The Theology of Sermon Design...Continued from page 2

LANGUAGE THEORY CAN AFFECT SERMON FORM

David Buttrick includes a chapter on language in his book Homiletic. He tells us, “The language of preaching is a connotative language used with theological precision.”¹⁶ He stresses metaphor, symbol and mystery.

Although it is beyond the scope of this article to decide the foundational issues involved in linguistic studies, it is important for the preacher to recognize the influence that the philosophy of language has on sermon form.

Sermon form, then, is not just a matter of what works. It involves significant theological issues that relate to the forms we use. Bryan Chapell reminds us that “preachers must learn the value of many types of communication, but appropriate usage requires us to understand the underpinnings of each.”¹⁷ We may not be able to resolve all the issues, but understanding what the issues are is important. The discerning preacher is aware of these theological concerns as he structures his sermons.

THEOLOGY OF PREACHING AND SERMON FORM

Another issue that thoughtful preachers must consider is the theology of preaching itself. Closely related to the issue of theology is the question of just what a sermon is to do. There is an interrelationship between theology proper, one’s theology of preaching and sermon form.

The theology of preaching, or what a sermon is to accomplish, affects the forms we choose to use. Purpose in preaching cannot help but be related to the structure of our sermons. When the purpose is informational, certain forms will be used; when the purpose is to create an impression or cause something to happen in the life of the listener, then other forms may be chosen.

In traditional homiletics, the purpose of a sermon was to bring an idea or concept across the homiletical bridge, which connected the text with the listener. Traditional forms served this purpose well. The sermon was intended to convey an idea, which would be written as a proposition. This approach parallels what George Lindbeck has labeled the “cognitive model” of doctrine,18 which stresses the objectivity of doctrinal truth claims.

But more recently the emphasis has been on the sermon as an event or experience. It is more a feeling, an emotion or an event that is to be brought across the bridge. The focus is more on what should happen in the sermon rather than on informational content. This parallels what Lindbeck calls “the experiential-expressive model” of doctrine. This model focuses on “non-informative and non-discursive symbols of inner feelings, attitudes and existential orientations.”¹⁹ This view of doctrine is reflected in David Randolph’s definition of preaching as “the event in which the biblical text is interpreted in order that its meaning will come to expression in the concrete situation of the hearers.”²⁰

The sermon, then, is often seen primarily as an event. Many homileticians have rightly noted that a sermon is far more than the transfer of information (e.g., “The Greek word here means . . .”). The sermon is not static but dynamic; something should happen during the preaching time. We are to preach the text, not just about the text. It is in this theological soil that narrative, storytelling and other more innovative forms have taken the deepest root. Sometimes in this approach the fact that the Bible does say quite a bit (i.e., contains propositional truth) is overlooked.

The preacher’s approach to preaching in terms of function is directly related to sermon form. When it was thought that a proposition must be communicated, a rational, discursive form predominated. Didache reigned. But if feelings and attitudes are what need to be communicated, nondirect, inductive preaching may be best.

Those who advocate an experiential expressive approach to preaching will probably gravitate toward a narrative or story form of preaching as the most effective means of communicating on this level. Some have recommended that these forms be used exclusively.

But it is not necessary to choose between cognitive and expressive models for homiletics, because sermons commu­nicate on more than one level. Both ideas and feelings and attitudes can be part of the sermon purpose. Sermons are both conceptual and eventful. As Long points out, “Biblical texts say things that do things, and the sermon is to say and do those things too.”²¹ A sermon should have both a focus and a function (to use Long’s language) or an idea and a purpose (as Haddon Robinson puts it²²).

If we understand sermons as both word and event, then some sermon forms may not be appropriate (at least on a regular basis). Sermon forms that are overly vague, ambiguous and open-ended may be reject­ed as not communicating the idea of the text, while strict arguments or the exclusive use of propositional forms may fail to do justice to what the sermon intends to do.

Yet a variety of sermon forms are possi­ble. At times a narrative sermon will work, at other times a more didactic approach will be best. Our approach to sermon form should be as varied as the Bible’s own approach to genre. The intention of the text and the intention of the sermon will govern the choice of sermon form.