Pulpit, Power, and Purpose

A recent conference held at the University of Chicago considered the relationship of Pulpit and Classroom in terms of advocacy. The conversations were oriented around the ethics of "advocating" in a religious and/or academic setting. Thought-provoking, challenging, and inspiring, the conference furnished ample material for reflection. I hope that my thoughts prove interesting, useful, and/or helpful for you.

The keynote address was offered by Dr. Franklin Gamwell, who provided a theoretical framework in which to reflect on the issues being considered. Dr. Gamwell began by carefully and narrowly defining religious communities and academic communities. Specifically, he built his definitions around the engagement of the "original" human question: "What makes human life ultimately worth living?" Religious communities, he proposed, give answers to this question. Academic communities, on the other hand, do not assert an answer or any answer, but provide a setting for critical reflections on proposed answers in order to assess the truth of such claims. In religious communities, certain things are assumed and then used to provide answers to the ultimate human question. But in academic communities, nothing can be assumed. Everything must remain open to question and argumentation. This openness to question and argumentation is a parameter for "discourse": the suspension of beliefs to examine the truth-hood of a belief.

Narrowing the focus, Gamwell suggested that Christians cultivate authenticity (living with the true Christian answer to the human question) through acting on belief in Jesus the Christ. In relation to Christian belief, academic discourse suspends belief to determine the validity of the Christian answer to the original human question. Theology, then, as a subset of academic discourse, critically reflects on Christian claims toward the original, ultimate human question.

Given this framework, we can begin to ask important ethical questions. What is the role of the preacher (a member of a religious community)? And what is the role of the teacher (a member of an academic community)? Provided the above definitions, how are preachers to preach and teachers to teach? What ethical considerations guide the appropriate use of speech when thinking on what to say and how to say it? Are specific topics inappropriate for certain settings?

Gamwell suggested that claims, which are announced and not discussed or argued, are not, in fact, "discourse." Thus, advocating through claims, which are not eligible for discussion or critique, is not appropriate for the academic setting. In contrast, such claims may be acceptable in the religious setting (i.e. from the pulpit) where "complete discourse" may not be suitable.

This is not to say that "answers" to the human question cannot be provided in the academic setting, but that they must be bound by discourse and not simply asserted. Whatsmore, religious settings can offer opportunities for discourse, but that such discourse is difficult (if not impossible) in a "preaching setting" where there is only one voice (that of the preacher).

Dr. Gamwell's presentation and the subsequent discussions were fuel for thought as I considered my own preaching, my own teaching, and my own future. The questions “how did I preach?” and “how will I preach?” became the question “how should I preach?” In my year at Perryville Christian Church, I intended and attempted to espouse a conversational approach to preaching. Specifically, I hoped to spark discussion, dissension, and constructive consideration. Many times I was unsuccessful, but on a few occasions I found success in my attempts. Those moments of discussion and dissension were not only fruitful, but healthy for the congregation, myself, and the community.

Now, after attending the conference, I might couch my approach to preaching in new terms: discursive homiletics. Instead of accepting the dichotomy between preaching with claims (religious community) and withholding assent for deliberation of claims (academic community), why not (attempt to) bridge the gap between academy and religion through preaching with teaching in mind. In other words, instead of offering a sermon that is creatively interpreted truth, exempt from question or communal consideration, why not offer the sermon as the starting point for discussion, question, dissension, debate, and reflection?

The problem with this approach is the differing church structures within the Christian faith. Polity most definitely changes how we consider preaching. For me, a member of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the “priesthood of all believers”, congregational autonomy, resistance to creeds, and a heritage of rational inquiry make a discursive homiletic possible. However, a church polity characterized by strict hierarchies and creedal affirmations complicate the matter.

As a Disciples preacher, I can offer my sermon as “presentation.” I can responsibly provide, within my sermon, my assumptions and hermeneutical framework. After exposing my assumptions and interpretive lens, I can also point to, describe, or offer complementary, competing, or contradicting perspectives about the content of my sermon. I can ask the congregation (rhetorically, of course) to follow my thinking down a particular road while admitting and even describing of other paths.

But for more hierarchical communities of faith, the clergy may, in practice, be forced into “re-presentation”; namely, re-presenting what has already been presented as true for the denomination or religious community as a whole. The priest, minister, or pastor may be communicating creatively what is asserted (claimed) hierarchically. There is no room (or at least much less room) for communal conversation regarding elements of faith, practice, and dogma. As a result, discursive homiletics is not (as) possible.

I believe there may be (or, in fact, are) creative ways to resolve this difficulty within more strictly structured churches, but I feel the freedom of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) provides an advantage for developing and practicing a type of preaching which will (I believe) effectively engage a post-modern culture interested in conversation rather than firm assertion. The growth of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) may depend on a discursive homiletic seeking an active, responsive mind and not simply a listening ear. I have come to find in my engagement with unchurched individuals, religiously disenfranchised individuals, congregants, youth, and new church movements that more and more people are desiring religious leaders who will preach “with” rather than preach “at”. Already I have seen churches (and not just Disciple Churches) make steps in the direction of “presentation,” and I hope that such a trajectory will be investigated, tested, and pursued.

The pulpit is a place of great power. It is a space which can be used to shape individual people, congregations, entire communities, and the world. Making room within that space for conversation may amplify the power the pulpit possesses, and it may intensify the transformation catalyzed by the Christian message.