Printer-Friendly Version  

Blayne A. Banting

Briercrest College and Seminary, Caronport , SK  

Abstract:  This paper proposes a modified and enhanced use of John Stott�s bridge metaphor as a homiletical methodology designed to help the preacher prepare form-sensitive sermons that heed both what the text �says� and �does.�  The author suggests this alternative to some homiletical methods and practices which unintentionally emphasize the idea contained in the text to the exclusion of, or even at the expense of, its rhetorical strategy.  

[Note to E.H.S. members: this paper was prompted by the discussion in two of the sessions at the 2003 EHS Conference in Langely, BC: Sidney Greidanus�s invitation for us to develop our own approach to teaching introductory homiletics in his paper �Teaching First-Year Preaching� and the lively discussion following Brian Jones�s presentation of his paper �Teaching Students the Applicational Power of the Big Idea.�]

            For homileticians, metaphors often become models and methodologies.  Examples abound, including:  Michael Quicke�s swim¹, Paul Scott Wilson�s �four pages� and �movie making�², Mike Graves� �symphony�³, Eugene Lowry�s �loop�⁴, David Buttrick�s �moves�⁵, and Grady Davis� �tree�⁶.  Among the most memorable of these metaphors is that of  �bridge-building�, stated powerfully by John R.W. Stott in his book Between Two Worlds. The Art of Preaching in the Twentieth Century.⁷  Stott�s primary concern in employing the bridge-building metaphor was to argue for the necessity of both exposition and communication in contemporary preaching, for that which bridges the chasm between the biblical world and the modern world. He was stating in imagery for a new generation, the same sentiments echoed by Karl Barth�s response to the question as to how he prepared his sermons: �I take the Bible in one hand and the daily newspaper in the other.�⁸ 

For Stott, this bridge image never developed into a homiletical method but rather served as a pointed warning against the unbalanced tendencies of unapplied exposition found in more conservative circles and a form of unbiblical relevance seen in more liberal preaching.⁹  What Stott, in his wisdom, refused to do, in terms of developing his metaphor into a method, this paper purposes to attempt!  The desired result is to construct a model, based on the bridge metaphor, that will serve college juniors and seniors as they attempt to prepare relevant biblical sermons that heed both what the biblical passage �says� and �does.� 

The Choice of the Bridge Metaphor

            The rationale for choosing the bridge as the foundational metaphor for the proposed methodology in light of the other available options needs to be explained.  Indeed Stott�s �bridge� has been criticized as being overly simplistic¹⁰ and even dangerously anthropocentric.¹¹  Although these criticisms may have assumed more than Stott intended for his �bridge,� they are important issues to be addressed by anyone who is attempting to use �bridge� as a methodological metaphor.  The discussion surrounding the �bridge� highlights the limitations of any proposed metaphor � no metaphor can communicate all the dynamics involved in a discipline as complex and multi-faceted as homiletics.  So any use of the �bridge� will require both a sharpening of the image by minimizing potential misunderstandings and a humble admission that it will not be able to communicate every aspect of the homiletical task.  Its primary use will be to demonstrate a particular understanding of the exegetical and homiletical process that approaches both biblical text and sermon with an understanding of �meaning� that attempts to steer between the extremes of the subjectivism of the �New Homiletic�¹² and the common cognitive captivity of some evangelical preaching.  This purpose will be discussed later in the paper.

            On the positive side, the �bridge� seems to be a good choice simply due to its popularity and ability in common sense terms to communicate the movement from biblical text to sermon, from their world, to ours.  Several homileticians have their own version of the �bridge� designed to serve their own purposes.¹³  There is, therefore, sufficient warrant to revisit (and for those less enamored with it, to rehabilitate) the �bridge� metaphor for purposes of a homiletical methodology.

            On a more personal note, I have a particular bridge in mind which has helped to concretize the qualities of this homiletical bridge.  We ministered for almost a decade and a half on Prince Edward Island; Canada�s smallest province with a land mass comparable to the Holy Land (a comparison that comes naturally to most Islanders!).  During our time there the Northumberland Strait was bridged by an engineering marvel known as the Confederation Bridge , joining P.E.I. to the Canadian mainland (or from an Islander�s perspective, joining the mainland to P.E.I.).  This concrete structure is 12.9 kilometers long and provides a year round connection between two �lands.�  Any homiletical bridge, in my own mind at least, would have a number of traits reminiscent of the Confederation Bridge .

            The first of these traits would be its length.  At 12.9 kilometers, the Confederation Bridge keeps two realities in tension.  One, the span of distance is significant enough to discourage one from attempting to cross the Strait by one�s own skill (this is not, incidentally, a criticism of Quicke�s �preaching swim�).  However, though the distance is significant, it is certainly doable with the aid of the bridge.  The homiletical bridge is to maintain this similar tension.  The distance between the world of the biblical text and the world of our contemporary audience is long enough to discourage us from naively jumping from the former to the latter without recognition of the length of the chasm between the two.  The preacher is dependant upon a number of disciplines in order to make this crossing without confusing the two contexts.  Added to the image is the fact  the Confederation Bridge could not be built perfectly straight without creating an optical illusion which would lead to numerous traffic accidents.  It has an �S� shape for that very reason.  One needs to be prepared for a few curves on the journey across the Strait.  The application to the homiletical bridge would seem obvious. On the other hand, however, some have so emphasized the distance between the two worlds that a successful or even sufficient crossing is deemed impossible.  It would seem that most should cross a bridge with gratitude and dependence upon those who have made the crossing possible but also with a certain confidence that, barring any disaster and if they obey the rules of the road, they will arrive safely on the other side.

            The span of the Confederation Bridge is supported by numerous concrete pillars which ground and stabilize the structure. Similarly the span between the original hearers and the contemporary audience is grounded upon two main supports: the eternal Triune God and our common humanity.  The central affirmation of Scripture is the salvific  purposes of the God who created and sustains all things.  This is the grand story enacted throughout history and narrated throughout Scripture.  God�s unchanging desire to redeem his creation unifies and undergirds both ends of the bridge.  The common traits and needs of humanity also support the homiletical bridge.  Fred Craddock has noted that ��the distance between ourselves and the original readers of the text is in a measure bridged [!] by our common humanity.�¹⁴  There is need to recognize the strength of the bridge depends more upon its supports than upon its span unless we fall prey to the dangers of anthropocentricity.  Joel Green states:

�that the fundamental transformation that must take place is not the transformation of an ancient message into a contemporary meaning but rather the transformation of our lives by means of God�s Word.  This means that reading the Bible as Scripture has less to do with what tools we bring to the task, however important these might be, and more to do with our own dispositions as we come to our engagement with Scripture.  Scripture does not present us with texts to be mastered but with a Word, God�s Word, intent on mastering us, on shaping our lives.  Accordingly, our reading must be ecclesially located, theologically fashioned, and critically engaged.¹⁵

Green warns about a naive trust in historical critical methodologies (i.e. putting more trust in the spans than the pillars):

The problem for the preacher is this negotiation of two historically defined worlds [italics mine] � captured well in the title of John Stott�s classic text on preaching, Between Two Worlds.  There have been valiant attempts to bridge [!] the chasm between text and sermon, but these have been largely hobbled by the assumption  that the homiletical task should conform itself to the presumptions and practices of biblical studies.  These attempts have been unaware that the very act and challenge of preaching not only presumed, but, indeed, demanded theological commitments that were undermined, neutered, or outright rejected by the historical critical paradigm.¹⁶

If Green is correct, then it would be wise to admit that the supports under the homiletical bridge create the possibility for traffic on the bridge to go in both directions.  This is the honest but humbling admission that not all the traffic is a purely a one-way mastery of an ancient message, but a somewhat messy two-way street that requires we not �stand over� the text but �stand under� (i.e. �understand�) it.

            A final aspect about the Confederation Bridge worth noting � it is not the sole means by which travelers may reach Prince Edward Island .  The Island is accessible by air as well as by a seasonal ferry service (it would seem to stretch the limits of the analogy as well as those of good taste to speak of �homiletical ferries�!).  The point being that the homiletical bridge can make no claims to being an exhaustive treatment of the entire preaching task.  It leaves plenty of room for complementary and even competing images that address aspects left undeveloped or underdeveloped by the �bridge.�  There is a certain innate imprecision in an image that makes it more useful in the company of other images so that together they can supply a fuller picture.

The Homiletical Bridge

            Some metaphors are better conceived in the human mind than on a piece of paper.  However for the sake of clarity, the homiletical bridge will need to be displayed and explained.  There are, of course, two limitations to two-dimensional diagrams: one, they are two-dimensional (and therefore too simplistic to catch all the dynamics at work) and two, they are diagrams (so they encourage a certain cut-and-dried certainty that is misleading).  Therefore the homiletical bridge is shown in a rather abstract format in a small attempt to mitigate the above limitations (Note: any coincidental resemblance the bridge may have to a ribcage only demonstrates how close this image is to my heart!).

The methodology represented by the homiletical bridge makes three ground assumptions about the task of biblical preaching.  The first is that the meaning of a biblical text is more complex than an explication of �what the text is about.�  Since language not only informs but performs, a text is not sufficiently understood until the preacher is able to uncover what the text �says� and �does.�  In terms of the proposed model, a text, taken in its various contexts, is understood by engaging the dynamic interrelationships among the text�s form (i.e. its sub-genre), flow (the movement of the text), focus (the main concern of the text), function (what the text is to do to the reader), and feel (the mood of the text).  Each of these aspects of meaning form a lane on the homiletical bridge.  The basic intent of this assumption is to help the biblical preacher engage the fuller texture of the biblical passage without opting for either an overly cognitive �cooking� of the text or the subjectivity of more reader response models.

            The second assumption is that every biblical passage, since it is a smaller part of the canonical whole which proclaims God�s redemptive purposes for his creation, is addressing its original and all subsequent audiences at the level of our deepest human needs.  The preaching model which approaches a biblical passage to determine its timeless truth which in turn must then be applied to the contemporary audience may be ill conceived if the original passage already has this hint of application to our human condition implied within it.  This assumption attempts to deal with the unnecessary dichotomy between the explication and the application of a text.¹⁷  A similar concern has been addressed by other contemporary homileticians.¹⁸  While such an emphasis on human need may appear on the surface to be anthropocentric, the opposite is the truth since it is God�s Word that addressing these human concerns.

            The third assumption has to do with the relationship between the biblical text and the sermon.  It is assumed that the sermon needs to follow the text�s lead in terms of content and rhetorical strategy (what the text says and does). Therefore the preacher is called to formulate the five F�s of the sermon (its form, flow, focus, function and feel) in light of the same factors found in the biblical passage.  This is not a five-fold straitjacket for the sermon but an attempt to allow the biblical sermon to be as close to the fuller texture of the passage without mindlessly mimicking it.  In the words of  Fred Craddock,

Does the sermon say and do what the biblical text says and does?  This question  functions as the canon for ascertaining if a sermon brings the text forward as a living voice in the church much better than the number of texts cited or biblical words repeated.¹⁹

Lanes on the Homiletical Bridge

            The five lanes on the homiletical bridge are arranged in a certain exegetical order on the text side of the bridge with their corresponding lanes on the sermon side.  A brief explanation of each lane follows.

Form.  Preachers have long been aware of the importance of recognizing the text�s form.²⁰  The text�s form affects its meaning and therefore should also affect the form of the sermon if it is to remain consistent with the text�s meaning.  However, it is possible to go overboard here (which is equally as hazardous on a bridge as it is on a ship).  We need to avoid what David Bartlett calls �formal fundamentalism,�²¹ which is a rigid insistence on aligning textual and sermon forms.  Rather it would be more helpful to assert that:

�there is more assurance of integrity in the sermon if both design and substance come from the same source rather than having a message from one source and the form for its delivery from another.  This is not to say that the shape of the sermon must come from the text: a text that is a prayer does not necessitate a sermon in prayer form, or a proverb in proverb form, a pronouncement in pronouncement form, and so forth�.  However, more important is attending to the form of the text to discern what it achieves � praise, correction, judgment, encouragement, defense, reconciliation, instruction � and then asking if the sermon is designed with that end in mind.²²

Flow.  Every biblical passage is part of the flow or movement of a larger section to which it contributes in some way.  Also each passage has its own internal flow or movement which Mike Graves defines as ��the progression, structural pattern, or divisions of thought within a text.�²³  Part of understanding the meaning of the text is following and analyzing this flow of thought.  This flow will vary, of course, from form to form, and passage to passage.  Then, in turn, the sermon will follow, at least in some connection, the flow of the passage.

Focus.  The choice of �focus� is purposeful (and not merely alliteratively convenient).  The choice of many homileticians is to refer to terms like: theme sentence, proposition, thesis statement, central idea or big idea.  At least two benefits have come from this emphasis: a safeguarding of the propositional truths of authoritative Scripture against approaches that downplay the authority of the text in favor of the contemporary reader, and clarity in communication.  The latter is obviously important in preaching as is the former if not overstated.  By assuming the entire Bible communicates through clear, indicative statements (if the preacher has done his homework), may unnecessarily strait- jacket those passages of Scripture which employ different modes of communication.  The restrictive use of more explicative terminology, where the preacher is encouraged to explain what the text is about, may prematurely limit the exegetical possibilities and pave the way to a reading of the text that is foreign to its own rhetorical strategy.  Such an approach may tend to flatten all of Scripture and contribute to a panty hose approach to preaching where one sermon structure fits all.  While there are numerous texts where this approach is still the best, where it intersects with the intended rhetorical strategy of the text, on other occasions its results are similar to the gastronomic satisfaction gained by reading a cookbook.

            The dichotomy between explication and application may be widened unintentionally by an overly didactic approach to the text.  The preacher is encouraged to speak �about� the text and then must find a way to apply it.  If the text is treated by abstraction, then so must its application otherwise the preacher may end up in some form of applicational heresy.²⁴  If the preacher remembers that the biblical writer�s intention on every occasion may not be solely to instruct or argue, the explication-application dichotomy will be diminished.

            The choice of �focus,� then allows for a little more latitude in understanding both what the text is saying and doing.  It would be less restrictive to ask of the text, �What is the focus here?� rather than ask �What is the main idea here?�²⁵  This should not be done at the expense of clarity because Robinson is correct to insist, �A sermon should be a bullet, not buckshot.�²⁶  Helpful in understanding the focus of a text would be to identify the VGR (vision of God revealed) in/around/behind the text as well as its DNA (deep [human] need addressed).

Function.  This is what the text intends to do to the reader.  A text may inform the reader but also might warn, encourage, exhort, inspire, scold, or command.  The purpose of a given text is more fully understood by what it says and does so function has an important role to play in understanding this purpose.  In the language of the homiletical bridge, the �focus� and the �function� (not to mention the �form,� �flow,� and �feel�) give a fuller understanding of the author�s purpose for the passage.  Most literary forms tend to have inherent rhetorical strategies (i.e. functions). For example, different forms of the gospel aphorism (saying) engage the reader differently, �A statement invites hearers to accept as true what Jesus asserts, a question seeks to engage hearers directly in pondering his saying, and an imperative challenges them to envision and act in line with the rhetorical force of his words.�²⁷  The function and, in turn, the purpose of the sermon follows the lead of the text since ��the preacher should attempt to say and do what a �text now says and does for a new and unique set of people.�²⁸

Feel.  The feel or the mood of a text may be difficult to define but does contribute to the overall understanding of a text�s meaning since it ��has to do with the emotional mood it creates.�²⁹  At this point it would seem unnecessary to emphasize the need to correlate the sermonic feel with the feel of the text.  However, just one occasion of experiencing a preacher proclaim the glories of love from 1 Corinthians 13 with a countenance so sour it could curdle milk would underscore the importance of correlation between the two.

A Word About Homiletical Methods

            What remains is to present a workable process employing the homiletical bridge.  Although the preacher may work through both the passage and sermon sides of the process in logical order in light of the entire process, the human mind doesn�t always work  in such a linear fashion, so the preacher needs to be flexible enough to allow the mind to work as it will. A common danger, however, with any homiletical method, especially one depicted by a diagram or a detailed process, is to become preoccupied with �working the model� to the exclusion of the theological and ecclesial underpinnings of the preaching task.  It is therefore important to mention the importance of the believing community as the diachronic and synchronic context for biblical interpretation.  We are surrounded by a �great cloud of witnesses� among God�s people past and present who help us understand and communicate the message of the Scriptures.  Most important of all, is the overarching assumption that the preacher is prayerfully submissive to the guiding and empowering presence of the Triune God throughout the entire process of the preparation and delivery of the sermon.  In doing so, Scripture becomes a living voice to both preacher and congregation and the sermon is not vain repetition but prayer�s life-giving echo.  

The Homiletical Bridge  

Passage (Taking It Apart)	Sermon (Putting It Together)
1  First Impressions      -Choose your passage           -prayerfully           -pastorally           -a complete literary unit    -Read your passage           -in context           -out loud           -in at least 3 English translations                  formal correspondence                  dynamic equivalence                  paraphrase
2a  FORM of your passage             -determine the literary form           -how does this form communicate?	2b  FORM of your sermon              -choose a form that faithfully com-              municates and respects the form              of the passage            -how do you want your sermon to             communicate?
3a  FLOW of your passage             -analyze your passage in light of its            historical and literary contexts           -analyze the structure of the passage            itself                   -employ form-sensitive means                    of analysis           -track the flow/movement in an            exegetical outline          -do at least one word study	3b  FLOW of your sermon              -prepare a tentative outline for your             sermon keeping the flow of the                   passage and the needs of your             contemporary audience in mind
4a  FOCUS of your passage            -what is the VGR in this passage?          -what is the DNA in this passage?          -what is the focus here?	4b  FOCUS of your sermon             -how is the VGR to be dealt with in            the sermon?           -how is the DNA to be dealt with in            the sermon?           -what is the focus of the sermon?
5a  FUNCTION of your passage            -what does your passage do to its           original audience?          -what function does your passage           play in light of:                 -its larger context?                 -the canon?                 -redemptive history?          -determine the purpose of the           passage by referring to the focus and           the function (without neglecting the           form, flow and feel)          -check your work against some good           commentaries	5b  FUNCTION of your sermon             -what do you want your sermon to do            for your audience?            -determine the purpose of your             sermon by referring to matters of             focus and function (without             neglecting the form, flow and feel)                   -state the purpose in terms of                    the audience�s response
6a  FEEL of your passage            -what is the feel of the passage?          -what emotions does it evoke?          -does the mood change within the           passage?          -note the relationship between the           passage�s feel and its focus and           function	6b  FEEL of your sermon               -what will be the feel/mood of              your sermon?             -what emotions do you want to              evoke in your audience?             -should the feel of the sermon              change at any point? When?             -how will the feel of your sermon              affect its focus and function?
	7        FINISHING TOUCHES               -develop the body of the sermon in              oral style             -prepare the introduction             -prepare the conclusion             -prepare the sermon title             -practice the delivery             -preach the sermon

 

Sources Cited  

Anderson, Kenton C. Preaching with Conviction. Grand Rapids : Kregel, 2001.  

Bailey, James L. and Lyle D. Vander Broek.  Literary Forms in the New Testament. 

            Louisville : Westminster/John Knox, 1992.

Buttrick, David.  Homiletic. Moves and Structures. Philadelphia : Fortress, 1987.

Chapell, Bryan. Christ-Centered Preaching. Grand Rapids : Baker, 1994.

Craddock, Fred B. As One Without Authority. 3^rd ed. Nashville : Abingdon, 1979.  

________    Preaching. Nashville : Abingdon, 1985.  

Davis, H. Grady.  Design for Preaching. Philadelphia : Muhlenberg, 1958.  

Eslinger, Richard L. The Web of Preaching. Nashville : Abingdon,, 2002.  

Gibson, Scott M., ed.  Making a Difference in Preaching   Haddon Robinson on Biblical  

Preaching. Grand Rapids : Baker, 1999.

Graves, Mike. The Sermon as Symphony. Valley Forge : Judson Press, 1997.

Green, Joel B. and Michael Pasquarello III. Narrative Reading , Narrative Preaching.

            Grand Rapids : Baker, 2003.

Greidanus, Sidney.  The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text. Grand Rapids :

            Eerdmans, 1988.

Henderson, David W. Culture Shift. Grand Rapids : Baker, 1998.

Hirsch, E.D. Jr.  Validity in Interpretation. New Haven : Yale, 1967.

Johnston, Graham. Preaching to a Postmodern World. Grand Rapids : Baker, 2001.

Lewis, Ralph L and Gregg Lewis. Inductive Preaching. Westchester : Crossway, 1983.

Lowry, Eugene L.  The Homiletical Plot. Atlanta : John Knox, 1980.

________  How to Preach a Parable. Nashville : Abingdon, 1989.

Mathews, Alice P. Preaching That Speaks to Women. Grand Rapids : Baker, 2003.

Mathewson, Steven D. The Art of Preaching Old Testament Narrative. Grand Rapids :

            Baker, 2002.

O�Day, Gail R. and Thomas G. Long, eds. Listening to the Word. Nashville :

            Abingdon, 1993.

Quicke, Michael J. 360 Degree Preaching. Grand Rapids : Baker, 2003.

Robinson, Haddon W. Biblical Preaching. 2^nd ed. Grand Rapids : Baker, 2001.

________  �The Heresy of Application.� Leadership 18 (Fall 1997):21-27.

Robinson, Haddon W. and Torrey W. Robinson. It�s All In How You Tell It. Grand

            Rapids: Baker, 2003.

Stott, John R.W. Between Two Worlds. Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1982.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J.  Is There a Meaning in This Text? Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 1998.

Wardlaw, Don, ed. Preaching Biblically. Philadelphia : Westminster , 1983.

Warren, Timothy S. �A Paradigm for Preaching.� Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (October-

            December 1991):463-486.

Willhite, Keith. Preaching With Relevance. Grand Rapids : Kregel, 2001.

Willhite, Keith and Scott M. Gibson, eds. The Big Idea of Biblical Preaching. Grand    

            Rapids: Baker, 1998.

Wilson, Paul S. The Four Pages of the Sermon. Nashville : Abingdon, 1999.

 

Endnotes