I first recently encountered the homiletical instructions of Paul Scott Wilson in a book on various hermeneutical styles, where Wilson summarizes his "Four Pages of a Sermon" approach, that is essentially a form of Law-Gospel preaching. Wilson uses language of "trouble/grace" which I am not particularly fond of as an absolute Law-Gospel framework. Nevertheless, it was good to encounter a promotion of the L-G hermeneutic.
I was then impressed to find in some reviews of his materials a concept of the living word and preaching as an encounter. This emphasis is quite important to Fordean influenced theologians like myself. In short, this has led to a purchase of several of Wilson's texts which have only just arrived. Early reactions however would be that Wilson is an incredibly bright and knowledgable teacher of homiletics. Those looking to improve their learning in this field will do well to read him.
Early on in his Preaching and Homiletical Theory, Wilson summarizes his own approach towards teaching biblical preaching which he calls "an explicitly theological approach" (p12-13). It was reading his brief summary here that I noticed a homiletical styling again akin to that which I learned from Steve Paulson, in which one presently applies the biblical promise.
Wilson suggests students through their exegetical work with the text break the text down into a series of "short complete sentence statements or concerns of the text" which he calls "Concerns of the text (CT)". The preacher will select one CT to be the "major concern of the text" (MCT) for that sermon. The MCT will give shape to the "major concern of the sermon" (MCS).
Thus the first work towards moving from exegesis to sermoncraft is:
1. Identify through all your exegetical tools a list of CT's. This is the various faithful directions a preacher may take the text.
2. Select one CT to be the MCT for this sermon. This is the authoritative root of the sermon.
3. Transpose the MCT into a proclamatory MCS. This is the heart of the sermon's message.
In general, the method is a good one in helping one organize their exegetical efforts. Wilson believes CT's can be drawn from all sorts of exegetical efforts, naming past sermons, commentaries, the text itself and its background as some examples. Karoline Lewis used to warn us in seminary of showing our "exegetical underwear" because we feel the need to cram everything we found into a sermon or piecemeal it all together. This organizational method certainly will work with the "one focus, one function" homiletical style of Long that I was encouraged to use in seminary.
Along with its helpfulness in thought organization, Wilson also had a major insistence in how one would ultimately identify the MCT from the many CTs that were articulated: the MCT had to "focus on God in one of the persons of the Trinity". This meant, that whatever other ideas from the exegesis and CTs were used in the sermon, its central message would be focused on the work of God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. Law-Gospel preachers will note how this immediately will put the Gospel at the heart of the sermon as the MCT will seek to identify God's activity for us.
But the thing that sparked this blog was Wilson's articulation of the MCS. The MCS was the act of transposing (as he puts it) the major concern into the present tense. This, he sees, is the means by which the sermon will "witness to God's grace in authentic ways" and prevent the congregation from confusing how the message connects with them. As an example, Wilson posits that an MCT of "Jesus heals the woman" becomes as the MCS "Jesus heals us".
This movement of the biblical witness into present reality was a major feature of my learning of Fordean proclamation theology. This was most typically taught through the application of the text by attaching the words "for you" to the biblical promise. Bringing that message to bear was the preacher's task since it was through the Word being applied to the listener that it might kill and raise to new life and faith. We might say, then, that Fordean (and indeed I would say Lutheran, but this was especially prevelant and became clear to me through Fordean) homiletical instruction would be to create an MCS by giving the MCT a "for you" element.
Additionally, Forde did stress the idea of the preaching as an event. The Word was in motion and active in the sermon. In this way, preaching has a present tense to it. It never just looked back but proclaimed in the present God's saving activity. This is where Wilson's style shines. It helps one to begin sermon formulation by taking the Word and using it to witness to God's active work. Additionally, students of Forde are sometimes too reliant on the "for you" and death/resurrection language. Beginning with the statement drawn from the specific text will allow for more diversification of homiletic style. Such rhetorical skill can only enhance our preaching in the way it allows each sermon to bear witness anew versus a common formulaic phraseology. Greater homiletical style increases rhetorical surprise. Such surprise is as much an important element of the Gospel as God's faithfulness.
Wilson's style (as he presents it in this section) does suffer from a flaw in that it still allows for present witness without direct proclamation. To say "Jesus heals us" (or worse, his other formulation of that MCT into an MCS "Christ heals people today") still allows the hearer to hear the Gospel without it truly being applied to them. "Us" gets close, but still ultimately is corporate enough to be a faithful witness without the inclusion of the listener. This is the strength of the "for you" language. In the end, we're not just talking good news, but something that is good news "for you". To announce that God is still healing with no means of directing that promise ultimately leaves God's gospel work "half-hidden". One has borne witness to God's present work, but has not been able to direct the hearer to that work in any concrete way.
That is to say that Wilson's method is a good one for those interested in not only presenting Gospel, but preaching Gospel into people's present lives. But the Explicitly Theological Approach only assures that one will do what the steps suggest: 1) find the message in the Word, 2) focus the message on God's activity, and 3) connect that past activity into our present world. It does not guarantee that the sermon will proclaim that message to its hearers or even how central the cross is towards that message. That will still be the responsibility of the preacher who uses this method.
*Note: I am still early on in my reading of Preaching and Homiletical Theory, and cannot claim that Wilson does not later in the book give more guidance or that his actual teaching of this method with students does not give a clearer sense of proclamation. Indeed, some of what I have read of his would make me believe he does. I'm merely working with the style as he summarizes it among others because of its inherent strengths towards present proclamation, and my critique is only aimed at helping preachers use what was here presented.
