thanks for that, David. I've been wrestling on my blog with communal hermeneutics, and you give some solid suggestions that will help me along.
mike

I agree with many of the points that have recently been made. However, it seems the following quotation from above lends itself to an either/or position and ought to be clarified?

This means our understanding of sanctification in preaching might have to change. For what is happening to the hearers is not a.) the cognitive digestion of some information about God and moral life, from which we b.) understand and assent and then c.) tell our body to do it. Instead we hear proclaimed the reality of the world through the good news, a declaration of the way the world is, and we are invited to enter in through submission, confession, repentance, and affirmation.

Possibly this point is made with such strong dicotomy for the sake of argument however I believe it to be a dangerous assumption that a) to b) to c) is not indeed happening in the minds and even hearts of those listening. It would seem rather there is a both/and happening here -- BOTH a cognitive digestion toward assent toward acting upon what is true AND a proclamation--declaration--invitation. As they are positioned here how could one possibly separate these two realites from happening together both at the same time. Preaching is not an issue of either the mind or the imagination (as seems to be inferred here) for one can not exist without the other.

I am puzzled by the following statement,
"It makes no sense for the preacher who proclaims the Word of God to conclude with more notes of applications and "to do" lists." What is "anti-liturgical" about someone empowered by the community to stand in the midst of cummunity to anounce, "Friends, this is what the Lord calls us to"? I grant that these words are not stated with Modernist arrogant certainty, yet there is neither room for Derrida or Fish in our midst. In the text we enounter the Other, who calls for our responce, conversion, and even "application".

Good Morning,

What I find kind of odd here is the following line: This means our understanding of sanctification in preaching might have to change. For what is happening to the hearers is not a.) the cognitive digestion of some information about God and moral life, from which we b.) understand and assent and then c.) tell our body to do it. Instead we hear proclaimed the reality of the world through the good news, a declaration of the way the world is, and we are invited to enter in through submission, confession, repentance, and affirmation.

I find it kind of ironic the the a,b,& c that Flitch is riling against he turns around and repeats just in a different way. His (a) that he is going against say that we have to cognitively digest the word and process it. He says we hear the proclaimed good news. I honestly dont see how you can seperate the two.

To hear the proclaimed good news and to cognitively think on it are the same. We have messages coming into our ear, to our brains, we process that information by determining the sender, the message, the meaning, and how to respond. We do that with our wives, husbands, children, bosses, why not God!?

The only possible way to avoid it is if you are not thinking at all when you go to church. Your mind is an empty slate and you do not think on what is heard. Yet the scripture warns against that kind of action.

I have to disagree with Flitch as I have with all his postings so far on this matter, simply because he grossly misunderstands basic human cognitive reasoning, the Holy Spirit, and the ability to understand and teach the word of God. I hope he never teaches in my church or my children.

Blessings,

David Fitch's three articles were excellent. However it would appear that there are a lot of angry people out there who have a problem with what was said. Perhaps I would ask them this: "Compare the lifestyle and Christian maturity (giving, sacrifice, repentance, humility etc), of those who are fed on a diet of classic "expository" preaching with those who for one reason or another - poor preaching, topical preaching etc -do not receive this diet. Then ask whether there is a distinct qualitative difference in their Christian lives. Ask whether they appear more mature, if they make better decisions, spend their time and their money more wisely. In my experience there is NO significant difference in the Christian lifestyle of those who go to churches that have good expository preaching, compared with those who receive so-called poor, or thin, teaching in their church. I am coming to the conclusion that, though I am a fan of expository preaching, there is no causal link between it and the level of maturity in a believer's life. Preaching is simply one element, and if other elements are missing then all the expository preaching in the world won't change them.

I really could care less. Like most evangelical churches, most preachers and their sermons are out of touch. I pastored for 25 years and finally came to the conclusion the church is nothing more than money, power, politics, and control. It serves rich Americans while the poor suffer. I don't see Jesus in any of it anymore, especially in narcissitic preaching, we call "God's Word."

Tom,
Than I am afraid that those churches have not been preaching the truth. The Word of God when taught properly and with the Holy Spirit should drive us to the highways and bi-ways seeking the lost, destitute, and poor. It should drive us to forsake all we have to seek the kingdom of God. Only the Holy Spirit through the Word of God can stir the heart of man to serve those who need it. I hope that you do not give up on evangelical churches, there are many that have a strong commitment to the poor and reach out to them. I am not saying my church is perfect, not by any stretch of the imagination, but we have people committed to helping the poor all over the world and in our own back yard. We have all not lost the message. We are still here!! :)

Blessings,

Wow...that last comment from Tom hurt as I read it...

On preaching...I have preached in a variety of ways over the last several years and have settled into an expository format, traveling verse by verse through books of the Bible. It is my observation that the problem the author is getting at has nothing to do with whether or not one employs topical, expository, or any other method of preaching. In my experience, the locus of the problem is found in the utter lack of opportunities for people to digest the Word of God with their brothers and sisters in Christ. Groups like "Bible and Brew" have become essential parts of the "preaching moment" because a) this kind of discussion no longer happens in the family, therefore b) the church must create a space where people can pray, interact, and be held accountable for the way God is transforming them in and through their encounter with the Word.

The sad reality is that we do not create or provide such spaces and instead sell the "preaching moment" as a product one can either accept or reject. In such a paradigm, it is the "consumer" who reigns and not the Word of God. I am reminded of what Bonhoeffer said in his classic, "The Cost of Discipleship", when pastors are approached by parishioners who complain that they didn't "get anything out of the (sermon)" on a particular day. Instead of being at a loss for what to say, we might try asking instead "what is preventing you from listening to Christ and believing in his grace?" And I would say that such hard questions are best asked in small groups where real, authentic community is being built and where brothers and sisters can lovingly confront, encourage, and pray for one another that they might hear the Word and obey.

Again, the problem is not in the preaching method, but rather in the lack of sacred space where the "preaching moment" continues among the people of God.

"I really could care less. Like most evangelical churches, most preachers and their sermons are out of touch. I pastored for 25 years and finally came to the conclusion the church is nothing more than money, power, politics, and control. It serves rich Americans while the poor suffer. I don't see Jesus in any of it anymore, especially in narcissitic preaching, we call "God's Word.""

Ah, the big three: Money, politics, and power. We're surrounded by it each and everyday, and the thing that rankles us is when it's uncovered in the Church.
Raw naked power, with reports of preachers seducing the fairer sex, stripping coffers of proffered monies, and the mixing of politics with faith...just makes us wish for them good O'l faithful days, now, doesn't it?
Cause I'm sure that all three of those things are just recent occurences in America, and have never, ever, in a couple of thousand years, ever occured anywhere on this earth except in America.
Seriously, Corinth never had those problems, right?
The Romans never had those problems, right?
And the Jerusalem Church was never plagued with those problems either, right?
They are the epitome of what we are to aspire to.

Tom, people are people, and that is what makes this whole life thingy interesting. G-d has given you an ability to see what he wants changed in the American church just as he showed the apostles what had to change in those churches as well, and instead, you're having a pity party.
Sorry, I didn't get the invite, so...SNAP OUT OF IT!
And do what G-d wants you to do.

Tom,

I am sorry to hear your pain. Evidently the church has not been a place where you have found peace and healing and instead have found pain and struggle. But, don't abandon the church, God certainly isn't and not all local congregations are the same. There are many wonderful places of where redemption is active and powerful each day. Do yourself a kindness and seek out such a community and let the grace of God heal you.

Blessings-
Greg

Isn't it interesting the differing things people hear, see, feel or think about individual sentences, subjects or impressions of what is written. I think (and i use this word "think" instead of "feel")the current methodolgy of our churches focuses on the "telling" and very little on the "hearing" or the ability to love another by listening; that is, being on their agenda instead of your own throughout the conversation. I suppose the small group is an attempt to have a two way conversation, but I find in many cases there is simply an exchange of interpretations or ideas with no one listening. Story listening is in my mind - if I have one left - the prerequisite to loving another as there is a reason someone tells a story. The story is about what is going on in their lives, but what we generally do is tell a story ourselves in response instead of listening to the story-teller's heart. In this short discourse, I can give as an example: If one listens, one can always tell what is going on in the life of the preacher because one cannot help but tell their story. So, in our current methodoly of "church" or expository preaching we find the tellers and the listeners, but who is really listening and by definition, loving?

Having spent 30 years under the Expository Preaching of the late Ray C. Stedman, I am convinced that what has come to be called Expository Preaching in the past decade or two is not the real thing at all. May I recommend the following messages by Ray Stedman on his understanding of this topic.

http://www.raystedman.org/misc/expos.html (single messages)
http://www.raystedman.org/expository/index.html (three studies from 1982).

Haddon W. Robinson's 1980 book "Biblical Preaching" speaks to me powerfully about the horrific decline in sound preaching in the past 25 years.

David F.

Good stuff!

Derrida would argue that to resolve any binary opposition, to say that this article has one determinate meaning, is violence. Communities, more than individuals commit this violence as they have more power. All authority, even the autority of Gift, tends to violence.

So if you want to study the Bible in this way, leave the Church.

I love the basic outline of the argument here--many current practices, including the giving and receiving of God's Word in preaching, need to be grounded more in the life of the church and its liturgy.

That being said, we are wise to remember that the Spirit will go where he wills. Meaning, I'm always amazed at what happens to my sermons, what people take away from them, how the sermonds do and don't change lives--personal and ecclesial--far beyond my imagination. Though we are called to do our best to shape a biblically authentic life, in the end, God does odd and wild things with our paltry homiletic offerings.