Buried somewhere deep in my memory is the process of reading through Barth's first attempt at a dogmatics, what he titled in German Unterricht in der christlichen Religion, "The Institutes of Christian Religion". I first read this book as an undergraduate at the time I took my first preaching course.
In the winter of 1924-25, Barth delivered these lectures at Göttingen (hence the English translation's title) on the theology of the Word and God; he followed those lectures in the spring/summer of '25 with the doctrine of reconciliation (which, sadly, have never been translated into English). In October of '25, Barth left Göttingen for the University of Münster, where he finished his early dogmatics with lectures on eschatology in the winter of 1925-26 (also never translated into English). So what we have in these lectures are a mirror of Barth's quite early attempts to think theologically about the approach he gave in his commentary on Romans and do to so as a theologian firmly committed to the faith deeply rooted in the pastoral act of preaching.
Readers here will hardly be surprised to hear that reading that book the same semester I took preaching meant that Barth shaped so much of what I thought about the preaching act.
In fact, toward the end of that semester, we budding preachers were asked to write our own "theology of preaching". It's fortunate, I think, that I don't still have that essay. I'm sure what I'd written was bunk; most of what I thought in those days was still disconnected to the church's life and witness in so many ways. I was Bonhoeffer's "theologian" before becoming a Christian. So you can breathe easy: You're not about to read some bad theology from an undergrad student. (Quite possibly some bad theology from an older preacher, but that remains to be seen ...)
I pulled the Göttingen Dogmatics off my shelf against last night, though. (Primarily because one of those blogs that I regularly read, "Die Evangelischen Theologen", recently started a podcast through the book.) That made me wonder what I'd say in the paper if I were asked to write it again.
Here we are. Without further adieu, part 1: On God.
I've been preaching in some manner for a quarter century. I've heard countless sermons (as parishioner and professor) and preached a quite a few during that time as well. There've been moments during the preaching event where something quite unexpected happens. God shows up and there is no denying God is present and at work. There is something inexplicably powerful and life-changing when our words are somehow connected with what God is saying. I have often wondered why there were moments where it seemed like God was present and at other times nowhere to be found.
Words reveal the character of a person. You can tell a great deal about the word choice a person employs to communicate a particular idea or thought. A person's jargon can be inflammatory, soothing, energizing, subversive, deceitful, or any combination of traits. But, when we speak we reveal something of ourselves to others in that communication.
If words reveal something of our character, it seems that God's speech would do the same. Although later sections of my reflections on a theology of preaching will revolve around the different persons of the Triune God, this first post will focus on the intra-Trinitarian relations and their implications for our words -- specifically, preaching.
Christian Preaching: A Trinitarian Theology of Proclamation, written by Michael Pasquarello III, makes an important claim (and, I believe, argues the point well) which grounds preaching as emergent within and from the life of the Triune God. You might say it this way: We can speak because we have first been spoken (into existence) and personally addressed through God's speech. So, if we are to understand our task as preachers, we should reflect upon that task through the lens of God's (Triune) life and speech. Granted, the life of the Triune God is mysterious in many respects. And, yet, Christian faith affirms that God is always speaking and thus revealing God's character and nature to us.
Speech is a communicative act done in and for the sake of communion with a community. Speech is only possible in community. Of course, we can recall instances where speech did not live up to this lofty ideal. But, I would say that is a misuse and abuse of language. If we speak because we have first been spoken, then the model for speech is found within God's life of Father, Spirit, Son -- perfect community.
Speech -- communication and communion -- is an essential part of being in community. As I've already mentioned, God's speech is like our speech in some ways, but it is also distinct in other ways. Where our language can be duplicitous, God's speech is not false or deceiving. Not only that, but God's words and actions are the same. We'll get into this a little more in future posts -- particularly when I try to develop a christologically-shaped, trinitarian-driven preaching. But, for now, it's important to put these on the table as the benchmark for proper speech. It's also why the power of proclamation is seriously eroded when our lives do not match up with our speech. Preachers falter most when the sermon they've heard from God to preach hasn't first already transformed themselves.
But, in essence, speech is an act of communion with a community. The act of communication reveals and unveils. In our words, we in some way communicate our self, who we are. There is tremendous power in our words. They say something about ourselves and they also do something (a la Austin, How To Do Things With Words). Our words, in a limited capacity (unlike God), have the power and potential to actually make things happen, to shape our world and vision. There is tremendous power and unfathomable responsibility required for how we use our words.
To pull all of these loose threads together, we should again reflect upon the life of the Triune God. If God is in nature community, which requires communication, what is the nature of this communication? I think there's a lot that we could say here, but I want to boil it down to two things from scripture, from which I think everything else flows. Holy-Love. Scripture describes God's words and actions in numerous ways -- which gives us a picture of God's character and nature. But, I think it can be summarized by those two words: Love and Holy.
Being Holy-Love marks God as always acting and being for the benefit of another. It is this over-abundant, self-giving love that is constantly living in fidelity to others. This makes sense of Creation, Covenant, Cross, and Consummation of the Kingdom. In other words, God's speech-act (they cannot be separated in God) is always characterized by loving holiness. God's holiness is characterized by love. God's love is characterized by holiness. God's speech-act is always for the sake of sharing God's life with others and for maintaining faithful relationships dedicated to the well-being of others.
This may sound simple, but there's a lot to mine here for preaching. For example, preaching is an act of communication meant to bring about communion with the community. God is the one that initiates this event. God is also the recipient of these words. In between, humanity is gathered and spoken into existence as a people and is enabled to speak back God's love to God as they are breathed back out into the world in mission. God's word does not return void.
If God's speech-act is Holy-Love, then our words and preaching must be characterized in this way too. But, unlike God, our words and actions are not always synonymous. Thus, we might lean more heavily toward holiness or more toward love while neglecting its partner. Preaching that leans to holiness without love has likely lost sight of our own need of redemption and focused solely on what we must do (therapeutic deism). It becomes heavy-handed and bludgeons people (not great for community). These are those preachers for whom should and ought at the first and final words of preaching. By contrast, preaching that leans to love without holiness likely loses sight that we are called into covenant fidelity with a particular God that calls for us to live faithfully within the boundaries of that covenant (postmodern relativistic deism). This preaching becomes feel-good self-care without the call for us to respond to God's transforming work. We then become just another reflection of the culture with a Christian label on it. These are those preachers who find sermon series on "your best life now" or some-such. (As an entire aside, I would include here both conservative prosperity gospel preachers and liberal prosperity gospel preachers. We usually know the first all too well [Joel Oesteen and the like]. Sexually permissive Christianity is the Prosperity Gospel for liberals [such as the Rev. Nadia Bolz-Weber and the theology recently on display in the Bachelorette tv show]).
It's not an easy balance to find. It's a delicate balance that requires wisdom and discernment. I think such wisdom is available, but it begins with some Kierkegardian fear and trembling. It's an audacious act to stand up and say, "Thus sayeth the Lord!" Unless we recognize the gravity of the task, we walk into the preaching moment unprepared and likely to do some damage. Our preaching will misrepresent God's Holy-Love if we fail to be deeply shaped by God's life of Holy-Love. We speak because we have first been spoken. Thus, we would rightly begin the preparation of proclamation by first listening -- both to God and to our community. Only then can we preach an appropriate word. May we proclaim the words of Holy-Love which shapes us into a community of Holy-Love.
In the winter of 1924-25, Barth delivered these lectures at Göttingen (hence the English translation's title) on the theology of the Word and God; he followed those lectures in the spring/summer of '25 with the doctrine of reconciliation (which, sadly, have never been translated into English). In October of '25, Barth left Göttingen for the University of Münster, where he finished his early dogmatics with lectures on eschatology in the winter of 1925-26 (also never translated into English). So what we have in these lectures are a mirror of Barth's quite early attempts to think theologically about the approach he gave in his commentary on Romans and do to so as a theologian firmly committed to the faith deeply rooted in the pastoral act of preaching.
Readers here will hardly be surprised to hear that reading that book the same semester I took preaching meant that Barth shaped so much of what I thought about the preaching act.
In fact, toward the end of that semester, we budding preachers were asked to write our own "theology of preaching". It's fortunate, I think, that I don't still have that essay. I'm sure what I'd written was bunk; most of what I thought in those days was still disconnected to the church's life and witness in so many ways. I was Bonhoeffer's "theologian" before becoming a Christian. So you can breathe easy: You're not about to read some bad theology from an undergrad student. (Quite possibly some bad theology from an older preacher, but that remains to be seen ...)
I pulled the Göttingen Dogmatics off my shelf against last night, though. (Primarily because one of those blogs that I regularly read, "Die Evangelischen Theologen", recently started a podcast through the book.) That made me wonder what I'd say in the paper if I were asked to write it again.
Here we are. Without further adieu, part 1: On God.
I've been preaching in some manner for a quarter century. I've heard countless sermons (as parishioner and professor) and preached a quite a few during that time as well. There've been moments during the preaching event where something quite unexpected happens. God shows up and there is no denying God is present and at work. There is something inexplicably powerful and life-changing when our words are somehow connected with what God is saying. I have often wondered why there were moments where it seemed like God was present and at other times nowhere to be found.
Words reveal the character of a person. You can tell a great deal about the word choice a person employs to communicate a particular idea or thought. A person's jargon can be inflammatory, soothing, energizing, subversive, deceitful, or any combination of traits. But, when we speak we reveal something of ourselves to others in that communication.
If words reveal something of our character, it seems that God's speech would do the same. Although later sections of my reflections on a theology of preaching will revolve around the different persons of the Triune God, this first post will focus on the intra-Trinitarian relations and their implications for our words -- specifically, preaching.
Christian Preaching: A Trinitarian Theology of Proclamation, written by Michael Pasquarello III, makes an important claim (and, I believe, argues the point well) which grounds preaching as emergent within and from the life of the Triune God. You might say it this way: We can speak because we have first been spoken (into existence) and personally addressed through God's speech. So, if we are to understand our task as preachers, we should reflect upon that task through the lens of God's (Triune) life and speech. Granted, the life of the Triune God is mysterious in many respects. And, yet, Christian faith affirms that God is always speaking and thus revealing God's character and nature to us.
Speech is a communicative act done in and for the sake of communion with a community. Speech is only possible in community. Of course, we can recall instances where speech did not live up to this lofty ideal. But, I would say that is a misuse and abuse of language. If we speak because we have first been spoken, then the model for speech is found within God's life of Father, Spirit, Son -- perfect community.
Speech -- communication and communion -- is an essential part of being in community. As I've already mentioned, God's speech is like our speech in some ways, but it is also distinct in other ways. Where our language can be duplicitous, God's speech is not false or deceiving. Not only that, but God's words and actions are the same. We'll get into this a little more in future posts -- particularly when I try to develop a christologically-shaped, trinitarian-driven preaching. But, for now, it's important to put these on the table as the benchmark for proper speech. It's also why the power of proclamation is seriously eroded when our lives do not match up with our speech. Preachers falter most when the sermon they've heard from God to preach hasn't first already transformed themselves.
But, in essence, speech is an act of communion with a community. The act of communication reveals and unveils. In our words, we in some way communicate our self, who we are. There is tremendous power in our words. They say something about ourselves and they also do something (a la Austin, How To Do Things With Words). Our words, in a limited capacity (unlike God), have the power and potential to actually make things happen, to shape our world and vision. There is tremendous power and unfathomable responsibility required for how we use our words.
To pull all of these loose threads together, we should again reflect upon the life of the Triune God. If God is in nature community, which requires communication, what is the nature of this communication? I think there's a lot that we could say here, but I want to boil it down to two things from scripture, from which I think everything else flows. Holy-Love. Scripture describes God's words and actions in numerous ways -- which gives us a picture of God's character and nature. But, I think it can be summarized by those two words: Love and Holy.
Being Holy-Love marks God as always acting and being for the benefit of another. It is this over-abundant, self-giving love that is constantly living in fidelity to others. This makes sense of Creation, Covenant, Cross, and Consummation of the Kingdom. In other words, God's speech-act (they cannot be separated in God) is always characterized by loving holiness. God's holiness is characterized by love. God's love is characterized by holiness. God's speech-act is always for the sake of sharing God's life with others and for maintaining faithful relationships dedicated to the well-being of others.
This may sound simple, but there's a lot to mine here for preaching. For example, preaching is an act of communication meant to bring about communion with the community. God is the one that initiates this event. God is also the recipient of these words. In between, humanity is gathered and spoken into existence as a people and is enabled to speak back God's love to God as they are breathed back out into the world in mission. God's word does not return void.
If God's speech-act is Holy-Love, then our words and preaching must be characterized in this way too. But, unlike God, our words and actions are not always synonymous. Thus, we might lean more heavily toward holiness or more toward love while neglecting its partner. Preaching that leans to holiness without love has likely lost sight of our own need of redemption and focused solely on what we must do (therapeutic deism). It becomes heavy-handed and bludgeons people (not great for community). These are those preachers for whom should and ought at the first and final words of preaching. By contrast, preaching that leans to love without holiness likely loses sight that we are called into covenant fidelity with a particular God that calls for us to live faithfully within the boundaries of that covenant (postmodern relativistic deism). This preaching becomes feel-good self-care without the call for us to respond to God's transforming work. We then become just another reflection of the culture with a Christian label on it. These are those preachers who find sermon series on "your best life now" or some-such. (As an entire aside, I would include here both conservative prosperity gospel preachers and liberal prosperity gospel preachers. We usually know the first all too well [Joel Oesteen and the like]. Sexually permissive Christianity is the Prosperity Gospel for liberals [such as the Rev. Nadia Bolz-Weber and the theology recently on display in the Bachelorette tv show]).
It's not an easy balance to find. It's a delicate balance that requires wisdom and discernment. I think such wisdom is available, but it begins with some Kierkegardian fear and trembling. It's an audacious act to stand up and say, "Thus sayeth the Lord!" Unless we recognize the gravity of the task, we walk into the preaching moment unprepared and likely to do some damage. Our preaching will misrepresent God's Holy-Love if we fail to be deeply shaped by God's life of Holy-Love. We speak because we have first been spoken. Thus, we would rightly begin the preparation of proclamation by first listening -- both to God and to our community. Only then can we preach an appropriate word. May we proclaim the words of Holy-Love which shapes us into a community of Holy-Love.