The problem with books is that it is a one way conversation. Aren't there times when you just wish the author was sitting there right next to you and you could talk to them about what you just read? Then there is the tragedy of too little too late. The tragedy for me is that I listened to, and conversed with Doug Pagitt at the recent National Conference on Preaching (speaching). Alas, I wish I had read his book first and met him second. We would have had so much more to talk about. Frankly he would have had a lot more explaining to do.
I just read Doug's book, "Preaching Re-imagined." It is quite the rage in the pomo/emergent community. He suggests a whole new approach to preaching which he calls 'progressive preacihng.' The pastor engages the congregation in an ongoing discussion of a selected text. Pre sermonic work is done with a team leading up to the service. The team is open to whoever wants to be there. In that sense I suppose the planning session is conceptual (this is what it might be about). The sermon/service itself would be formational. It is in effect created and proclaimed in community. That is my spin on what Doug was trying to say (which I think I said much better than he did).
All that aside this is an engaging easy read. Which is nice. Nice because it is easy to read and nice because it is engaging. Not in the sense that it draws you in to a good story but engaging in that it is a controversial topic. Lets face it for some (preachers), preaching (or speaching as Pagitt calls it) is the holy grail of Chirstianity. Doug embarks on a worthy discussion and merges the issue of preching with a variety of issues confronting the church today. To some it will read like a hodge-podge but they are legitimage issues nonetheless. Doug's concept of community and preaching are so bound together that it is impossible for him not to stray into other arenas. In this sense he does us a favor in starting a worthy conversation. Unfortunately, what could be a great discussion read like a one-way rant. Sure, there are plenty of minions (those who buy into anything and everything pomo leaders are saying) who will embrace his thoughts but he failed to present himself in such a way that those who need to join the dialogue will be apt to listen. Funny, he talked about language and choice of words in progressive preaching. Too bad it did not exude from his writing. In person and in his book he came off as rather arrogant (I'm right and you are wrong). Not that I'm offended mind you (unless it is in that I met someone who is better at it than I am). Personally I think it's just his passion spilling out. And what preacher/pastor can't respect that in another shepherd? Shouldn't we be passionate about Christ and his body?
So if I can live with Doug's passion then what is my problem with his book? Well, I think it lacks credibility. For instance, he argues for progessive preaching from a biblical and a historical argument. Biblically he uses Acts 10 and Peter and Cornelius' conversation as a proof text for progressive preaching. He seems to suggest this would become the norm for the early church. Historically speaking he insists that speaching is a relatively new phenomenon in church having been born out of the enlightenment. Both of these arguments by some might be called "straw men." In reality they are downright fallacious. This is what makes Doug's work questionable in that it lacks scholarly integrity. First the Acts 10 thing is akin to textual violence (to use Pagitt's terminology). Luke is not prescribing any preaching method he is only documenting events and supplying pertinent conversations and sermons relavent to the fulfillment of his purpose. One has to wonder if Doug knows anything about Greek or Roman rhetoric and the role it played in the first and surrounding centuries. In fact Luke gives us a clear picture of what speaching sounded like in the early church. Paul at times used a classic method known as "Narratio" (Acts 22, 26). His sermons follow a Greek rhetorical pattern as popular in that day. Keep in mind 'rhetoric' was a positive term in Luke's day unlike ours. Nor is it plausable that Luke was not telling the whole 'story.' Historiography in Luke's day was very factually oriented. Embellishment was not likely or considered necessary. Acts is a historical narrative of the work of the Holy Spirit in the fledgling church as seen in the events outlined by Luke. The conversations and sermons serve to inform the reader as to motivations, beliefs and perceptions of the people participating in God's new movement. The accuracy of the sermons is as critical as the accuracy of the events being described.
Doug says nothing of the reading of texts within the community either. Even Acts for as long as it is can be a lively read. Luke almost certainly planned it so; event-speech-explanaiton is a common flow of the text. Did the listeners converse and discuss the text? One would think so but it was in no way a 'progressive sermon'. Nor does Doug make any mention of Pauls blunt expectation that women shut up (my translation) in church. What is one to do with that? Doug goes so far as to suggest that everybody stops talking when a baby cries in church because everyone has to be heard. So this read not only lacks credibility but it gets downright sappy.
At the end of the day I think Pagitt "doth protest too much." He insists progressive preaching is not another method of 'speaching'. Yeah, right. That's exactly what it is. Such an admission would make his arguments more tenable. For he is right in asserting that preaching affects the context of the community. That being said forms of progressive preaching have their place. It is a valuable tool which helps create community. But spare me the arrogance that he has come up with something that is 'other than' what he calls speaching. He himself digresses on personality (his) and how it effects his formation of a sermon. Hey, some things work better for other people.
The funny thing is, the pomo crowd insists they are a breed apart. Well maybe they are. Their arrogance and pontificating remind me of Fundamentalism (we are the last great basteon of hope, blah, blah, blah). I am considering the idea that postmodern is a code word for fundamentalist. Postmodernity is a code word for fundamentallism and emergent is a code word for fundy (pejorative). Rermember the common denominator of fundamentalism is militance. And Doug Pagitt is militant. Maybe that's why I feel like I can have a lively conversation with him. Sola Gracia, WHB
No comments:
Post a Comment