Transforming Church

Part II
Some questions never seem to die. Nearly 2,000 years ago the chief priests and elders asked: “By what authority are you doing these things?” The question of authority haunts us, perhaps now more than ever.

Why should anyone listen to our proclamation? Why should people believe that God loves them? And why should they take seriously the preacher’s announcement that Jesus defeats death? To be successful, the preacher must speak with some kind of authority. Without some sense of authority we simply “preach to the choir” seeking to convince the already convinced. But what is the source of authority in a postmodern context? It is no small question.

For modernity it was clear. A well-designed experiment or a tightly constructed argument will bring about certain conclusions. The scientist and the orator are deemed “authoritative” when their work is without flaw. They can be trusted for they have carefully sought out and presented the truth. Preachers could rely upon exegesis through various critical methods. A well exegeted sermon carried a modern sense of authority.

Modern preachers, of course had a second source of authority upon which to call. In addition to good biblical scholarship, the modern preacher could also call upon the authority of scripture itself. By reminding the hearer “The Bible tells us……” the authority of the scripture becomes the authority of the preacher. As long as the Bible is understood to be true, those who properly quote it can speak, will speak, with the same sense of surety and truth.

Postmodernity rejects both of these sources of authority. For the postmodern mind, bias free exegesis is a myth. Whether it be delusion or coercion on the part of the exegete, the point is the same. Nothing happens without personal bias affecting one’s conclusions.

More foundational, however, is the postmodern rejection of the meta-narrative. Meta-narratives can take on a number of forms but at a most basic level they are a “grand, all-encompassing story, classic text, or archetypal account of the historical record…a framework upon which an individual's own experiences and thoughts may be ordered." (wikipedia.org)

The rejection of the meta-narrative poses a rather sizable challenge for the preacher. If the whole salvation history of the Old and New Testaments is doubted or rejected, how does one preach? There is little help in calling on the authority of scripture. “The Bible tells us…” is a formula that will only convince the already convinced.

In nearly all arenas of life the traditional sources of authority are quickly eroding away. And yet the world must go on. People still make decisions. Scientists continue to do research. Advertisers continue to make claims. Preachers still step into pulpits. The authority for such acts, however, is derived in a very different way. For the preacher, authority in a post modern context develops as tradition is put into conversation with experience. By tradition we are referring to the norms of the faith: scripture, confessions, official doctrine. By experience, we are referring to the entirety of human experience present in the listener, not simply the measurable but also the immeasurable experience of impression, intuition, and the remembrance of past events.

When tradition and experience are put into conversation two things happen. First, tradition gives us language and paradigms with which to interpret our experience. Take for example the account of the ten lepers who call out to Jesus on the roadway. Their call “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.” gives language to common human experience. The reasons for that calling will differ, but the very calling out with such a sense of desperation speaks to something deep, deep within us. The story is heard with authority as it resonates within the ear of the listener.

A second thing happens with tradition and experience are allowed to converse. Not only does tradition interpret experience, but experience in turn serves to validate tradition. When a piece of tradition helps us to make sense out of our experience, that piece of tradition is understood to be truthful. Aside from any questions of historicity, the healing of the lepers becomes true as it resonates with our own hurts and longing. A cycle is beginning to form. Tradition interprets experience. Experience validates that tradition which in turn is used to interpret additional experience.

The Sunday following 9-11 was difficult, to say the least. How was one to preach a word of hope on such a day? Could a word of hope be taken seriously on a day of such fear and devastation? To put it another way, how could the preacher speak with authority on 9-16?

A traditional approach might have been to give a listing of the times past when God had been relied upon and conclude 1) God is a God of love 2) God is a God of power 3) We don’t always know God’s plan 4) and THEREFORE we can know that God will be with us in the coming days. The form may offer some intellectual reassurance, but to speak with authority will require the preacher to take seriously what the congregation has experienced, and to call upon the resources of the Christianity to interpret it.

What if, for the day, the great words of Psalm 121 were not about some ancient and far away disaster but about the open skyline of Manhattan? “I lift my eyes to the hills, from where is my help to come?” That is the way may of us felt in the aftermath of 9-11. It was as though we were standing in that giant crater, our hand outstretched and our shoulders shrugged, looking at a hole in the skyline searching for words to say. Suddenly the scriptures understand 21st century life. Suddenly the psalmist gives us words we can’t even find for ourselves. If we read a bit further in the psalm we are pushed to search for signs of a God who doesn’t slumber or sleep and a God who (in spite of what you are seeing) will not let our feet be moved. As tiny rays of hope began to crop up, the psalmist demanded that we name them for what they were, namely signs of an unsleeping God.

Authority in a postmodern setting is an elusive thing. The solid formulations of “Thus saith the Bible” or the logical argument don’t carry the weight they once did. Yet even in such a setting the preacher can, and must, preach with authority. Calling on tradition to give language to experience, while using experience to validate that tradition, enables the preacher to speak with an authoritative voice.

In addition to Part 1 identified earlier, there is also Part 3.