How may the written Word of God become a living word for hearers today?  This is the sort of question raised by the ‘new hermeneutic’, and also, in the context of preaching, by the ‘new homiletic’.

We do not need to accept (or even understand!) all of the philosophical underpinnings of the new homiletic.  But we can agree that the preacher must have a deep understanding both of the biblical text and his modern hearers (this is simply to agree with John Stott that the preacher must engage in ‘double listening’).

No doubt, many proponents of the new homiletic were too wedded to certain philosophical and theological presuppositions about Scripture, truth, authority, and so on.  But evangelicals can have little argument with this definition of the new homiletic from David James Randolph, who first coined the term, and wrote in 1969:

‘Preaching is 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.’

Randolph insists that preaching is (or should be) dialogical:

‘The sermon is becoming understood as event, and event means encounter, engagement, and dialogue: the end of “monologue” in the pulpit. Preaching as a one-man affair is a thing of the past, to be replaced by that kind of participatory experience in which those present know themselves involved, even though only one man may be vocalizing at the time. The sermon is being understood as event, and the consequences of this are beginning to be understood in a new way.’

This does not mean, of course, that the sermon then becomes an actual discussion between two or more people.  But it does mean that hearers are involved in the ‘preaching event’ by way of action, reaction, and interraction, even if they say not a word.

Scott M. Gibson lists, as important advocates of the new homiletic, Fred Craddock, David Buttrick, Eugene Lowry, Charles Rice, Edmund Steimle, Morris Niedenthal, Richard Jensen, Lucy Rose, Thomas Troeger, and Henry Mitchell.

Citing Craddock’s 1979 book, As One Without Authority, Gibson notes that:

‘Craddock’s concern was “not of understanding language but understanding through language,” (1979, p. 42). He further states: “In this encounter with the text, the Word of God is not simply the content of the tradition, nor an application of that content to present issues, but rather the Word of God is the address of God to the hearer who sits before the text open to its becoming the Word of God. Most importantly, God’s Word is God’s Word to the reader/listener, not a word about God gleaned from the documents” (p. 114). Preaching is an experienced event.’

Gibson elaborates:

‘For Craddock, the preacher and the listeners are cocreators of the sermonic experience. More important than imparting knowledge, the sermon seeks to affect an experience by cultivating the surprise of the gospel through the preacher’s ability to embed the experience in the familiar world of the congregation.’

For proponents such as Eugene Lowry, the sermon utilises narrative logic, rather than discursive logic.  Rather than prioritising an appeal to rationality through discursive logic, it appeals to experience the unfolding of a narrative plotline.

Citing Randolph, Gibson notes:

‘“Preaching is understood not as the packaging of a product but as the evocation of an event”. These preachers rely on plot, induction, experience, imagination, performative language, metaphor, story, narrative—but evocation of an event or encounter is key.’

So, what can evangelical preachers learn from the new homiletic?

1. A sensitivity to language and its evocative nature.  The preacher is helped to notice that language may be conotative, suggestive, evocative, as well as denotative, descriptive and informational.  However, in noting how language works both in the text of Scripture and in the minds of contemporary hearers, the preacher must be aware of the danger that in emphasising the authority of the preached work over against the authority of God’s wirtten word.

2. An appreciation of the movement, or plot, of a sermon.  A recognition that many parts of Scripture (including parables) were taught inductively prompts preachers to consider getting out of the rut of deductive preaching and considering alternative sermon shapes and forms.  While preachers must not neglect biblical propositions and doctrines, they should remember that extent to which the Bible is a storied book.

3. An awareness of how the listener hears a sermon.  The preacher must be concerned with what is heard, and not just what is said.  ‘The new homiletic has made preachers aware of the importance of connecting with one’s listeners and being aware of the importance of application.’

4. A valuing of the affective experience of the audience.  The sermon is not a monologue, spoken into thin air.  It is addressed to living souls, and should take account of their lived experience, before, during and after the preaching event.

Conclusion

There is much that can be learned from the new homiletic and its advocates.  But a bridge, in order to be secure and serviceable, must be deeply rooted on both banks of the river.  The sermon must be deeply rooted both in the authoritative text of Scripture and in the needs and experiences of the hearers.  Because of its habitual neglect of the former, the new homiletic, for all its value, cannot be accepted or adopted by evangelical uncritically.

Based on Scott M. Gibson, ‘Critique of the New Homiletic’, chapter 129 in The Art and Craft of Biblical Preaching (eds Robinson and Larson).