Preaching As Art
(Repeated from April 2005)
I USED TO THINK of preaching as science. Take the text into the lab, dissect it, and carve it into three points and an application. Above all, make points.
NOW I THINK of preaching more as art. The goal isn’t to make points but to arrive at a point (destination). The message, like Christian discipleship itself, is a journey — informed by the text, shaped by the text. Instead of seeing myself as the one who explains the Bible to everyone, I see myself as a leader in the journey who escorts people into the messy, marvelous, unbelievable, life-altering world of scripture.
In some ways, it’s harder. (The exegetical and hermeneutical work still has to be done on the front end!) But it seems to correspond more to scripture, for the Bible doesn’t often come in nifty little sections of points. It immerses us into a world shaped by the work of God in human lives. It is Jesus-formed.
The preaching that reaches deep inside me and rattles my bones is not usually very easy to outline–though that certainly doesn’t mean it isn’t carefully crafted. Often, it has seemed to me, the other kind of preaching tends to turn people into Bible Wonks who study scripture a lot but don’t catch the overarching themes of scripture. In their search for “answers,” they wind up with a reduced world.
So preaching is an art. There is a place to launch the journey, there are turns and twists, there are mountains and valleys, and there is a destination. (In old classical homiletic theory that’s the “thesis” or the “focus.”)
Disclaimer: this isn’t the only way to view preaching. It’s where I am on my understanding. It’s more narrative/story than encyclopedia, more poetry than prose, more art than science. Take this with a grain of salt. I think I know more about good guacamole and about how to throw a good two-seam fastball than about good preaching.
I’m with you, but now I’m wondering if preaching is a good forum for this kind of journey. Since only one person is talking, it seems like a less than optimal format for what you describe. And, given the entertainment ethos created by our worship style in the American culture, preaching is now a form of performance that people naturally view from a detached audience perspective. I wonder if they are really journeying with us in a significant way or if they are merely watching us make a journey by ourselves.
From the Amarillo theatre seats (!), qb can say with assurance that he is anxiously looking about for preaching that goes this way of the poet rather than that of the techician. If only! More Brueggemann or Wells or Peterson, less of, well, what predominates in our local megachurch scene. No, we’re ready to be swept up into an expansive story of redeemed humanity, not spoon-fed the predigested gruel of pop reductionism.
But maybe the parking lots in this town say just the opposite.
qb
Your words still ring true. In graduate school Fred Craddock was the subject of a research project of mine. Without a doubt he is an artist, and it became clear to me that art implies giftedness, and that means that there are plenty of people who can be taught how to preach, but never become artists. It’s sort of like Bill Cosby in his prime. His jokes were stories, but while anyone could repeat his stories only he could transform his stories into comedic works of art. I think the type of preaching you describe is much more difficult to teach that the three points and a poem type. I have also found that many people in churches just don’t seem to be ready for narrative preaching. As part of a graduate project I had a random group of church members listen to a text preached by Fred Craddock. I then had them listen to a sermon on the same text preached by the late Adrian Rogers, the former Pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church, a mega-church in Memphis. Rogers went point by point. In my opinion Craddock’s sermon was far superior and much more faithful to the text, but the church folks sure did not feel that way. They loved Rogers. I realize that my sample was small and limited, but I do think that people from a more conservative background seem less likely to be able to appreciate Craddock’s approach to preaching. I don’t mention this to say I prefer the deductive approach, but rather to warn preachers that some congregations must be slowly introduced to preaching as art. They might not appreciate it at first. Mike, you are one of the most gifted preachers I have ever heard, and sadly, some people think that they can copy your work and expect the same reaction. That works no better than me doing stand-up and memorizing some Bill Cosby stories. I hope there will be a good discussion on this subject.
In reference to Gospel preachers from yester-year that used to pepper dozens of “chapter and verse” references in their hard-edged sermons — I remember as a very small child turning to my parents saying “that man really knows his numbers”. Impressive, but not sure how much grace and love was preached in those days.
The chance to sit in Duke’s chapel frequently may be worth the tuition all by itself. qb
I appreciate preaching as art (inductive, narrative) rather than the old “3 points and a poem” deductive sermon. But I also know that preaching is involves communication and that means that the final form of the sermon (the delivery) must be shaped in part by the hearers…where they are culturally, theologically, and faith maturity. This is one of the points that James W. Thomson seems to make in his book “Preaching Like Paul.” Thus, while I love the so-called post-liberal approach to preaching, it does seem to assume a sort of cultural and theological church group of hearers…a group that seems to be more of a minority in the Church of Christ where I serve. Perhaps I have misunderstood though.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Rex:
If qb goes into the weight room and lifts only those weights that he is able to lift without assistance, does he gain capacity to lift greater weights?
No. He may get stronger with respect to his ability to lift that same amount of weight, but his growth is stunted by being exposed to only those resistances that he is already equipped to handle.
One of these days, we’re going to have to start seeing the pulpit as a “spotter,” one who helps steady the load, a load that is too great for the exerciser to handle by himself. But he must be challenged to lift it, especially if the lighter load is not as faithful to the text as the heavier load.
qb
Qb,
I agree completely. But should the trainer not take into consideration who the trainee is? Any ways, my comment had nothing to do with the theological load but the mode of communication. I realize that there is some connection between the mode of communication and the theological depth and faithfulness to the text. I am not an advocate of deductive preaching nor am I an advocate of preaching that seeks to deduce principles (as I believe that such approach often truncates the depth of scripture). But as much as I love the post-liberal approach, in my limited exposure, it seems to assume a certain level of didactic instruction that is lacking. So for my own ministry where such instruction is lacking, what sort of preaching can provide this instruction so that people will become stronger in faith, deeper in their understanding, etc…? That is a question I am still trying to answer.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
I have read Bruggemann’s “Finally Comes the Poet” at least twice and am fascinated with the preacher as poet. Very much enjoyed your comments here.
As a preacher, I should know by the power of the Holy Spirit that God majors in communication and means to get our attention through His creativity and imagery of His story which is entertaining, enjoyable, intriguing, fascinating, and captivating, as well as paradoxical, dialectical, mystifying and at times downright bewildering. Thus it will be my duty as a craftsman to build up the confidence of the parishioners to trust in God by presenting a visual image of God’s story, or to incarnate the living word of God in the life of every believer. I should know that “unless the creative power of God is active through out the total process of preparation, presentation, and penetration, the spoken word will not participate in God’s creative transformation” Dr Darius Salter in his Book “Preaching as Art”
I think my homiletic style will not be deemed obsolete as an inkpot if I fail to reduce preaching to a relic past because the present day media mix has not help to change mankind towards, grace, righteousness, goodness, love, peace, holiness and entire sanctification in any way .Instead I should be able to fashion the sermon in such an artistic and reflective whole that the word of God spoken through the text is allowed to create that reality of which it speaks within the individual and the congregation as a challenge, a motivation, a content to change lives and an outcome towards grace, wisdom, hope and mission with Christ as the focus. Good cases in point will be using preaching to grant the congregation access to another world, using preaching to create an artistic encounter between God and mankind (Jeremiah, Ezekiel etc), using preaching to develop a dialogue, develop character emotions and using preaching to create a visual image of Jesus’ crucifixion, resurrection and return.