delighted to hear that people in her church were connecting the dots between missional church language and actual practice and engagement. Grace then responded that at a denominational meeting, just the previous day, the presenters were discussing how the missional conversation has been going on for forty years now. She mentioned her surprise: “I thought it was ten or fifteen years – not forty.”
Reflecting on this conversation reminded me to consider again the time element in the study portion of the project. Both the length of time that the church has been engaging in a missional conversation as a whole (at least 40 years), and the length of time
Grace’s congregation had been intentionally ‘talking about’ what it means to be a missional church before seeing what it would mean to ‘walk it out’, reminded me that any community will need to intentionally engage with a missional perspective over a period of time before the ground is right for the seed of missional engagement to germinate and
140 begin to bear fruit. For participants to adopt a missional approach to preaching would require not only time but also ongoing, intentional engagement with ministry peers and mentors as well as the best missional literature.
Further, my project is not simply dealing with missional church ideas, models or theories – which could either be adopted or rejected with (at least what would appear to be) little consequence. Instead, the handbook project asks preachers to reconsider how they view the Bible, and offers a new set of questions for preachers to ask the text and ask themselves as preachers. Further, it challenges how preachers understand what preaching is, what preaching is intended to accomplish, and even challenges preachers to reconsider what the content of faithful Christian preaching includes. Since a high view of the Bible is shared by each of the participants in the study (though differing in their views of the Bible), to address the assumptions of the participants about the Bible is bound to raise appropriate questions and concerns.
Inviting preachers to consider a missional hermeneutic in their preaching will require building trust with participants. Building trust through a written document will mean clearly demonstrating that I am not advancing a missional reading of the Bible for the sake of novelty, but rather seeking to elucidate a robust and faithful approach to reading the Bible: one that requires appropriating God’s revelation through the Scriptures in the lived experience of local churches. The need to build trust leads into the next major educational factors: the participant’s level of confidence in the material, the clarity of the material and the level of engagement.
141
C. Confidence in the Material
The third educational factor was the level of confidence each participant had in the material. When the handbook was offered to each participant following the initial interview, I explained that this version of the book was in draft form with one of the goals for the research project to sharpen and correct the handbook based on the study results.
This created a learning environment where the participants were invited to give honest feedback and critique of their experience with the handbook. During the first group discussion, some of the areas that participants had concerns and questions about included the trustworthiness of ideas, particularly the view of Scripture presented and the nature of human and divine agency. These pointed to a need for more clarity in the handbook material – the fourth educational factor discussed below. The changes to the handbook that resulted from this discussion will be further described in Chapter Five.
In regards to the perspective on the Bible outlined in Part One of the handbook, which introduces a missional theology of the Bible and a missional hermeneutic, Mark reported that he found himself looking for a personal statement of what I, the author, believed “the Word of God means.” He reported asking himself: “What does Dave hold to?” Next, he reported his concern regarding the analogy of the Five Act Play described in Chapter Three: “Is Dave saying that the ‘next chapter to be written out’ [Act V in
Wright’s scheme] is as important or authoritative as the Scriptures?” Mark further commented that Part One left him unsure of the direction of this book and asking himself:
“Am I on the same page as the author?”
The educational issues of confidence in the material and the clarity of the material functioned as initial barriers to Mark’s understanding of the issues and to his being
142 persuaded by the arguments of the book. As I reflected on this interaction, it seemed that the issue for Mark was likely whether I viewed the Bible to be inerrant or not. Mark’s denominational affiliation, and Crossway Community Church, both have clear statements that the Bible, in the original manuscripts “were inerrant.” For Mark, and likely those who share a similar starting place, there is potential that a document dealing with a theology of the Bible that does not have a clear, affirmative statement about inerrancy could be viewed with suspicion, and perhaps, lower his confidence regarding the arguments in Part One of the handbook and perhaps even the rest of the handbook.
As a result of Mark’s concerns, I wrestled with whether I should include some comment on inerrancy in the later draft of the handbook. After a lengthy discussion with my supervisor, however, I decided to leave any comment on the topic out entirely.
Raising the issue in the book would likely distract, or possibly distance, some readers at this point. I did, however, consider ways to nuance this introductory statement in
Chapter Three of the handbook, as I realized it could sound rather blunt to those who are starting from a similar place as Mark (these changes are discussed further below).
Next, however, Mark said that Part Two of the handbook raised his confidence in the direction the book was going. Mark commented:
Part Two helped me grow. That all of the Bible is a story – that was a good reminder.
By the time Mark read the second part of the book, he seemed able to affirm at least one of the primary arguments at the end of Part One – that the Bible is given to humanity primarily in the form of a story.
Chris seemed to show a greater sense of confidence in the material and less concern with the primary arguments of the book. He reported that being reminded that
143 the Bible was in the form of a story – a narrative – was helpful. He also went on to also say:
Describing the Bible as ‘incarnational’ in nature was helpful. It’s both fully God’s word and totally a work of humans writing in response to God’s leading.
Chris also discussed that the example of Luke’s Gospel as a work of research (see Luke
1:1-4) made the point convincingly that the Bible is not mechanically inspired. It should be noted that Chris reported the highest level of engagement with the material of all the participants (a factor discussed later in this section). Chris reported using the personal questions at the end of each chapter as something like a journaling project for himself:
“So it was almost like me journaling. And if you were to go read them there are some very honest admissions in there.” Chris’ confidence in the material was also demonstrated in that he would use this handbook to help mentor new preachers:
One of the ways I could see the book being beneficial in a pastor’s case, if he’s looking at who’s in the congregation and [there is] someone he wants to develop as a lay preacher – given the simple suggestions at the back about how to prepare a sermon….But I could see going through the handbook with him.
Though this may not fully account for his overall positive response to the material, perhaps Chris’ confidence in the material was part of the reason for his high level of engagement.
The second question in the group discussion again raised the question of confidence in the material, asking:
In your view, what is at stake if we say that the Bible is “not a compendium of factually inerrant propositions about everything in heaven and on earth” but comes to us primarily as a story – a narrative? How might that alter how we read, hear and communicate the message of the Bible?
Grace answered by saying first, that she has never held to the idea that the Bible was a “compendium of factually inerrant propositions,” and wondered where that
144 language even comes from. She went on to say: “The word ‘story’ seems to decrease the power of the ‘truth’ element. It seems to minimize the capital “T” truth of the
Scriptures.” The “story” language raised an issue for Grace that lowered her confidence in the material at this point, or perhaps pointed to a misunderstanding of the material.
Next, Mark added that he does hold the view that the Bible is a “compendium of factually inerrant propositions about everything in heaven and earth”. For him the answer to the question “what is at stake?” is that if we do not hold the Bible to be making propositions about reality, we can pick and choose what we believe. “Some propositions are needed,” he said. Mark’s concern raised the educational issue of the clarity of the arguments I was making. At this point, I did not think that it was only a matter of disagreement with the main argument (though there was likely some level of disagreement too), but that I needed to add some clarification. This exchange highlighted the clarity of the material as an obvious, but significant educational issue that needed to be addressed.
D. Clarity of the Material
The fourth educational factor was the clarity of the material. During the first group discussion, I realized that I needed to clarify how the book presents the notion of
“story” as meaning the true story and “God’s unfolding plan”. As a result of this conversation, I added the following paragraph to the handbook:
Before going further, I realize that calling the Bible a “story” may sound, to some ears, to belittle the Bible, perhaps even imply that it is not truthful, but just a story. That is certainly not what I am arguing here! To speak of the Bible as a narrative is not to suggest it is fictional, or less truthful, but rather, the language of “narrative” is helpful in stressing that each part of the Bible is connected to God’s redemptive work.
145
There were important issues that I clarified during the group discussion. I later used these to clarify the handbook material. For example, I verbally provided the illustration from Alister MacIntyre’s book After Virtue,395 and then argued that apart from the larger story of what God is accomplishing in Creation, Redemption, and the already- but-not-yet of New Creation, the Bible can be easily cherry-picked for proof-texts and used to build theologies that are not in keeping with the larger purposes of God. I then described that, without keeping the larger story of God’s redemptive work in the foreground, the Christian story could be subsumed into other, competing narratives.396
As I explained this, I sensed a growing level of understanding about the main point of speaking of the Bible as a story, and we moved on to the next, related question.
In relation to Wright’s analogy of Scripture as a Five-Act play, with the church called to
“improvise” the next portion of God’s drama with “consistency and innovation”, Mark asked: “Is the next “Act” [our part of Act 5] authoritative in the way the Bible is? No.”
But then went on to say: “Yes [Wright’s analogy is helpful] because we are called to fulfill our mandate as a church in history.” This interaction indicated that Mark was
“moving toward” the perspective the handbook was advancing, or was at least showing signs of gaining confidence in the material while critically engaging the argument.
In response to Wright’s analogy, Grace made the point that her denominational theological view is a bit different. She said:
‘Completion’ of the story happens at the cross. God is changing us, and so our ‘doing’ flows out from that. We don’t get to the great “ah ha” moment in this life.”
395 MacIntyre, 210-211. See Chapter One above where I first cited MacIntyre and argued the significance of the narrative shape of Scripture. 396 Goheen, Urgency, 4-5. 146
It seemed like Grace viewed Wright’s analogy to be missing the centrality of the cross of
Christ, or saw the analogy to be emphasizing a ‘doing’ on behalf of the church that did not fit with her theological perspective.
As I went back over Chapter Three in the handbook, I noticed that I did not explain each Act of the story, or make mention at this point that the “climax” of this redemptive story is the death and resurrection of Jesus. In fairness to her point then, I did not emphasize in my presentation (as Wright certainly does) that the cross is the center point of this story – the part that makes possible the ongoing mission of the church. This led me to update the handbook to offer a brief description of each scene to show the centrality of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus in the story.
In response to this group discussion, I realized I needed to expand and clarify the arguments in Chapter Three to explain more clearly why it is necessary to see the Bible as a narrative. I also realized the need to explain more carefully how a narrative view of the
Bible does not diminish the authority of the Scriptures, but rather demonstrates that authority.397 I decided to divide Chapter Three into two chapters: Chapter Three keeping its name – “The Narrative Shape of Scripture” – and Chapter Four becoming: “How A
Story Can Be Authoritative.” In the first, I primarily argue why it is vital to view
Scripture as a narrative. Then, in Chapter Four, I present Wright’s analogy of Scripture as a Five Act Drama. In this revised chapter I also included two modified versions of
Wright’s proposal, including Kevin Vanhoozer’s Four Act Theo-Drama, and Marva
397 The view I am espousing, where the Bible is viewed as a narrative of universal intent, has been criticised within the discussion of missional hermeneutics for the reason that the Bible could be used as a totalizing narrative. As argued in Chapter One above, I think Richard Bauckham’s rejoinder sufficiently addresses this concern, Bible and Mission, 87-88. 147
Dawn’s Six-Act expansion.398 The purpose of this is not to downplay Wright’s schema, but to demonstrate how the scholarly world has interacted critically with Wright and to enhance the confidence in and credibility of this viewpoint – thus addressing both the issue of confidence in the material as well as ensuring a greater clarity of the material.399
These two scholarly interactions with Wright’s analogy would perhaps demonstrate a greater level of credibility of this approach to a wider audience.
The interactions in the group sessions were a rich source of reflection on the clarity of the material for me as both the author and researcher. The changes I made to the handbook will hopefully serve to bring greater credibility to the arguments and increased clarity for readers.
One of the implications for educators raised by the study is the necessary space for disagreement and critique. The goal for the study was to create a learning environment, both in the reflection and group questions in the handbook and in the group meetings, which would allow participants to engage critically with the material or with other group members. The ecumenical nature of the group also proved to be a potential source of reflection that could be used to reveal the blind spots and assumptions of group members, perhaps challenging these assumptions.
It should be noted that the overall educational goal of the handbook was to articulate a well-reasoned, biblically and theologically sound argument for why adopting a missional hermeneutic in preaching is a faithful approach, perhaps the most faithful,
398 These are both referenced above in Chapter One. Vanhoozer, loc. 2958 of 6364; Dawn, 53. 399 Vanhoozer is well recognized in evangelical circles as he teaches at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and Marva Dawn represents a liturgical expression in the Canadian context, as a Lutheran having taught at Regent College. 148 approach to preaching. It was aimed at orienting readers to some of the basic impulses that lie behind the missional literature regarding hermeneutics and flesh out what that would mean for preachers to adopt this approach. While the handbook, and project as a whole, would aim at presenting a persuasive argument, the goal in the end is not to have readers either express agreement or disagreement. The goal is, rather, that readers thoughtfully engage the material and then evaluate their own preaching ministry, thinking more carefully about what the Bible is and is for; what preaching is and is for; and finally, what it would look like to be faithful to God in preparing and delivering sermons of missional intent.
E. Level of Engagement with the Material
Another educational feature of the data that emerged was the reported level of engagement with the material. Two primary features surfaced from respondents, including time constraints and an expressed interest in growing through the study process, as one respondent said: “a commitment to learn.” All three participants mentioned some element of his or her time commitment to the project. With regards to the personal reflection questions, Mark responded:
Yah, I did that. I didn’t really give it enough time to make this into my own journey. I answered the questions, and scribbled them down, but I can’t say I went deep with that….Probably also time constraint – I’ve got to look like I’ve read it.
In response to a question about the value of the process or manual, Grace reported that this study gave her a chance to reflect on her own preaching ministry:
It was that time to intentionally reflect on my preaching style and preaching process. I try to do that annually. I had done a course last year and so this year I didn’t have anything slated, so your timing was very good for me.
149
Chris also reported on the level of interaction he had with the material, stating:
I like the personal questions because I don’t journal. So I decided at the beginning of the process that in answering these personal questions that they were actually going to be personal. So it was almost like me journaling. And if you were to go read them there are some very honest admissions in there. So I really appreciated that process of answering personal questions….And taking a hard look at preaching and being a preacher.
Out of the three preachers, Chris described the greatest degree of commitment to learning through this study period. He also reported the most change in his own understanding of the preacher, preaching, and how to engage culture with the good news of Jesus (See section 2 below). Perhaps the level of engagement Chris described is due to the fact that he has the least amount of experience in preaching of those in the study group. He was in the position, for the first time in his ministry, of preparing and delivering consecutive sermons and designing sermon series. Perhaps it was because Chris happened to be in a particularly acute season of learning, that he displayed a great commitment to personal growth through the process.
In response to the question “What did you find particularly challenging?” Chris answered with a keen sense of his personal commitment to growth:
One thing I found challenging was…in response to some of the content in the book. It’s really convicting. When you reflect on your preaching, you see a lot of areas for massive improvement. It’s like for me, kind of taking a step backwards and looking thoroughly at your preaching: that’s convicting. And a commitment to getting better is a huge one. And so, if I want to reflect on my preaching and ask those hard questions, and get better, that was a conclusion I came to. If I’m going to improve in my preaching, I have to commit to this. So that was challenging throughout this study. I can’t just continue to preach without a commitment to learn. Not just to learn content, but practices and processes and study habits.
Adopting the posture of a learner is a significant feature of the educational process. Each of the participants demonstrated a learning posture to some extent by agreeing to be a
150 part of the study process. The level of engagement with the material, and the learning posture of the participants with regards to the material in the study, is likely influenced by the previously mentioned educational factors.
For example, Grace reported a high degree of familiarity with the arguments and premises of the handbook. She reported regarding the material in the handbook: “Not a lot of this was new, as I am newly out of seminary, and [my denominational affiliation] education focuses on sermons, and mission.” Grace expressed most of her experience as coming in the form of “reminders” to adopt practices that she has previously engaged with: for example, spending time with her preaching text early in the week.
Obviously, those who have a greater level of commitment to learning in this area, and the time to pursue that learning, will experience a greater level of growth. Pastors who are committed to personal growth will make room in their schedules and the rhythm of their year, however; the expectations of church congregations and boards may influence the ability of pastors to have the necessary time to learn and grow, and to prepare sermons that clearly communicate the good new of Jesus and empower the church for mission. For educators or mentors, encouraging preachers to set aside time for personal growth and learning will benefit not only the preacher, but those they minister to, and perhaps most significantly, the world God has called the church to reach.
Educators will also need to communicate why this particular area of learning is significant, giving reason why a missional frame is not only interesting or new, but a vital reading and preaching approach.
151
F. Personal Expectations Regarding the Role of the Pastor/Preacher
The last major factor that arose in the data was the issue of each preacher’s view of the role of the pastor/preacher and their personal expectations. These personal expectations include the internal pressure preachers place on themselves, the vulnerability of preaching and having one’s life on display as an exemplar, and the challenge of personally incarnating the message.
The thesis of the present study is: preaching that employs a missional hermeneutic will function to shape the hearers, and the preacher, to adopt a missional identity. As the title “Shaped for Faithful Witness” suggests, a missional hermeneutic recognizes that the
Bible functions not only to inform hearers, but also to transform, to convert and shape the hearers. The living God, who addresses his people through the Spirit-inspired text, both calls and enables his people to a life bound up in his mission. A missional posture, then, will require “constant conversion” to (and by) the good news of Jesus, and this is true not only of the congregations who hear weekly preaching, but in the lives of the preacher him or herself. Chapter Six of the handbook advances the view that a preacher is a witness to the Gospel, meaning, the message does not bypass the preachers, but that his or her own personality, character and personal experience with Christ is bound up in the task of bearing witness to Jesus. Further, Chapter Seven makes the argument that Christian leaders are to be “Formed Around The Story of Jesus”, as the title suggests.
This perspective, however, raises significant questions about the expectations preachers place on themselves. Questions like: Is the preacher expecting to be, more or less, fully modelling the message? Or do the preacher, and the hearers, expect that the
152 preacher is also a co-follower with the others – a learner – being shaped and formed by this message and, therefore, in process too?
The follow-up interview asked the respondents (Q.5): “How did your process, or the message you preached, shape you personally?” Mark spoke candidly of the challenge of incarnating the message in this way:
As you know, well, I said to my wife today “you try to polish it up, to make every sentence count, you deliver, you go home and next week you have to do it over again,” so there is a weariness in just churning out as much as you can. So to actually live it – we are called to preach things that are the whole counsel of God, and then there’s time in which, we don’t always want to be telling the people, “I’m not here yet”, because it takes the power out of your message. And as we talk about, there is time to be open and candid and such, but to incarnate everything that you’re preaching is devastating. It’s in some way, I think that there is, as much as I enjoy preaching, there would be a joy of not preaching, in the sense of living up to everything that you aren’t able to digest.
…And you mentioned, in terms of time, that you start your prep on the week of, where there’s other guys who seem like they do their sermons months ahead, and there seems to be no time to incarnate what we’re preaching, because it’s like, now we’re off to the next subject. It makes you schizophrenic almost, always turning to the next thing.
In his response to the question, Mark’s honest answer reveals the sort of internal pressure preachers can place on themselves to appear as though they “are here” in terms of incarnating the message, rather than “always telling people ‘I’m not here yet’”. Mark had summarized, at the end of his initial interview, Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 9:27. Here
Paul speaks of disciplining his body so that he will not be disqualified from the race himself after he has preached to others. Mark reported:
Scripture talks about that [“the value of having integrity in terms of how he handles the word”] – after we have preached to others, we don’t want to forfeit being faithful. Paul doesn’t want to disqualify himself.
This text in 1 Corinthians 9 seems to be in the foreground of Mark’s thinking, rightly emphasizing the reality of the need for preachers to embody the message they themselves
153 preach to others. What is particularly interesting, and worthy of further discussion, is how Mark reported that saying “I’m not here yet” would “take the power out of your message.”
Mark’s honest answer points to at least three significant issues in preaching, each of which are addressed in the handbook. First, Chapter Seven discusses the life of the preacher as being shaped and formed around Jesus’ own life and example – a tall order indeed. Mark is expressing, it seems, the legitimate frustration that comes when the preacher considers the “gap” between what is actually true in his or her life, and where he or she would like to be as followers of Jesus (or perhaps, the expectations of others on the preacher).
Though Paul describes Jesus’ life as paradigmatic for the Christian life (see Phil
2:1-11), he does not suggest in Phil 3:11-12 that he has perfectly modelled his life after
Jesus – as though there is no longer any ‘gap’ between his patterns of thinking, feeling and acting and the pattern of life seen in Jesus. Paul sees himself in process, and says so in his preaching. Self-disclosure of his need for continual growth, forms part of Paul’s ministry approach.400
Second, as I argued in the handbook (Chapter 11), if we are preaching grace, and preaching for implication (“consider all that this could mean for us? How is God, by his grace, calling us to respond to this message?”), rather than preaching primarily a list of
400 Paul Smith reports that self-disclosure, which he defines as “a moment of vulnerability that served the purpose of establishing relational affinity between the preacher and congregation members,” was a common characteristic of preachers in (what he calls) “effective missional preaching.” Paul William Smith, A Model for Preaching in the Missional Church: Common Characteristics of Preaching Found in Effective Missional Churches with the Pacific Northwest District of The Christian and Missionary Alliance. (DMin Dissertation, Asbury Theological Seminary, 2010), 90. 154 application points (“Here are three things you now need to do”), we as preachers will not be living with the same kind of pressure of making sure we accomplish each new application checklist. Perhaps adopting that shift in emphasis would make the difference from feeling the sort of pressure Mark described; a pressure perhaps from trying to accomplish each week’s new checklist.401
Third, Mark expressed a level of anxiety about “telling the people ‘I’m not here yet,’ because it takes the power out of your message.” Mark is right to have the desire for his preaching to make an impact on the hearers, which is likely what he means by being
“powerful.” Certainly the early church expected, and experienced, God’s powerful activity in their midst (i.e. Rom 15:17-19), and they desired that their preaching have a significant impact on the hearers (Acts 18:4; 1 Peter 4:11).402 The handbook frames preaching, whereby a preacher’s first concern must be the extent to which the sermon truthfully preaches Jesus. Chapter Nine of the handbook quotes Lesslie Newbigin who says: “the business of the sermon is to bring hearers face to face with Jesus as he really is”.403 Mark is certainly right to emphasize the need to seek to incarnate the message, and the desire to see his message make an impact on the hearers. But perhaps by telling the
401 The view argued in the handbook will call preachers to ask: What are the missional implications of this text? This will, of course, include noting the transformation that needs to occur in the preacher and hearers together. A missional hermeneutic describes the story of God as climaxing in the death and resurrection of Jesus, along with the coming of the Spirit who empowers God’s people to increasingly embody the good news. Instead of experiencing the ‘gap’ as “devastating”, the story of God’s grace will be shaping how we think, feel and act, and most significantly, we will recognize that God, by his grace, is the One empowering us to live what he calls us to. 402 I owe these NT references to Stephen Elliot, who pointed out that there is concern on the part of the apostles for their message to make a significant, “powerful” impact. 403 As quoted in Fields, Preaching, 62. Emphasis in the quotation. 155 story, focusing on Jesus, and describing the missional implications of a text,404 with all the legitimate challenge that entails, the preacher does not have to feel the sort of
“devastating” pressure to accomplish a list of application points each week. With a great awareness of the work of the Spirit to accomplish what only God can, in the preacher and the congregation, the preacher is released to faithfully bear witness to Jesus, even if that witness includes saying: “I am not here yet – but can we move in that direction together?
Will you help me as I help you?”
Grace responded to this same question of how preaching shapes the preacher personally, by speaking of the vulnerability of the task. As Grace put it:
I think Nadia Boltzwebber says it well when she says that when we are preaching the Gospel: “Sure, I’ll go first and throw myself in front of the bus.” Because it’s looking for what is in there that convicts us. “What is God saying to us that we need to recognize as being a place of dissonance, or separation or broken relations? And how is God then, resurrecting that in the world?” And so, to say first, “okay I’m going to really look at this deeply.” And how could it not be personal? So there’s always that vulnerability in looking at the Gospel or the preaching text. It’s asking, “what is this saying to me?” then of course…“what is this saying to me? To our community? To the wider community?” And then figuring out where the focus will be in there….I think authentic preaching …requires us to recognize very personally [what God is drawing us into], because that’s what you’re inviting everyone to do.
This difference in responses between Mark and Grace may be due to a different stress on where the agency of formation lies (to what extent God, rather than the believer, is stressed as primarily operative in the formation of the Christian), and likely to a slightly different view of preaching. Grace had mentioned that in preaching her goal is to always be able to say: “God (blank) us.” For example, “God loves us”; “God saves us”;
404 I argue that each of these elements – telling the story, focusing on Jesus and drawing out the missional implications – are to be, in some way, to be a part of every sermon. Fields, Preaching, 61. 156
“God redeems us”; “God sets us apart.” Grace answered the question of “How would you describe the way that your preaching ministry impacts your own life?” in this way:
[My preaching ministry] certainly makes me more aware of how I am in the world as a Christian. Because when I’m teaching, I’m trying to live that. Looking at what the gospel means for the congregation, I’m looking at what that is saying to me individually. Absolutely, it’s like I’m having an incredible conversation with God every week, and I’m either affirmed or encouraged or…guilt tripped isn’t the right word but…
Me: Challenged?
Gr: Challenged…yes. You know what I mean. You go, “Oh yes, right, damn it…[coughs in mock apology for her language], I should be working on that. Or, “right, I forgot about that.” So, I feel that preparation for preaching and the act of preaching itself is largely a real gift from God, both because it’s shared through me, but it’s also a gift to me…for my life and practice. Challenge is a good word, because it doesn’t always means it’s an easy thing…it’s also an overwhelming, difficult, dreaded thing…
Grace described the challenge of seeking to incarnate the message, and the challenge of this task, as “a real gift from God, both because it’s shared through me, but it’s also a gift to me…for my life and practice.” The expectation that Grace places on herself is to bring her life into line – or back into line – with the message of the text she is preaching from.
Chris described how his sermon preparation shapes his life in these terms:
I grow so much in sermon prep time. It’s almost become, especially preaching more frequently, it helps me study more in depth than if I wasn’t preaching. Then there’s that conviction too. If I don’t ask the question myself, or respond myself.
In the case of each preacher, there was the awareness that God was speaking to them, and challenging them to make real in their lives and world the implications of the text. This theme of personal expectations, and the challenge of incarnating the message we preach, touches on the self-identification of the participants. It raises the question of what it means to be a pastor and how that relates to the ministry of preaching, especially in respect to who the preacher is in relation to the broader community of God in which
157 they bear witness to Jesus. The question becomes: are we “one of them” when we step into the pulpit, emerging from within the congregation (literally and figuratively), to preach as one part of our specific calling within the congregation? There may be a self- expectation, and perhaps expectations placed on the preacher by the community, that a minister of the gospel somehow stands apart from the “rest of us”, and in order to preach with integrity, has already “figured out” how to live this message. A missional theology of preaching, however, does not remove the preacher from the role of exemplar, since even exemplars are in process (Phil 3:11), but nor does it place a vocational minister apart from the rest of God’s people in an ontological sense, since the whole Body of
Christ is called to be a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9-10).405
From an educational perspective, acknowledging with mentees or students that preaching does involve pain – the pain of vulnerability or perhaps even of personal failure – is no small issue. The handbook describes the wrestling with the text in preparation as real and difficult,406 since it calls the preacher to be confronted with his or her own areas of sin or apathy or idolatry and calls the preacher into a role as exemplar within the community.407 Stephen Holmes writes on the pain of preaching:
To preach is to suffer. This should be no surprise; we serve a crucified King. To not preach is to suffer more, for those of us called to the task (Jeremiah spoke for us all: the Word is like ‘a burning fire shut up in my bones’—Jer. 20:9). I wish we
405 Stephen D. Elliot rightly pointed out that there are functional and positional difference between those called into the office of leadership and those who are not (Heb 13:9; 1 Thess 5:12 etc.), but a hard divide between “laity” and “leadership” that creates a form of class distinction is absent from the New Testament. See Chapter 2 “Reinventing Laity and Clergy” in Stevens’ The Other Six Days. 406 Fields, Preaching, 97-98. 407 Ibid, 45-46. 158
were more honest with each other about the pain, though; in the body of Christ, our calling is never to suffer alone.408
The final point raised by Holmes is significant: the pain of preaching is something that those who preach should be honest about with one another. Group discussion, mentoring relationships, honest conversations among church staff or a preachers guild and classroom settings all provide opportunities to share both the joy and pain of preaching.
In Part One of this chapter, there were six primary educational factors noted in the data, including: the starting place of each participant, the place of missional church thought in the preacher’s church, confidence in the material, clarity of the material, level of engagement with the material, and the view of the role of the preacher/pastor. Each of these factors influenced the desire and ability of the participants to engage in the process of exploring a missional hermeneutic, as presented in the handbook, and are important factors in regards to their understanding of the missional church movement and personal preaching ministry.
Part Two: The Impacts of the Handbook and Study Process
The second area that was analyzed in the data included both the reported, as well as implicit, impacts of the handbook and study during the research period. The purpose of reporting these impacts is to evaluate the usefulness of the handbook (intervention) in its first draft form, to discern what elements of the handbook require revision to make the handbook more useful, and to describe what educational impacts might be expected for future readers. This included views or practices that were explicitly reported to have
408 Stephen Holmes, “The Pain of Preaching”. Holmes shared the pre-publication manuscript following a supervisory meeting on January 19, 2017. 159 changed as a result of the intervention of the handbook, and implicit indicators of change identified by the researcher.
Before presenting the data, it is necessary to address the question as to what constitutes an impact. Impacts of the study were raised by the data in several ways.
First, the follow-up interviews included a number of change-related questions (i.e. “Did your view of X, Y, Z change in any way as a result of the study? If so, how?”). In some cases respondents would answer with a clear “Yes”, and then go on to explain the shift in view or practice they experienced. In other cases the respondent would answer in the negative (“No” or “Not really”), but their follow up discussion would in some cases reveal some form of shift when comparing the follow up interview with their initial interview. In these cases there was an impact present, but either: a) the respondent did not recognize it; b) the impact was either not significant enough for the respondent to consider it a “change” (and thus a negative response); or c) there was no actual “change” in the respondents view (a legitimate negative answer to the ‘change’ question), but the intervention may have provided them with a reminder (“No, not a change but this reminded me”, or “I was reminded of a practice I once had”).
A third form of impact – indicators of implicit shifts – was also revealed by the data. Implicit impacts were those changes that were not explicitly reported but were evidenced through changes in language or in the emphasis of themes discussed by respondents. As a researcher, I recognize that noting changes in language or emphasis may not truly constitute or indicate an impact from the study for a number of reasons.
First, as a researcher, looking for impacts, I may be “finding what I am looking for”. To mitigate the potential impact of my biases, the study supervisor and research
160 assistant also analyzed the same data set and provided feedback. Second, what is noted as an implicit impact may not legitimately be so. Perhaps the participants’ use of language during an interview was a result of the question leading the respondent’s mind to run on a different track than the previous interview (in a sense, comparing apples to oranges). Third, the implicit impact may not be present because of the study intervention
(handbook, group meetings) but may be resulting from other readings or conversations that the respondent was having during the study period. The implicit changes identified during analysis are useful in identifying some potential changes due to the handbook and clarifying what a change in missional understanding could possibly look like as evidenced in a preacher’s language and preaching.
Given each respondent’s distinct starting place, unique personality, denominational perspective, and varying level of engagement with the material, the three participants reported a unique set of impacts. However, there was a significant overlap of impacts between participants, and these were grouped into six areas of impact or change and are presented in Table 2. Because of each participant’s unique learning experience, the impacts will be reported by describing the reported and implicit effects of the study on each individual. After describing the reported impacts, the areas of overlap in themes between respondents will then be summarized and discussed.
161
TABLE 2. Areas of Impact or Change
A. The goal of preaching a. To tell the whole story b. Preacher as witness, not just messenger
B. Considering the whole story of God’s redemptive work
C. Sermon preparation a. Connect with surrounding culture b. Creating an outline c. Dwelling in the word d. Pronouns from you to us/we e. Reading the Bible in the context of the larger story of God f. Reading the sermon out-loud during preparation D. Accessibility to all hearers E. Tone of the preacher, setting an example for evangelism
F. Contextualization a. Engaging with current world issues b. Concern with how the audience would hear the sermon c. Considering the diversity of the audience including those with little or no Christian background d. Taking seriously the objections and questions of those with different views
Mark’s Experience
Mark reported a number of changes or impacts that resulted from the study, including some shift in his goals of preaching, in particular, that preaching might include telling the whole story of God. He also reported some shift in his preparation, a greater awareness of the need to use language that is accessible to all the hearers, and more attentiveness to elements of contextualization. There were also two potential implicit indicators of change that were noted. One, there was a potential shift in emphasis from
162 describing the practical elements of preaching from application language to include implication language. Two, Mark seemed to have adopted more Theo-centric, rather than primarily Biblio-centric, language in his later interviews compared to his initial interview.
One of the primary impacts that Mark reported related to the goal of preaching.
He described the need to consider the whole story of God’s redemptive work as a significant hermeneutical component, and his desire to connect his preaching text to the larger story of God; an element he wanted to add as a new goal in his preaching. Mark reported a change of emphasis in terms of the content of his preaching.
…what was better brought to light was telling the story of God throughout the ages, or if I’m on a passage to be able to not just give a supporting passage in the Scripture, but to briefly comment about the way God has operated down through human history…. It made me think through that – seeing God’s mission, the plan of God… And that’s one big thing I took from the book.
Mark reported that the greatest impact for him in the study was in preaching, so as to link the preaching text to the larger “plan” of God. However, Mark’s understanding of this concept seems to be distinct from Wright’s Fifth Act theology approach described in the handbook.409 Mark qualified his understanding of story with the statement “words mean something and if it [“story” language] is God’s intent through the ages, then absolutely.”
The impact of the study for Mark in terms of his view of Scripture is likely minimal, since he does not seem to be adopting the understanding argued for in the handbook, namely, that Scripture is a drama, that last chapter being acted out with
409 If, for example, Mark were to read the Four Views On Moving Beyond the Bible To Theology, my guess is that Mark would likely be drawn to Walter C. Kaiser Jr.’s “A Principlizing Model” or, in terms of the “plan of God” description of the story of God, more likely to adopt “A Redemptive-Historical Model” presented by Daniel M. Doriani than Kevin Vanhoozer’s “A Drama-of-Redemption Model”, which is the view most closely related to what I put forth in the handbook. 163 consistency and innovation (Chapter 3 in the handbook). The shift described by Mark is more a change in his goals for preaching (to “tell the story”), and in terms of using story
(or at least “plan”) language about the Bible. For example, in his post-intervention sermon notes, he includes a short section where he seeks to connect his message from 2
Peter 3:10-12 to God’s larger plans:
Ever since man’s rebellion against God, the fall of humanity, and all creation, the Biblical teaching has been consistent, God will culminate his plan with the ending of the world as we know it, and He will establish his sovereign authority. This is consistent with so much of what the Old Testament writers taught and affirmed. This is His story and His plan. We think this world lasts forever, or at least we live like it does.
The second impact Mark described was in relation to his sermon preparation, and this connects as well with his growing desire to connect more deeply with the surrounding culture in order to speak within that culture more clearly – an aspect of contextualization. These two impacts will be described together here in two ways. First,
Mark spoke about his practice of preaching from a manuscript and how this current practice allows him to intentionally include missional elements to his preaching.
This is not a change in the method of sermon preparation, but shows an impact on how
Mark is using his current practice to intentionally include, and check the content of his sermon, so that he might better preach with the missional intent of connecting to his audience.
Second, Mark described his need to connect more closely to the surrounding culture and how his sermon preparation practices might need to adjust in order to better accomplish this. During the second group meeting Mark asked me: “Where would you suggest studying/preparing?” I answered:
164
Wherever you work well. For me, it’s coffee shops. I think of ‘how would I say this to the barista…or to that person sitting over there?’ I also walk around the Chapters bookstore, and often the titles of books will spark in me some new ways of seeing. It’s my ways of “walking around and seeing” as Paul does [in Athens].
To this comment, Mark instantly replied: “Wow! I need to try that.” Later in the group discussion, Mark commented on one of the challenges he experienced in this way:
Challenging was, connecting to the culture. Maybe I should start prepping my messages in the coffee shop. I’m so distant from the culture…
For Mark, the project had an impact on his approach to sermon preparation in terms of using his manuscript practice to check if he was in fact addressing the issues he wanted to and raising the potential for connecting more to culture, even in regards to where he would at least try to prepare his sermons.
The third impact that Mark reported was that of being reminded to consider that the audience includes new people, and to be cautious with regards to how to address the audience and how to speak about people in the sermon. When asked if he experienced any shift in his goals for preaching, Mark said:
Yah, I evaluate my words anyways. I go through and think about gender neutral, or categorizing people, and I know there’s new people. I don’t want to water down what I’m saying, but how am I going to say it in such a way that if someone is new I am not giving them more reason to shut me up or close their ears because of something I say.
Mark also seemed increasingly aware that he is speaking within a culture that does not know the Christian message, which requires preparing messages with non-
Christian neighbours in mind. In the second group meeting, I asked the participants to answer what the “biggest take-away point” was from interacting with the material. Mark answered in this way:
165
What elements do I intend to keep? Realizing that I speak in a society – there are visitors every week – and that society is void of biblical understanding. And I want to make sure that the mission of God is apply spoken of in the presentation.
The study seems to have, at the least, reminded Mark of the need to speak to a wider audience and to consider using language that makes the message accessible to all the hearers, including those who have little or no Christian background.
There were two potential implicit impacts that were identified from the data. The first was the interplay of implication versus application language. The second was a general shift in Mark’s language from Biblo-centric language to more Theo-centric language.
When discussing the difference between preaching for application or implication,
Mark seemed to be wrestling with this idea:
Sometimes I wonder if the hearer has enough time to really consider the ‘implications’ for their lives. But by giving suggestions - ‘applications’ – that might touch something in them. But [I think the point is] if you’ve done the passage well, it should be easy for people to hear.
Mark’s wrestling with the language of implication could be seen when comparing his initial interview with his later ones. When asked to describe his role as a preacher in the initial interview, Mark began with these words:
Conduit. God talking…God’s word, making it applicable, breaking it down to a listener’s capability to understand.
Mark used the language of making God’s word “applicable” as his role in preaching. In his later interviews, however, we see a mixture of language – both speaking of application and implication – suggesting a potential shift in his understanding.
166
The second potential implicit shift relates to a shift from Biblio-centric language to more Theo-centric language. For example, in the initial interview, when asked about the role of the preacher, Mark answered:
Highly valuing the word of God rather than the conduit….rather than the personality of the pastor supersedes the importance of the Scriptures.
In the initial interview, Mark’s language seemed to focus particularly on the Bible, with far less discussion of God’s agency or work. The change became apparent when comparing the first and second interviews, as the second interview had a notable increase in language about God’s work in particular, and less that was specifically about the Bible.
For example, in the first question of the post-intervention interview the language he used to speak of preaching, and what he was seeking to accomplish, was more Theo- centric than his initial interview. In this paragraph, Mark spoke of God’s operation, or action, as the major theme of preaching (italics added for emphasis).
I wouldn’t say that the role has changed. I think I have better understood the role through the years, but was better brought to light was telling the story of God throughout the ages, or if I’m on a passage to be able to not just give a supporting passage in the Scripture, but to briefly comment about the way God has operated down through human history. Like for instance, last Sunday I spoke on the great motivator of grace in our lives compared to duty or to fear “better obey because,” so I could bring out how God has always operated in terms of grace.
It seems that Mark’s language may have shifted from the initial interview to the post-intervention period. This is the type of shift – from Biblio-centrism to Theo- centrism – that the content of the handbook would have been encouraging in the reader.
This is not in any way to be diminishing the significance of the Bible as a primary means of God’s continued speaking to his church, but rather to help preachers recognize that the authority of the Scriptures rests in the Author of those Scriptures, and the power of that
Author is still operative in his Scripture-reading people, through his Holy Spirit.
167
Of the reported impacts of the study, Mark spoke most clearly of his need to connect his weekly preaching texts to the larger story of God and to consider well that the audience he addresses includes people who do not know the biblical story. In addition, he spoke of his desire to connect more deeply with the culture in which he ministers.
Mark also seems to have moved toward considering the implications of a text to be a better approach than just offering application points, and also seems to have shifted at least how he speaks of the Scriptures, with a greater focus on God’s action.
Grace’s Experience
In terms of impacts from the study, Grace reported few actual changes in her views or practices but did report on a number of ways the book reminded her of practices she values and was encouraged to revisit. She also mentioned ways the book encouraged her to think well about preaching and her audience. These reminders and practices will be discussed below after discussing some reasons Grace provided for not experiencing many impacts from the study.
There are at least two reasons that Grace mentioned for why she did not experience change-related impacts. First, Grace reported that her seminary training and ministry experience both served to develop in her a similar view as to the goals of preaching that are presented in the handbook. When I asked if she experienced any shift in her goals for preaching she responded:
I think that, like I said, my final preaching thing was “preaching as mission” in seminary, and then having been a missionary for a year, serving abroad…. So I think that we’re parallel, that it [forming a missional identity in the congregation through our preaching] is all part of what we’re doing…Exactly.
168
Second, the suggestions in the handbook that may have been novel did not seem to convince her to adopt a new perspective. When I asked her if there was anything in the handbook that was challenging, she answered that it was a challenge to determine whether she was disagreeing simply with the way I had written the ideas or with the theology itself. I asked if there was anything in particular. She replied by saying:
It was lots. So we talked about the grace one, because as a [names her denomination] I was bound to bring that one up. But there were lots and lots and lots of different things. I suspect a lot of them are theological differences. I would probably have to go over it with you bit by bit by bit, because a few times I would say “no I just disagree with how it’s written,” but also “no I just disagree.”
She may have had some preconceived notions of what I am arguing, assuming my Baptist perspective means points of difference that may not in fact be distinct. For example, when Grace was discussing a similar issue (God’s activity verses human activity) during the second group meeting, she said:
I remember the Pietist movement was very much about: “how do we do these things? How do we do them?” God gives us this, and then, we do all of this. If it doesn’t start with God, then we can claim that we’ve done all this.
It is not clear if Grace was equating her understanding of Pietism with the view argued in the handbook, or was just offering an example of why this issue mattered to her.410
Further, there may have been some elements that seemed to be theological differences that may have been due to either a lack clear communication on my part as the writer, or perhaps a misunderstanding on her part as a reader, or both.
Overall, Grace reported few changes in her view, yet she did report on several significant factors that were impacts for her, primarily in the form of reminders. These
410 In this interview I offered that the view I am arguing in the handbook was different than the description of the Pietism she had described, and mentioned that I agreed with her point. 169 included increased awareness of the need for preaching to be accessible to all the hearers, some changes in sermon preparation practice, and a reminder to incorporate the larger story of God into the sermon.
When asked if her view of preaching or the preacher changed as a result of the handbook, Grace answered: “By and large, no.” She then described some of the impacts the book did have. The first was that she was reminded to consider how hearers who do not have a background in a liturgical setting would be hearing her preaching:
I think it made me that much more aware of how very much preaching is tied up with the fullness of the liturgy and sacramental practices. And I guess I take that for granted sometimes. “Ah, everybody preaches like this of course. Everybody has this understanding of baptism, has this understanding of Eucharist.”
Grace then concluded from this:
So considering we have people coming in from all different backgrounds into the church, to be more mindful that people don’t [understand all the liturgical elements]. So rather than simply naming those pieces [a shared understanding of the Eucharist or baptism], to be better at providing language and interpretation when I’m making various references in sermons.
This “awareness” element is significant. The handbook seeks to help the readers consider how accessible (or not) the sermon is to the hearers. When I asked a follow-up question
– “Would it be fair to say that maybe your role as a preacher would include being a translator, to mediate theological language to those who don’t live with theological language?” – Grace responded with the following:
I don’t use conversational language in my preaching, but I wouldn’t say things that make no sense in the context of whatever I’m speaking about. So if I use something like ‘eschatological,’ then I will explain what that term means….It’s common practice.
170
She then mentioned that, although she explains and glosses theological terms in her preaching, she refers to baptism or the Eucharist as though her hearers understand what she means:
But, I do talk about “okay, and because of our baptisms we….du, du, du, du, du.” Or “in this meal we receive…du, du, du, du, du”. So to think about those coming in who don’t have a sacramental background, need a little more education there.
On these issues, however, Grace said: “I’m not sure the sermon is the best place to do all that,” and went on to explain that their church now incorporates some “teaching moments” that would address these gaps:
So on a Sunday, we’ll talk about “why do we say the Apostles Creed?” Or “there are different versions of the Lord’s Prayer, and that’s okay,” Or “why do we greet each other with peace?” Or “what are the sacraments about?”
Grace reported a greater awareness, or at least a reminder, that the audience may not share her view when she speaks of the sacraments. As demonstrated in her post- intervention sermon – with the Gospel reading in Luke 10:1-11; 16-20 – Grace mentioned both baptism and the Eucharist as the basis for the sending of the church to offer the peace of Christ, but does not seek to explain these elements:
Our lives are to seep with the very gift we have first been given. Wet with the waters of baptism, and fed with the bread of life, Christ sends us out into the community. This sending is the most basic instruction, the most basic teaching of who we are called to be. Sent! - not with some pile of books, or tools, or bags of money; Sent to be who Christ calls us to be - neighbours - in the world, mirroring the one who was first sent to us. For by our baptisms we have died to ourselves and been raised to new life in Christ.
It is clear in her message that Grace has connected the sending of the disciples in Luke’s
Gospel to the present community, and drawn out the missional implications of this text for the church today. This section of the sermon demonstrated thoughtful instruction for
God’s people, but I was left with the question: “How would those who are not baptized,
171 or who are not familiar with sacramental theology, hear and understand this?” As described above, and seen in the sermon excerpt, Grace’s approach is not to explain these elements within the sermon, but to have teaching moments to explain the sacramental practice.
The next reported impact was in regard to a hermeneutic whereby the Bible is seen as an unfolding story. Though Grace did not seem to seriously entertain Wright’s
Five Act Play analogy for Scripture, or adopt “story” language to speak of the Bible in her interviews, she did report that the study caused her to re-emphasize what, in her denominational theology, is referred to as the theology of the cross: a category that seemed to dovetail in part with the “Bible as narrative” element of the handbook. She described her thoughts this way:
One of the things, I don’t think it was the intent of your book, but the [naming her denomination] hermeneutic is the theology of the cross. And this reminded me how important it is for us in this congregation, or [her denomination] in general, to bring home…to bring home that sense of the theology of the cross, because I think that’s how I can best remind people of the completion of the creation of what God gives us, and that the story does begin in Genesis and is completed when Christ says ‘it is finished’ in the Gospels.
The book reminded her of a hermeneutic she was familiar with and has at least some resonance with the message of the handbook.
In addition to considering her audience more carefully and drawing connection to the larger, canonical context in her preaching, Grace also reported the two impacts the book had on encouraging her in her sermon preparation practices. First, Grace mentioned how the book encouraged her to create an outline early in her sermon preparation and second, it encouraged her to spend more time reflecting early on her preaching text – a
172 practice sometimes called “dwelling in the text” and described at a few points in the handbook.411 Grace stated:
Well I was really, really, really intent on the Sunday I preached, and that afternoon I was already reading the Gospels for the next week because I kept thinking about, “okay, with this book” – so, hopefully I will continue, because it will help me keep up the practice of reading a week ahead.
Grace reported impacts that included a greater awareness of how those without a sacramental background may not understand some elements in her preaching, and also in her process of sermon preparation, notably a re-focus on including the theology of the cross more explicitly in her preaching, creating an outline, and spending time in the preaching text earlier in her process.
Chris’ Experience
As a relatively new preacher, Chris seemed eager to learn, and was very receptive to the material. The result was that Chris reported the greatest degree of change of all the participants. These included a shift in his view of the preacher as being a witness, rather than a just a messenger, more consideration of the whole story of God’s redemptive work in his reading and sermon preparation, shifts in several areas of his sermon preparation, considering more deeply how accessible the message is to all hearers, adopting the notion that the tone of the preacher provides an example to the hearers about gospel discourse, and engaging more intentionally in the process of contextualization of the gospel.
First, Chris reported a shift in his view of the preacher, embracing a view of the preacher as a witness:
411 These include pp. 35-36 and 94 in Fields, Preaching. 173
What I found valuable was seeing myself in a different light. More as a witness rather than someone who is just communicating a particular message. That was definitely valuable. Much of our group discussion revolved around that, and I liked that. I prefer to see myself in that way instead of just a messenger.
This change in view encouraged Chris to see himself, not as standing apart from the congregation, addressing “them” with the message, but as one who is implicated by the text along with the congregation.412
Yes. I think that my role as a preacher, I’ve seen it a little differently. Like even with…trying intentionally to see yourself as someone the biblical text is speaking to along with the congregation.
Chris then went on to speak about his sermon preparation and how, based on this shift in view as a preacher and the suggestion in the handbook, he needed to change the pronouns from the second person plural (“You”) to include himself as an addressee by using the first person plural (“We”/”Us”). In his post-intervention sermon, preaching from Luke
13, Chris demonstrates this shift in pronoun use (pronouns in italics for emphasis):
In order for us to understand what Jesus is saying and respond in the most appropriate way, we ourselves need to think carefully about how we look at tragedy and the evil that marks much of what we see happening.
Chris spoke of how he was more carefully considering how his study and preparation were shaping him personally, a significant element of what the handbook was seeking to accomplish in the perspective of the readers. He noted that in the past he listened to his sermons, but “with an ultra-critique, one dimensional way – so I can get better at preaching.” This time, he reported:
I was thinking more, “What did I share that also applies to me?” And it made me think about my own interaction with people I know and care about, and how am I moving toward personal evangelism.
412 This point is discussed in the final chapter of the handbook that deals with sermon preparation. Fields, Preaching,101. 174
This suggests a shift in how Chris views himself as a preacher – as one implicated by the text, and the message he has prepared, as much as every other hearer.
Second, Chris reported that his sermon preparation changed as he sought to read the Bible with the larger story of God in mind:
Yah, just in terms of sermon preparation, just in asking how this text fits in the whole text and even to draw out the major themes of a text before you get more particular than that, just to make sure that you’re in keeping with the whole story – what God is saying to the people of God or all humanity.
Third, in addition to changing the pronouns and considering the larger story of
God in sermon preparation, when asked if he experienced any changes in his process of preparation, Chris reported:
You had suggested in the handbook to, once you were finished writing it, to read it out loud. That really helped. I didn’t do it so much at the end, but throughout. I would read out that thought start to finish. And it helped with the whole editing process.
Fourth, Chris reflected a point made in the handbook – that the ‘tone’ of the preacher is setting an example for the congregation who are learning, by example, how to share the gospel. Chris reported the following:
And for example where it came out was, even for your tone when you preach, like how would the tone when we’re preaching, how would that affect the tone of how they would like to share and dialogue with others?...And I had never thought of it in the sense of ‘what are we communicating in even our tone of voice?’ and that was helpful.
Fifth, and perhaps one of the most significant impacts that Chris reported, was in regards to contextualization. Chris reported, in several ways, that the study process had sharpened his thinking in the area of contextualization and influenced his approach to sermon preparation and even personal evangelism.
175
In response to the question of how the process or message he preached shaped him (Q.5), Chris offered a narration about his process of wrestling to carefully communicate his message while connecting it to the sensitive issue of (at the time of his sermon) a recent shooting:
My message on Sunday was a bit of a tougher one. Unless you repent, likewise you will all perish…In my opening illustration I made reference to what was happening in Florida [June 13, 2016 shooting at an Orlando nightclub] and how it’s almost a similar situation to what happened with the Galileans in Luke 13. And it was really hard, a lot of my sermon prep, to use that as an opening of the sermon because you don’t want to give the wrong impression about how Christians should respond to that.
In response to Chris’ narration, I mentioned to Chris that his work showed how he was seeking to think very carefully about how to communicate appropriately about a very difficult situation. He then interjected with his reasoning, and process:
Well, we had talked about [in the study process] really talking about what was going on in our world, and if we are going to preach [to our communities] about being engaged in our world, and partnering with God and his mission, then we should know what’s going on in our world. So after, I figured out about what has gone on in Orlando, and looked into if there were any parallels to what was happening with the Galileans. And it wasn’t until I had gone online to see what some of the Christian responses that were out there that I realized, that there were some really wrong responses coming out of the evangelical community. So that made me think twice about my illustration, and it was forcing me to think really carefully about how to use that illustration and how people would hear it. Because you’d hate to use an illustration like that and have the wrong message sent. And have people respond, and engage in the world in the wrong way. But I wouldn’t have caught it. I actually would have missed it had I not gone online and to see how other people, like the evangelical community in the States for example, to see how they responded. I probably would have sent the wrong message.
Chris reported a higher level of engagement with current world issues than he would have in his previous preaching: a significant feature of contextualization that was discussed in the handbook (Chapter 10 in particular). He also demonstrated a greater level of concern, both with how his audience would hear the illustration, and how he presented the issue so
176 as to better equip the congregation to think about, and respond well, when engaging in conversations with their neighbours.
Though Chris was not speaking explicitly about contextualization when offering this example from his sermon, there was an implied shift in how he viewed his role: now more specifically as equipping the congregation to be a community of witness that can engage with clarity about a sensitive issue.
Chris also explicitly described how the issue of contextualizing challenged him.
Chris reported:
Contextualizing the gospel in the post-Christendom West. That’s a lot of work there too – in understanding who you’re preaching to – your audience.
So contextualization, Chapter Nine, was a challenging one. Because like, no two congregations, no two people groups, no two settings are identical. Even before you prepare a sermon you ask, “who are the majority of the people?” But not only that, but preaching to people who would not have been exposed to the Bible and the Christian faith, making sure that there’s a good part of your sermon that speaks to those people. So a first time hearer would get that one point; that single message you are wanting to share.
In addition, Chris pointed to the issue of seriously engaging the real questions that people in our culture have about the Christian faith.
“Always grant whatever degree of merit the objections have.” Ravi Zacharias is good example of this. He speaks boldly, but he starts by thanking the person for their question, and then speaks about the validity of the objection before answering it with his answer. It’s pretty great. It goes along with contextualizing.
Chris then went on to describe how this perspective offered was challenging his own practice of personal evangelism:
This has challenged my personal evangelism. I’ve been quick to say, “Whatever you are saying is false.” But I haven’t been good at saying: “I can see the truth, or validity in your question.” In my experience, when I’ve said – directly or indirectly, “your view is false” – I almost always lose that opportunity.
177
Chris reported to have experienced a number of significant shifts resulting from the study. These include a shift in his view of the role preaching and who he was as a preacher, embracing the witness-motif, more consciously reading the Bible with the larger story of God in mind, and considering how his preaching on a particular text would connect with this larger story. Chris further noted a change in his process of preparation with regard to his use of pronouns (reflecting a change in his view of his role as a preacher). Further, Chris cited a need to consider the way that the tone of the preacher is setting an example for the hearers in how they will engage in gospel-discourse with their neighbours. He also reported the ways that the study helped him think more clearly about the area of contextualization, which also influenced his approach to sermon preparation and personal evangelism.
Summary of Findings
Part Two of this chapter described the impacts that were reported by the participants or implied by the data. Though each participant had a unique experience, there were at least three areas that, in broad strokes, were common to all participants.
The first was attentiveness or awareness when considering the hearers. In some way, each participant reported that the handbook raised the issue of the need to carefully consider how the hearers, especially those who may not be familiar with the Bible or specific theological categories or practices, would be able to access the information. This issue also touches on contextualization, since a key feature of making the gospel accessible is both understanding, and then speaking, within the vernacular of the broader community in which we preach.
178
The second was, within the existing framework of each participant, a shift toward considering the narrative shape and redemptive movement of the Bible as a significant hermeneutical approach. It seems that the primary argument in the draft form of the handbook, which was drawing on N.T. Wright and Goheen’s work in particular, was not entirely convincing to each preacher in the study. However, there was a sense from each preacher that noting the larger story – a canonical and narrative reading – was a necessary hermeneutical element.
The third broader theme was the reported changes in sermon preparation. For each participant the challenges of the book were distinct, but the fact that each mentioned ways that their preparation was influenced demonstrates the potential of shift in preaching practice – the goal of the handbook.
Conclusion
This chapter analyzed the data and summarized the findings in order to address the broader research question: What factors are involved for preachers in assessing and implementing a missional hermeneutic in their preaching ministry? The first section described six educational issues for preachers beginning to explore, or deepening their understanding, of missional hermeneutics and the implications of this reading strategy for preaching. The second section analyzed the impacts of the study on the participants’ views or practices in relation to the Bible, hermeneutics or the ministry of preaching. It described six areas where participants described how their views or practices were explicitly reported to have changed as a result of the intervention of the handbook, and noted some potential indicators of participants’ changes in views or practices.
179
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Introduction
The participants’ experiences, interactions in group meetings, and suggestions regarding the handbook have provided a rich learning resource in at least two significant ways. First, it provided a platform to seriously evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the handbook and to make changes that would increase the positive impacts of the book.
Second, the study process enabled me – as a pastor who oversees a preaching team and mentors preachers – to better understand the educational process of mentoring preachers, and offered an opportunity to evaluate how I can improve my ability to equip preachers.
In this chapter, I will first discuss the place of the project in my local church ministry context, and then consider the potential for it to be used beyond this context.
This will include describing and discussing the changes that were made to the handbook as a result of the study, and drawing out some of the educational features raised.
The Project in My Ministry Context
Summit Drive Church is committed to equipping the congregation and ministry staff, to participate in various ministries, including the ministry of preaching. The project handbook was created with this goal in mind: to provide both our staff and lay leaders with both a vision and practical guide to the preaching ministry of our church. In addition, our ministry internship program provides educational and hands-on ministry experiences to those considering full time ministry. Our ministry interns are given opportunities to serve in areas of their gifts and call, including preaching ministries. This
180 handbook will be a part of the learning process for our internship program, as well as our staff and regular lay-preachers. It is also a hope that the handbook would be available more widely than my own context, and so the changes that are included are made with the assumption that preachers might make use of the handbook beyond my local context.
Changes to the Handbook
As described in Chapter Four, inviting preachers to consider a missional hermeneutic in their preaching ministry requires both building trust and clearly demonstrating that a missional reading of the Bible is not seeking to be novel for novelty’s sake. Rather, a missional reading is perhaps the most faithful, appropriate approach to reading the Bible, and not only for hearing the message of each text, but being formed as God’s people and called to participate with God within the framework of
Scripture’s missional thrust.
Reading the handbook with a diverse group of preachers revealed elements of the handbook that were unclear or easily misunderstood and provided me with an opportunity to learn what areas needed additional explanation, nuance, or example. In the process of group meetings where we discussed the book together, I was able to verbally clarify any areas of confusion and offer additional examples. If the handbook is published more widely, however, this form of interaction would obviously not be possible, and therefore requires the writing to be especially clear on areas that are susceptible to misunderstanding, or about which the readers may not have pre-existing thought- categories, such as considering the Bible primarily as narrative in form and that the authority of the Bible is not found apart from this form. At points in the study, I asked
181 the respondents for feedback on the handbook. I will present the suggestions given by the study group, and then offer some of the changes I personally saw as necessary based on my observations of how the respondents interacted with the material.
Changes Suggested by the Participants
Both Mark and Grace noted the repetition of some of the personal reflection questions and mentioned how this feature distracted them since it made them think:
“Didn’t he just ask this question?” The questions they were referring to were indeed repetitive as they were generically asking if there were any areas they would “highlight” from the section, and why. As I looked back over the reflection questions I agreed that the generic type of question could be asked in different ways, and thus, keep readers from being distracted. I changed the format of the question to essentially ask a similarly generic question in the following chapters, including:
• What one or two ideas from this chapter stood out as something you would like to spend more time thinking about?
• Which ideas from this section stood out to you as helpful? Why?
Although rewording these questions is a small change, the reality that this handbook is seeking to engage the readers in self-reflection is not insignificant, and anything that aids that process – or does not detract from it – is necessary.
In the second group meeting, Grace mentioned that she found the section
“Connecting without Capitulating” in Chapter Ten of the handbook to be confusing. We talked through what I meant by “capitulation”, and I answered her by giving some examples of the ways that capitulation could happen:
182
I think it happens in political reflection. I think it happens when we begin to think of the church like a business. Where we say, “here are some things we need to do as a church,” but your approach is only pragmatic, as opposed to theologically motivated, and that’s capitulating – giving up the gospel too – by capitulating Christian thinking to a business culture.
She found the examples helpful and I added some brief examples to this section.
Chris mentioned that adding some example sermons would be beneficial. This is an element of the book I had hoped to include, and had mentioned to the study group, but did not have prepared by the time of the study period. Following the study period, I added three example sermons to the handbook calling this new section “Part Four:
Example Sermons.” This is the most-lengthy addition to the handbook (p.119 to 156), and in terms of educational impact, one of the most significant.
The three example sermons include one each from Stephen Holmes and Bruxy
Cavey, and one from myself. After briefly introducing the first two preachers, I summarized why I included their messages, noting first that in many ways they exemplify messages that take seriously both the hermeneutical and homiletical approach described in the body of the book. Second, the main ideas in each sermon provide another way of explaining, in sermon form, some of the more challenging points I am arguing in this book.
In Holmes’ sermon, he invites his audience to engage in our God-given mission, rooted in the good news of God’s work by using the musical metaphor of improvisation. As the title (“Improvising in the Key of Gospel”) suggests, we must learn to live and act in each unique context by improvising our ongoing part in God’s story with innovation and consistency - the main argument of Chapter Three of the handbook.413 Cavey’s message emphasizes that the Bible is intended to be a document that leads us to Jesus, and
413 This is now Chapter Four of the updated version. 183 strengthens our relationship with him – not to replace Jesus. He exegetes Jesus’ interaction with the Pharisees in John 5, and helpfully demonstrates the point I was arguing in Chapter One of the handbook; that Jesus is ultimately the living Word, to whom the written word, the Scriptures, bear witness. The Bible leads us daily to experience Jesus, in personal relationship with the Word himself.
The reason for including one of my own sermons is, in part, to provide an example from someone who is still relatively new to the craft of preaching and perhaps represents how a regular pastor is seeking to work through the challenges of the handbook. This sermon also demonstrates the pattern described in the handbook, where I seek to tell the story, center on Jesus, and send the church on mission.
Additional Changes Recognized by the Researcher
In addition to a number of small editing issues, there were two major factors that needed to be corrected for future additions to the book. One, a more nuanced, robust discussion of the Bible as an authoritative story, and two, the modification of Question 3 in the Part Two Group Discussion section. These will be discussed in turn.
During the first group meeting where we discussed Part One of the book (which examines what the Bible is, how it is authoritative, and introduces what it means to read it as a document of mission), it was clear that my description of the narrative shape of the
Scriptures, and how they continue to function authoritatively in the life of the church, was a new concept to the participants. As described above in Chapter Four, I added a chapter that both nuanced the view I was espousing, and clarified, with examples, the main point of the section. This change is described in detail above, so I will only add here that the
184 ideas presented in this section are challenging to describe in a short chapter and in an accessible form for at least two reasons.
One, there are serious discussions about the nature and the authority of the Bible presently taking place within evangelicalism,414 and raising any questions about the nature of the Bible is, rightly, a serious issue. And two, the view that N.T. Wright has advanced, and the handbook affirms, is somewhat complex and understanding and working with this view will likely require more than a cursory introduction. One of the reasons I included recommended readings is to provide a doorway into more detailed, albeit, more academic discussions of this view. I am attempting, in a short handbook, to merely introduce the concepts described more fully by N.T. Wright, Goheen, Vanhoozer and others (See Chapter One above). Without further reading, this relatively short treatment of the topic will likely be inadequate to enable readers to work appropriately within the missional hermeneutic frame. Adding a second chapter on the topic was my attempt to show the necessity of a narrative view of the Bible, and to give a few more illustrations of where the approach is helpful.
414 See, for example, Christian Smith’s recent book, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not A Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2011), and the reviews and responses from among the evangelical community, such as Robert Gundry’s review “Smithereens! Bible-Reading and Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism”, Books and Culture, 2011. (
The second change I made was to a discussion question that analyzed elements of a missional hermeneutic. This question (Q.3 of the Part Three Group Discussion) included a block quote from the handbook that discussed how the Bible’s authority was exercised through the Bible reading, Spirit-filled community. Mark said he agreed that the Bible’s purpose is to enable the church to join in God’s work in the world, but then said: “Yes, but it goes further.” He concluded that ultimately the Bible is “for the glory of God.” His point was that the purpose of the Bible is ultimately to bring God glory, not just to equip the church to join God’s mission.
Grace responded that my point seems to suggest that God’s authority, or the authority of the Scriptures, is based on the obedience of the church. I admitted that this is not the view I was trying to promote – that I did not think God’s authority is limited by, or contingent on, the church’s response to God. This point made me re-examine how I initially presented the material in the chapter, and I changed the wording and stated more clearly that God’s authority is not contingent on the church’s response. As a result of this discussion, I also decided to change the question to focus on the task of preaching.
In addition to changes directly suggested by the study group, it was clear to me that there were a number of other significant changes needed. In particular, it was necessary to give a fully and more nuanced description of the Bible’s narrative shape and how God exercises his authority through the Scriptures. These changes will strengthen the credibility and usefulness of the handbook for future use in my own ministry context, and hopefully beyond.
186
Findings of this Study for Education and Mentoring
The intent of the handbook is not simply to inform the participants about missional hermeneutics and preaching, but to invite them to reflect on their current practice of preaching – through personal reflection and in group meetings – and to consider how adopting a missional frame would enrich, even transform, their current practice. Indeed, the hope would be that this project might serve as one “piece of the puzzle” that enables churches to experience a renewal in vision and practice, as a more robust missional theology is worked into the preaching ministry of local churches. It is true that preaching is only one piece of shaping a congregation for faithful witness to
Jesus, but I think it is a significant one. The goal of the handbook, when used in a group situation as recommended in the handbook, is to provide a context in which preachers could experience a transformation in their practice of reading the Bible that includes adopting a missional frame. Further, it connects this reading of Scripture to their practice of preaching so that, alongside other activities and practices, the preaching ministry would deepen a sense of missional identity and vocation in communities.
With these educational goals of the project in mind, some key insights about what is needed for learners in this process will now be discussed. The study process revealed six educational factors (Table 1) for preachers considering a missional hermeneutic as a strategy for reading the Bible that provides a framework that undergirds missional preaching. Each preacher’s experience with the study process revealed a unique set of impacts that each experienced as a result of the study (Table 2). The following educational insights are derived from reflecting on this research and would be particularly
187 applicable for preaching mentors, discussion group leaders, or instructors using the material in a classroom setting.
The first educational point is for mentors or educators to recognize that the starting place of each preacher, particularly in regard to their current view of Scripture, will determine the level of tension the reader will feel while engaging Part One of the handbook. I included a Suggested Readings list after each Part of the handbook to provide additional literature regarding the views described in each section of the book.
Part One of the book is relatively terse in relation to what it is trying to accomplish – that is, to provide a robust view of the authority of Scripture as operating in story form. More reading on this section is almost certainly necessary for those to whom this approach is new. I would suggest to readers seeking more clarity to begin with Michael Goheen’s article. It is free online and, though scholarly, was presented as a paper to an audience, and therefore is relatively accessible. N.T. Wright’s publication in Vox Evangelica
(1991) is available for free online. It is more difficult reading than Goheen, although it is the source of the Five Act Play analogy, and is an important work for a reader to better understand the issue of improvising with consistency and innovation. Given the inclusion of Holmes and Cavey’s sermon notes in Part Four, having the reader jump forward to read these messages may also serve to clarify the main points raised in Part
One.
The second insight is that missional preaching will likely only find a “home” when it is connected with practices that are being embodied in the community. With this
188 in mind, however, in a similar sense to how the hermeneutical spiral works,415 a preacher who is beginning to test the approach described in the handbook within his or her community will be modelling an approach to reading the Bible that culminates with the gospel of Jesus at the centre, and raising missiological questions that help form a missional identity within the congregation. To the extent that the community and leadership are seeking to cultivate the theological vision described in the messages in real life practices, the missiological approach to preaching will likely gain more traction. In this sense, a sort of (missional) hermeneutical spiral of being “shaped by the story” and allowing the story to go to work, re-shaping the pre-understanding of the community, will prepare the community to read and hear the text within a strengthened missiological frame. As a preaching mentor, this might require suggesting further reading that helps the reader to envision better what practices would help cultivate a missional frame within a congregation. Timothy Keller’s handbook, Centre Church, offers a helpful introduction to missional church ideas and assumptions. The mentor may have other suggested readings that describe faithful, missional practices for local churches.
The third recommendation is to strongly encourage the reader to make use of the personal reflection questions and for the mentoring relationship or group to engage in the group discussions. Some of the issues relating to the educational factors described in Part
One of Chapter Four (see Table 1) could be addressed if the reader/learner were engaged in personal reflection alongside of a mentor or learning community.
415 The hermeneutical spiral is a description of the way a reader engages a text and, through that interaction, moves from their pre-understanding to a new understanding, which in turn means that the understanding of the text is seen with ‘new eyes’, and so on, “spiralling”, with each encounter, to an enriched understanding. See Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Jr., 166-168.
189
The personal reflection questions will help the reader to notice his or her own assumptions and critically analyze these in relation to the material in the handbook.
Transformationist learning theory describes the need for learners to reflect critically on their current beliefs in order to test and analyze their assumptions.416 Further, discussing these personal reflections with a mentor or teacher, or in a group discussion setting, will provide an opportunity for clarifying areas of dissonance, which may have been pinpointed in the reading or reflection. Social constructivist theories of education focus on the way that the learning community supports learning, and as some educators argue, conversations between the learner and teacher can assist the learner as the teacher helps connect the new learning with pre-existing categories of understanding.417 The role of conversation and dialogue in the learning process is significant. Because some of the suggestions in the handbook will likely be new to readers, providing space to discuss and connect the new learning to existing categories will greatly increase the likelihood that the learner will consider some of the information in the book (particularly Part One of the handbook).
The fourth educational suggestion is having the preacher offer his or her sermon text for review and reflection by the mentor ahead of preaching it. One of the practices of the preaching team at Summit Drive – which is typical for our regular preaching team, as well as for ministry interns or lay preachers – is for the preacher to give his or her preaching text to other members of the preaching team (typically on a Thursday before the message is preached) in order to receive feedback, encouragement, critique and suggestions. This process, particularly with newer preachers and interns, provides a rich
416 Taylor and Hamdy cite Mezirow (1990) in reference to this point, e1562. 417 See Taylor and Hamdy who reference Vygostski (1978), e1563. 190 opportunity for the members of the preaching team to offer helpful suggestions, point out potential issues, and to help sharpen the focus of the message. Given that some of the suggestions in the handbook depart from approaches to preaching commonly taught in colleges and seminaries, having an opportunity to reflect on the message with a preacher seeking to engage the mission-focused approach of the handbook may be a useful approach in the case of a mentoring relationship or even a preacher’s guild.418
The fifth suggestion is the need for regular review of the material, and evaluation from the congregation. Deploying the sermon evaluation form within the community at regular intervals would serve to keep the preacher engaged with the learning process.
When I use evaluations for my own learning, I simply give approximately 10 forms to people in the congregation and request honest feedback. These have regularly been a source of important learning and growth for me. The mentor and mentee could work through the results of the evaluations together, reflecting on the opportunities for encouragement and growth. Sharing this process together could be a chance for the mentor to encourage a newer preacher through what can sometimes be a painful, but helpful, learning experience. Inviting regular feedback on sermons from the congregation could also strengthen the sense of co-operative learning within a church community, encouraging the community to further embrace the missional impulse of openness to learning, growth and experimentation.
418 The difficulty, of course, would be with the divergent views of what preaching means among a larger group. I would hope that, perhaps, this project handbook could at least provide a ‘jumping off point’ for discussion, and maybe even provide some common ground from which a preaching team or preacher’s guild could work. 191
Conclusion
The study analyzed the educational process for preachers using the handbook and, as pointed out in this chapter, this process helped to strengthen the arguments of the book and clarify and expand it to be more useful for future readers. This process also yielded important insights for educators. This included the need for educators or mentors to: 1) recognize the starting place of each preacher, particularly in regard to their current view of Scripture; 2) understand that missional preaching will likely only find a “home” when it is connected with missional practices that are being embodied in the community; 3) highly encourage the reader to make use of the personal reflection questions and for the mentoring relationship or group to engage in the group discussions; 4) have the preacher offer his or her sermon text for review and reflection by the mentor ahead of preaching it, and; 5) encourage regular review of the material, and evaluation from the congregation.
192
CONCLUSION
Chapter Summary
The introductory chapter raises the primary research issue the thesis project seeks to address, namely, how preaching can equip and empower the people of God in local congregations for faithful witness in the world. Here I argue that preaching plays a significant role in shaping the culture of a congregation, creating a particular framework from which God’s people view their lives, and community, and work, and calling as his witnesses in the world. But that raises the issue of what sort of identity is being formed.
In order to form a missional identity in a congregation, I propose that preaching that works out of a missional hermeneutic will best achieve these purposes. At this point a series of questions is addressed, including: Why Preaching? Why Missional? Why
Missional Hermeneutics? And finally, why a Preaching Manual? Here I discuss how the idea for a preaching manual arose from within my own local church context. There was a need in our setting to have a shared vision of preaching and a unified set of missionary assumptions to accompany this vision.
Chapter One then shifts to focus specifically on the history and development of missional hermeneutics and pays careful attention to several of the key features of this approach, including the assumptions: 1) that God is a missionary God, and therefore missiology should not be viewed as a subset of theology, but instead central to all theological work; 2) that the Scriptures are the normative and authoritative witness to
God’s work, and therefore developing a hermeneutical approach that accompanies the view of God as a missionary is essential; 3) that the Bible, the Old and New Testaments,
193 are missionary documents; 4) that the Authoritative Hermeneut and Hermeneutical Key to the Bible is Jesus’ own life, ministry, death and resurrection; 5) that the Bible is a narrative of universal intent; 6) that Jesus, God the Son, himself is the content of the good news or “Gospel”; 7) that Jesus’ death and resurrection and sending the church in the power of the Spirit brings this story to its climax; and 8) that God exercises God’s own authority through the Spirit inspired writings of the Bible. The chapter concludes with a discussion of missional hermeneutics in relation to other hermeneutical approaches.
The first part of Chapter Two proceeds to describe and discuss a theology of preaching that arises from the set of assumptions unpacked in Chapter One. Part One of this chapter addresses the theology and practice of preaching and begins by discussing what preaching is, offering my own definition of preaching with the missional frame discussed in Chapter One fully in view. The chapter then examines how a missional reading of the Bible calls the preacher to be shaped around the character of Jesus himself.
Next, the question of the content of Christian preaching is discussed. The core argument is, as Michael Goheen puts it, that the gospel is “that person in whom we find the fullest revelation of God and of his purpose for the entire creation.”419 In order to preach Christ – the centre of preaching – the preacher also needs to, in some way, “tell the story” in which Jesus’ life and ministry is historically set, and then draw out the missional implications that flow from the text. The next section then focuses on what preaching aims to do, including six significant elements.420 The final, but most detailed
419 Michael Goheen, Light, 17. Emphasis mine. 420 These include: 1) to form a missional identity in the community; 2) to form a Christian worldview, a plausibility structure from which to make sense of life; 3) to provide a framework whereby God’s people are spiritually nurtured and formed for mission; 4) to confront the idols of our hearts, unmasking the cultural captivity of God’s 194 portion of Part One addresses the question of how preaching accomplishes these aims, which involves a thorough discussion on contextualization based on Paul’s Athenian ministry (Acts 17). Part two of Chapter Two discusses both the form and content of the preaching handbook that was developed. This includes a summary of each chapter and the educational reasons behind each of the major themes discussed in the handbook.
Chapter Three begins by presenting the research question and aims of the study, then offers a discussion of the ethical considerations relating to the study. Next, this chapter describes the study design and provides the methodological choices along with each step of the study process. The study design did not result in enough survey data to provide a meaningful discussion. This resulted in describing how I further narrowed my study to focus specifically on the learning experience of the participating preachers and to draw results regarding the educational factors raised for preachers looking to adopt a missional hermeneutic and employ it in his or her preaching ministry.
Chapter Four begins by introducing the two primary areas of the data. Part One of this chapter looked at the factors that impacted how preachers interacted with the handbook material. Part Two then turned to examine the impacts of the study, answering: What were the impacts of the study on the participants’ views or practices?
These included the changes or impacts that were explicitly reported as well as implicit indicators of change.
Chapter Five takes the data that was analyzed in Chapter Four and addresses what the study has meant for my own ministry context and what impacts it could have more widely. The primary impact of the study for future ministry was to reveal what elements
people; and 5) to equip and send God’s people to work for justice and God’s shalom in the world. 195 of the handbook needed clarification or modification. The changes included adding a chapter that better nuanced the view of the Scriptures as primarily in narrative shape, clarifying some of the personal and group discussion questions, and adding a set of example sermons. The study also revealed some of the significant elements that preaching educators – be they ministry mentors, pastors leading a preaching team, or seminary instructors – would need to consider when introducing missional hermeneutics and the implications for preaching as described in the handbook with preachers. The study also demonstrated some of the ways the handbook was effective as a tool for educating preachers, as the study group reported significant changes in some of their views and practices.
Suggestions for Future Research
The study of a group of preacher’s experiences with the handbook has provided a rich opportunity to reflect on the issues and challenges of introducing a missional hermeneutic and the implications of preaching from within a missional frame. It has also lead to significant changes to the teaching resource of the preaching handbook.
However, the failure of the study to gain sufficient congregational response leaves lacunae in the initial research question of the study regarding how preaching with a missional hermeneutic would help foster a missional identity within the community. The attempt to gain congregational feedback, however, provided me with an opportunity to reflect on, and learn about the process of collecting data from a congregation, and on the factors that might be necessary to better examine the question of how preaching with a missional hermeneutic helps shape a congregation. The suggestion for further study is described with three considerations.
196
First, assuming that the preachers involved in the study want the congregations they are a part of to develop a richer missional identity and be better equipped to embody that identity as they join God on mission, congregational feedback about the sermon that deals with missional-hermeneutic and mission-shaped questions provides preachers with a greater sense of how well their preaching ministry accomplishes these goals, and helps them evaluate where changes may be needed as well. The handbook includes a mission- centred sermon evaluation form as an appendix, and the handbook encourages preachers to make use of the evaluation form in order to learn and grow in their preaching ministry.
A study that retrieves a robust sample of responses from the congregation would be useful for a preacher, or the preaching team of a church, for the purpose of self-reflection.
A study that evaluates the congregational responses, and compares these with an analysis of the sermon preached could also give insight to educators regarding the process of how best to equip preachers and more data regarding how a missional identity is formed or strengthened through sermons.
Second, as suggested above (Chapter Four), the time element and level of engagement with the handbook material, including the suggested readings, would greatly influence the preachers ability to experience a shift in his or her preaching. It is not realistic that a busy pastor/preacher would be able to absorb and process the view of hermeneutics and preaching described in the handbook, and have these suggestions impact their preaching in significant ways over a one-month period. Some elements of change could be present in the sermon preparation in the short term – use of gender inclusive pronouns, use of first person plural pronouns, a deeper level of engagement with current issues, seeking to place the text of Scripture into the larger frame of the
197 biblical narrative etc. Other elements, however, would take more practice and more sustained study. These might include learning to listen to the cultural narratives and engaging in gospel discourse that addresses these narratives impulses of our culture with sensitivity to a secular audience and the ability to connect inter-canonical themes and strands of the biblical narrative, and then communicate these in a way that connects with an audience that has varying levels of understanding.
A research study among a group of pastors committed to adopting a missional frame in preaching, over a period of a year or more, would more realistically demonstrate the influence of a missional-frame for preaching in the life and identity of a congregation.
In this case, the study might deploy sermon surveys periodically over the course of the study period, giving the preachers opportunity for reflections and learning. This form of study would also need to track the experience of the preachers, perhaps through a monthly “preachers guild”, where the preachers in the study would share their reading and learning alongside of the researcher. This form of study would require a greater degree of commitment from both the preacher and congregation.
Third, the form of data collection would need to be modified, perhaps by working closely with the ethics review board to find a suitable way of selecting an anonymous group of respondents that could give consistent feedback. Maintaining the commitment and confidentiality of a group over a longer period of time could prove to be a significant challenge, however. One alternate approach might be to have a community leader ask
15-20 congregants to fill in paper surveys at intervals throughout the year. Though the preacher may know who was given a survey, if only aggregate survey data is reported, the relationship between the respondent and preacher would not be compromised.
198
A longer-term study that engaged a greater number of respondents, perhaps involving leaders from several churches who continue to meet as a preachers guild, would provide a powerful set of data that could be used to further explore and extend the practice of preaching that employs a missional hermeneutic. However, having three participants allowed for a very detailed and descriptive data set, specifically analyzing the preacher’s experience and providing insight into the educational factors involved in teaching missional hermeneutics. Extending this practice of reading and preaching is worthy of the attention.
As David Bosch writes: “mission is, quite simply, the participation of Christians in the liberating mission of Jesus, wagering on a future that verifiable experience seems to belie. It is the good news of God’s love, incarnated in the witness of a community, for the sake of the world.”421 Preaching is no doubt part of this participation. Weekly preaching the good news calls the people of God to “constant conversion” 422 – to let the evangel reframe and transform every part of life, equipping every member for evangelism, social action, and engaging culture through their work. By learning to indwell the story in community, preaching functions to equip God’s people to be a contrast community, distinct from the world, for the sake of the world.
421 Bosch, 532. Emphasis mine. 422 Darrel Guder, 9. 199
APPENDIX 1
The questions that a missional hermeneutic raise, when reading and preaching the text, include the following questions: Story and Gospel questions:
1) What does this text say about the God of mission? How does it reveal God’s heart for the redemption of the whole cosmos? As Goheen and Bartholomew put it: “The gospel [of the kingdom] is an announcement about where God is moving the history of the whole world.”423 How does this text connect to that redemptive movement?
2) How does this text connect to the larger narrative of God’s saving and healing action in Jesus? Stated differently, in what way does this text move us toward the “good news” of Jesus?
3) How did the text originally function to form the original audience to equip them for their missional calling? How does it continue to function in the same way in our community?
4) In light of this text, what will it mean to align our lives and community with the God of mission? How does this text address our idolatry or our adoption of inappropriate cultural norms that run counter the gospel of Jesus?
Reader and Culture questions:424 (the questions offer an appropriate hermeneutic of suspicion)
1) Does our reading of the text challenge or baptize our assumptions and blind spots?
2) Does our reading emphasize the triumph of Christ’s resurrection to the exclusion of the kenotic, cruciform character of his ministry?
3) In what ways does this text proclaim good news to the poor and release to the captives, and how might our social location make it difficult to hear that news as good?
4) Does our reading of the text acknowledge and confess our complicity and culpability in personal as well as structural sin?
423 Michael Goheen and Craig Bartholomew, as cited in Tizon, 19. 424 This set of questions is taken and adapted from Michael Barram, as cited in Hunsberger, 10. 200
APPENDIX 2
Is Paul’s Athenian Ministry a Legitimate Paradigm for Contextualization?
There is ongoing discussion in the field of biblical studies regarding the legitimacy of viewing Paul’s Athenian ministry, particularly his speech before the
Areopagus counsel, as a paradigm for contextualization. The following looks first at the literary context of Paul’s speech and then focuses on the historical context as a means of answering this question.
G. Walter Hansen argues that the narrative sections surrounding Paul’s speeches set the agenda for the reader.425 Paul’s Areopagus speech is set within the context of his proclaiming “Jesus and the resurrection” (17:18), which is in direct response to the idolatry he witnessed. These elements, Hansen argues, set up the reader to see the speech in evangelistic terms.426
The narrative section (17:16-21; 32-34) includes a significant semantic chain centered on Paul’s ministry of proclamation in Athens.427 Paul is described as a
“proclaimer” (kataggeleu\ß) who “reasons/debates” (diale÷gomai) with all and sundry
– Jews, God-fearers, and pagan Gentiles alike – “preaching the good news”
(eujaggeli÷zw) of “Jesus and the resurrection.” These elements signal to the reader
Luke’s emphasis on proclamation. Luke further pairs the noun kataggeleu\ß
(“proclaimer”) in the narrative section, with the verbal form katagge÷llw (“I proclaim”)
425 G. Walter Hansen, in Marshall and Peterson, 296. 426 Hansen, 315. 427 For a discussion on semantic chains in discourse analysis see Cynthia Westfall, “Blessed be the Ties that Bind: Semantic Domains and Cohesive Chains in Hebrews 1:1- 2:4 and 12:5-8.” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism. Volume 6 (2009), 199-216. 201 in the opening of the speech (17:23b). The semantic connections may function to bridge the narrative segment (17:16-21) with the speech that follows (17:22-31). Strengthening this connection, Hansen notes that the combination of the words eujaggeli÷zw and katagge÷llw are linked with “Jesus”, “Christ”, and the “word of God” as the content of preaching throughout Acts.428 He argues that: “Luke was defining the nature of the preaching, both in the narrative and in the Areopagus address, to be orthodox, apostolic preaching by his use of these terms.”429 Hansen then concludes that Luke’s theological evaluation of the evangelism (eujaggeli÷zw) and proclamation (katagge÷llw) offered by Paul in the speech becomes a model, or paradigm, of Christian evangelism in a
Gentile context.430 The semantic cues in the narrative point to the speech as having an evangelistic thrust, and thus to be seen as “preaching”; but do issues surrounding the historical context suggest the same? So our second question.
Schnabel argues that the Athenian tradition of deliberation regarding “new gods” favours the reading that Paul is being tried before Areopagus court (though not “under arrest”).431 In this case, he argues, Paul’s speech is not to be viewed as evangelistic in nature (and thus, a model for sensitive, contextualization of the gospel),432 but as a defense speech. The evidence within the Lukan narrative, however, does not rule out the possibility of Paul’s speech having an evangelistic thrust. Three observations will help clarify.
428 Hansen, 313. 429 Ibid, 313. 430 Ibid, 314. 431 Schnabel, 728. 432 Schnabel takes the view that finding a model in this speech is basically an over-interpretation. 744. 202
First, Luke elsewhere makes clear when he intends to present the official proceedings of a trial.433 Stott notes: “There seem to have been no legal charge, no prosecutor, no presiding judge, no verdict and no sentence.”434 Bruce Longnecker is probably right to argue that the Epicureans and Stoics took Paul to the council, “half in jest and half in derision,” but that the city counsellors took their task seriously.435 Paul is likely informally tried – possibly a pre-trial436 – and the conclusion of the matter was either freedom to continue preaching, or to be censored.437 Paul’s move to Corinth, and no further mention of mission in Athens, may suggest that Paul’s public preaching had been censored. If that is the case, he still has the ability to speak in private settings to encourage the new believers, or possibly give a fuller explanation of the gospel than was afforded him during the Areopagus meeting (17:32-34).438
Second, Luke’s editorial comment in verse 21, following the request for more information in verse 20, indicates that the questioning of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers is not primarily judicial in nature, given Luke’s not-so-subtle critique of the character of the Athenians.439 As Bruce argues, Paul is not being put on trial “in any
433 Arnold, 389. As Conzelmann states, “Luke makes it very clear when he is describing a trial.” In Croy, 24, fn. 14. 434 Stott, 283. 435 Longnecker, 474. 436 Witherington III, 517, fn.199. Both of these helpful points are made by Schnabel as well, 728. 437 Longnecker, 474. 438 It may be the case that the two people who came to faith (v.34) did so as a result of further discussion with Paul following the speech. 439 Though Schnabel seeks to find in Luke’s comment a more positive assessment and rhetorical function, it seems to be reaching. See Schnabel, 728-9. Bruce’s discussion of the tradition of criticisms levelled against the Athenians convincingly portrays the negative tone in Luke’s comments. See Bruce, Acts, 352 where he mentions the comments of Demosthenes (Philippic i.10) and Cleon’s approach in Thucydides’s 203 forensic sense, but to give an account of his ‘philosophy’.”440 Paul is, then, offering a defense, but Marion Soards is surely right to suggest that Paul offers a defense first – and it is a successful one – and then he brings his own charges against the council.441
Third, one of the reasons Paul’s speech in Athens is not viewed by some as
“preaching” is the lack of any reference to the cross.442 Stott believes Paul does preach the cross, however. He notes that the speeches recorded by Luke were not verbatim accounts, and based on the fact that Paul speaks of Jesus’ resurrection (17:31b), it seems necessary that Paul would have also spoken about Jesus’ death as well.443 John
Chrysostom notes in his Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles (38): “‘By a man whom he has appointed, by raising him from the dead.’ See how he again declares the passion [the death of Jesus on the cross] by pointing to the resurrection.”444
Further, Luke’s general emphasis on Jesus as exalted Lord may account for the lack of mention of the cross in the speech, as I.H. Marshall makes the important point about Lukan soteriology: “Little is said about the function of the death of Jesus in achieving salvation, and more stress is placed on his authoritative position as the exalted
Lord.”445 In the Areopagus speech, “the man” who Paul proclaims as raised from the
History ii.38.5: “you are the best people at being deceived by something new that is said.” 440 Bruce, Acts, 352. Perhaps it could become a formal trial, depending on Paul’s answer. 441 Soards, 96. 442 See the discussion in Stott, 289. 443 Stott, 289. 444 John Chrysostom, in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture New Testament V Acts, ed. Francis Martin, gen. ed. Thomas C. Oden (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006), 222. Being an early interpreter does not mean he is right, but being ancient does not mean he should be ignored either. 445 Marshall, New Testament Theology, 181. We might look at Luke 9:51 as confirmation of the exaltation motif emphasized in Luke’s portrayal of Jesus’ ministry. 204 dead is the one now authorized to judge the world with justice (17:31); and his resurrection is the evidence that he is in this authoritative position as the exalted Lord.
The reference to “man”, and not the mention of Jesus by name, may have been a deliberate attempt by Paul to avoid the charge that he was introducing a new deity (cf.
17:18b), 446 and thus may be evidence that points away from viewing this speech as successful preaching of the gospel447 and rather, a successful defense. That Paul offers a successful defense does not rule out the speech also functioning as a sermon, however.
Given the view of Chrysostom and Stott – that Paul has surely spoken of the cross if he speaks of resurrection – taken with Marshall’s point that Luke places emphasis on the exaltation of Jesus, combined with the lexical cues in the narrative preceding the speech, it is best not to rule out that Paul’s “proclaiming” (17:23) should be seen as having a preaching function in the Areopagus address. Witherington rightly concludes: “It is hard to doubt that Luke sees this speech in Acts 17 as something of a model for how to approach educated pagan Greeks.”448 By extension, it continues to be a model for how preachers approach each new situation, in every generation.
446 Schnabel, 741-742; 744-745. 447 As the speech includes no mention of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, or the forgiveness for sins, promise of eschatological future under God’s gracious reign etc. 448 Witherington, Acts, 533. 205
APPENDIX 3
Preacher Initial Interview
1. How do you view your role as a preacher? For example, what words, images or metaphors would you use to describe your role as a preacher?
2. What do you see as the overarching purpose or goal of preaching? For example, what impact do you hope your sermons have on the listeners?
3. How would you describe the strategies you use for interpreting the Bible? What is your default hermeneutical approach?
4. How do you prepare your sermons? What is your process?
5. How would you describe the impact of your preaching on the culture of the church?
6. How would you describe the way that your preaching ministry impacts your own life?
7. Who are some of the preachers who have been models to you? And why?
8. Are you familiar with the language of “missional church”? If so, how would you define it? Would you define your church as “missional”? Why or why not?
9. Are there any questions I should have asked but missed? Is there anything else you’d like to add to our conversation?
206
APPENDIX 4
Preacher Post-Intervention Interview
1. As a result of your experience using the handbook, has your view of preaching, or the role of the preacher changed at all? If so, how? [push a bit on…not sure how to say how…]
2. Did you experience any shift in your goals for preaching? (For example, did you find that your messages focused on forming a missionary identity in your congregation?)
3. Were there any changes in your process of preparation? If so, describe them.
4. Did you receive any feedback from people in the congregation? Was it positive and helpful?
5. How did your process, or the message you preached, shape you personally?
6. What did you find as valuable in the process or in the manual?
7. What did you find particularly challenging? Why?
8. What was unhelpful?
9. Do you have any feedback about how the handbook could be improved?
10. Is there anything you would like to comment on or add to the conversation? Are there questions I may have missed that you’d like to address?
207
APPENDIX 5
Congregational Sermon Evaluation Form
Age: (Circle one) 18-25; 26-35; 36-45; 46-55; 56 plus. Sex: Male Female Number assigned to respondent: ______(1 to 10). (These numbers will be used to identify the respondents so that the pre and post evaluations of the same respondents can be compared). Date: Service Time: Congregation (the name of your church will not be included in the thesis):
Thank you so much for your participation in this study and for your honest feedback! Your name will not be included anywhere in printed documents and be kept confidential from the pastor/preacher as well. Because written comments will be particularly useful for the research project, please include any additional comments if possible.
What was the Biblical passage or title of the sermon? ______
If you had to sum up the message in a sentence or two, what was the main message of the sermon? ______
For all of the following scales: 1 = poorly; 10 = extremely well
1. How well did the sermon help you understand the text/theme being preached on? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ______
Comments: ______
208
2. How clearly did the sermon help you understand the meaning of the text in relation to the larger storyline of the Bible?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ______
Comments: ______
3. How effectively did the preacher communicate? (You may want to consider tone, speed, clarity of voice, use of gestures and bodily movement?)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ______
Comments: ______
4. How effective were the illustrations, analogies, metaphors, stories, or examples in relation to the text/theme?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ______
5. What factors (i.e. those named in questions 3 and 4) helped you to hear the message clearly? ______
6. What factors (i.e. those named in questions 3 and 4) kept you from hearing clearly? ______
209
7. If your neighbour or co-worker or family member with little or no previous church background had been with you today, how well would they have understood the message?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ______
a. What elements of the message would they have understood clearly? ______
b. What elements would have seemed difficult to comprehend or have turned them away from considering the Christian message (“insider” language, type of illustration or stories that would not apply to those outside of the Christian faith)? ______
8. Would you have invited your co-worker or neighbour or family member to hear this message? Circle one: Yes No
Why or why not? ______
9. In what ways did the message connect with the culture outside of the church community?
______
10. In what ways did the message affirm the culture outside of the church community?
______
11. In what ways did the message challenge the culture outside of the church community?
______
210
12. In what ways did the sermon cause you to think differently about an issue you have read in the newspaper or seen on the news? ______
13. How clearly did the sermon communicate the Good News of Jesus?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ______
In what ways did the sermon do this well, or fail to do this well?
______
14. How well did the sermon function to better equip or empower you to follow Jesus this week (i.e. Did the sermon encourage practices that help you connect with God such as prayer, Scripture engagement, hospitality to strangers and neighbours? Did the sermon encourage you to pattern your life after Jesus’ own character of generosity, humility, honesty, graciousness etc.)?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ______
15. If a friend or co-worker or family member asked you about your Christian faith, how well do you feel that this sermon helped equip you to give an answer about the hope you have in Jesus in a way that honours and respects your neighbour (see 1 Peter 3:15-16)? Why or why not (i.e. did the preacher set a good example or poor example of how to speak about the good news of Jesus with non-Christian neighbours)?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ______
211
______
16. To what extent did this sermon leave you feeling empowered, equipped and encouraged to participate in God’s mission this week? Why or why not?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ______
______
212
APPENDIX 6
Preacher Follow-Up Interview
I’m adding another ‘lens’ in a sense to look at the data. I was originally hoping for more and varied participation from the congregation. There are probably lots of dynamics at play in people choosing to participate or not, but I’m interested to know some of your thoughts. I know you encouraged participation. There are some reasons I could think of, beyond that the survey takes time perhaps. But let me float these, and then get your feedback.
1. Was it because I was an outsider?
2. Was it a sense that people aren’t convinced of the value of the sermon evaluation tool or of the study? If I had maybe convinced them of the value, maybe they’d say, “I think the preaching is great, I don’t need to give feedback”? What are your thoughts on that?
3. Would you say that you are a missional church – or seeking to be?
4. Missional models imply that the church must always be learning, always struggling, that we don’t always know how to do church, and so there’s deep openness to learning, growing, experimentation, and measured risk taking. The idea that we have this “sorted” is a Christendom assumption. Living in a post-Christendom setting – where our neighbours often don’t know the Christian story, and thus we are in a legitimately missionary setting – some people in churches feel profoundly threatened, disoriented and confused in trying to live Christian lives in this post-Christendom setting. They want the church to be the harbour in the choppy seas. The idea that the pastor – the ‘expert’ – needs to learn, is seeking to grow, and perhaps even ‘doesn’t know’ something, can seem really threatening. Being asked to give feedback may feel like there is something ‘wrong’ or that needs to be changed.
Do you think some people view giving feedback as meaning that there is something ‘wrong’ or that needs to be changed?449
5. Is it common for people to give constructive criticism, sermon evaluation, in your community? Would you say that is part of your churches culture or not?
On preaching and missional hermeneutics:
449 This line of questioning was suggested to me in a personal conversation with John McNally in September 2016. Indeed, I borrowed his phrase that the church seen as a “harbour in choppy seas” is clearly reflective of McNally’s east coast experience and communicates the idea well. 213
1. How would you define preaching that works from a missional perspective or from a missional hermeneutic?
2. Did you consider your preaching to be “missional” before the study? (Short answer!) Has your idea of what missional preaching entails changed as a result of the study?
3. Are you continuing to seek to preach from a missional perspective/with a missional hermeneutic? What led to your decision either way?
4. If you have decided to continue preaching from a missional hermeneutic, what do you think the impact has been on the congregation? (Do you think it has aided the congregation for greater missional faithfulness?/In the ability of the congregation to think differently about their identity and lives in and for the world?).
5. Have there been any comments from your congregation regarding the messages that have struck you as different as you have been working with a more ‘missional’ approach to preaching? What was said?
6. To what extent were the group meetings or book influential in your decision to continue learning in this area? Why or why not?
214
REFERENCES
Arnold, Clinton. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary: Volume 2, John, Acts. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2002.
Barram, Michael. “The Bible, Mission, and Social Location: Toward a Missional Hermeneutic” Interpretation, 43 (January, 2007), pp. 42-58.
Barrett, C.K. The Gospel According to St.John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text: Second Edition. Philidelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1978.
Barrett, Lois. Et al. Treasure in Clay Jars, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, 2004
Bartholomew, Craig, Colin Greene, and Karl Moller Eds. Renewed Biblical Interpretation. Scripture and Hermeneutics Series Volume One. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 2000.
Bauckham, Richard. Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World, Baker Academic, 2004
Bauckham, Richard. “The Fourth Gospel as the Testimony of the Beloved Disciple” in The Gospel of John and Christian Theology eds. Richard Bauckham and Carl Mosser. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008.
Bekele, Girma. “The Biblical Narrative of the Missio Dei: Analysis of the Interpretive Framework of David Bosch’s Missional Hermeneutics” International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Vol. 35, No. 3 (July, 2011), pp. 153-158.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich The Cost of Discipleship. New York, NY: Touchstone, 1990.
Bosch, David. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, Orbis Books, 1991
Brownson, James, “Speaking the Truth in Love: Elements of a Missional Hermeneutic” International Review of Mission, Vol. LXXXIII no. 330 (1994) pp. 479-504.
Brownson, James, “A Response at SBL to Hunsberger’s ‘Proposals…’ Essay”. Paper presented at the Gospel and Our Culture Network, 2009.
Bruce, F.F. Commentary on the Book of Acts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.
Bruce, F.F. The Gospels and Epistles of John. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983.
215
Bruce, F.F. “The Significance of the Speeches for Interpreting Acts”, Southwestern Journal of Theology. Vol. 33, No.1 (Fall 1990): 20-28.
Bruner, Fredrick Dale. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012.
Bruggerman, Walter. Cadence of Home: Preaching Among Exiles. Louisville, Kentucky:Westminster John Knox Press, 1997
Chan, Simon. Liturgical Theology: The Church as Worshipping Community IVP Academic, 2006
Chester, Tim and Steve Timmis, Total Church: A Radical Reshaping Around Gospel and Community. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2008.
Chrysostom, John. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture New Testament V Acts, ed. Francis Martin, gen. ed. Thomas C. Oden. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006.
Comfort, Philip. Ed. The Origin of the Bible. Wheaton, Ill: Tyndale House, 2003.
Cray, Graham. ed. Mission-Shaped Church. London, UK: Church House Publishing, 2004.
Croy, N. Clayton. “Hellenistic Philosophies and the Preaching of the Resurrection (Acts 17:18, 32)” Novum Testamentum, Vol. 39, Fasc. 1. (Jan., 1997): 21-39.
Dawn, Marva. A Royal Waste of Time: The Splendor of Worshipping God and Being Church for the World. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999.
De Young, Kevin. “Those Tricksy Biblicists.” The Gospel Coalition, September 1, 2011.
Ellul, Jacque. The Presence of the Kingdom, Second Edition. Colorado Spring, CO: Helmers and Howard, 1989.
Farley, Edward. Practicing Gospel: Unconventional Thoughts on the Church’s Ministry. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.
Fee, Gordon and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible For All It’s Worth. Third Edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2009
Fields, David R. The Logic of Knowledge in Philippians. MDiv Thesis, McMaster Divinity College, 2006.
216
Fowl, Stephen E. Philippians. Two Horizons New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing, 2005.
Frazee, Randy. The Heart of the Story: God’s Masterful Design to Restore His People. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011.
Gay, Craig M. The Way of the (Modern) World: Or, Why It’s Tempting To Live as if God Doesn’t Exist. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998.
Goheen, Michael. A Light to the Nations: The Missional Church in the Biblical Story. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011
Goheen, Michael “The Mission of God’s People and Biblical Interpretation: Exploring N.T. Wright’s Missional Heremeneutics”, Scripture and Hermeneutics Seminar Meeting, San Franscisco, Friday 18, November 2011. < http://64.64.27.114/~mission/wp-c ontent/uploads/2013/01/Missional- Hermeneutic-A-Dialogue-with-NT-Wright.pdf > accessed, February 25, 2015.
Goheen, Michael. “The Urgency of Reading the Bible as One Story in the 21st Century” Theology Today, 64, 4, (January, 2008). 469-483
Green, Joel. “God as Saviour in the Acts of the Apostles” In Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts edited by I.H. Marshall and David Peterson. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998.
Green, Joel. The Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1997.
Grenz, Stanley. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.
Guder, Darrell L. ed. Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America, contributing authors, Lois Barrett, Inagrace T. Dietterich, George R. Hunsberger, Alan J. Roxburgh and Craig Van Gelder. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998.
Guder, Darrell L. “Missional Theology for a Missionary Church.” Journal for Preachers 22, no. 1 (1998): 3-11
Gundry, Robert. “Smithereens! Bible Reading and Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism,” Books and Culture, 2011.
Hart, Addison Hodge. Strangers and Pilgrims: Following Jesus in a Post-Christendom World. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014.
217
Hastings Ross. Missional God, Missional Church: Hope for the Re-Evangelization of the West. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2012. Kindle Edition.
Hawthorne Gerald F., Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, Eds. The Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 1994.
Holmes, Stephen R. “Trinitarian Missiology: Towards a Theology of God as Missionary” International Journal of Systematic Theology Vol 8, No 1 (Jan 2006) pp. 72-90.
Hooker, Morna. The Gospel According to Saint Mark: Blacks New Testament Commentaries. Gen.Editor: Henry Chadwick. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.
Hunsberger, George R. “Proposals for a Missional Hermeneutic: Mapping a Conversation,” Missiology, 39, 3 (July 2011), p. 309- 321
Johnson, Darrel. “Genesis 1: Creator Creates Creation” preached September 12, 2010 at First Baptist Vancouver, accessed July 7, 2014.
Johnson, Darrel. The Glory of Preaching: Participating in God’s Transformation of the World, Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2009
Johnson, Patrick W.T. The Mission of Preaching: Equipping the Community for Faithful Witness. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2015.
Jones, Barry D., Dwell: Life with God for the World. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2014).
Keener, Craig. The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Volume One and Volume Two. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.
Keller, Timothy. Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012.
Keller, Timothy Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope That Matters. River Head Books, 2009.
Keller, Timothy. The Gospel in Life Study Guide. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010.
Klein, William W., Craig L. Blomberg and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: Revised and Updated. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2004.
Larkin. William J. Acts, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary. Tyndale Publishing: Carol Stream, Illinois, 2006.
218
Lickerman, Alex. “The Diffusion of Responsibility: Why Assigning Responsibility to Groups Doesn’t Work”, Psychology Today, June 14, 2010.
Long, Thomas. The Witness of Preaching, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.
Longnecker, Richard. Acts, in The Expositors Bible Commentary, Volume 9 (John-Acts) Gen ed.,Frank E. Gaebelein, Associate ed., J.D. Douglas. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1981.
Lloyd Jones, Sally. The Jesus Storybook Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Kidz, 2007.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Translation from the French by Greoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984. Originally published in Paris, FR: Les Edition de Minuit, 1979.
McDonald, Lee “Introduction to Acts” in Acts-Philemon: The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary. Gen ed. Craig Evans. Colorado Springs, Colorado: Victor, 2004.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue. Second Edition. Notre Dame: Notre Dame Press, 1984.
Marshall, I.H. New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2005.
Marshall I.H.and David Peterson editors. Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998.
Meadors Gary T. and Stanley N. Gundry Eds. Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology: Counterpoints Bible and Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Middleton, Richard and Brian J. Walsh, Truth is Stranger Than It Used To Be: Biblical Faith in a Postmodern Age. Downers Grove, MI: IVP Academic, 1996.
Newbigin, Lesslie. Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt and Certainty in Christian Discipleship Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.
Newbigin, Lesslie. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987.
219
Newbigin, Lesslie. The Open Secret, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Kindle Electronic Version.
Newbigin, Lesslie. The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1983.
Pagitt, Doug. Preaching in the Inventive Age. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 2014
Porter, Stanley E. and Beth M. Stovall, Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 2012.
Quicke, Michael. 360 Degree Preaching: Hearing, Speaking, and Living the Word Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003
Rogers, Jr. Eugene F. After the Spirit: A Constructive Pneumatology from Resources outside the Modern West. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.
Rosner, Brian S. “The Progress of the Word” In Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts edited by I.H. Marshall and David Peterson. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998.
Roxburgh, Alan and M. Scott Boren. Introducing the Missional Church: What Is It, Why It Matters, How to Become One. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2009. Kindle Electronic Edition.
Schnabel, Eckhart. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Volume 5 – Acts. Gen ed., Clinton E. Arnold. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2012.
Sensing, Tim. Qualitative Research: A Multi-Methods Approach to Projects for Doctor of Ministry Theses. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2011.
Smith, Christian. The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not A Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2011.
Smith, James K.A. Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview and Cultural Formation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009.
Smith, James K.A. Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.
Smith, Paul William. A Model for Preaching in the Missional Church: Common Characteristics of Preaching Found in Effective Missional Churches with the Pacific Northwest District of The Christian and Missionary Alliance. DMin Dissertation, Asbury Theological Seminary, 2010.
220
Stackhouse, Ian. The Gospel-Driven Church: Retrieving Classical Ministries for Contemporary Revivalism. Carlisle, United Kingdom: Paternoster, 2004.
Stevens, R. Paul. The Other Six Days: Work, Vocation and Ministry in Biblical Perspective. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.
Stott, John. The Message of Acts, The Bible Speaks Today Series. InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Illinois, 1990.
Taylor, Charles. Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004. Electronic edition.
Taylor, David C.M. and Hossam Hamdy, “Adults Learning Theories: Implications for Learning and Teaching in Medical Education: AMEE Guide No.83. Medical Teacher, 2013; 35:e.1561-e1572.
Tizon, Al. Missional Preaching: Engage, Embrace, Transform. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 2012.
Tyra, Gary. A Missional Orthodoxy. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2012
The Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011.
Thiselton, Anthony. The Holy Spirit – In Biblical Teaching, Through the Centuries, and Today. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014.
Van Gelder, Craig and Dwight J. Zscheile. Missional Church in Perspective: Mapping Trends and Shaping the Conversation. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011. Kindle Edition.
Westfall, Cynthia. “Blessed be the Ties that Bind: Semantic Domains and Cohesive Chains in Hebrews 1:1-2:4 and 12:5-8.” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism. Vol 6, (2009), pp. 199-216.
Wilson, Andrew. “Think Theology”
Witherington III, Ben. Invitation to the New Testament, First Things. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Witherington III. Ben. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004.
Witherington III, Ben. John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.
221
Witherington III, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998.
Wright, Christopher J.H. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2006.
Wright N.T. “How Can the Bible Be Authoritative,” Vox Evanelica Vol. 21 (1991): 7–32.
Wright, N.T. The Final Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture. San Francisco, CA: Harper One, 2005.
Wright, N.T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis, MI: Fortress Press, 2003.
222