POSTBIBLICIST PARADIGM OF PREACHING?
Edward Farley
agrees with Buttrick's negative assessment of the text of Scripture when he
says,
In a postbiblicist
paradigm of preaching, scripture is the through-which of the sermon not simply
in the form of isolated passages. While the passage may serve to explore
something in the world of the gospel, more often than not, because of its
isolation, it turns the preacher away from the world of the gospel. Scripture
as a set of writings is multidimensional.... Accordingly, in the new paradigm
for preaching, the tyranny of the passage over the sermon will give way to a
multivalent use of scripture.102
Think of it! A
"postbiblicist paradigm of preaching" ... the "tyranny" of
the text of Scripture must be overthrown so as not to "turn the preacher
away from the world of the gospel." Something about that statement takes
my breath away! Must we be postbiblicist in our homiletic to be postmodern? Is
this to be the road upon which homiletics travels in the new millennium? Is
there no sure word from God in the text anymore? Is there no "thus saith
the Lord"? Is the idea that the words of the Bible are the very speech of
God no longer tenable? Cannot the "sense" of the text connect with
its reference in a way that is both historical and yet leaves room for the
multi-dimensionality of language?
Cannot the revelation of God be both
propositional and personal at the same time without reducing to a static
"propositionalism" or evaporating into an esoteric encounter with the
ground of being that has no cognitive content? May we not respect metaphor and
narrative in the Scriptures without reducing them to "pure
propositions" and at the same time affirm that since they all appear in
Scripture God inspired them all? Can we not respect the narrative structure of
Scripture without neglecting other discourse genres or placing them on a
procrustean bed of narrative? May we not maintain both the Christological
center and the doctrinal center of truth while also recognizing that though we
know in part, we may in fact know truly? There is, there must be, another road
for homiletics than Farley's "postbiblicist" road. Indeed there is
-Jeremiah's "old path" (Jeremiah 6:16); a road nowadays less
traveled, but once traveled by many.
And what more can
I say, for time would fail me to tell of the many who once traveled that road;
of Paul, Peter, and John; of Chrysostom and Augustine; of Wycliffe, Savanarola,
Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Whitfield, Knox, Jasper, Moody, Spurgeon, to
name only a few, who through preaching subdued kingdoms, stopped the mouths of
critics, and launched reformations. Some were beheaded, others were crucified
upside down, or exiled on a lonely isle in the Aegean Sea. Some were burned at
the stake for their preaching, others languished in prisons, though the word of
God which they preached was not bound.
Some preached in pulpits, and others in
the fields. Some preached under the banner of Calvinism, others under the
banner of a more Arminian persuasion. These all died preaching-either with
tongue or pen or life.
Therefore, seeing we are surrounded by a great cloud of preachers, and laying aside every inadequate view of language and any homiletical approach that does not properly acknowledge Scriptural authority, let us preach the word, having our eyes fixed on Jesus the Logos of God, who is indeed, according to Hebrews 1:1–2, God's final revelation.
Therefore, seeing we are surrounded by a great cloud of preachers, and laying aside every inadequate view of language and any homiletical approach that does not properly acknowledge Scriptural authority, let us preach the word, having our eyes fixed on Jesus the Logos of God, who is indeed, according to Hebrews 1:1–2, God's final revelation.
