The Mystery Source Is....
March 12, 2010
Karl Barth, as correctly identified by James from Edinburgh, who also raises the question as to why Barthian preaching is, by contrast with the quotation, often deathly dull.
My theory is that neo-orthodox writing on preaching is often brilliant because it can never confuse preaching with transmission of information, and also has an acute sense of the theological dynamism of what preaching involves. This contrasts favourably with both the pragmatism of the Joel Osteen, the moralism of the old style liberals, and an all-too-common phenomenon in Reformed circles where redemptive history is often not just a tool for exposition but the be-all-and-end-all, with the purpose and climax of every sermon becoming little more than `I bet you never saw how this passage connects to the history of Jesus, did you?' The indicative is the imperative? Well, not always and entirely, friends.
Having said that, neoorthodox theologians, especially those with strong universalist tendencies, actually have nothing of interest to say once they ascend the pulpit steps: `be what you already are' being not exactly an attention-grabbing message. Neither Barth's theology, nor the preaching it (un)inspired did anything to stop the collapse of membership in European churches.
Therein lies the irony: neoorthodox writers have lambasted conservatives for their static view of God; but it's the fundamentalists, with their static God, who often preach the most dynamic sermons.
Still, the quotation from Barth is salutary, reminding us that we should never equate "interesting" with "entertaining" -- an identification which is a virtual given in the wider Western culture and which now pervades even professedly confessional evangelical circles.
To end on a positive note, William Willimon's `Coversations with Barth on Preaching' is well worth the read.
My theory is that neo-orthodox writing on preaching is often brilliant because it can never confuse preaching with transmission of information, and also has an acute sense of the theological dynamism of what preaching involves. This contrasts favourably with both the pragmatism of the Joel Osteen, the moralism of the old style liberals, and an all-too-common phenomenon in Reformed circles where redemptive history is often not just a tool for exposition but the be-all-and-end-all, with the purpose and climax of every sermon becoming little more than `I bet you never saw how this passage connects to the history of Jesus, did you?' The indicative is the imperative? Well, not always and entirely, friends.
Having said that, neoorthodox theologians, especially those with strong universalist tendencies, actually have nothing of interest to say once they ascend the pulpit steps: `be what you already are' being not exactly an attention-grabbing message. Neither Barth's theology, nor the preaching it (un)inspired did anything to stop the collapse of membership in European churches.
Therein lies the irony: neoorthodox writers have lambasted conservatives for their static view of God; but it's the fundamentalists, with their static God, who often preach the most dynamic sermons.
Still, the quotation from Barth is salutary, reminding us that we should never equate "interesting" with "entertaining" -- an identification which is a virtual given in the wider Western culture and which now pervades even professedly confessional evangelical circles.
To end on a positive note, William Willimon's `Coversations with Barth on Preaching' is well worth the read.
