Bible commentaries, only those from the narrowest ‘stables’ will have been uninfluenced by academic biblical study and theology – to the extent, very likely, of remaining unhelpfully naïve. Any more ‘mainstream’ commentary, or theological work, will have been written in dialogue with a range of others, including, normally, at least some – often many – holding different views and perspectives from those of the writer himself or herself. If God’s truth may potentially be found anywhere, it is not a matter of ‘popular Christian’ theology being ‘right’ and ‘academic theology’ being (at the very least) ‘dangerous’. It is rather that the simple awareness – at least in outline – of the ways in which our theological minds are being shaped is the crucial first step to learning, appropriate critique of ourselves and our ‘sources’ and more sensitive mediation of the gospel for congregations.
In this light, the old jibe that you can tell when preachers have stopped thinking by the latest date of the books on their shelves needs revising – and not just because, these days, they probably haven’t been able to afford to buy many new ones! It is not the date of the books alone, but their provenance which is significant. Although many publishers now offer a wide theological spectrum, some are still known for the particular perspective they take. A preaching diet that is dependent on the preacher’s reading from the output of just one or two publishers (worse still, one or two authors) will be thin, narrow and very unlikely to contain the full sustenance of the gospel. ‘Old’ can be wonderfully refreshing – as those now rediscovering the riches of the Patristic tradition are learning. The question is whether our reading is enlarging our horizons in helpful ways, and whether we are learning to apply our critical faculties to everything, including that which we find most congenial.
Reflecting on the theological influences upon us should disabuse us of any notion that we might ever aspire to being pure channels for pure doctrine. Our theological outlook is mediated through many streams, and we have had our own, mysterious ways of absorbing those into our system and rejecting elements that do not seem to us to fit. The fact that we have had some sort of systematic training should be an advantage to us, but it does not make us the ‘expert’ who ‘knows it all’ in comparison with hearers who are (in this way of thinking) empty vessels waiting for our ‘knowledge’ to be offloaded. We ‘know’ genuinely, yet we ‘know’ in part (1 Cor. 13.12), like everyone else.
Our other concern here is the way in which the congregation’s theological mind is shaped. Preachers need to reckon with the fact that preaching is only one element (maybe quite a small one) in this process. The fascinating study of ‘ordinary hermeneutics’ is starting to open up something of the picture for us.[21] Not only have people (sometimes) been influenced by a variety of preachers before the one they are listening to now. They may also (quite often) have read at least something of the Bible, maybe with accompanying notes. They may have dipped into theological reading, of the lighter or heavier variety. A preacher is profoundly mistaken and arrogant to assume general ignorance on the part of hearers. Many of them, while not being theologically trained, will be immersed in areas of life and learning – often practical, but sometimes academic too – of which the preacher is all but totally ignorant himself or herself. These areas may have considerable bearing on the theological thinking of those concerned even if they do not articulate it. Moreover, they must surely have a vital contribution – if somehow it can be tapped – to the developing theological reflection of the congregation in question, as they continue to wrestle with the application of the gospel to life.
Preachers and congregations should also take account of the more subtle ways in which shared theological attitudes and views are being shaped. The structures, symbols and words of worship are very influential on the reception of the sermon, as we noted above. However, they are also extremely influential on the entire theological mindset of the congregation. What a congregation does in worship week by week, and perhaps especially what it sings, forms its thinking about God and his relationship with his world in almost frighteningly powerful ways. In addition, churches today are no longer so purely ‘local’. Many Christians are regular attenders at conferences and festivals, regular readers of online Christian material or printed notes, regular receivers of Christian magazines, regular listeners to Christian radio stations, and so on. What is said and done in these various forums may be far more penetrating of people’s perspectives than the preacher’s words. It may hold far greater sway over how, in practice, congregations interpret the Bible and construct a theology that appears to be both faithful and applicable.
The need for an awareness of such influences on congregational thinking is brought into sharp relief when it is realized that sometimes the messages given by the preacher are in conflict, maybe unwittingly so, with the messages being received openly or subliminally from elsewhere. For example, a preacher may want to draw people’s attention to Paul’s theology of power through weakness, yet the songs the congregation most loves to sing may all emphasize the power rather than the weakness. A preacher may want to give the congregation permission to lament as the Psalmist did, but some in the congregation may have been schooled (in deeper than conscious ways) in the idea that encounter with God must be celebratory and joyful or else it is not genuine. A preacher may have been influenced (say) by reformed theology or catholic spirituality, whereas the congregation might be (say) more ‘liberal’ or more ‘charismatic’ – something which can come out in tensions between the discussions in home groups and what is preached on Sundays.[22]
Unless we reckon as honestly as we can with this diversity and complexity of influences, we will not be in a position to discuss the important normative and practical questions of ‘whether’, ‘why’, and ‘how’ which we shall approach in Parts 3 and 4 of the book – whether we are thinking of preaching in general, or the preaching ministry of a church in general or particular sermons. Yet even to attempt an examination of such influences runs the risk of falling into two traps. On the one side, the preacher may regard such an exercise as an attempt to expose the ‘inadequate’ theologies the congregation is imbibing from various quarters, as a prelude to being able to ‘correct’ them with more insight. This would be foolish, given – as we have seen – that the preacher’s store of ‘truth’ is, in its way, as partial and haphazardly garnered as anyone else’s. On the other side, the preacher may be in danger of losing confidence altogether in the calling and formation they have received. To say that the congregation is a mediator of truth as well as the preacher does not mean that the preacher has nothing distinctive and vital to contribute.[23]
Pastoral care
The final arena within which preaching has an important function is that of pastoral care.[24] Most preachers are also pastors of those to whom they preach, whether as a sole minister or as part of a team; whether ‘full-time’ or ‘part-time’.
Whether or not the preacher has an official pastoral role among a specific congregation, the presence or absence of pastoral concern in preaching, and consistency or otherwise between pastoral care and what is preached and how it is preached, will make themselves felt. Beyond anything to do with sermon content or method, hearers can sense whether the preacher cares. They feel instinctively (if not always articulately) whether what is being offered them is nourishing and nurturing (even if they cannot take the full meal on that occasion), or whether it is vacuous, tasteless or downright poisonous. And whatever the preacher’s role – regular pastor, ‘lay preacher’, visitor – their attitude to their hearers will show.
To identify the preaching encounter as a ‘pastoral’ one does not imply anything about the hearers with respect to their prior commitment, allegiance or church membership; it encompasses ‘evangelistic’ preaching as much as ‘teaching’. Whatever kind of spiritual life our hearers have or do not have, we are their pastors inasmuch as we co-operate, or not, with the desire of Father, Son and Spirit to bring fullness of life to all.
The
