Paul’s Community Formation Preaching in 1 Thessalonians

| 11 →

Chapter One

Introduction

1.1. Statement of the Problem and Research Gap

Though few scholars claim that the approach of the New Homiletic is already becoming old,¹ the New Homiletic has determined the ongoing consequence for the homiletical field, especially in North America.² O. Wesley Allen writes:

Current dialogical preaching, seeker-sensitive preaching and even some preachers in the Emerging Church also find their roots in the New Homiletic.⁴ Scott Gibson therefore states, “The influence of the New Homiletic in late twentieth century and early twenty-first century preaching is wide spread.”⁵ ← 11 | 12 →

No one denies that the homiletical approach has sparked the proliferation of new homiletical methods and stimulated the renewal of preaching. Proponents of the New Homiletic have contended that conventional styles of preaching are neither attractive nor effective for contemporary listeners and thus have sought an alternative to such preaching through a paradigm shift from the traditional framework of preaching. Richard Eslinger describes the new direction in preaching as “the Copernican Revolution in homiletics.”6 David Lose thusly comments about the influence of the New Homiletic:

Reflecting on the development of the New Homiletic, Paul Wilson also contends, “Not since the Middle Age or the Reformation have such mighty winds swept the homiletical highlands.”⁸

It is, however, also true that the New Homiletic has been challenged by the fundamental question of whether the homiletical development by the New Homiletic has contributed to the development of the church.⁹ For example, Charles Campbell claims, “One can hardly argue that these ← 12 | 13 → developments have resulted in a more vital and faithful church.”10 He continues:

Even one of their own gives a negative response to the question whether the New Homiletic stimulates the resurgence and development of the church: “Majority-culture churches in long-established denominations in North America have been in institutional decline since the beginning of the New Homiletic.”¹² The wind of the New Homiletic may be mighty on the homiletical highlands as Paul Wilson stated, but the wind did not blow so strongly for the development of the church.

In addition to the development of the New Homiletic, a tendency of preaching, especially in the churches of the United States, is the scarcity of preaching on the Pauline letters. Paul’s letters have been scholarly considered to be a hot place; the letters do not seem to be attractive to contemporary preachers of the ministerial fields. About the lack of preaching on Paul’s letters, Robert Jewett states, “Paul’s preaching is typically limited to three occasions in contemporary Protestant churches: ‘on Reformation Sunday (Rom. 1:16–17), for weddings (1 Corinthians 13) and for funerals (Rom. 8:31–39)!’”¹³ Jewett’s observation is not quite different from those even in the twenty-first century. Brad Braxton diagnoses the pervading assumptions about Paul’s letters among contemporary preachers:

With these assumptions preachers tend to be reluctant to include Paul’s letters in their preaching.

In addition to the scarcity of preaching on Paul’s letters in the church, the legitimacy regarding Paul as a model for contemporary preaching has also been questioned. Paul’s direct and authoritative style of preaching is considered inappropriate for contemporary listeners in a post-modern culture that dislikes authority. J. Christiaan Beker describes the animosity toward Paul’s style: “Many intelligent church members cherish a dislike for Paul because of his presumable arrogance, his doctrinal stance, or his ‘perversion’ of the gospel of Jesus.”15 James Thompson thus claims, “To suggest that Paul’s preaching in a pagan context of the first century is a model for preaching in the twenty-first century is to invite incredulity and resistance from most contemporary preachers.”¹⁶ Homiletical texts addressing Paul’s preaching as a model for preaching ministry have been few and far between.

Some scholars admit that the New Homiletic is responsible for the disrespect towards Paul in preaching. As noticed in the subtitle of the work of Eugene Lowry, one of the leading scholars in the New Homiletic: “Why All Sermons Are Narrative,”¹⁷ much literature of the New Homiletic treats narrative or story preaching as a primary style of preaching¹⁸ that ignores other biblical genres, especially Paul’s letters. Concerning the paucity of preaching from Paul’s letters within the New Homiletic, Nancy Gross observes:

David Bartlett simply evaluates the recent homiletical trend as follows: “In the legitimate enthusiasm for narrative preaching, we sometimes undervalue Paul.”²⁰ In the text of the New Homiletic, Paul’s preaching is normally not regarded as a model for contemporary preaching.

Despite this exclusion of Paul’s preaching, some scholars have recently advocated that Paul’s preaching has the potential to overcome the limitations of the New Homiletic. James Thompson, in Preaching Like Paul: Homiletical Wisdom for Today, first considered Paul’s preaching model from the letters as a model for contemporary preaching, based on a balanced critique of the New Homiletic. In the section titled “Reflections a Generation Later” of the book, he gives an insightful comment about the New Homiletic:

In contrast to the extensively popular interest in narrative preaching proposed by the New Homiletic, Thompson shows that Paul’s letters offer an alternative model for contemporary preaching by demonstrating how Paul’s style of preaching used in the pre-Christian culture is appropriate for the current post-Christian culture. He writes, “Paul is a forgotten mentor in our understanding of preaching. His preaching in a pre-Christian age has much to tell preachers who live in a post-Christian age.”²² His groundbreaking analysis of homiletical dialogue between Paul and contemporary ← 15 | 16 → homiletics exposes a significant area for study, which has been missed under the massive influence of the New Homiletic.

Claiming that the narrative movement in homiletics catches many of scholars’ attention and imagination, Nancy Gross, in If You Cannot Preach Like Paul, also joins the ranks Thompson begins by reclaiming Paul for contemporary preaching in the church. She also poses a problem in contemporary homiletical situation in which Paul’s letters have been ignored and misused in the pulpit: “It is important to reclaim Paul for the preaching ministry of the church because without a vital preaching presence emerging from the Pauline epistles, we are depriving the church of the whole counsel of God.”23 However, it is not enough to pay attention to the Pauline letters in the same way as traditionally practiced. According to Gross, the traditional preaching approaches to the Pauline letters mainly understood Paul as a systematic theologian, using a Pauline text as a proof text or for preaching a linear, rational, deductive argument.²⁴ Preachers should make a paradigm shift from this traditional way of preaching Paul. To do this, she argues that contemporary preachers should do what Paul did, not just say what he said, because his letters are so specific in addressing pastoral situations. According to her, doing what Paul did is to properly consider the nature of Paul’s preaching ministry as a practical theologian.