confession is good for the...pulpit

Just finished a book by PTS grad David Lose (didn't know him; I think he was there after my time).  This is his dissertation:  Confessing Jesus Christ:  Preaching in a Post-Modern World.

While it reads in places like a dissertation, it also provides a strong theological and hermeneutical basis for preaching in the 21st century.  He argues that confession provides a pulpit for both talk about God and proclamation of the Gospel.  I will admit that confession has provided me with a useable hermeneutic.  Here are notes taken from the book:

Lose proposes that preaching that seeks to be both faithful and Christian tradition and responsive to our pluralistic, postmodern context is best understood as the public practice of confessing faith in Jesus Christ 

                Modern era was inaugurated in years following the Peace of Westphalia (1648) that brought an end to the 30yrs War and marked dawn of Enlightenment.  Enlightenment sought to erect society guided on universally valid rationality, not superstitious belief.  There is philosophical emphasis from ontology (Being) to epistemology (Knowing).  Diogenes Allen has 4 pillars of modernity:  self-contained universe; rational basis for morality and society; belief in inevitable progress; and assumption that k is good. 

Post-modernity says language cannot refer beyond itself and reality is a socio-symbolic construction; this dissolves teleology leaving the specter of meaninglessness.  Following this, humanity is now responsible for the world it makes.  Third, PM says language cannot refer beyond itself; language becomes its own prison.  Fourth, truth is really just what is favored or popular.  Derrida’s ‘deferral of meaning’ can become a ‘deferral of responsibility’ in that real life is trivialized into discourse. 

Non-foundationalism says that beliefs are groundless.  Fideism implies a blind commitment to beliefs.  DL says that non-foundationalism is also fideism by way of one’s experience and formation [blik].  DL says cannot escape fideism but do have choice b/w maximal and minimal fideism.  George Lindbeck, Yale, has post-liberal proposal that different cultural-linguistic traditions represent distinct, entities incommensurable w/one another.  This emphasis on internal meaningfulness negates possibility of critical conversation. Lindbeck says can only evaluate a tradition from inside.  Thomas Kuhn has sense of incommensurability that opens door to critical conversation. 

Ricoeur, borrowing participation and distanciation from Gadamer, says there is creative tension of these in interpretation texts.  This is reaction to Romanticism that said first had to und before could explain text.  Ricoeur says cannot explain apart from und; these are in dialectic.  Dialectic moves forward. 

Post-modernism says truth is never complete but is open.  DL sayspost-modernism helps Christians by clarifying faith, showing that it rests on confession of revealed truth, or in other words faith alone. 

Homologeo can serve as official acknowledgement with Jesus acknowledged when secular Greek is overlaid with Hebrew sense to convey a binding religious confession.  Mt 10.32-33 and Lk 12.8,9.  Here confessing resembles witnessing.  Here confession is more than official; also a binding relationship of mutual fidelity.  This aligns one with Jesus.  Rom 10.9-10.  Faith finds it full actualization only in its articulation. 

Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness:  The Church as the Image of the Trinity.  Church is assembly that gathers in Christ’s name.  Church is assembly but assembly is not yet church.  Need cognitive specification for personal identity with Jesus Christ; need personal identity with Jesus Christ for cognitive specification to have content.  These two coincide in act of confessing faith. 

B.A. Gerrish, Saving and Secular Fe:  An Invitation to Systematic Theology.  Saving faith is perceiving one’s experience under the image of divine benevolence and consequent living of one’s life out of an attitude of confidence or trust.  Faith is never faith in isolation; faith socializes.  Creeds and confessions are primary instruments of this socialization.  In post-modernism, Church’s confessions and continual confessing is its only possession.  Search for historical Jesus folks would hold faith captive to historical science as doctrine of creation held it to natural science.  Historical anchorage is found in life of Church—body of Christ.  Gerrish gives greater detail to Volf’s ‘cognitive specification.’ 

Douglas John Hall, Confessing the Faith.  Confession is communication @ truth, or at least what one believes to be true.  Confession is assertive and, while articulating the Christian tradition, articulates the Christian tradition in response to the current need of the world. 

Summarizing V,G & H, DL says that confession designates a summary of the church’s essential assertions concerning God’s act in Jesus Christ.  And, confession denotes articulating faith as a living response to the proclaimed word and to current situation/crisis of the world.  DL says preaching is an assertive utterance, that seeks, non-coercively, a response of faith.  Gerrish articulates the sociological role of confession.  Karl Barth says of preaching that church must be built afresh each time; conformity to the confession is first, everything else is second. 

                Lucy Atkinson Rose says that there are 3 dominant approaches to preaching in 20^th c:  traditional (“sacred rhetoric”, John A Broadus), kerygmatic (Karl Barth) and transformational (narrative, Craddock).  Word for homiletics is derived from Greek word for conversation, omilew.  DL says there must be paradoxical mixture of trust and suspicion to read biblical texts faithfully.

Preaching proclaims the gospel that puts hearers into communal narrative while being encountered by the gospel.  DL uses confession to describe this.  Confession is fides quae creditur (faith which is believed) offering communal identity and way to interpret world.  Confession is also fides qua creditor (faith by which it is believed). 

Bruggemann rejects historical-critical method to pursue a rhetorical interpretation and has view of scripture as testimony.  Because of this, readers make scripture truthful, subjectively.  Authority of the Word then resides w/human community.  DL says probem is not in understanding the text as witness but his understanding of witness.  Brug’s use of witness takes an OT legal motif and makes it governing.  And he occasionally misunderstands the legal motif of witness.  He also inflates role and importance of readers.  He underutilizes confessional nature of witness.  DL says in contrast that biblical authors confess that their writing correspond to reality, they believe this and are committed to this belief.  DL shifts attention from Brug’s reader back to text claiming to witness to the truth.  Speech-act theory elucidates how bible functions as true word of God.  Scripture is not just assent but also commitment; not just recognition but also judgment.

We enter into dialogue w/text demanding some response; text speaks so that we are in I-thou relationship; text calls our presuppositions into question.  DL posits 4 steps in moving from text through preaching to community.  First is approaching text on behalf of congregation; second, listening to text’s distinct confession; third, discerning confession in light of canon context/community context/preacher’s context; fourth, articulating the new confession.

Some homileticians (Augustine and Craddock) say rhetoric is neutral; this increases import of hearers; DL calls this homiletical Donatism.  Others (Karl Barth and Tertullian) say rhetoric is incompatible w/gospel; this decreases importance of hearers; DL calls this homiletical Docetism.  DL says Paul does neither in preaching Jesus Christ.  Persuasion is not goal of preaching.  Preaching as confession allows both identity and separation.