A STUDY OF THE THEORIES 0F HOMELETICS OF THE AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JOHN C. McCOLLISTER 1969 if A . “or. 1 j LIBRARY Michigan State University f This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF Tim THEORIES OF HOMILETICS OF TE AI‘IERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH presented by JOHN C. lIcCOLIISTFR has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree inm— I / \jfl-strrxz t LLy‘x 13") \ \ Major professor pm July 10, 1969 0-169 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE THEORIES OF HOMILETICS OF THE AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH By John C. McCollister In his first letter to the Church in Corinth, St. Paul referred to "the foolishness of preaching." To this body of young Christians, Paul explained that while preaching may be deemed "foolishness" by others, to the Church it is the prescribed method of communicating the gospel. Consequently, for nearly two thousand years, the primary goal of the Christian Church has been to tell the story about the Lord, Jesus Christ, through preaching. However, although the command has been given to the Church to preach the gospel, no instruction was given as to how this is to be done. As a result, the study of theories of preaching (homiletics) has produced a variety of opinions as to the most effective ways by which to communicate the good news. The homiletical theories considered in this study are those presented through the three seminaries of the American Lutheran Church. These theories are reported John C. McCollister as a result of: (1) interviews with the professors of homiletics at the three seminaries, (2) the material found in the basic textbooks of the courses, (3) the lecture notes of the professors, and (4) the direct association of the writer with the programs. A comparison is made of these theories with those presented through the writings of the six most influential homiletical theorists of today as revealed through the study conducted by Daniel E. Weiss.l These theories are reported along the lines of the constituents of homi— letics known as "Invention," "Arrangement," "Style," "Memory," and "Delivery." Evaluation of these theories is made through: (1) a survey of the three seminary graduating classes of 1961, (2) a survey of the three seminary graduating classes of 1969, and (3) the opinions of the writer. Suggestions for the future of homiletical instruction are proposed as a result of: (l) a survey of the three seminary graduating classes of 1961, (2) a survey of the three seminary graduating classes of 1969, (3) the opinions of the three professors of homiletics at the seminaries, and (A) the opinions of the writer. The following conclusions are noted: lDaniel Edwin Weiss, "Conceptions of 'Arrangement' in American Protestant Homiletical Theory" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept° of Speech, Michigan State Uni- versity, l96h). *4 John C. McCollister The three seminaries of the American Lutheran Church offer the same basic approach to homi— letical theory, although each seminary stresses different methods on occasion. The theories of the American Lutheran Church vary somewhat from those promoted by the six homiletical theorists used for comparison. There is general agreement among the 1961 and 1969 graduating classes and the writer as to the strengths and weaknesses of the homiletical theories of the American Lutheran Church. There is general agreement among the 1961 and 1969 graduating classes, the professors of homiletics, and the writer regarding the sug- gestions for the future of homiletical in— struction in the American Lutheran Church. A STUDY OF THE THEORIES OF HOMILETICS OF THE AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH By John C. McCollister A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Speech 1969 Copyright by JOHN C. McCOLLISTER 1969 Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Speech, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree. Kenneth G. Hance Director at Thesis Guidance Committee: Kenneth 3- Hance , Chairman Robert T. Anderson David C. Ralph Gordon L. Thomas 5 V "Hinduism lives by ritual and social organization, Buddhism by meditation, Confucianism by a code of manners; but Christianity by 'the foolishness of preaching.'" Paul Scherer from: For We Have This Treasure This thesis is written in honor of Dr. Ronald M. Hals for his continual inspiration in scholarship, preaching, and the Christian life. 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his appreciation to those who have aided him in making possible this study: Dr. Kenneth G. Hance, Chairman of the Guidance Committee, for his continual patience, wise direction, and contagious enthusiasm. Dr. David C. Ralph, for his helpful guidance in the methods of speech criticism. Dr. Gordon L. Thomas, for his keen observations and suggestions in terms of literary style. Dr. Robert T. Anderson, for his observations centered upon the relationship of this study to the Church. Dr. James C. McCroskey, for his guidance of the survey as recorded in this study. The Rev. Robert C. Wiederanders, Archivist of the American Lutheran Church, for his valuable assistance in acquiring rare documents regarding the history of the three seminaries. Professors Halvorson, Poovey, and Schneider, of the three seminaries of the American Lutheran Church iii whose cooperation during the interviews and personal visits provided the basis for this study. Dr. Ronald M. Hals, who lent encouragement and continued support while I was in seminary and graduate school. My secretary, Mary Lou Hawkins, for service above and beyond the call of duty in the preparation of this thesis. My wife, Beverly, for her steadfast help and willingness to sacrifice during the frustrations that accompany marriage, the ministry, and graduate study. iv DEDICATION ACKNOWLEDG INTRODUCTI Chapter TABLE OF CONTENTS MNTS O I O O I O O O 0 ON 0 O O O O O O I. HOMILETICAL INSTRUCTION AT THE SEMINARIES OF THE AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH. The Purpose . Evangelical Lutheran Theological II. HOM "IN Seminary, Columbus, Ohio . . Wartburg Theological Seminary, Dubuque, Iowa. . . . . Luther Theological Seminary, St. Minnesota . . . . . . . ILETICAL THEORIES REGARDING VENTI ON " O O O O I O The Purpose . . . . . . . Definition. . . . . . . . Ethos . . . . . The Purpose of the Sermon. The Main Source of the Sermon Invention and the Audience . The Place and Influence of the Liturgical Year . . . . . The Preparations of Sermons . . The Materials Used in the Sermon Writing Out the Sermon. . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . Page ii iii viii CDU'IMNN Chapter Page III. HOMILETICAL THEORIES REGARDING "ARRANGE- MENT" . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 The Purpose . . . . . . . . . . 62 Definition . . . . . 62 The Formulation of the Outline. . . 63 Working Toward One Thought . . . . . 68 The Length of the Sermon. . . . . . 73 The Place of the Text. . . . . . 75 The Sermon's Introduction . . . . . 77 Announcing the Parts . . . . . . 81 The Sermon's Conclusion . . . . . . 83 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 87 IV. HOMILETICAL THEORIES REGARDING "STYLE" . . 91 The Purpose . . . . . . . . 91 Definition . . . . . . . . 91 The Tone of Language . . . . . . 92 Style and the Audience . . . . . . 96 The Use of Imagination . . . . . . 98 The Art of "Being Yourself". . . . . 103 The Title of the Sermon . . . . 107 The Sermon' s Introduction and Con— clusion . . . . 112 The Biblical Translations Used. . . . 114 The Use of Illustrations. . . . . . 115 The Use of Humor in the Pulpit. . . . 120 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 123 V. HOMILETICAL THEORIES REGARDING "MEMORY". . 126 The Purpose . . . . . . . . . . 126 Definition . . . . . . . . . . 126 Word Memory . . . . . . . . . . 127 Thought Memory . . . . . 130 Aids to Word or Thought Memory. . . 131 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 137 VI. HOMILETICAL THEORIES REGARDING "DELIVERY" . IMO The Purpose . . . . . . . . . . 1A0 Definition . . . . . . . . . . 140 The Oral Expression . . . . . . . 140 vi Chapter Page The Visible Expression . . . . . 143 Added Advice Regarding Delivery . . . 144 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 145 VII. EVALUATION OF THE HOMILETICAL THEORIES OF THE AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH . . . . . 148 Introduction . . . . . 148 Survey of the Class of 1969 . . . 149 Survey of the Class of 1961 . . . . 155 Interpretation of the Surveys. . . . 164 Opinions of the Writer . . . . . . 172 Outside Influences . . . . . . . 177 VIII. SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE. . . . . . 180 Introduction . . . . 180 Survey of the Class of 1969 . . . . 180 Survey of the Class of 1961 . . . . 182 Interpretation of the Surveys. . . . 184 Opinions of the Seminary Professors. . 186 Opinions of the Writer . . . . . . 189 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 194 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 vii INTRODUCTION Statement of Purpose The purpose of this project is to study the homi- 1etica1 theories of the American Lutheran Church via description, interpretation, analysis, and evaluation of the instruction in homiletics at the three semi- naries of the Church. This study deals with the theo- ries of homiletics in terms of the following five constituents of preaching: "Invention," "Arrangement," "Style," "Memory," and "Delivery." This study concerns itself with the classes in homiletics, with the men who serve as professors of homiletics at these institutions, and with the 1961 and 1969 graduating classes of the three seminaries. Throughout this study answers are sought to the following questions: 1. What is the history of the development of homiletical theories within the three semi- naries of the American Lutheran Church? Note: There is no intention to trace the history of the American Lutheran Church and of its seminaries; books on this subject are available. viii According to their writings and oral state- ments via interviews, what are the homi- letical theories of the professors of homiletics of the three seminaries of the American Lutheran Church with respect to the five constituents of homiletics known as "Invention," "Arrangement," "Style," "Memory," and "Delivery"? In the seminary classrooms, what homiletical theories are taught regarding the five consti- tuents of homiletics? Note: this includes a study of the primary textbooks used in class. With respect to the five elements of homi- letics, what is recommended: A. Regarding "Invention"? 1) What is said about the preacher as a person? Note: this includes the con- cepts of ethos and source credibility. 2) What is said regarding the relationship between the audience and invention? Note: audience analysis is of concern here. 3) What is said regarding the relationship between the occasion and invention? ix 4) 5) 6) 7) What is the place of the text in the selection of the subject? What is the place of the Liturgical Year in the choice of a text or subject? What are the principles of analysis of the subject? What kinds of developmental materials are advocated? Is scripture alone endorsed? If not, what other materials are used? Regarding "Arrangement"? 1) 2) 3) 4) What is the preferred plan of organ- izing a sermon? Does the text dictate the organization of a sermon? What is the place of the reading of the text within the sermon organization? What is the proper use of the intro- duction and conclusion? Regarding "Style"? 1) 2) What biblical translations are endorsed for preaching? In terms of such labels as "formal" or "informal" what type of style is recommended? What is the "tone" of the language advocated? X 3) 4) 5) 6) What is the place of humor in the pulpit? What is said concerning the relation- ship of the occasion and style? What is the relationship of audience analysis and style? Are there any comments on the language of the introduction and conclusion? Regarding "Memory"? 1) 2) What is said in terms of "word memory," "outline memory," and/or "thought memory"? Are "sermon rehearsals" advocated? If so, to what degree? Regarding "Delivery"? 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) What is recommended concerning the place of manuscripts in preaching? What is taken into the pulpit? What kinds of delivery are advocated? e.g., memorized, extemporaneous, read- ing of manuscripts, etc. What are the canons of delivery advo— cated at the seminaries? What is the relationship between audience analysis and delivery? xi 10. What tendencies, directions, or emphases may be found with respect to these homiletical theories? How do these homiletical theories compare with those of selected American Protestant homiletical theorists? (Note: a description of the theorists appears later in this sec- tion). In the light of these comparisons, what ele- ments of uniqueness appear in the theories of the American Lutheran Church? Therefore, what specific contributions to homiletical theory become evident? In terms of uniqueness, what other contributions through emphasis are evident? What reasons can be advocated to explain the emphases in American Lutheran Church homiletical theory and its elements of uniqueness in re- lation to the homiletical theorists mentioned before? What evaluations of the homiletical theory are made by: A. The professors of homiletics at the three seminaries? xii B. The 1961 graduates of the three seminaries 1) What judgments do these graduates have regarding the theories of homiletics? 2) Do these graduates feel inclined to put these theories into practice? C. The 1969 graduates of the three seminaries 1) What judgments do these graduates have regarding the theories of homiletics? 2) Do these graduates feel inclined to put these theories into practice? 11. In terms of the body of homiletical theory derived from the homiletical theorists men— tioned before, the comments of the graduating classes, and the judgments of the writer, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the homi- letical theory of the American Lutheran Church? Within the SCOpe of this study, certain hypotheses are tested. 1. Through observation, it appears that: A. The three seminaries of the Church offer the same basic approach to the theory of homiletics although each seminary may stress different methods on occasion. B. The Liturgical Year has much to say in terms of what is preached on a given Sunday. xiii 2. It appears probable that: A. The American Lutheran Church philosophy of homiletics has a specific "combination of ingredients" (such as promotion of textual preaching alone, the subscription to the themes of the Liturgical Year, etc.) which sets it apart from those advocated by other denominations. The theories of the American Lutheran Church will vary somewhat from those pro- moted through the texts of the American Protestant homiletical theorists men- tioned before. There is general agreement among the professors of homiletics, the graduates of the seminaries, and the writer regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the homi— letical theories of the American Lutheran Church. The students and graduates of the seminary program do not always put into practice that which was taught to them in the semi- nary (especially when it comes to "textual" preaching vs. "topical" or "problem-centered" sermons). xiv 3. It appears that the results of this study will produce certain critical evaluations of the American Lutheran Church homiletical theory such as: A. The American Lutheran Church theories of homiletics as presented by the professors of homiletics through their classes at the three seminaries of the church offer to the students a solid background and philosophy of preaching. B. The insistence of the American Lutheran Church that every sermon must be "textual" and its rejection of the so-called "topical" or "problem-centered" sermon is a limitation as to what can be done in preaching. Definition of Terms The Church.——The American Lutheran Church (A. L. C.) the formation of which took place in 1960. Per the parochial report of January 1, 1968, the Church consists of 4,906 congregations served by 5,869 pastors. Con— firmed membership is 1,750,740 and baptized membership is 2,576,027. The American Lutheran Church is the third largest Lutheran body within the United States. The Seminaries.—-Three seminaries are the property of the American Lutheran Church: XV A. Evangelical Theological Seminary, Columbus, Ohio (E. L. T. s.) B. Luther Theological Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota C. Wartburg Theological Seminary, Dubuque, Iowa Professors of Homiletics.——A. L. Halvorson, (Luther); W. A. Poovey (Wartburg); S. D. Schneider (E. L. T. s.) Invention.--That constituent of homiletics con— cerned with the finding and analyzing of the materials of the sermon; it embodies such elements as: purposes and kinds of speeches, topics (subject matter), finding the modes of persuasion, analysis of the audience, prepar- ation of the discourse in terms of basic methodology, and the types of sermons involved (i.e., textual, topical, problem-centered, etc.). Arrangement.—-That constituent of homiletics con- cerned with the arrangement of materials; it embodies such elements as: the plan of the sermon in the large, and the specific parts of the sermon (i.e., the outline). Stylg,--That constituent of homiletics concerned with matters of language, with the phrasing of the selected and arranged materials; it embodies word choice and word composition with a particular emphasis upon the theology implied by the choice of words. xvi Memory.-—That constituent of homiletics concerned with the storing up in the mind of principles, bodies of factual material, lines of thought, and phrases which will be ready for use in a sermon; it embodies thought memory and word memory. The suggested use of a manu— script, outline, or lack of both is of special interest in this study. Delivery.——That constituent of homiletics con— cerned with oral and visible expression; it embodies those elements concerned with the actual preaching of the sermon. Limitations Imposed This study is concerned with the theories of preach- ing within the American Lutheran Church as reflected by the courses in homiletics at the three seminaries and by the professors who instruct in these classes. Some addi— tional information (primarily centered in evaluation) is supplied by the 1961 and 1969 graduates of the seminaries. This study is concerned with the practice of preaching only as far as the reports by the graduates indicate the amount of application of the homiletical theories taught in the seminaries. Although a more involved study of the practice of preaching within the American Lutheran Church might prove profitable, the results probably would not be of enough significance in the light of the goals xvii of this study—-which are to determine the nature and the value of the theories of homiletics. Justification of Project Intrinsic Merit 1. To the writer and to other members of the clergy of the American Lutheran Church the gathering together of the separate materials along with the description, interpretation, analysis, and evaluation of the homiletical theories of the Church would be of value in enabling us to know where this denomination "stands" in this area and in providing a means for current evaluation and aids to future development of the homiletical pro- gram of the Church. The American Lutheran Church seminary adminis- trators and professors as well as other leaders of the American Lutheran Church responsible for the training of preachers will benefit from this body of material in that it will provide a basis for evaluation of present materials and programs and a similar basis for possible improvement of the programs. xviii To the students and clergymen of other denomi- nations, this study will provide in readily available form a comparison to other studies of homiletical works, lectureships on preach— ing, etc. In addition to the values listed above, there are values in making a study of a theory of homiletics in order to provide further bases for comparisons among homiletical theorists and the principles and methods which they espouse (especially if someone were to pursue a study of the practice of preaching in the American Lutheran Church). There is an additional value in studying an aspect of the work of a denomination which has a significant and long history, has nearly three million members and six thousand active clergymen, and has been deemed worthy of study within the context of scholarly research and writing. As support for this claim, the writer refers to the acceptance by Yale University of the doctoral dissertation by Fred W. Meuser entitled, "The Formation of the American Lutheran Church." xix Distinctiveness By the listing of Knower and Auer and according to the Board of Theological Education of the American Lutheran Church, no such study has been attempted or is contemplated by anyone else. Materials and Sources Used in this study are: l. The homiletical theories of the professors of homiletics as reflected by their writings and by oral statements derived from interviews. 2. A report of the contents of the courses in homiletics at the three seminaries of the Church. 3. The results of questionnaires sent to the seminary graduates of 1961 and 1969. 4. The textbooks written by the six most prominent American Protestant homiletical theorists of today (according to a survey by Daniel Weiss):1 A. Blackwood, Andrew, The Preparation of Sermons (Abingdon) B. Davis, Henry Grady, Design for Preaching (Muhlenberg) lDaniel Edwin Weiss, "Conceptions of 'Arrangement' in American Protestant Homiletical Theory" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Speech, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1964). XX C. Jones, Ilion T., Principles and Practice of Preaching (Abingdon) D. Kennedy, Gerald H., His Word Through Preaching(Harper) E. Luccock, Halford E., In the Minister's Workshop (Abingdon) F. Scherer, Paul Ehrman, For We Have This Treasure (Harper) The primary textbooks used in the classes of homiletics at the three seminaries of the Church. Various source books and historical data which offer the basis for a history of the homiletics programs at the three seminaries of the Church. Method of Research The method of data gathering and interpretation is as follows: 1. The writer sent a letter to each of the three seminaries of the Church in which he informed them of his proposed topic, and asked for the assistance of the faculty in the gathering of material for this study. In this letter he also asked for an appointment of a specific time during which it would be convenient to interview the professors of homiletics at the institutions. xxi He read all of the available published works of the professors and recorded what each has written regarding the five elements of homi- letics described before. He sought from the seminary professors of homiletics a descriptive outline of the courses in homiletics which they teach. From these outlines a report was prepared concerning what is taught in each class in terms of the five elements of homiletics described before. He asked each of the professors to report what textbooks are used in his course and to what extent they are used in the instruction of the students. He sent to the professors of homiletics the results of his findings concerning their theories of homiletics as reflected by their writings, by their course outlines, and by the material found in the textbooks used in their classes. These findings were listed under the headings of the five constituents of homiletics described before. A note accompanied this report stating that these findings would be discussed at a forthcoming meeting. xxii In a similar manner, he prepared a synthesis of the theories of homiletics presented through the six American Protestant homiletical texts mentioned before as to the five constituents of homiletics. He compared the apparent theories of homi— letics of the American Lutheran Church with those set forth by the six homiletical texts and made note of the similarities and/or differences. He visited each seminary and discussed at length with each of the professors of homi— letics the following questions: A. Is what has been reported through my recent findings a true reflection of your theories of homiletics? If not, where is it wrong or incomplete? B. Why do you differ in your approach to preaching from those theories presented by the six homiletical texts mentioned in the Weiss study? C. What specific approaches do you use in class to promote your homiletical theories? D. Have you altered any of your theories of homiletics since 1960? If so, why? xxiii 10. E. Do you have any suggestions for the future development of homiletics within the American Lutheran Church? After acquiring from the seminaries a list of the names and addresses of the seminary gradu— ates of 1961 and 1969, the writer sent to them questionnaires in which the following questions were asked: A. From your recollection, what were some of the strengths of the seminary program in homiletics? What were some of the weak- nesses? To what degree do you apply what you were taught in the seminary classroom? Note: of primary emphasis in this direction was the application (or lack of such) of the "textual" form of preaching vs. the "topical" or "problem—centered" approach to homiletics with the inevitable practices which stem from the use or non-use of the textual form of preaching. Do you have any suggestions for the future development of homiletics within the American Lutheran Church? The materials derived from the research have been organized as follows: xxiv A. A description of the theories of homi- letics of the American Lutheran Church in terms of the five constituents of homiletics as derived from: 1) The writings of the professors of homiletics. 2) The textbooks used in the classes in homiletics. 3) The descriptive outline of the courses in homiletics. 4) Oral statements derived from interviews with the professors. 5) The results of the questionnaires sent to the 1961 and 1969 seminary graduates. A side-by—side comparison of these theories with those presented by the six leading American Protestant homiletical theorists mentioned before. An analysis of the theories of homiletics of the American Lutheran Church as a result of comments by the professors of homiletics. An evaluation of these theories resulting from: 1) Opinions of the graduates surveyed via the questionnaires. 2) Opinions of the writer. XXV E. Suggestions for the future development of homiletics within the American Lutheran Church resulting from: 1) Opinions of the professors. 2) Opinions of the graduates surveyed with the questionnaires. 3) Opinions of the writer. Method of Report Chapter I—-Homiletical Instruction at the Semi- naries of the American Lutheran Church. Chapter II-—Homiletical Instruction Regarding "Invention." Chapter III-—Homiletical Instruction Regrading "Arrangement." 8 Chapter IV——Homiletical Instruction Regarding "Style." Chapter V——Homiletical Instruction Regarding "Memory." Chapter VI—-Homi1etica1 Instruction Regarding "Delivery." Chapter VII-~Evaluation of the Homiletical Theories of the American Lutheran Church. Chapter VIII-~Suggestions for the Future. xxvi OUTLINE FOR CHAPTER I HOMILETICAL INSTRUCTION AT THE SEMINARIES OF THE AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH I. Purpose of Chapter II. Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary, Columbus, Ohio III. Wartburg Theological Seminary, Dubuque, Iowa IV. Luther Theological Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota CHAPTER I HOMILETICAL INSTRUCTION AT THE SEMINARIES OF THE AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH The Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to present the history of homiletical instruction at the three seminaries of the American Lutheran Church, and to show the various philoso- phies of homiletics that have developed within each semi— nary. It is the belief of the writer that the purposes for which the seminaries were established and the different philosophies of homiletics associated with the seminaries over many years have a direct bearing upon the current pro— gram of homiletics at each institution. Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary, Columbus, Ohio The Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary of Columbus, Ohio, has associated with it a long and distin— guished history. The seminary was the first Lutheran seminary founded west of the Allegheny Mountains.l 1C. V. Sheatsley, History of the First Lutheran Seminary of the West 1830-1890 (Columbus, Ohio:' Lutheran Book Concern, n.d.), p. 8. Although the present student body of 235 and faculty of 16 reflect a sizable school, the seminary records a humble beginning. The Theological Seminary of the Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod of Ohio was established by resolution of synod in convention assembled in Zanesville, Ohio, in the spring of 1830 and was opened on the 15th of October of the same year in Canton, Ohio, with a teaching force of one man and an enrollment of six students.1 The seminary was established to instruct candidates for the ministry "in the solid knowledge of the contents of the Holy Scriptures."2 At the founding of the semi— nary, therefore, very few courses in practical theology were offered. Homiletics or anything relating to the theories of preaching was not included in the plan of instruction.3 Specific courses in homiletics began in 1911 with the calling to the faculty of the Rev. R. C. H. Lenski, an enthusiastic promotor of homiletical instruction who be- lieved that "preaching is the highest function of the ministry."u His primary source of instruction was the 1George H. Shodde, Historical Sketch of the Theo- l%gica1 Seminary of the Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod 0 Ohio and Other States IColumbus, Ohio: Joint Synod of Ohio, 1905). p. 3. 2Interview with Dr. Herbert C. Leupold, Professor of Old Testament at E. L. T. 8., February 24, 1969. 3C. A. Frank, History of the German Lutheran Semi- nary of the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Ohio and Other States Located at Columbus, Ohio IColumbus, Ohio: Ohio Synodical Printing House, 1880), p. 4. ”Unpublished notes supplied by Leonard L. Ludwig, text in German, Homiletik, by Christian Palmer.l Later, Dr. Lenski's theories of preaching were published in his own book, The Sermon: Its Homiletical Construction. Dr. Lenski taught homiletics until 1927, when he was succeeded by Jacob A. Dell, who served as Professor of Homiletics from 1927 until his death in 1953. Dr. Dell followed the same basic philosophies of preaching as did Dr. Lenski while following the latter's textbook rather rigidly.2 From 1954 to the present, Stanley D. Schneider has served at the helm of the courses in homiletics. Following in the patterns established by Lenski and Dell, Dr. Schneider has authored a homiletical guideline "in the tradition which has long been established at the Evangelical Lutheran Theo— logical Seminary at Columbus, Ohio"3 under the title, As One Who Speaks for God. This work serves as the basic textbook for Schneider's Class in homiletical theory. In short, the history of homiletical instruction at Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary had its roots in Professor of Church History at Evangelical Lutheran Theo- logical Seminary, dated 1915. 1Christian Palmer, Homiletik (Stuttgart: T. F. Steinkopf, 1850). 2Interview with Dr. Stanley D. Schneider, Professor of Homiletics, E. L. T. 8., February 25, 1969. 3Stanley D. Schneider, As One Who Speaks for God (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1965), p. v. the philosophies of Christian Palmer's Homiletik published in 1850. Although revised, edited, and adapted, the basic theories of this book have served as the primary source of material for the lectures and writings of Drs. Lenski, Dell, and Schneider. Consequently, it has formed the basic theories of homiletics at the seminary from 1911 until the present day. Wartburg Theological Seminary, Dubuque,,lowa In 1842, a seminary was established in Saginaw, Michigan by members of the Iowa Synod of the Lutheran Church who "stressed teaching, administration of the sacraments, and liturgy over preaching."l The seminary personnel numbered five students and one professor.2 In an attempt to move the Lutheran Church westward, the synod moved the school to its present location in Dubuque, Iowa, and became known as Wartburg, named after the castle in which Martin Luther sought refuge during the heat of the Reformation. Today, the seminary shows an enrollment of 165 students and 13 full-time faculty. From existing records, it may be assumed that the theories of preaching were treated as "by-products" for each student as he completed his course of study. lGerhard Sigmund Ottersberg, "The Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Iowa and Other States 1854—1904" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of History, University of Nebraska, 1949). pp. 3—H. 21bid., p. 14. Although no formal classes in homiletics were offered, as early as 1862, students had to meet certain requirements prior to ordination among which were "written examinations . . . on large topics of dogmatics and pastoral theology, and a sermon to be delivered before the next pastoral conference."1 The earliest record of homiletical instruction, which dates back to 1872, lists a class taught by Sigmund Fritschel on April 11 of that year on a homiletical treatise of 1 Peter 2:11-20.2 Two years later, a series of classes in homiletics was included as a regular part of the curriculum. Each week, two classes were taught in Homiletiche Uebungen (Homiletical Practice).3 In 1897, Professor W. L. Proehl assumed the task of teaching the classes in homiletics. In that same year he offered a record of his homiletical theories through his unpublished booklet entitled "Homiletik." In these notes he strongly advocated a thorough grounding in the holy scriptures and a firm adherence to textual preaching. llbid., p. 88. 2Unpublished notes of Sigmund Fritchel, dated 1872. 3Unpublished notes of Sigmund Fritchel, dated 1874. 4W. L. Proehl, "Homiletik" (unpublished manuscript, dated 1897), pp. 109-114. Undoubtedly, the most influential force in the history of homiletical instruction at Wartburg was Dr. J. Michael Reu, who taught at the seminary from 1900 until 1943. Professor Reu who published his theories of preaching in the book Homiletics,l has had more influence than has any other in the development of homiletical theory at Wartburg.2 Further reference will be made to Dr. Reu's book throughout this thesis. Dr. Reu taught homiletics until the addition to the faculty of the Rev. Samuel F. Salzmann in 1934. Pro- fessor Salzmann taught for twenty-four years, following in the traditions established by J. Michael Reu.3 In 1958, the seminary called the Rev. W. A. Poovey as Professor of Homiletics. He currently holds this position. Professor Poovey's primary emphasis in teaching is to encourage the preacher to have both the text and the congregation in mind while writing the sermon.“ No basic textbook is used in his classes. lM. Reu, Homiletics (Chicago, Illinois: Wartburg Publishing House, 1924). 2Interview with the Rev. Robert C. Wiederanders, Archivist of the American Lutheran Church, Dubuque, Iowa, March 17, 1969. 31bid. “Interview with the Rev. W. A. Poovey, Professor of6Homiletics at Wartburg Theological Seminary, March 17, 19 9. Luther Theological Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota The largest of the three seminaries of the American Lutheran Church is Luther Theological Seminary located in St. Paul, Minnesota. The school has an enrollment of 565 students and 28 full—time professors. The history of Luther Seminary is distinguished from that of the other two seminaries of the Church in two points. In the first place, it is the result of a series of mergers; second, it was designed to serve a specific group of American Lutherans, namely those who were of Norwegian background. This latter aim was emphasized in early catalogs which stated, "The aim of this institution is to prepare clergymen and missionaries that are willing and able to break the Bread of Life for our countrymen in America. . . ."l The seminary has its historical roots in several divinity schools established by Norwegian Lutheran immi- grants. Luther Seminary was the theological school of one of the uniting bodies, The Evangelical Lutheran Church (earlier known as the Norwegian Lutheran Church in America), which formed the present American Lutheran Church in 1961. lCatalogof the United Church Seminary, Minneapolis, Minnesota 1894-1895 (Minneapolis, Minnesota: United Church Seminary, 1895), p. 9. The Evangelical Lutheran Church had been formed in 1917 as the result of the union of three Norwegian-American Lutheran Church bodies. In that year three seminaries were also united: Luther Seminary, St. Paul, of the Norwegian Synod; Red Wing Seminary, Red Wing, Minnesota, belonging to Hauge's Synod; and the United Church Semi- nary, St. Paul, of the United Norwegian Lutheran Church. The merged school continued the name of Luther Seminary, the oldest of the three (founded in 1876), and occupied the site of the United Church Seminary in St. Paul.1 In 1963 the Lutheran Free Church merged with the American Lutheran Church, and its theological schools did likewise. In the fall of that year Augsburg Seminary of Minneapolis united with Luther Seminary at the latter's location. Augsburg Seminary, the first divinity school established by Norwegian Lutheran immigrants in America, was founded in 1869 at Marshall, Wisconsin, but was moved to Minneapolis three years later.2 Luther Seminary, which had traditionally observed 1866 as its date of founding, suddenly found itself seven years older as a result of its merger with Augsburg. Unlike the position taken by the other two semi- naries, the place of homiletics in the curriculum was not lLuther Theological Seminary Review, Vol. VII, No. 1 (St. Paul, Minnesota: Luther Theological Seminary, 1968), p. 42. 21bid., p. A2. 10 an afterthought, but served as a definite part of its program from its beginning.1 However, no one man was called to teach homiletics until 1959. Prior to this date, those responsible for the program were men whose primary emphasis was New Testament Theology, Dogmatics, or some other theological discipline. r? Among those who instructed in the theories of A preaching were Rev. F. A. Schmidt (1895-1930), Rev. Thaddaeus F. Guillixon (1930-1943), and Dr. Herman A. 1 .u Preus (1943-1959). The first man called specifically b for homiletical instruction is the one currently in charge of the program, Dr. Arndt L. Halvorson, who began his teaching career at Luther Seminary in 1959. As a result of the urging of Dr. Halvorson, the Rev. Lowell O. Erdahl has been called to the staff to assist in the teaching of homiletical theory, and Mr. John E. Hilbert has been charged with the responsibility of aiding the students in the theory and practice of basic speech. Dr. Halvorson's main emphasis in teaching is his appeal for the urgent need to bring the gospel to men in a meaningful manner.2 His basic textbook is Donald Miller's, The Way to Biblical Preaching.3 1Interview with Dr. Arndt L. Halvorson, Professor of Homiletics at Luther Seminary, March 18, 1969. 21bid. 3Donald G. Miller, The Way to Biblical Preaching (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1957). I. II. III. IV. VI. OUTLINE FOR CHAPTER II HOMILETICAL THEORIES REGARDING "INVENTION" The Purposes of the Chapter Definition of "Invention" 232922 A. According to the Seminary Professors B. According to the Homiletical Theorists C. Summary The Purpose of the Sermon A. According to the Seminary Professors B. According to the Homiletical Theorists C. Summary The Main Source of the Sermon A. According to the Seminary Professors B. According to the Homiletical Theorists 0. Summary Invention and the Audience A. According to the Seminary Professors B. According to the Homiletical Theorists C. Summary 11 VII. VIII. IX. XI. 12 The Place and Influence of the Liturgical Year A. According to the Seminary Professors B. According to the Homiletical Theorists C. Summary The Preparation of Sermons A. According to the Seminary Professors B. According to the Homiletical Theorists C. Summary The Materials Used in the Sermon A. According to the Seminary Professors B. According to the Homiletical Theorists C. Summary Writing Out the Sermon A. According to the Seminary Professors B. According to the Homiletical Theorists C. Summary Summary of the Chapter rm 3! “I..." I “ A CHAPTER II HOMILETICAL THEORIES REGARDING "INVENTION" The Purpose The purposes of this chapter are the following: (1) to describe the homiletical theories regarding the constituent of homiletics known as "Invention" as taught by the three seminaries of the American Lutheran Church, (2) to describe the theories about "Invention" as pre— sented through the writings of the six textbooks authored by the most influential homiletical theorists of today as revealed through the study conducted by Daniel E. Weiss,1 and (3) to compare the sets of theories as to the simi— larities and differences in teaching or emphasis. Definition By the term "Invention" the writer refers to that constituent of homiletics concerned with the finding and analyzing of the materials of the sermon; for purposes of this study it embodies such elements as ethos, the pur— pose of the sermon, the main source of the sermon (i.e., lDaniel Edwin Weiss, "Conceptions of 'Arrangement' in American Protestant Homiletical Theory" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Speech, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1964). 13 14 a text, topic, or problem), audience analysis, the place and influence of the liturgical year, sermon preparation, the "proof" materials used in the sermon, and the record- ing of the sermon on paper. (Other elements of "Invention" such as pathos are not explicitly treated by the seminary professors and the corresponding six homiletical theor- ists.)l EJ131122 One of the more important elements in the theory of rhetoric and public address is that of gthgs. This phe- nomenon has been deemed worthy of consideration by theorists from the days of Aristotle until now. By the term "ethos," the writer refers to the image presented by the person in the opinion of those with whom he comes in contact. This image results in various degrees of source credibility as the man addresses an audience. As ethos is prominent in the studies of rhetoric and public address, it is also noteworthy as it applies to the preacher and his congregation. The image of the pastor is of vital importance to the success of his preaching. In this study, the ethos of the pastor will be con- sidered in the light of his image resulting from his daily life and in terms of that which comes to the audience while he is in the pulpit. 1While the term "Invention" in homiletics often refers only to extra-biblical material used in a sermon, the writer uses the term to encompass all of the materials in a sermon. 15 The image which a pastor provides through his daily life is regarded by the three professors of homiletics of the American Lutheran Church as an important element, and they admonish their students to be aware of this vital fact. For example, the Rev. W. A. Poovey, Professor of Homiletics at Wartburg Seminary, states: The pastor dare never to forget that he is the "image of God" in the eyes of many in the com- munity. At least, he is the primary representative of his church. Therefore, what he does in his daily life is a direct reflection upon him and all for which he stands.1 If a student were to use the excuse that his private life is his own business, Poovey would remind him that in spite of all his efforts to the contrary, the image which the pastor creates through his daily life cannot help but be transferred into the pulpit on Sunday morning.2 Stanley D. Schneider, homiletics instructor at Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary, offers similar advice to his students: Be careful that you do not offend those of your congregation and of the community unnecessarily. To be sure, we all have Christian freedom under the gospel, but we should remember that we have also a duty toward those whom we serve not to stand in the way of the advancement of the gospel.3 lPoovey, interview. 2Ibid. 3 Schneider, interview. 16 He illustrates his argument by pointing to the example of a pastor who will go out of his way to frequent the local pub in order to show others that he is "one of the boys." "However, the pastor is not just 'one of the boys,'" says Schneider, "he is a leader who must have the respect of the community in order to best serve his church."1 "In a strong sense of the word," he says, "the pastor should recall Martin Luther's admonition for all Christians to be 'Little Christs' to those who see us. Pastors, especially, should heed this advice."2 Schneider also feels that the ethos of the pastor is affected by what he does in his daily life to such a degree that often this is the one point that separates the effective preacher from the one who fails to move his audience. He tells his class: The medium is the message. If the preacher is 'a fake,’ I don't care what he says. If the congre— gation knows the preacher to be a fraud, he could have beautifully printed sermons, but their credibility would be limited by what he is. On the other hand, the preacher may have poor themes, outlines, etc., yet be regarded by his congregation as a fine preacher. Now, what is the point? It is, simply stated, that where I may look at the sermon from the point of view of a textbook, they may look at it from the point of view which says, 'That is our pastor speaking to us.’ The ethos of the pastor makes all the difference in the world.3 Luther Seminary's Arndt Halvorson is in total agree- ment with his two colleagues. He believes it may well be lIbid. 2lhid. 3Ibid. ‘3 17 that the effect of the preacher is in direct proportion to his source credibility in the eyes of the congregation.1 Pertaining to the element of ethos resulting from the daily life of the minister, how do the teachings of the homiletics professors of the American Lutheran Church resemble those of the six theorists used for comparison 1ft in this study?2 ,5 Halford E. Luccock of Yale Divinity School states, "Far more important than what the minister can do about a._ his sermons is what he can do about himself."3 He explains I further in the same book: If the preacher is not the source of his message but a channel for God, then he himself is a primary matter-—his inner life; the flavor, the color, the fire, the music, that make him himself; his capacity to absorb spiritual truth and experience which will determine his capacity to transmit them.8 "A sermon," says Luccock, "is never a 'put-up job' if it is a real communication of life through life."5 Ilion T. Jones counsels that "the people of the com— _munity look to him [the pastor] to set an example of godly lIbid. 2Throughout this study, certain elements of homi- letical theory are not treated by all of the six theorists used for comparison. The writer, therefore, mentions only those theorists who comment on the particular element under discussion. 3Halford E. Luccock, In the Minister's Workshop (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1944), p. 16i L; Ibid., p. 16. 5Ibid., p. 17. 18 living, to be a norm of conduct, to embody the morals he enjoins upon them."1 He elaborates further: A preacher may think he does all his preaching from the pulpit, but in the eyes of the people he is preaching everywhere he goes by everything he says and does. The sermons one preaches by his life will either annul or help make fruitful the sermons he preaches from the pulpit. 'Unless you preach everywhere you go,‘ said St. Francis, 'there is no use to go anywhere to preach.'2 Jones says, himself, as does Stanley Schneider, that the pastor should never forget his responsibility to the community: Now and then we hear of a minister who tries to make himself pOpular by coming down to the level of the people and living by their standards. To prove he is a man's man, a hail fellow well met, he decides to participate in their wordly pleasures --in moderation, to be sure. Men and women of his community may not tell him so, but among themselves they express pity for him, disgust with him, even hold him in derision. What the pastor does with his daily life affects his ethos in another dimension. BishOp Gerald Kennedy speaks on this issue with boldness: Too many preachers are content with second rate performances. There is no time clock in the church and no prearranged schedule for a man to follow. He must be his own master, and only his conscience can give him guidance in the amount of work he does or the number of hours he puts into his task. It is a sad truth that many men in the ministry do not call very much, do not read very much, and could not 1Ilion T. Jones, Principles and Practice of Preaching (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1956), p. 58. 21bid., p. 59. 31bid., p. 58. 19 hold a job where a responsible amount of efficiency was demanded. All of this is apparent when they preach, and it is absurd to think that such as these can carry any authority for men who in their own business know the meaning of long and hard en- deavor.l Concerning the ethos of the pastor in his daily life, both the professors of the seminaries of the American Lutheran Church and the homiletical theorists agree that it is of vital importance that the minister conduct him- self in a manner worthy of the office which he holds, for the impression he leaves during the week speaks as loudly as do the words uttered from the pulpit on Sunday morning. The ethos of the pastor is also affected by what he projects from the pulpit. What he says and how he appears are of importance. How does a man reflect a positive ethos from the pulpit? There is no better place to begin than with him- self. Arndt Halvorson reminds his students, "Never be ashamed to preach that for which you have been called."2 The pastor is called to deliver a message centered in the Word of God. Therefore, he should be confident in his proclamation of the good news.3 W. A. Poovey feels the same way; he believes that the only real preaching today is done by the parish lGerald Kennedy, His Word Through Preachin (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1947), p. 8%. 2Halvorson, interview. 31bid. 2O pastor. The pastor is the one who knows and cares about his people. It is he who can best apply the Word of God to those whom he knows and loves.1 Stanley Schneider believes that a favorable EEBEE from the pulpit can be realized if the congregation is convinced that the pastor knows his material. "The ser— mon is not the result of writing in the pastor's study," he said, "but is the result of his over-all experience with the Word of God."2 At times the difference between a favorable ethos and one that is not so favorable centers in small items. For example, the personal appearance of the minister may have much to do with the reception of his message. On this point all three professors of the American Lutheran Church seminaries agree. Halvorson: "He should be as concerned about his appearance in the pulpit as he would be about his appearance at a formal dinner."3 Schneider: "A man cannot have a polished sermon if his attire testi— fies to the contrary."Ll Poovey: "A good course in groom— ing may be the best course in effective preaching that could be offered for many of today's preachers."5 lPoovey, interview. 2Schneider, interview. 3Halvorson, interview. “Schneider, interview. 5 Poovey, interview. 21 As in the case involving the ethos of the minister resulting from his daily life, the six homiletical theorists support the teachings of the homiletic professors of the American Lutheran Church, who feel that in order to have a positive ethos, the minister must always maintain his role as a pastor while in the pulpit. He can never be just a preacher. This is why Paul Scherer writes that "even to be a preacher, he must be a pastor."1 Andrew W. Blackwood makes an interesting observation at this point: Sermons with a pastoral emphasis seldom make church folk angry. Over in Liverpool, John Watson (Ian Maclaren) became known as a pastor second to none, and as a preacher of helpful sermons. He excelled in strengthening and cherring men and women who had begun to feel jaded, wondering whether life could be worth what it cost. In the words of a friend who heard him twice every Lord's Day, 'Our minister always puts heart into you for the coming week.‘ Indeed, he kept on bringing people hope and cheer long after he had gone home to God.2 Of the homiletical theorists used for comparison in this study, Blackwood is perhaps the most outspoken critic of the personal appearance of the minister as he appears in the pulpit. In The Preparation of Sermons he writes: Before you go into the sanctuary, think about your personal appearance. Conform with parish 1Paul E. Scherer, For We Have This Treasure (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1944), p. 27. 2Andrew Watterson Blackwood, The Preparation of Sermons (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1948), P. 33. 22 custom about wearing a robe or a clerical collar, perhaps both. Put on black shoes, polished with care for and aft; if shirt and collar appear at all, let each look whiter than snow. Let all your garments come to the sanctuary "unspotted from the world." With face neatly shaved and hair closely trimmed, show everyone that you love the holiness of beauty.1 In the same book he further states: A minister ought to enter the pulpit with a rested body and a fund of physical reserves. So get the brunt of the week's toil out of the way before you draw near to the Lord's Day. Avoid anything strenuous on Friday evening and all the next day, especially on Saturday night. In short, i plan to enter the pulpit with all the fullness of your Christian manhood. Blackwood adds that the facial expression of the preacher tells much of the story and assists in creating a positive ethos: Throughout the sermon let the expression on your face accord with what you are saying. As a rule be sure to look happy; the people have troubles enough of their own without sharing yours. Look and act like a bearer of good news. Blackwood admonishes his readers that "the effect of the sermon will depend in part on your posture, especially at first. Since you represent the King of kings, stand on both feet and stand erect. . ."4 lIbid., pp. 206-207. 2Ibid., p. 205. 3Ibid., p. 208. ”Ibid., p. 207. 23 Finally, the same author is certain that the voice of the minister should be one that lends itself to a favorable ethos: When people come to the sanctuary, they wish to hear a voice clear as a bell, sweet as a harp, strong as an organ, and full of overtones like those in Mendelssohn's Song Without Words. Accord- ing to students of church history, no minister F5 without an unusual voice has ever attained first -i rank as a preacher to the common people.1 Concerning the minister's ethos while in the pulpit, H. Grady Davis strikes another note in the same chord: 7 The best young man who finds himself in a pulpit, the man most fit to preach far from wishing to stand alone, to speak for himself only, to be a law to himself, knows that he stands within the one fellowship whose head is Christ, that he is called to deliver a message he did not concoct, to proclaim, in whatever way it can best be spoken to his age, the same gospel which has in all ages recalled men from death and brought the church to life. The more intelligent and honest he is, the more keenly he feels this way. He stands where he would not dare to stand unless he had been put there, where it would be sacrilege to speak if he had not been given a message to speak. A positive ethg§_enjoyed by the preacher while in the pulpit on Sunday mornings is most important to a favorable reception of his message by his congregation. On this theory, both the professors of homiletics of the American Lutheran Church and the authors used for compari— son are in total agreement. 1Ibid., p. 208. 2Henry Grady Davis, Design for Preaching (Phila- delphia, Pennsylvania: Fortress Press, 1958), p. 46. 24 The Purpose of the Sermon What is it that separates the sermon from any other speech? Perhaps the answer lies in the actual purpose of the address. Stanley Schneider is quite blunt as he in- sists, "Unless a message reveals the Lord, it is not to be considered a sermon."1 In his basic classroom textbook, Schneider follows the four sermon classifications of Theodore Parker Ferris: prophetic, didactic, evangelical, and therapeutic.2 Yet all four classifications help the preacher in implementing the purpose of a sermon, that is, in revealing something about the nature of Almighty God. Schneider writes: In a sermon which could be classified as prophetic an effort is made to reveal something of God as the Lord of history. In a sermon which could be clasSified as didactic an effort is made to reveal something of God as the teacher of how to live. In a sermon which could be classified as evangelical an effort is made to reveal something of God as Savior, to show something of the love of God, and to proclaim the lengths to which that love goes to reach men. In a sermon which could be classified as therapeutic an effort is made to reveal something of God who heals all diseases.3 Wartburg's Poovey is more concerned with a response as the primary purpose of preaching: lSchneider, interview. 2Theodore Parker Ferris, Go Tell the People (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951). 3Stanley D. Schneider, As One Who Speaks for God (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1965), pp ' 77-78 0 25 Every sermon has to have a reason for being pre- sented. Every preacher must ask himself, "Why am I preaching this sermon? What kind of response do I want to get?" If he does not expect a response then he ought not to preach the sermon. He should have in mind some change in the mind and heart of the individual.1 Arndt Halvorson openly wishes for any type of re- sponse that would give some indication that the sermon has reached the audience: Sometimes I wish I were a Pentecostal preacher and could lead an altar call, for it is here that I could see some sort of response. Any response is better than that which is seen when people merely sit and listen. Often I am tempted to invite the audience to argue with me at the close of the ser- mon, for I am positive that they do not agree with everything that was said. What I am saying is that every sermon should have as its goal a response-- any response.2 Halvorson believes, too, that the preacher should proclaim a message aimed at "slaying dragons." This "dragon" may be the sin of pride, envy, hatred, or any other of the vices of the day. "Everytime a preacher goes into the pul- pit, he has the duty to ask himself, 'What dragon shall I slay today?”3 The question may be asked, "Doesn't this, then, make the pastor a controversial figure?" Halvorson answers that question in this manner: lPoovey, interview. 2Halvorson, interview. 31bid. 26 Everyone who is read or listened to is controversial. If you are not controversial, you are not saying anything important. PrOperly understood the gospel itself is controversial today just as it was during the time of the Christ. Often it is the gospel which is an assult on our assumptions and our prejudices.l Like Stanley Schneider, Halvorson insists that what- ever the occasion or whoever the preacher, in every sermon Christ must be proclaimed: The preacher must center his message upon Christ. If he does not do this, he is liable to preach pure morality and produce sermons which could be easily delivered in Jewish synogogues as well as in Christian pulpits.2 To preach Christ, to reveal some aspect of God, to aim for some sort of verdict on the part of the listener, these are the purposes of preaching as advocated by the seminaries of the American Lutheran Church. General agreement with these ideals is held by five of the six homiletical theorists. Paul Scherer, for example, wrote: Hinduism lives by ritual and social organization, Buddism by meditation, Confucianism by a code of manners; but Christianity lives by "the foolishiness of preaching" (I Corinthians 1:21). So has it always been. The most creative and critical ages of its history--the ages of Paul and the apostles of Ambrose and Augustine, of Urban, of Luther and Calvin and Wesley and Brooks--all of these have been the great ages of Christian preaching. Not just life or action or example or personal influence, but preaching. And so shall it ever be until the truth, which is God's "inescapable claim" upon us, ceases to speak with human lips; until the love of Christ ceases to be the endless peril and the never- failing refuge of the human soul.3 l 2 Ibid. Ibid. 3Scherer, op. cit., p. 18. 27 "We must assume," he continues, "that all preaching worthy of the name is to have its center and focus in Jesus Lord." Davis. himself, that figure of the past who is our present 1 "Preaching is always proclamation," writes H. Grady In the language of the New Testament: . . . a man preaches "the gospel," the good news. He preaches "the gospel of God," or preaches "the gospel of Christ." He preaches "Christ crucified," or "Christ raised from the dead," or "Christ as the one ordained of God to be judge of the living and the dead," or "Christ in you the hope of glory," or he preaches simply, "Christ." He preaches "the acceptable year of the Lord," preaches "release to the captives," preaches "repentance and forgiveness of sins." He preaches "this gospel."2 Gerald Kennedy seems to agree: The Christian preacher is the proclaimer of an occurrence which was nothing less than God breaking into the processes of life to reveal himself supremely in a person. If the pulpit loses its power, it is always when it loses its sense of God proclaiming this event, through a man to men.3 He elaborates further: Our Christian preaching is not the reciting of a long list of sins and a long list of ethical duties. It is the production of a vision of the King who came opce, comes now, and will come con- tinually. . . . fir lIbid., p. 94. 2Davis, op. cit., pp. 107—108. 3Kennedy, op. cit., p. 8. ulbid., p. 30. . fit} «a. “a, ”is: “n. 28 Kennedy adds to this thought by stating that "preach- ing is confronting man's tragic inadequacy with God's re- deeming grace."l Ilion Jones sounds the same theme of redemption: Preaching may be, should be, and at best will be a redemptive deed. A sermon is not a lecture, an essay, a theological dissertation, a discussion of social, political, and world affairs or instruc— tion in morals, but God's saving approach to the souls of men and women. Jones, like Halvorson, believes that preachers should strive for individual verdicts: Genuine preachers who have the yearning heart do not speak to please literary critics but to please God. They do not try to entertain their hearers but to bring them face to face with God. They are never content with glittering generalities. They have a personal message which they deliver per— sonally--man to man, heart to heart. They are out for individual verdicts.3 - Andrew Blackwood is much akin to Phillips Brooks when it comes to the purpose of a sermon as he speaks of it as "divine truth through personality or the truth of God voiced by a chosen personality to meet human needs."u 1Ibid., p. 8. 2Jones, op. cit., p. 19. 3Ibid., pp. 173-174. “Blackwood, 0p. cit., p. 13. 29 The Main Source of the Sermon Until now; there appears to be unity of thought in terms of homiletical theories on the part of the three seminaries and in view of the writings in the six books used for comparison. However, a wide variety of theories concerning the main source of the sermon places the pro- fessors into different camps. The main source refers to that with which the preacher begins to compose his sermon. For some, the only method of preaching is the so—called "textual" ap- proach, which involves the use of a section of scripture that serves as the basis for the message; this portion of the Bible is referred to as "the text." Not all homiletical theorists would advocate textual preaching. They would prefer the "topical" or "problem- centered" approach to homiletical theory. While this type of preaching often takes on many forms, the basic premise is that the preacher centers his writing on a particular issue or problem. Although scripture may be woven throughout the message and may even provide the solution to the problem at hand, the sermon is not based solely upon one section of God's Word. On the issue concerning the main thought of the ser- mon, the three seminary professors are divided. Dr. Schneider is the most outspoken of the three in favor of textual preaching only. He describes a text as "a section 30 of scripture, comprising a unity of thought, on which the sermon is based, and out of which it grows."1 When recently asked, "Do you ever endorse the use of anything other than textual preaching?", his answer was a definite, "No!" Then followed the obvious question, "No exceptions?", to which he responded: To every rule there is an exception. However, if other than textual preaching is done, there must be good reason and the congregation should know why you are changing the norm. The use of topical or problem—centered sermons should be not only the exception, but the rare exception. In his textbook, Schneider gives a defense for his position: A text helps to hold the preacher to the scriptures. A good text properly used will hold the sermon to the scriptures and to a specific part of the scriptures. It is reasonable to assume that using texts will help to prevent subjective preach- ing, that is, a mere recital of the experiences of the preacher. He told about one seminary student who violated this principle and disturbed his professor: One of our students preached a sermon about his views on Viet-Nam, and he began by saying, "My text for today is a trip that I took to Washington, D. C." This approach probably would not be accepted in any American Lutheran Church congregation. When the preacher says, "My text is . . .," they expect to hear a section of scripture read, for that is the authority, not the preacher. As taught here in our seminary, the authority is always the written word. lSchneider, op. cit., p. 55. 2Schneider, interview. 3Schneider, op. cit., p. 55. “Schneider, interview. 31 In his classrooms, Professor Schneider quotes Donald Miller's advocacy of textual preaching: Textual preaching is an act wherein the living truth of some portion of Holy Scripture, understood in the light of solid exegetical and historical study and made a living reality to the preacher by the Holy Spirit, comes alive to the hearer as he is confronted by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit in judgment and redemption.1 Not only is Schneider a strong endorser of textual preaching, he wages a campaign against topical or problem- centered sermons. In As One Who Speaks for God, he takes the opportunity to make known his feelings on this matter: Topical preaching means selecting a certain topic and then seeking to find what the Bible has to say on this tOpic. Topical preaching is diffi— cult because most persons, including some preachers, do not know the Bible well enough to be able to select and develop the wealth of available material. Many parts of scripture may be dealt with in a shallow way with nothing developed to any depth. Furthermore, topical preaching is usually determined by some "relevant" topic, and it is doubtful whether most preachers, particularly beginning ones, are sufficiently well informed to be able to know what topics to select for preaching purposes.2 An an added emphasis to his arguments, Schneider reminds us that the doctrine of the means of grace comes into the picture: This gets into the area referred to as "the means of grace." In other words, through what does God reveal himself? We would say, "through the Holy Scriptures." Therefore, if we believe this to be true, then we endorse this doctrine by preaching textual sermons. Any other kind of preaching has the danger of missing the truth of the doctrine.3 1Miller, op. cit., p. 26. 2Schneider, op. cit., pp. 53-54. 3Schneider, interview. 32 Luther Seminary's Arndt Halvorson is not so limited to textual preaching alone: I advocate textual preaching to the extent that the sermon is created by the text. This does not mean that I talk merely on the text and nothing else, but that the thrust of the sermon is not something the preacher invented, but is something that came to him as he wrestled with the text.1 The textbook for Halvorson's homiletics courses reflects this emphasis: From the standpoint of the witness of both the early church and the Reformation church, many modern pulpit efforts, although often brilliant and humanly satisfying, would have been considered an imperti- nence—-the intrusion of the word of a mere man into a situation where God alone has the right to speak.2 On this basis, Dr. Halvorson instructs his students to begin with a text rather than with a problem. This gives the student some concrete subject matter.. He feels that when an artist goes to school, he is asked to paint an apple. Or, when a man takes a course in creative writing he may be asked to describe an old maid. In other words, creativity is not out in the blue, but is resident in con— crete subject matter. "The same is true in preaching. Unless the preacher has a concrete point of reference, he is wasting the time of those in his audience."3 lHalvorson, interview. 2Miller, op. cit., p. 28. 3 Halvorson, interview. 33 Does Dr. Halvorson, then, advocate tOpical or problem—centered preaching? I will advocate topical or problem-centered preach- ing inasmuch as the key to the solution for the problem is centered in Holy Scripture. That is the job of the preacher. It could well be that the problem may be settled by a psychiatrist or a sociologist, but that is not the function of the parish pastor. He is to relate the Word of God to the problem or the topic at hand.1 Although he is sympathetic toward the use of problem- centered sermons, Professor Halvorson cites a danger that accompanies such preaching. "If a man begins with a problem in lieu of a text, he may find himself preaching the law and not the gospel. The sermon, then, is filled with scolding and exhortation."2 If problem-centered preaching is conducted, Halvorson declares that above everything else, the message must be centered in the Holy Scriptures. W. A. Poovey shows strong tendencies to join the ranks of those searching for a variety of methods on which to base a sermon. He is certainly not like Stanley Schneider when it comes to advocating textual preaching alone. Professor Poovey feels that the major purpose of a sermon "is not to expound on a text; that is a Sunday school lesson."3 llbid. 21bid. 3 Poovey, interview. 34 Does the Rev. Mr. Poovey, then, encourage problem— centered preaching over textual preaching? "I do not feel that these are necessarily opposites," he declared. "When a person works through a text he comes up with a theme; that essentially becomes a topic. Therefore, we can have a blending of the two."1 Poovey, however, reminds his students that there is no place where the preacher can abuse the truth so much as when he misuses the text. "Therefore, much emphasis in my classroom is given toward the importance of using the text aright if the student decides to engage in textual preaching," he says.2 Were the three professors of homiletics placed into specific camps for purposes of identity, Schneider would lead those who promoted textual preaching only; Halvorson is more liberal as he endorses the values of topical or problem-centered preaching; Poovey attempts to blend the two philosophies. Of the six homiletical theorists used for comparison in this study, only Paul Scherer agrees with Stanley Schneider's insistence that every sermon should be textual. Throughout his book, Dr. Scherer presumes that the sermon is textual. He never refers to topical or problem— centered sermons--almost as if such sermons never existed. llbid. 21bid. 35 Gerald Kennedy has written in a similar spirit to Halvorson's philosophy that the message must be centered in the Holy Scriptures: [I] cannot help but feel that the best way to learn how to preach with power is to step oneself into the scriptures. The Bible is the great source book of the Gospel and in it there is revealed this dramatic nature. He further asserts that "modern preaching needs the authority of the Bible in it, and we can do nothing better than to return to Biblical preaching."2 H. Grady Davis also confirms Halvorson's approach: If the idea is truly Christian, it need not be rejected. Though it cannot be found in the Bible in so many words, it may still be biblical, and may honestly be preached with biblical sanction. If there is not a text that really expresses this idea, we cannot honestly take a text for it. We shall have to use it as an independent topic. But if it is a gospe1_thought, we can draw each step of its development from a faithful exegesis of some text of Scripture. The result will be that we use several texts rather than one. A topical sermon with this kind of development can be quite as biblical as one drawn entirely from a single text, far more biblical than one which draws only the idea from the text, however legiti- mately, and then develops the thought independently, without further use of Scripture. At the same time, in Design for Preaching, Davis SUpports Poovey's attempt to blend textual and topical preaching. "A sermon," says Davis, "is not necessarily lKennedy, 0p. cit., p. 39. 21bid., p. 97. 3Davis, op. cit., pp. 48-49. 36 unbiblical because it has no text, nor biblical because it uses one."1 In the same publication, the author further justi— fies his position: Let us assume that a man feels bound to adjust his preaching faithfully to the biblical message. That is not brought about by the mere act of taking a text for every sermon. The crucial question is not whether the sermon has a text attached to it, but whether the Scripture is the source of the sermon or not. Many a sermon uses a text but is not derived from a text. The text of such a sermon is not its source; it is only a re- source, a tool used in preaching the sermon--used for psychological or literary effect. Every sermon that has a text falls roughly into one or the other of these classes: it uses the text as source, or only as resource.2 Of the homiletical theorists who comment on the main source of the sermon, Andrew Blackwood and Ilion Jones are the most outspoken in their opinions favoring topical or problem—centered preaching as over against textual sermons. While Blackwood encourages the preacher to use all types of sermons, he favors the topical approach. Accord- ing to him, the advantages of such a method include: 1. It allows the minister to discuss any subject he thinks needful. 2. It allows breadth of treatment. 3. It encourages a man to seek unity. 4. It enables a man to keep moving towards the goal of the sermon. 3 5. It often brings out a man's literary gifts. 1 Ibid., p. 33. 21bid., p. 47. 3Blackwood, op. cit., pp. 104—106. 37 In The Preparation of Sermons, he lists his objections to textual preaching: 1. The textual method does not lend itself to every passage that calls for a sermon. 2. A text may contain more ideas than a minister can make clear and luminous in twenty—five minutes. 3. This method often leads to artificial sermons. 4. Textual sermons often lack human interest. 5. Textual sermons may not prove helpful.l Ilion Jones follows the same philosophy when he urges his readers: "Use textual sermons sparingly."2 While Schneider of Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary finds support only from Paul Scherer (and that from inference), both Halvorson and Poovey are endorsed by the remaining homiletical theorists. It would appear, then, that Wartburg and Luther Seminaries are more in- clined to be in the main stream of contemporary homiletics. Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary is content with maintaining an allegiance to textual preaching alone. The importance of the theories surrounding the main source of the sermon is realized when it is understood that the preacher's understanding of this concept will have a direct bearing on the development of his entire sermon . lIbid., pp. 58-61. * 2Jones, op. cit., p. 82. 38 Invention and the Audience What role does the audience play in the invention of the sermon? How much emphasis is given to the text as com- pared to the concern for the audience on Sunday morning? Can the preacher center his attention on both effectively? If so, how can this become a reality? Stanley Schneider tells his students that as they are reading the text for Sunday morning, they should al- ways think of the audience to which they are going to preach their sermons. Since our purpose is to reveal the Lord, the student should ask, "What aspect of the Lord am I going to reveal?" Then the problem faces us as to how we are going to translate this truth of the text into language that is best understood by that particular con- gregation.l In order best to implement this advice, Schneider asks his students in the classes dealing with sermon out- lines to indicate the congregation for which the sermon outline is intended. "No one," says Schneider, "can truly write a sermon apart from a congregation."2 The effective pastor will always know his audience. On this issue, Professor Schneider makes an interesting point: lSchneider, interview. 2Ibid. 39 The preacher may sometimes feel that his congregation does not understand him. At such times he may well ask himself how well he under- stands them and what efforts he has made to do so in the performance of his pastoral duties. Has he called on them in their homes, at their places of work, in the hospitals, at the schools? Has he found a way of knowing where his congregation is other than at the usual hour of worship?1 By such a gesture, the pastor is saying in bold language that he is concerned about the people; such a concern cannot help but make him more aware of the per— sonality of his weekly audience, thereby making him a more effective preacher. Halvorson of Luther suspects that our preachers do not know enough about their audiences and do not under- stand their culture enough. He believes that we are still immigrants in a sense. While we are getting "Americanized," the trend has been that the American Lutheran Church has been guilty of trying to translate German and Norwegian theology into English. "I do not feel," he said, "that we lose anything by separating ourselves from Germany and Norway and asking ourselves questions as to how we can make this gospel relevant to today's society."2 Professor Halvorson realizes the complex job facing the preacher each week when it comes to audience analysis: lSchneider, op. cit., p. 36. 2Halvorson, interview. 40 Always write the sermon with specific people in mind, but remember, you must always have to reach a wide cross-section of people with varied back— grounds in terms of education, economics, political leanings, and-so-forth.l In the same vein, Wartburg's Poovey says, "It is vital that the pastor understand his people and that the people understand him."2 This is the kind of thinking that led Poovey to confess: "I generally conceive of the sermon as having two centers: the first is Holy Scrip- ture; the second is the congregation."3 He feels that any sermon that becomes too text-centered can do an in- justice to the text. He concludes that there has to be a balance between these two.Ll For this reason, Poovey requires each of his students to indicate to him the type of congregation for whom a sermon outline is written. His view is similar to that of Stanley Schneider as he does not feel that there is such a thing as a "general sermon" which fits every congregation. Each sermon has a specific purpose for a specific group of people. Consequently, Poovey feels that the only true preaching which is done today is done by the parish pastor who knows his people.5 The Rev. Mr. Poovey makes note of the fact that the pastor has an excellent opportunity to know his congregation lHalvorson, interview. 2Poovey, interview. 3Ibid. ulbid. 5Ibid. 41 by making daily pastoral calls. "I am sorry to say," he admits, "that in most cases preachers do too much talking and not enough listening."l By listening to his people, Poovey feels that the pastor can better bring to life the Word of God to them. All three seminary professors, then, realize the value of audience analysis, and stress various ways in which the pastor may know better those to whom he speaks on Sunday morning. General agreement and support is witnessed through the writings of four of our six homiletical theorists used for comparison. Ilion Jones, for instance, agrees with Halvorson's promotion of a relevant gospel: "A sermon is composed for the people of the present generation."2 Jones, therefore, urges the preacher to be aware of the world around him and of the problems peculiar to his own community. Through newspapers, radio, television, periodi- cals, etc., he can keep his "eyes and ears open to human need."3 Jones compares the aims of the speaker to those of a writer in following the same line of thought expressed by Dr. Schneider's View that no sermon can be written lIbid. 2Jones, op. cit., p. 172. 31bid., p. 230. 42 apart from a congregation. Jones writes: "The writer's 'center of gravity' is the written or printed page. The speaker's center of gravity is the listeners out in front."1 He says, too: When the people know a preacher is talking about what is going on in his soul, as well as about their souls, they will listen more eagerly to what he says. Jones also feels that a sermon should be composed for a mixed group of peOple.3 "To put it another way," writes Halford E. Luccock, "preaching to life situations is not preaching on a subject so much as it is preaching to an object."u Luccock claims that the audience is so important in homiletical invention that he can endorse only two types of sermons: "One begins not with subjects but with persons in the situation which surrounds them; the other begins with an idea but arrives at persons as its destination."5 "A sermon is like a brick," he goes on to say, "it fulfills its function only as it is placed in relationship, in a structure."6 Andrew Blackwood admired the manner in which Phillips Brooks wrote his sermons with the people in mind. l 2 Ibid., p. 169. Ibid., p. 60. 3Ibid., p. 170. “Luccock, op. cit., p. 52. 51bido, ppo 50—510 6Ibido, p. 250 43 The people of Brooks' congregation were known to him through his willingness to call on them on many occasions. In fact, the sermons themselves displayed that "the Boston pastor . . . wished to help the friends who filled the pews of Trinity Church."1 While the audience may be composed of various people all with different backgrounds and interests, Blackwood urges the minister to remember the purpose for which they have come to church. Therefore, "assume that everyone present desires to learn the will of God in order to be- come a better man or woman."2 Blackwood also stresses that preachers should adapt their preaching to include the younger people of their congregations. The urging of young people to attend wor— ship is of vital importance to the future of the Church. He quotes the instance of a seminary professor who once asked his senior class: "How many of you attended morning worship regularly when you were six years old?" Out of the ninety men present almost everyone raised his hand.3 Paul Scherer emphatically points out: You are not, first of all, in the pulpit or at your desk as a specialist in religion, showing people how to do things, charting their course for them, pointing the way they should go. You are there as lBlackwood, op. cit., p. 13. 2Ibid., p. 207. 31bid., p. 237. 44 a religious personality, bearing witness to Christ and to the power of his presence and his peace. Write with that understanding.1 Perhaps Scherer best summarizes the concepts of audience analysis shared by the three seminary professors and the homiletical theorists when he recalls the truth that if the preacher knew his peOple as God knows them, or even as they know themselves, he "might even stand in awe of them for all there is about them that is incalcu- ably great."2 The Place and Influence of the Liturgical Year By the structure of its worship, the Lutheran Church is a liturgical church, i.e., it has as the basis for Sunday morning worship the Liturgy. Like the Roman Catholic Mass, the Liturgy includes the ritual that has served the Church for centuries. Every congregation that identifies with the Lutheran Church is compelled to follow the pre— scribed Liturgy. Not only does this mean that a certain order of worship is followed, but also that designated lessons are read and a basic theme for the day is announced. Although the sermons are written by the pastor of the congregation, he is somewhat bound to preach on a text or theme which is in harmony with the particular Sunday of the season. lScherer, op. cit., p. 181. 2Ibid., pp. 47—48. 45 Since he is insistent upon the use of textual preaching, it is natural for Schneider of Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary to center his thinking along the lines of textual preaching and the Liturgical Year: For the regular preaching to a congregation, it is advisable to use what are known as pericope texts. The word pericope is now a rarely used word, found only in unabridged dictionaries. It refers to a section of writing cut out of a larger writing. When used in the church it refers to a section of the Bible which has been selected for reading in the church when the people are assembled for worship, and it was originally intended that the sermon should be based on these sections. The ancient or historic pericope texts include lessons from the Gospels and the Epistles. Lessons from the Old Testament have been selected and are in- cluded in The Service Book and Hymnal of the Lutheran Church. The selection of these lessons is based on the church year, and while there are some parts of the Bible which are not read in the use of pericopes, nonetheless they do cover every major aspect of the revelation of God which comes to us through the Scriptures.1 Schneider strongly feels that a wise preacher uses the choice already made for him in the pericope system: Such a choice saves the preacher time. He isn't under the weekly pressure of trying to decide what text he should use from one week to the next. His choice has been made for him, and it is a choice that has been tested by time and by use in the church. Such a choice enables the preacher to build continuity into his preaching. He can know a year in advance what his text is going to be on a given Sunday or festival day. Such a choice helps to assure a fine balance and proportion in preaching. All of the important doctrinal and ethical contents are more likely lSchneider, op. cit., p. 56. 46 to be included in pericope selections than in personal choices. Such a choice makes the preacher work. Some of the pericope texts are more difficult. These texts make the preacher work harder. This helps him to grow, and such growth will be reflected in the results of his work. Such a choice will in some instances, parti— cularly the major festivals, cause the preacher to use the same text year after year. This, too, causes a man to work harder and enables him to gain new insights into that which God does and the implications of God's actions in human life.1 Schneider believes that in preaching through the guidelines of the Liturgical Year, the preacher is serving to build up the faith of the people of his parish to equip them for the work of ministry. "In order to do this, they need a well-rounded diet of the Word of God. Through the Liturgical Year, they are in a position to get this."2 "Preaching on the Liturgical Year prevents a man from 'grinding his own ax,'" he continues. "It helps to prevent the minister from developing in himself and in his "3 By "heresy" Professor people a tendency toward heresy. Schneider does not refer to false doctrine, but rather to the expression of one aspect of the truth with the result that the whole truth is distorted by this over—emphasis on this one part of it. "Dessert is all-right in a meal," he said, "but you don't serve all pie."u 1 Ibid., p. 57. 2 3 Schneider, interview. Ibid. uIbid. 47 Poovey agrees that all preachers tend to "ride hobbies." The Liturgical Year helps to force the preacher to give a varied diet as far as sermons are concerned.1 "One of the problems of the ministry," he goes on to say, "is the matter of time. If the preacher has to spend too much time in looking for a text, he doesn't have much time to develop his sermon."2 According to Professors Schneider and Poovey, there are two great values in following the rhythm of the Liturgical Year. The first value is that it provides a general pattern for a year's preaching. It thus saves the minister from the hand-to-mouth procedure that is involved in find- ing something to preach about without having any guidelines or overall plan. With the Church Year in mind, he will always be coming upon material that he will recognize as useful in sermons to be delivered months ahead. Something that he reads during an August vacation will be seen to be appropriate to an Epiphany sermon in January. A second asset in following the Liturgical Year is that it helps to insure comprehensiveness in the pulpit's message. It keeps the preacher from harping too much on one string. Like everybody else, he is always prone to ride certain hobbies, perhaps unconsciously. If, however, _ lPoovey, interview. 2Ibid. 48 he gives attention to the sequences of the calendar of the Church Year, he will be more likely to maintain needful variety and balance. He will even find himself preaching on certain themes from which he might otherwise shy away. Luther's Arndt Halvorson, on the other hand, feels that no minister should feel slavishly bound to the de— tails of the Liturgical Year: While I may recommend that the students follow the Liturgical Year for at least their first three years of preaching, this is merely for purposes of training. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a hard and fast rule. The Norwegian Church is much more flexible than those of German heritage.l Of the six homiletical theorists used for comparison, only two endorse preaching on the themes of the Liturgical Year. One is Andrew Blackwood, who, although not a Lutheran, feels that if a minister serves God as a Lutheran, "he does well to follow the Church Year as a guide in preach- ing."2 Blackwood says that the wise use of the Christian Year in his opinion encourages a minister to preach from the Bible. "Instead of living from hand to mouth he can plan the work of the pulpit so as to secure continuity and progress."3 He elaborates with a pointed illustration lHalvorson, interview. 2Blackwood, op. cit., p. 259. 31bid., p. 260. 49 about how younger ministers have watched throngs of men and women, boys and girls, on their way to the Roman Catholic Mass each Lord's Day. In the scope of the Mass, the peOple have possibly listened to a Latin service with a five minute sermon. "Why do they attend week after week?" he asks. The answer: "Largely because of the service apart from the sermon."1 Blackwood urges his readers to use the course of the Liturgical Year in order to establish a forward- looking plan and to avoid playing "hop, skip, and jump" in preaching schedules.2 Another reason for endorsing the use of the Liturgi- cal Year according to Blackwood is that such a schedule forces the preacher to concentrate on Christ instead of himself: The use of the Christian Year in preaching tends to fix the hearer's attention on Christ. Sunday after Sunday, at least for six months, the man who attends church feels sure of coming face to face with truth or duty as it has to do with the Lord Jesus. Strange as it may seem, many a regular churchgoer reports that he seldom hears a sermon directly about Christ as Savior and Lord. Without intending to do so, the man in the pulpit may let causes and movements crowd out Christ and the Kingdom. If he discussed all the subjects out- siders keep suggesting he would have few Opportuni- ties to say a good word for his Lord.3 The other of the homiletical theorists who support the use of the Church Year is the Lutheran, Paul Scherer, who wrote: — l 2 Ibid., p. 226. Ibid., p. 262. 3lbid., p. 261. 50 For almost twentyefive years now I have done most of my morning preaching on the pericopes . . . , those selections of epistle and gospel worked out for all the Sundays of the church year with an eye to the whole round content of the Christian faith; and I have never felt them to be a hindrance or a slavery. It has been one of the most amazing facts of my experience to find opening through them one avenue after another, vista upon vista. Nothing else has so persuaded me that these familiar words of Scripture hold enshrined within them the in- exhaustible riches of God.1 As mentioned before, only Blackwood and Scherer support the principle of following the guidelines of the Liturgical Year. Although it is argument by absence, one may well get the impression that either the other theorists do not see the necessity of adOption of the Church Year as a regular guide to preaching, or they feel that most of their readers will be associated with the non-liturgical denominations. The Preparations of Sermons It may well be said that the preparation of a sermon has taken as long to develop as it has taken for the pastor to reach his current age. Every sermon is an outgrowth of a man's total experience with God and with others. In this study, however, the word "preparation" will refer to the actual work involved while gearing in on a specific sermon for a specific Sunday. Although nothing as yet has been finalized in terms of Sunday's message, the lScherer, op. cit., p. 160. 51 conscientious minister will have begun his sermon prepar- ation long before the first word is ever written. According to the teachings of the three seminaries of the American Lutheran Church, the preparation of ser- mons involves three specific points: 1. Begin with prayer. 2. Plan for a specific goal. 3. Give it time to grow. However, not all of the seminaries include each point in the programs of homiletical theory. Some of the professors feel that these items are understood before the student enrolls in class; others feel that one or two of these points are much more important than the others, thus they emphasize those which they deem necessary. For example, only Stanley Schneider makes any reference to the commonplace suggestion that the student should begin with prayer. When the pastor thinks about the text and the congregation to which the sermon is to be preached, "he ought to pray both for the congregation and for the insight in relating the text to the congregation."1 In keeping with Schneider's advice, the student at Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary is told to practice this admonition by offering a prayer before com- posing his sermon outlines for homiletics class.2 lSchneider, op. cit., p. 59. 2Schneider, interview. 52 The second step in sermon preparation is to plan for a specific goal. Arndt Halvorson of Luther urges his students to think always of one specific need of the congregation that will be explained or satisfied by the text or topic for the day. He asks his students to follow the advice written in the textbook by Donald Miller: The specific needs of individuals . . . may often best be met by preaching to those specific needs, and herein lies a great value of clarity of aim and preciseness of purpose in the making of sermons. Another value of this is its aid to the minister himself in the preparation of sermons. Clarity of purpose enables him to concentrate his toll on a specific end and thus to avoid wasting a good deal of time in sermon preparation. To know precisely what one is going to do is to bend every effort right from the start to the doing of that one thing. Professor Halvorson also cites Donald Miller's advice through his textbook: "Before gathering material for the sermon, ask yourself, 'Just why am I going to preach this sermon?'"2 Stanley Schneider warns that some may think that merely because they are following the prescribed lessons of the Liturgical Year their planning is done for them. Not necessarily so. The preacher should plan by specific outlines and key thoughts so that over the course of a ministry something happens to upbuild the congregation.3 1 2 Miller, op. cit., p. 122. Ibid., p. 112. 3Schneider, interview. 53 The pastor who plans for a specific goal using a particular text has an added "plus" according to Schneider: He [the pastor] can take the text with him wherever he goes during his round of duties. Un— less the occasion calls for some specific Scripture reading from elsewhere in the Bible, he can use the text in his devotions with members of his parish as he calls on them during the week.1 The final step in sermon preparation is to give it time to grow. "He should complete the sermon early enough," says the Rev. Poovey, "that the pastor has time enough to rehearse it and enjoy the profits of what may be deemed as a worthy 'period of incubation.'"2 How do the homiletical theorists react to these three points of sermon preparation? Three of the six make obser- vations at this point. Jones agrees with Schneider's idea that prayer should begin the task of preparation. "Ask God," he says, "to make both the message and the messenger instruments of his Spirit for the healing and redemption of souls."3 In Design for Preaching, H. Grady Davis feels that this planning for a specific goal is valuable, but warns that to be of any value, the goal must be an idea that the pastor cares about and one that has "power to move him."u lSchneider, op. cit., p. 59. 2Poovey, interview. 3Jones, op. cit., p. 135. ”Davis, cp. cit., p. 58. 54 Paul Scherer comments on the advantage of the third point concerning the wisdom in allowing a sermon time to grow: I would encourage you to spend as much as an hour or two going over the passages provided you by the appointed lessons, or such as you have allotted yourself, letting them sink deeply into your thought, setting down some sudden flash of light from another facet of the truth you had never seen before, allow- ing sentence after sentence to lie quietly in your mind until it begins to speak.1 Later in the same book Scherer urges his readers never to read or study anything without paper and pen. One of the most valuable aids for the preacher can be a record of jottings resulting from the discovery of key thoughts or descriptive phrases which may be incorporated in later sermons. ,Scherer feels that he had lost a hundred sermons before following this practice. Although acknowledging that everyone must find his own system by which to accom- plish this task, he urges the preacher to find his system and to stick to it. The preacher who uses such a method in planning ahead in his schedule of preaching will not be a slave to The Preacher's Manuel for themes and anecdotes or to the last issue of the Christian Century Pulpit.2 Like the three professors of homiletics, the theor- ists used for comparison who comment on the preparation of sermons are somewhat divided in their emphasis on the three points of sermon preparation. However, not one of the lScherer, op. cit., p. 160. 2Ibid., pp. 150—151. 55 theorists records a negative reaction to the proposals of the American Lutheran Church professors. The Materials Used in the Sermon What does the preacher use for the development of the sermon? If it is true, as some believe, that the world has not had an original thought since Plato, then not many books or speeches have been written which could genuinely be called "original." Especially is this true in the discipline of biblical preaching. Since the goal of the biblical sermon is not to "invent" new philosophies, but to explain scriptural truths to those gathered for that particular purpose on Sunday morning, the question can be raised as to what sort of materials are used in the sermon? While it is true that some Lutheran seminaries within the United States insist that no sermon should include material not contained in the Bible, the three divinity schools of the American Lutheran Church are convinced that both biblical and "extra-biblical" material may be used. Poovey of Wartburg is inclined to encourage biblical materials as the basis for the sermon content. Because he believes that the primary task of the preacher is to relate the Word of God to his peOple and that the pastor is in the best position to do this, he has the obligation to familiarize his congregation as much as possible with the 56 Bible. "Not only does this aid the audience, but it might also get some preachers to study their Bibles a bit more."1 Dr. Schneider urges the use of outside material if it is familiar to the congregation. "After all," he said, "our Lord used things familiar to the people to illustrate his teachings."2 During the course of his ministry, Schneider noticed that while visiting the homes of his congregation, most of the people had subscribed to the Ladies' Home Journal. As a result, he, too, subscribed to the periodical for the pur- pose of gathering material that would be familiar to his congregation. Although Luther's Arndt Halvorson will accept outside material, he does so only in that it aids in relating the truth of the Bible to the audience. Andrew Blackwood is the only one of the six theorists who writes specifically about outside material. He en- courages the preacher to reap the illustrative material from such sources as East River by Sholem Asch, or The Robe by Lloyd Douglas, or from biographies of famous people, or from current news sources such as the New York Times, 3 Atlantic Monthly, or Harper's Magazine. lPoovey, interview. 2Schneider, interview. 3Blackwood, op. cit., pp. 81—82. 57 Blackwood is inclined to believe that sermons with- out outside materials might be dull and meaningless: A sermon that consisted wholly of materials from the Book of books might lack human interest. As in everything else about the ministry today, a man has to keep his balance here. Many a young minister has tried to employ materials from almost every source except the Bible, and some older divines have ignored the ways in which God makes Himself known today. The path of wisdom lies be- tween the two extremes. Why not take the warp of the sermon from Holy Scripture and the woof from life today, including books?1 On the subject of materials for the sermon, while the seminary professors may vary on emphasis, the main thrust seems to indicate a willingness on their part to maintain a solid biblical approach to preaching with out- side material adding support; never should the outside material overshadow the message of the Bible. Andrew Blackwood, too, is in total agreement. Writing Out the Sermon Now that the minister has studied the text or topic for discussion, has gathered his material (both biblical and extra-biblical), and has answered the question: "Why am I going to preach this sermon?" he can begin to reap some fruits from his labors by writing the sermon in an organized manner. Yet the question remains: "How is he to write it?" He has a number of choices which range all the way from jotting a few words to writing out the text 1Ibid., p. 77. 58 of the message in its entirety. On this point, what are the feelings of the professors of homiletics at the three American Lutheran Church seminaries? Both Schneider of Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary and Luther's Halvorson encourage the practice of writing out the sermon from the first word of the intro- duction to the last "Amen" of the conclusion. "Why shouldn't the minister write out his sermon?" asks Schneider. "In this manner he has a roadmap as to where he is going, and can see more clearly how he should arrive at his destination."l Halvorson is inclined to believe that writing out the sermons at least once will give the minister some excellent practice in working with words.2v Poovey, while appreciating the discipline of writing out the sermon for the beginner, says, "I try to train the students on the basis that the manuscript soon disappears after a period of time." The homiletical theorists who write on the matter (three in number) express support for the exercise of writing the complete manuscript. Both Ilion Jones and Andrew Blackwood take similar stands. Jones: "Write out the sermon in full at one sitting."3 Blackwood: "The lSchneider, interview. 2Halvorson, interview. 3Jones, op. cit., p. 133. 59 wise young minister forms the habit of writing a sermon every week."1 Paul Scherer is more explicit: . . let me say this again, this time with violence: I would not give a brass farthing, as a rule, for a preacher who does not write at least one sermon a week for the first ten or fifteen years of his minis- try. It is a discipline that no man can afford to forego. To write only the first half and leave the second half to God as one preacher said was his habit, merely exposes you to the compliment that was paid him: "Sir," remarked his monitor, "I congratu— late you indeed! Your half is unfailingly better than God's."2 Summary While the constituent of homiletics known as "Inven- tion" receives a variety of emphases by the three professors on whom this study centers, the major thrusts, however, appear to be similar in nature. Perhaps the most obvious difference of opinion is found in the area of textual preaching XE: topical preaching. Concerning the six homiletical texts used for pur- poses of comparison, there seems to be general agreement except in the same category of the main source of the sermon involving textual preaching and the problem-centered approach. lBlackwood, 0p. cit., p. 174. 2Scherer, op. cit., p. 178. II. III. IV. VI. OUTLINE FOR CHAPTER III HOMILETICAL THEORIES REGARDING "ARRANGEMENT" Purposes of the Chapter Definition of "Arrangement" The Formulation of the Outline A. According to the Seminary Professors B. According to the Six Theorists C. Summary Working Toward One Thought A. According to the Seminary Professors B. According to the Six Theorists C. Summary The Length of the Sermon A. According to the Seminary Professors B. According to the Six Theorists C. Summary The Place of the Text A. According to the Seminary Professors B. According to the Six Theorists C. Summary 60 VII. VIII. IX. 61 The Sermon's Introduction A. According to the Seminary Professors B. According to the Six Theorists 0. Summary Announcing the Parts A. According to the Seminary Professors B. According to the Six Theorists C. Summary The Sermon's Conclusion A. According to the Seminary Professors B. According to the Six Theorists C. Summary Summary of Section CHAPTER III HOMILETICAL THEORIES REGARDING "ARRANGEMENT" The Purpose The purposes of this chapter are the following: (1) to describe the homiletical theories regarding the constituent of homiletics known as "Arrangement" as taught by the three seminaries of the American Lutheran Church, (2) to describe the theories about "Arrangement" as presented through the writings of the six textbooks authored by the most influential homiletical theorists of today as revealed through the study conducted by Daniel E. Weiss,1 and (3) to compare the sets of theories as to the similarities and differences in teaching or emphasis. Definition In this study the term "Arrangement" refers to that constituent of homiletics concerned with the placement of materials; it embodies such elements as the plan of the sermon, the specific parts of the sermon (i.e., outline), and the placing of specific items such as the text. u lDaniel Edwin Weiss, "Conceptions of 'Arrangement' in American Protestant Homiletical Theory" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Speech, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1964). 6 2 63 The Formulation of the Outline After the pastor has decided on the materials to be used in the sermon as described in the preceding chapter, he is now ready to organize his findings in a systematic manner. How should he organize his message? What is taught in this matter at the three seminaries of the American Lutheran Church? How are these teachings similar to or different from those promoted through the writings of the six homiletical theorists? Dr. Schneider of Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary writes in his textbook about the preferable characteristics in formulating an outline, of which he says there are three: 1. Brevity—-Brevity is achieved in formulating an outline when all the necessary words are there and no more than that. 2. Color-—Every text has its own color, and, except for close parallel passages, no two texts have the same color. Color is attractive because it individualizes each sermon, makes it specific, differentiates one sermon from another. Color enables the preacher to avoid generalities and abstractions. 3. Rhythm and Beauty--Beauty of phrase is effective and capable of being remembered.l To illustrate this point, Schneider gives an example of how the factors of brevity, color, rhythm, and beauty —_ lSchneider, op. cit., p. 81. (Although such terms as "color," "rhythm, and "beauty" may be classified under the heading of "Style," the comments by Schneider are directed at the formulation of the sermon outline. Since this is the major stress, the writer has elected to in— Clude the entire text of his remarks under "Arrangement.") 64 were all brought to bear in producing the final result in a striking outline. Using as a text Romans 3:19-28, the first outline he presents is as follows: How the Sinner Becomes Just 1. Through the Law he becomes aware of sin. II. Through the Gospel he becomes aware of forgiveness. III. Through faith he lays hold on the righteousness of God. As far as content is concerned the outline will serve. But it does not have brevity, nor does it have any particular beauty. The color is there, but it is weak. Noting first of all the lack of brevity, one could reduce the outline to something like this: Justification 1. Sin 11. Grace III. Faith This sacrifices almost everything, including unity, for the sake of brevity. It could just as well be a lecture in systematic theology (or four of them) as a sermon outline. All the desirable characteristics are found in the following: Your Justification I. Sin made it necessary II. Grace made it possible III. Faith makes it yours.1 While teaching his classes in homiletics, Stanley Schneider has been asked, "Does every sermon contain three parts?" He has answered on many occasion, "No, but it appears as though a three-part sermon is the easiest to remember and appears to be the most natural in explaining a truth of a text."2 He cites an example in As One Who Speaks for God: lIbid. 2Schneider, interview. 65 Consider this outline: God Gives a Yardstick for Loyalty I. The first foot measures enthusiams. II. The second foot measures affection. III. The third foot measures willingness. Obviously this sermon had to have three parts, no more, no less. But it is not true that every sermon needs to have three parts. There may be three, or two, or four or however many are neces— sary. It is said that at one time there was a rule that a sermon should have three parts as a symbol of the Holy Trinity. But this is obscure symbolism at best, and surely not in force today. Since Dr. Schneider is an avid advocate of textual preaching, the question may be raised, "Is the sermon out- line dictated by the outline of the text?" "According to our theory of homiletics," he said, "the outline of the sermon does not have to follow that of the text."2 How- ever, he wrote in his textbook: "In a Sense a text has already been divided in the process of mastering it."3 Arndt Halvorson of Luther holds to the same principle and gives his reason: The outline does not have to follow that of the text. I conceive of the sermon as the prolongation of the Gospel; it is the Gospel happening now. The event that was Christ's re-occurs when the sermon strikes fire. Therefore, the sermon is an entity in itself. It is the message that 14 structured and not the text that is structured. lSchneider, op. cit., p. 85. 2Schneider, interview. 3Schneider, op. cit., p. 76. Halvorson, interview. 66 Halvorson goes on to explain that the outline of the sermon, in his opinion, depends largely upon the individual minister. "Just as his personality is unique, so is his way of structuring a sermon," he says. "Conse— quently, I do my best to help a student develop his own technique of outlining."l Wartburg's Poovey, like Schneider and Halvorson, does not feel that the sermon outline has to follow that of the text. "As long as the outline does justice to the spirit of the text or topic and is in accord with the Word of God, I will accept it," he says.2 How do the teachings of the three seminary pro- fessors relate to the writings of the homiletical theor- ists?3 According to all the available sources, the seminary professors are not as much concerned with the technicalities of the outline as much as they are that the outline be a result of the preacher's personality and his wrestling with the text or the topic to be considered. The six theorists, on the other hand, do not once consider the "individuality" of the preacher; they seem, instead, llbid. 2Poovey, interview. 3Throughout this study, certain elements of homi— letical theory are not treated by all of the six theorists used for comparison. The writer, therefore, mentions only those theorists who comment on the particular element under discussion. 67 to be bent upon the importance of a well-planned outline. For example, Gerald Kennedy insists, "More sermons crack up on this hidden reef of inadequate organization than on any other rock."1 Davis, in his Design for Preaching says that "a textual sermon . . . draws not only its idea but also its structural elements from the text."2 Consequently, unlike the seminary professors, he feels that the text dictates the sermon's outline. Blackwood writes that the marks of good sermon structure are four in number: Unity Order Symmetry 3 Progress. 1 2 3 4 Paul Scherer comments upon the number of parts which a sermon should contain: The divisions may be two or three in number, rarely more. There is, of course, no magic formula. One of my professors used to insist on an unwavering three, because a twig divides into three as a rule; and all this had something to do with the Trinity! I was positively superstitious about it at first. It was profoundly important. So you hustled around until you found not two, not four, but three. Later you discover that logic, in the phrase of Dr. Fos- dick, has more to do with the thing than magic; and psychology, more than metaphysics. lKennedy, op. cit., p. 48. 2Davis, op. cit., p. 63. 3Blackwood, op. cit., pp. 130-132. “Scherer, op. cit., p. 167. 68 Ilion Jones directs his thoughts along the line that "The outline confines the sermon within desired limits, controls its course, unfolds it step by step so it will be understandable, and directs it to its intended goals."1 He goes on to say, "The outline keeps one from taking detours, going around in circles, and holds him steadily on the straight road ahead."2 Jones summarizes his teachings when he says, "A speech does not happen; it is designed."3 Workinngoward One Thought The story is told of the late Dr. Jacob A. Dell, homiletics professor at Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary until 1953, that a student submitted a sermon outline filled with comments about various dogmas of the Church, the sacraments, the Ten Commandments, Church his- tory, and the Holy Scriptures. In order to illustrate the cumbersome properties of such an outline, the professor wrote the content of the outline on the chalkboard for the entire class to see. His only comment on the results was, "This lad has everything here except the kitchen sink." It was obvious to him and to the students that the semi- narian had tried to include too much in one sermon. lJones, op. cit., p. 90. 2Ibid., p. 91. 3Ibid., p. 88. 69 As with any good speech, a sermon, too, should con- tain one main thought. Still referring to the advisability of textual preaching, Stanley Schneider says, "Since each text has one main thought, that thought should be expressed in the theme and developed through the outline."1 Schneider devotes considerable space in his textbook discussing the issue of developing one main thought through the outline. He refers to this main thought as "a line of direction," describing this line of direction as "the specific way in which the preacher is going to deal with the truth of the text."2 He goes on to explain that the line of direction also "indicates the path that he [the pastor] is going to follow in order to reach-his goal."3 Usually the line of direction is found through a key word in the theme, according to Schneider. For example, at an ordination service the text used for the sermon was Luke 9:18-26. The theme was "You Are Called by God." The word "Called" provided the line of direction which was made clear through the outline: You Are Called by God I. From Crowd to Christ 11. From Christ to Cross III. From Cross to Christian IV. From Christian to Crowd. lSchneider, interview. 2Schneider, op. cit., p. 71. 31bid., p. 71. ”Ibid., p. 72. 70 By maintaining a line of direction, he believes, the minister will arrive at a necessary unity of thought and theology: A sermon needs unity. It needs a theological unity. The theme provides the theological unity under which the preliminary dividing of the text is organized. Without unity, what passes for a sermon may contain any number of thoughts, even good ones, but these thoughts are seldom communicated effectively. Unless a sermon has theological unity, it may be seriously questioned whether it is truly a sermon at all. Dr. Schneider feels that the main thought of the sermon should be in harmony with the theme set aside for the particular Sunday of the Liturgical Year. "It just does not make sense," he says, "to hear an introit, lessons, and hymns on the theme 'The Love of God' only to have that followed by a sermon on 'Marriage and Divorce.'"2 The Rev. Mr. Poovey claims, "One of the most diffi— cult tasks facing the homiletics professor is the problem in keeping his students centered on one thought while writing sermon outlines."3 Arndt Halvorson, probably the most liberal of the three professors of the American Lutheran Church, suggests lIbid., pp. 76-77. 2Schneider, interview. 3 Poovey, interview. 71 that it is good procedure to maintain one thought. "Hammer away at one issue at a time," he says. "Use a multitude of Scripture verses to support your thesis."1 The three seminary professors, then, are of one thought regarding the value of working toward one key thought pig the outline. Likewise, the homiletical theorists appreciate a singleness of purpose in sermon W72: . V. I outlines. In writing about the value of maintaining one w. 5.9M “n I thought in sermon outlines, Halford E. Luccock cites the value of progress: An effective sermon is marked by progress, and progress is impossible without structure. Progress includes movement, but it is more and other than movement. It is strategic and cumulative movement toward an assigned goal.2 H. Grady Davis sees a connection between the form of the sermon and the purpose of the message: The functional form of a sermon is the form that sermon takes the better to accomplish the definite purpose for which it is preached. More correctly, it is that form which almost automati- cally results from the intention to accomplish a given purpose. To an incalculable extent form does follow function in preaching. That is, preaching takes the different forms it takes in our day as a result of many felt but often unclarified purposes, not conscious or deliberate purposes. lHalvorson, interview. 2Luccock, op. cit., p. 126. 3Davis, op. cit., p. 99. 72 The same author also warns about the use of too many thoughts in one message: Not many thoughts can be developed and shared in one sermon. If the preacher tries to cover too broad a subject, he will say too much, too many good things, and will not share even one of them with his hearers. When the sermon merely discusses a broad subject without the sharpness and urgency of a keener point, it does not really convey anything of importance to its hearers. Kennedy strongly suggests that the one main thought of the sermon must be expressed in the theme. This, he i. ”1...- flown—4' feels, should be the unifying point from which is developed a singleness of purpose: The sermon that lacks this singleness of purpose gives the impression of arbitrariness and forced direction. One feels that it could just as well have been handled another way, or that this idea could easily have been placed under the other point. Somewhere within the theme there is the organization that is as near perfection as we hope to come. If the preacher wants to handle the word of truth aright, he will not be satisfied until that arrangement has been found.2 According to Blackwood, the sermon should have unity so that the clergyman delivers only one message at a time.3 Blackwood illustrates via the following story: "At the end of the hour in church a deacon may whisper to his wife, 'I don't know what the person was driving at, do 1Ibid., p. 59. 2Kennedy, op. cit., p. 56. 3Blackwood, op. cit., p. 130. 73 you?' Then she may reply, 'No, and I don't think he knew, either!”l Both the homiletical theorists and the three semi- nary professors recognize the importance of one basic thought for each sermon. Professor Schneider is the only one of the professors who stresses both unity of thought designed by the text and harmony of the main thought with the theme of the Liturgical Year. The Length of the Sermon When Abraham Lincoln was asked the question, "How long should a man's legs be?" he answered, "Long enough to reach from his body to the ground." In the same vein, young men in the ministry are prone to ask, "How long should my sermon be?" The answer here may be similar to Lincoln's: "Long enough to cover the subject." However, that really does not answer the question. Other criteria must be introduced. Professor Schneider looks to the accustomed length of the service as a guideline to the length of the sermon: By and large, twenty minutes is taken for granted. We are in a bind to the clock in our society. We are accustomed to hour long services, twenty minutes of which is the sermon. However, the strong tendency today is toward shorter messages. This, of course, varies with the congregation and with the minister. lIbid., p. 40. 2Schneider, interview. 74 Poovey of Wartburg follows in the tradition of one of his former colleagues, Professor M. Reu, who wrote in his textbook about the length of a sermon: The average hearer would rather listen to a sermon of twenty-five than to one of thirty-five or forty-five minutes. The spiritually minded hearer will judge differently. The question must not, however, be decided by the preference of the hearer, but by the nature and the purpose of the sermon. Halvorson is much more concerned about the attention span of the average audience, and he makes this known in I his classroom: I have seen people spellbound for forty minute sermons and bored with five minute messages. Yet, our society is so found to the clock, that I do not permit my students to preach over fifteen minutes. A good fifteen minute sermon far sur- passes a poor half hour deliberation.2 The feelings of the three seminary professors center on the realization that while we are somewhat bound by the clock and the tradition of hour-long church services, the length of the sermon is not as much of a concern as is the quality of the message. It may be concluded that the subject of the sermon's length is of not too much importance to the six homiletical theorists since only one, Andrew Blackwood, makes any reference to this point. Unlike Halvorson, Blackwood is suspicious of the preacher who works to cut his sermon time for the sake of audience acceptance. The author lReu, op. cit., p. 506. 2Halvorson, interview. 75 feels that such clergymen can be classified as those who "are eager to see the sermon whittled down, and reduced to the vanishing point altogether, like the cat in Alice in Wonderland, with only the smile behind."l "Why then do churchgoers object to long sermons?" he asks. "Not because of length, but because of boredom. f- They protest against monotony and dullness."2 He justi- fies his statement by saying: "They [church members] do not object to the man who speaks forty-five minutes, pro- _ vided he has something to say and knows how to say it [ effectively. The majority of our laymen do not insist on "3 shorter sermons so much as better ones. The Place of the Text Let us suppose that the pastor decides to preach a textual sermon. If this is the case, at what point in the sermon is the text to be read? The three seminary pro- fessors emphasize different opinions, yet only one of the six homiletical theorists treats of this subject. Dr. Schneider maintains his rather conservative approach by encoUraging that the text should always be read at the beginning of the sermon unless there is a very good reason not to do so. "Since the people expect the sermon to grow out of the text," he says, "it is lBlackwood, op. cit., p. 226. 2Ibid., p. 227. 3Ibid., p. 228. 76 disturbing to the congregation not to hear that on which the sermon is based."1 Perhaps Schneider's philosophy in this matter is a result of the long standing tradition established by his predecessor, Jacob A. Dell, who caustically told his stu- dents, "Always begin the sermon with the text; this may .1, be the only time the congregation hears the Word of God." ; Arndt Halvorson takes a different approach: "The sermon does not always have to begin with the text. The text should be placed wherever it can be most effective."2 V Poovey, also, feels that the preacher must not neces- sarily begin with the text. "The text," he feels, "may be used even at the end if this works out better."3 Schneider, then, feels inclined to always place the text at the beginning of the message, while both Halvorson and Poovey are much more acceptable to a flexible pattern. How do these teachings compare to the homiletical texts used for comparison? On the subject of the place of the text in the sermon, only one of the homiletical theorists, Paul Scherer, makes any comment. Scherer, like Halvorson lSchneider, interview. 2Halvorson, interview. 3 Poovey, interview. 77 and Poovey, does not make an iron-bound rule about this matter: Once in a while, instead of beginning with it, a preacher will want to end with the text. He plans not to start out with something given but to arrive at something discovered. In this case the divisions will follow each other in a logical or psychological sequence, moving in a straight line, like the links of a chain, not after the fashion of a detective story, where Truth plays the role F‘ of the murderer and nobody can even begin to guess * its whereabouts until the last page! We are not in the pulpit to keep people in suspense or to darken their minds with mystery.l He further elaborates on this principle: [M Hugh Black, formerly of Union, used to insist that there was but one proper way in which to intro— duce a sermon, and that was by giving the text its setting in the context and in history, showing it against its background of thought and incident. Frequently such a procedure is highly desirable; sometimes it is unavoidable. But it is not neces- sary to forge an iron-bound rule out of it. Maybe it is not the text that needs introducing anyway. It may be the audience.2 To summarize, then, Schneider urges his students to begin the sermon with the text. Halvorson and Poovey, along with Paul Scherer, leave room for imagination at this point. The Sermon's Introduction What is the purpose of an introduction of a sermon? What are the characteristics that mark a good introduction? These are the questions which the author asked the three seminary professors. 2 lScherer, op. cit., p. 168. Ibid., p. 170. 78 While answering these questions, Schneider remained in character by anticipating textual preaching. In his usual blunt style he declares, "The purpose of the intro- duction is to get from the text to the theme in the shortest possible time."1 The Rev. Mr. Poovey is more concerned that the introduction raises a problem in the mind of the listener: "One of the things on which I insist is that an introduction should include a problem that concerns modern man, that somehow it must involve the congregation in that problem."2 Poovey tells how this is to be done by claiming that the introduction must do three things: 1. It must get the attention of the audience. All is lost if we fail to gain their attention. 2. It must get the attention of the congregation on that specific subject. After all, we could merely shoot off a gun; that would get attention, but not on the subject for consideration. 3. It has to involve the congregation in the specific problem of the sermon. As a result of the intro- duction, the listener should say, "That concerns me."3 Luther's Halvorson is abrupt but clear: "The intro- duction is to promise the listener that what he is about to hear is worth his time."Ll It appears, in the light of the preceding statements, that Schneider feels that the introduction is a means lSchneider, interview. 2Poovey, interview. 3Ibid. “Halvorson, interview. ”NWT TIT—huh " I! i 79 whereby we can bridge the text and the "meat" of the message, whereas Poovey is interested in establishing a problem in the mind of the hearer and Halvorson is con- tent to let the introduction serve in establishing the value of the sermon to the audience. How do these ideas compare with those of the homiletical theorists? Ilion Jones writes: "Often the first sentence or two, and always the first paragraph, are crucial. If the preacher does not grip the interest of the people by that time he may fail to grip it at all."1 Scherer is more explicit:. In every case, be sure that the introduction is an introduction, the function of which is not simply to arouse interest but to introduce. No more, no less. Above all, it must be relevant and not make people begin to wonder, "For heaven's sake what's he driving at now?" That is a bad start always. Let it bring them to understand that something real and pressing is afoot. With deliberate violence, not so much of manner as a matter, let it seize their restful minds, before they settle back for one more sermon, out of the past tense into which Scripture so often seems to throw people quite un- accountably, and snatch them away into a reali- zation that is not the there and then with which you have to deal but the here and now.2 How should the minister accomplish this ideal? Scherer suggests: "You may begin with the high light of ¥ lJones, op. cit., p. 158. 2Scherer, op. cit., pp. 171-172. 80 some contrast."l Scherer illustrates his point through an example which teaches by a reverse application. One university preacher is said to have quoted as his text at chapel Hazael's words to Elisha: "Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?" He then looked up and said, "Well, dog or no dog, he did it." They tell me the students listened that day. Unfortunately the passage means no such thing. Perhaps it would be better to preach on a text that is really there, even though it be not so interesting. Blackwood suggests that, in order to size up an introduction, six questions be raised by the conscientious preacher: 1. Is this approach interesting but not exciting? 2. Is the introduction short but not abrupt? 3. Is the introduction appropriate but not commonplace? 4. Is the path of approach friendly but not effusive? 5. Is the introduction clear but not anticipatory? 6. Do the introductions vary from week to week?3 In his book, Kennedy states that the most important characteristics of the introduction are directness and speed, concreteness and brevity. He feels, too, that variety from week to week will maintain the interest factor.LI Of the six homiletical theorists used for compari— son who write on the sermon's introduction, only Paul 1Ibid., p. 170. 2Ibid., pp. 170—171. 3Blackwood, op. cit., pp. 109—113. “Kennedy, op. cit., p. 58. J 11 V.— 81 Scherer mentions a relationship between the introduction and a text (which may be natural since Scherer is the only one of the six who advocates textual preaching). The other three, Jones, Blackwood, and Kennedy urge brevity which captures both the spirit of the message and the attention of the audience. -- Announcing the Parts When the man prepares to stand in the pulpit on Sunday morning and begin his message to his congregation, I‘ to what degree should he anticipate that his audience will be able to follow his train of thought? This writer can well remember an admonition given him one day by a pastor who had served the Church for twenty—five years: "Never," he said, "underestimate the stupidity of your audience." When he gave this advice, the pastor was not adopting a snobbish attitude toward the congregation. He explained that we dare never take for granted that the audience is automatically able to follow the line of thinking while listening to a sermon. After all, a man does not preach to a group of theologians, but to souls, who, for the most part, have a once-a-week exposure to the Word of God. It is with this thought in mind that Stanley Schneider advocates the announcing of the parts of the sermon to the congregation. "After all," he says, "to see a roadmap does not take away from the trip, but may enhance it."1 lSchneider, interview. 82 W. A. Poovey of Wartburg could not disagree more: There is no need beginning of the preaching as far nate all of your time? This does to announce your parts at the sermon. That is old German as I am concerned. Why elimi- "secrets" before the proper not mean that the parts cannot be spelled out during the course of the sermon, but to announce the parts in the introduction will not lend itself to good preaching.l Halvorson, too, does not feel that much can be gained by announcing the parts at the beginning of the 2 sermon. On the subject of announcing parts during the ser- mon's introduction, Schneider says, "Yes," while both Poovey and Halvorson declare, "No." Who gains support from the homiletical theorists used for comparison? There is no clear answer to this question due to two points: comment on this subject, and (2) each takes a different position. Kennedy echoes the philosophy endorsed by Schneider: "Unless the hidden divisions shine through with enough clarity so that no one will be in doubt as to where you are going and where you have been, it is better to make sure your listeners know by telling them frankly. "3 lPoovey, interview. 2Halvorson, interview. 3 Kennedy, 0p. cit., p. 49. (1) only two of the theorists 7 . 'l a “‘3. 83 Ilion Jones, on the other hand, recommends a differ- ent approach: "Announcing all the parts ahead of time is not recommended as a regular practice, because it gives everything away, leaves no room for the element of sur- prise."l Briefly stated, then, Schneider of Evangelical F, Lutheran Theological Seminary and Kennedy agree in princi- ple that in his arrangement of the sermon, the preacher m—u' 'm‘ 1'" I‘- should plan to announce the parts of his sermon to the ‘ congregation in the introduction. Poovey and Halvorson find support for their ideals through the statement of Jones. The Sermon's Conclusion "Like introductions, conclusions should not be long. If near the end of the sermon all the pews squeak, the preacher has missed a good place to stop."2 Thus writes Stanley Schneider in As One Who Speaks for God. Since solid conclusions are Judged not only on the basis of brevity, Schneider feels that much more is needed. On this point, he still reverts to his love for a sermon based on Holy Scripture: If you draw a conclusion that is based solidly on Scripture, you will be on safe ground. But if you base it on your own opinion, then it is simply 1Jones, 02. cit., p. 101. 2Schneider, op. cit., p. 104. 8M that--your own opinion. Someone in the congrega- tion who has another opinion has, therefore, just as much authority.l Poovey is more interested in an opportunity given through the conclusion for the listener to respond. The conclusion ought to some way or another lay a challenge on the mind of the congregation. I like the idea that the sermon has some of the quality of a knock on the door. The purpose of the conclusion is to leave that knock which invites the listener to respond. If the conclusion does not indicate some sort of response, then the sermon has not really done very much. YLL ".9 The Wartburg professor explained his position: I I believe that many preachers preach the "Wouldn't it be Wonderful" sermons in which they picture a beautiful situation, and the congregation says, "Wouldn't it be wonderful?" Nothing happens. No- body expected anything to happen. But, if you don't expect anything to happen, you don't get anything to happen. The conclusion, then, ought to lay upon the heart of the congregation the need for some sort of response. Halvorson teaches that the conclusion should be similar to the style of O'Henry in that it demands pre- ciseness with no prolonged sentences. "The conclusion should provide the listener with an opening through which they can see the purpose of the biblical truth you are presenting.“l While the Luther Seminary professor points to the same theme promoted by Schneider of Evangelical Lutheran lSchneider, interview. 2 3 Poovey, interview. Ibid. ”Halvorson, interview. 85 Theological Seminary, namely the importance of sounding a biblical truth through the conclusion, Wartburg's Poovey is looking more for a response. The homiletical theorists used for comparison tend to look upon the conclusion from the vieWpoint of literary critics. Unlike the three seminary professors, these authors seem more concerned with the structure of the conclusion than with biblical truth or with a response on the part of the audience. Only one, Gerald Kennedy, makes a passing reference to biblical truth when he wrote about the conclusion: "Here is the place where the wondrous beauty and glorious power of the Gospel message must shine."l Later, in the same book, Kennedy endorses the con- clusion that is characterized by directness, concreteness, and brevity.2 The remaining comments are centered upon form. Even the teaching of Paul Scherer, usually geared toward the urgency of biblical preaching, is primarily concerned with form in terms of the conclusion. From For We Have This Treasure comes the following paragraph: Equally important with the introduction is the conclusion. Many of us make splendid approach shots and lose the hole after we get on the green. And many a horse is numbered an "also ran" because lKennedy, op. cit., p. 61. 21bid., p. 60. 86 the Jockey did not save anything for the finish! It need not be long, the conclusion. It should not be long. Let it summarize, if you will, in a brief, pungent, telling paragraph the chief heads of your sermon, restating them perhaps and showing their organic relation to the one great whole of your text. Or let it bring home to your hearers all at once, gathering their thoughts into a sharp focus, some final, practical, and pointed appli- cation. Or let us say that you have planned to leave them quietly in love and awe at the feet of Jesus, there being nowhere else to go at the end of a sermon. Later, in the same book, comes this admonition: "Whatever your purpose, however you arrange it, let the closing sentences clinch the matter—-1est half-a—dozen good things, or things not half so good, be left hanging in the air with no visible means of support."2 Blackwood, too, is concerned with the form of the conclusion: How then should a sermon close? That depends on various factors, most of all on the purpose. Before a man starts out on a Journey by land or air, he must decide upon the destination. When a minister prepares a sermon for the coming Lord's Day, he ought to have in mind the goal, so that he can lead every hearer to a certain spot. When the guide and his friends reach that destination, the Journey should end.3 The same author feels that the conclusion should show variety from week to week. He suggests that there are nine varieties of conclusion which will appeal to the interest factor of the congregation: 2 lScherer, op. cit., p. 174. Ibid., p. 175. 3Blackwood, op. cit., p. 163. 87 The direct appeal The practical application The final summary The contrasting truth The appeal to imagination The closing poem The closing illustration The missing conclusion The final sentence.l \OCIJNQUT-EUUMH "Whatever the content and form of the last para- graph or two," he says, "the sermon as a whole must lead up to a final sentence, which ought to stand out more boldly and strongly than any other sentence. . . ."2 In a similar manner, Ilion Jones apeaks in general terms regarding the conclusion: "Every poor conclusion is a lost opportunity, because there the sermon should come to its final climax, there its main purpose should be achieved, there the preacher's supreme effort should take place."3 Summary To summarize briefly the positions of the three seminary professors in terms of their ideals about sermon arrangement, it might be concluded that Dr. Schneider of Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary concerns himself primarily with the relationship of the outline to the spirit of the text. Wartburg's Poovey is interested more in outline which will generate a response from the hearer. Halvorson of Luther centers his efforts in encouraging a l 2 Ibid., pp. 163—1700 Ibid., p. 1670 3Jones, op. cit., p. 160. 88 creative outline developed through the personality of the preacher with the goal in mind of telling the listener that this sermon is going to be worth his (the listener's) time. The six homiletical theorists seem more concerned with the fppp_of the outline than they are with a text, response, or individual personality. The reason for this approach may be directly related to the purpose of the authors in writing their texts. It is conceivable that the homiletical theorists are primarily concerned about theory in general with the understanding that individual application and/or adoption of these theories is the responsibility of the student and his professor. However, the writer feels that, to some degree at least, the homi— letical theorists could have encouraged the incorporation of the personality of the individual into the sermon outline. II. III. IV. VI. OUTLINE FOR CHAPTER IV HOMILETICAL THEORIES REGARDING "STYLE" Purposes of the Chapter Definition of "Style" The A. B. C. Tone of Language According to the Seminary Professors According to the Homiletical Theorists Summary Style and the Audience A. B. CL The According to the Seminary Professors According to the Homiletical Theorists Summary Use of Imagination According to the Seminary Professors According to the Homiletical Theorists Summary Art of "Being Yourself" According to the Seminary Professors According to the Homiletical Theorists Summary 89 VII. VIII. IX. XI. XII. The A. B. C. 90 Title of the Sermon According to the Seminary Professors According to the Homiletical Theorists Summary Sermon's Introduction and Conclusion According to the Seminary Professors According to the Homiletical Theorists Summary Biblical Translations Used According to the Seminary Professors Use of Illustrations According to the Seminary Professors According to the Homiletical Theorists Summary Use of Humor in the Pulpit According to the Seminary Professors According to the Homiletical Theorists Summary Summary CHAPTER IV HOMILETICAL THEORIES REGARDING "STYLE" The Purpose The purposes of this chapter are the following: (1) to describe the homiletical theories regarding the constituent of homiletics known as "Style" as taught by the three seminaries of the American Lutheran Church, (2) to describe the theories about "Style" as presented through the writings of the six textbooks authored by the most influential homiletical theorists of today as revealed through the study conducted by Daniel E. Weiss,1 and (3) to compare the sets of theories as to the simi- larities and differences in teaching or emphasis. Definition Within this study, the term "Style" refers to that constituent of homiletics concerned with matters of language and with the phrasing of the selected and arranged materials; it embodies word choice and word composition. Generally, certain criteria pertaining lDaniel Edwin Weiss,"Conceptions of 'Arrangement' in American Protestant Homiletical Theory" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Speech, Michigan State Uni- versity, l96u). 91 92 to style relate to these two components; whether the criteria be represented by such concepts as "clarity," "accuracy," etc., they pertain to words themselves or to such combinations of words as sentences and para- graphs. The seminary professors speak almost exclusively about word choice; likewise, the six homiletical theorists used for comparison in this study follow the same pattern. Regarding word choice and word composition, the pro— fessors of the seminaries direct their teachings along the lines of certain general items which include: the "tone" of language, the relationship of style and the audience, the use of imagination, and the art of "being yourself"; and they either express or imply specific criteria pertaining to these areas of concern. The Tone of Language1 As with other aspects of rhetoric and public address, the field of preaching often includes biographies of men . who succeed or fail not on the basis of wpap was said but rather on ppw it was said. If the language of the speaker is too aloof, he runs the danger of alienating a good per- centage of his audience. On the other hand, if he attempts 1While the "tone" of language may suggest the consti- tuent known as "Delivery," this concept is being treated in this chapter primarily as an element of language. (It is realized, of course, that the language can, at least in some measure, influence the "tone" of delivery.) 93 to "talk down" to his audience, he is vulnerable to the charge of "fraud" and his listeners may be highly in- sulted. Much of this is directly dependent upon the tone of the language used in a speech or sermon. The three professors of the seminaries feel that the tone of language used in preaching should embody variety, simplicity, and informality. Dr. Stanley Schneider emphasizes the advantages of using variety: There are some who speak the same way about everything. While the content of the message should determine the tone of language, they fail to communicate the message if they insist on, let us say, inviting the congregation to reJoice in the same manner in which they admonish them to repent.1 Although the preacher is urged to use variety, he must remember that the tone of the language should be simple. Schneider tells us why: Sermons should be extremely simple in language style. Unlike an essay, they are not to be read and re-read over a period of years. Good sermons are consumed like the log which is thrown onto the fire--you can't use it tomorrow. And when it's reduced to the printed page it may appear as cold mashed potatoes when you read it, but that's not what it's for; mashed potatoes aren't made to be left over, they are meant to be eaten right now.2 Arndt Halvorson sounds the chord of informality as he encourages an extemporaneous mode in preaching: lSchneider, interview. 2Ibid. 94 The man [preacher] should be informal at all times while in the pulpit. I used to think that the preacher was actually two people: one in his daily life and another when preaching. However, I find that it is much more effective for the pastor to develop an extemporaneous mode in preaching so that he is discussing issues with the congregation in- stead of preaching at them.1 The professor of Luther Seminary urges his students to "preach a sermon as though you were writing it for the Saturday Evening Post."2 He tells them, too, "A good contemporary fiction style or 'picture' style in which you paint a picture by words, is far better than large words centering upon theological abstractions."3 When asked about his teaching on the tone of language used in the pulpit, W. A. Poovey outlined this warning: The language should not call attention to itself. In other words, the congregation ought not be so surprised at the language used by the preacher that they sit around wondering about the language and therefore miss the point that is made. For example, if the pastor uses some profanity in a sermon, while it might catch attention, immediately it will cause many to wonder if he should or should not have said that. Consequently, they miss the point of what is being said. According to the three professors of the American Lutheran Church seminaries, the tone of language should embody variety, and informality without becoming so conspicuous that the style calls attention to itself. lHalvorson, interview. 2Ibid. 3Ibid. ”Poovey, interview. “- ‘mumfi 95 Similar thoughts are presented through the textbooks used for comparison. Of the six homiletical theorists, only two make mention of the tone of language by the pastor in the pulpit.1 One is the late Paul Scherer who, somewhat akin to Poovey, writes: A sermon dare never be vulgar, as if the lost boy in the fifteenth chapter of Luke, to borrow John Oman's suggestion, had said, "I'd better get a move on and buzz along and pop in on my old dad and say, 'What about a new start, Governor?'" Yet it need not be polished either, as some men are, until it slips on its own polish. The other theorist to comment on the tone of language used in preaching is Ilion Jones. Throughout his book, Principles and Practice of Preaching, he encourages the conversational approach in preaching with the use of cer- tain basic ingredients such as simple words, expressive words, and basic sentence structure. Like Halvorson, Jones advocates an informal tone of language on Sunday morning: "Martin Luther said we ought to speak in the church as we do at home, in plain mother tongue, which everyone is acquainted with. That is a good description of aural style. Rudolph Flesch calls it 'Shirt-sleeve' English."3 1Throughout this study, certain elements of homi- letical theory are not treated by all of the six theorists used for comparison. The writer, therefore, mentions only those theorists who comment on the particular element under discussion. 2Scherer, op. cit., pp. 186-187. 3Jones, op. cit., p. l7u. 96 This last quotation from Jones leads us to ask the next question, "What is the relationship of style to the audience?" Style and the Audience Should the audience have any bearing on the style used by the preacher? The three seminary professors differ somewhat in their teachings at this point. Stanley D. Schneider is inclined to believe that the style of lan— guage used varies with the audience. "When preaching to teen—agers, the pastor will certainly use a Jargon differ- ent than that used at the local senior citizen's home."1 He feels that there is a deeper meaning behind this admonition when the minister remembers his role as a pastor: A Keeping in mind those persons who hear, the preacher looks at his text not only with the eyes of a scholar but also with the eyes of a pastor. It could well be that the thinking he does about the sermon while on the round of parish duties is of equal importance to the thinking that he does in the study. In the study, with all the tools of scholarship, he determines the content of the ser- mon. In the parish, with all the feeling of his heart, he determines the form in which that con- tent will be given to the persons who hear.2 Although Schneider urges his students to vary the style of language with the audience, Wartburg's Poovey takes a position nearly 180 degrees Opposite: lSchneider, interview. 2Schneider, op. cit., pp. 36-37. “(Note the emphasis of Schneider on the importance of the pastoral approach to preaching.) 97 Frankly, I feel that audiences are not that much different from one another. For example, even if a preacher had a highly educated audience, they may not be well educated theologically. The audience may be filled with Ph.D.s, yet have no conceptions about Justification by faith. Conse- quently, I do not feel that the preacher has to analyze his language to a great degree. Halvorson is concerned with the fact that pastors often "miss the boat" when it comes to the subJect of the audience and style. One of the chief sins of the minister is to use words familiar to him and other theologians which hold little or no meaning for the man in the pew. Words such as "Justification," "faith," "sanctification," and "grace" are among those words used too often by preachers without adequate explanation as to its meaning.2 How do the views of Schneider, Poovey, and Halvorson compare to those of the six textbooks? Only one of the six homiletical theorists, Paul Scherer, comments on the relationship between the style of language and the audience by reminding his readers that the one who observes the importance of this relation- ship will be the one who realizes a reward: You may begin your career with a doctrinaire interest in theology or in preaching as one of the fine arts. But pray God you may find yourself, little by little, drawn to human lives and human lPoovey, interview. 2Halvorson, interview. 98 hopes and human fears! You may begin with the aloofness of the scholar. But pray God you may continue with a tenderness, a warmth of appreci- ation for all the weary souls of earth, that will go far to keep you human and to make you great.1 This last quotation is included at this point not because it speaks directly to the issue of the relation— ship of the audience and the style of language used in a sermon, but because of the inference that is presented which says, in effect, that the minister should remember that he is not speaking to so-called "ivory tower theolo— gians," but to people who are seeking some concrete ideals which will aid in guiding them throughout the other six days of the week. It is interesting to note that not one of the re- maining homiletical theorists makes mention of the relation- ship between the audience and style. The Use of Imagination Arndt Halvorson of Luther Seminary has said, "All things being equal, the one thing that distinguishes the good preacher from the average is the art in his use of 2 He, therefore, stresses in his classroom imagination." the value of a student's using his God-given ability to think about the subJect of his sermon, to wrestle with the text or topic until he is able to create through lScherer, op. cit., p. 183. 2Halvorson, interview. 99 imagination a definite insight into the position of Holy Scripture on the problem at hand. "In this manner," he says, "the congregation has a much better opportunity to realize that what the Bible says has meaning for them today. This cannot help but to increase the chances for some sort of response."1 Halvorson points to the advice offered in the text- book for his course in beginning homiletics, Donald Miller's The Way to Biblical Preaching: "It would be well for any preacher to stimulate the imagination and to increase it by exercise."2 Wartburg's Poovey refers his students to the admonitions of one of his predecessors, Dr. M. Reu who, through his textbook on preaching, has cited the rewards which come to a pastor who is not afriad to incorporate imagination into his preaching: An orator may select his words with the utmost care, and observe scrupulously all the laws of variety, euphony and rhythm; nevertheless, his oration will be beautiful only if at the same time imagination plays in it the role which belongs to it. Imagination reJoices in tropes and figures. lHalvorson, interview. (Although the use of imagi- nation may sometimes be classified under the heading of "Invention," in this study the use of imaginative material centers around the choice of words and word composition for the purpose of making more relevant to a particular audience the message of the text or the main issue of the sermon. In the interviews with the seminary professors, the subJect of imagination pertained to the matter of language.) 2Miller, op. cit., p. 146. ad. 100 She trails the ornamental epithet round the bare substantive as the gardener trails the ivy round the pillar. . . . She loves to speed home her thought by climax and antithesis. She cultivates the figures of simile and metaphor in order to shed new light upon old truths, comparing spiritual with natural and natural with spiritual things.l Reu went on to write that the Bible, itself, should bear witness to the fact that the wise preacher should use imagination: The Scriptures with their wealth of imagery and similes parables and allegories, with their description, often verging on the crass, of the messianic age or the glories of everlasting life and the terrors of everlasting death, furnish the very strongest proof that the preacher in his por- trayal of supersensual realities has a perfect right to go to the world of the senses for figures that will illustrate and drive home his meaning.2 Poovey also reminds his classes of the dangers sur- rounding the use of imagination, especially for the in- experienced as emphasized in Reu's textbook: We admit, indeed, that the inexperienced and especially the vain might misconceive our meaning and imagine themselves called to cultivate the artificial, the affected and the superlative, to riot in a welter of figures and fancies, and to let their imagination carry them to the clouds, far from the common haunts and the common speech of men.3 Stanley Schneider encourages the use of imagination which is capable of blending the revealed truth of God and the experiences of men: 2 lReu, op. cit., p. 193. Ibid., p. 196. 3Ibid. 101 The creative use of the imagination has been described as the combination of that which is known in a new way to express truth. It is the skillful blending of the grace of God, the experiences of men, and the sanctified common sense of the preacher. Some areas in which imagination can function are these: to perceive motives, to visualize situ- ations, to trace results of actions, to draw con- clusions from thoughts, and to find illustrations. Within limits one can use the imagination to perceive motives. When we are not told the reason for an action, we cannot supply one and say that this is the sole reason. For example, why did Judas betray Jesus? All sorts of reasons have been imagined, but in the end God only knows why he did. In trying to trace these reasons for actions, these motives, some of the motivations of those who hear is also touched and those who hear are able to identify themselves with the truth of the text. The imagination can also be used to visualize situations. Describing the veil in the temple at Jerusalem, James S. Stewart writes, "For the veil had been hanging there for years. It looked as if it might hang there forever. Gorgeously embroidered in blue and purple and scarlet, the massive curtain guarded its secret well" (James S. Stewart, A Faith to Proclaim (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1953), p. 80). This imaginable bit of writing enables one to "see" the veil in the temple. Imagi- native speaking stimulates the imaginations of others, so that they are better able to follow. Imagination can also be used to reach results. How do you suppose Zaccheaus felt about that tree in which Jesus found him? We really don't know. But it isn't hard to imagine that he may have considered it as a sort of personal shrine because of what happened to him there. Imagination can also be used to draw conclusions. Obviously this is limited by the whole context of the Christian faith, and should be used only when the text itself does not draw a conclusion. Illustrations are also found by the use of the imagination. What do you see when you look out the window? If you see only what is there, then your imagination needs to be revived. Jesus saw more than the birds of the air and the flowers of the field.1 lSchneider, op. cit., pp. 99—100. 102 Schneider feels, too, that "the use of imaginative language in which illustrative material is blended in with the point is much more effective."1 Briefly stated, the three seminary professors have much to say regarding the effective use of imagination. But, a surprising fact is that only two of the six homi- letical theorists refer at all to the use of the creative imagination of the preacher. Paul Scherer is one who hints at a plea for imagination when he advises, "Say what you have to say pictorially."2 Ilion Jones says a bit more, but is almost apologetic in his terms; he writes about the so—called "first person" sermons in which the preacher portrays a biblical character and gives the sermon as though the subJect, himself, were addressing the audience. "This kind of preaching," writes Jones, "must be done by preachers with considerable dramatic ability, imagination, and skill in the techniques of story- telling, if it is to avoid being insipid and trite."3 In almost the same manner he addresses himself to the use of imagination through alliteration: Avoid odd, smart, merely clever wordings. Endeavor to make them memorable. Alliteration is helpful to these ends but should be used sparingly because it tends to become artificial. Forcing lIbid., p. 100. 2Scherer, op. cit., p. 191. 3Jones, op. cit., pp. 114—115. 103 alliteration, like straining for puns, becomes unnatural and is often offensive to those who are obligated to hear it too often.1 The Art of "Being Yourself" One of the occupational hazards of the ministry is the presence of an artificial or high sounding language while he is in the pulpit. While some pastors may feel that this adds "dignity" to the worship service, the seminaries of the American Lutheran Church strongly ad— vise that those who adopt such a habit are out of step with the practice of the Church today. Instead of setting himself apart by the use of artificial or high sounding language, the pastor is urged to be natural in his weekly presentations. Dr. Schneider says: A conversational mode is most desirable. The man in the pulpit should be the same man WhO'SitS across from me at the table. He is not the orator, he is my pastor. This is the type of mode that encourages "dialogue" and encourages the people to think along with him in lieu of taking orders from him.2 Poovey feels that too often, preachers "sound like preachers" through the words which they use. "They do this," he says, "by using theological Jargon which may be accepta— ble in a classroom, but has no meaning whatsoever to the man in the pew."3 He feels that it would be much better 1Ibid., p. 99. 2Schneider, interview. 3 Poovey, interview. lOu for the preacher, for the congregation, and for the ad- vancement of the Gospel if good, acceptable English is used with the maJor goal being understanding.l Poovey warns about the danger confronting a pastor who steps out of his own personality in order to "speak the language of the people": Sometimes, I suspect that preachers try to "talk down" to their congregations by using slang or types of grammar with which they are accustomed. Yet, congregations are not fooled by this. They realize the pastor has been to college and to seminary, and that this is not his normal way of speaking. Therefore, they are not impressed. Arndt L. Halvorson is concerned about his ability to develop the natural potential of the student: "Every man is different. We attempt to work with the student in order that he might best develop his ownstyle."3 How does Halvorson put his theory into practice? "The maxi- mum number in the class is ten," he says. "In this way, we can help develop the individual styles of the students so that they can be creative and, at the same time, be natural."Ll To develop a personality is to develop a gift of God; this is the feeling of Halvorson: "It is a violation of personality to insist on preaching according to one pattern. One of the gifts from God is one's personality; 'therefore this gift must be used to its fullest potential."5 ‘ lIbid. 2Ibid. 3Halvorson, interview. “Ibid. 5Ibid. 105 The admonitions of the seminary professors regarding the belief that the man in the pulpit should be as natural in his style as he is on every other day of the week is practically a carbon copy of the advice given by Black- wood, Scherer, and Jones. Blackwood writes boldly: "'Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee.’ In terms of our day this may mean: 'Young minister at Cream Ridge, dare to be yourself! Preach the gospel in your own fashion 1 __,.-_.._.. -._.... ..... . ‘7 and not that of some giantl'" "Every man ought to speak from the pulpit in a fashion all his own," Blackwood continues, "and that ought to differ from sermon to sermon. How else could anyone voice the manifold truths of God through his personality?"2 Paul Scherer is concerned about the pastor who is not content to be himself through his preaching: We begin not with any ideal of ministerial behavior, that form of godliness which may all too often be without its power, but with a minister's first obligation; namely, before anything else, to be himself—-himself at his best in Christ--but still himself. If preaching is the mediation of divine truth through personality--and perhaps with all definitions lame we may accept this as being not more lame than the rest--then the one thing you have to contribute toward the transaction is your- self. The human heart is now new, the need is not new, the truth is not new, the method is not new. You are new. You are a bit of God's unrepeated handiwork; and what he means to accomplish by you, lBlackwood, op. cit., p. 25. 2Ibid., p. 206. 106 he must accomplish through you. It would be too bad, then, if you should be found a counterfeit presentment of someone else, an imitation in matter or manner of the great or the near-great.l This same thought is further developed in the same textbook: To be only yourself six days in the week and on the seventh be no other, whether in reading the service or in breaching the sermon, may not be very thrilling; but it is the only hOpe there is for you. Never belittle that self or despite it; never disown it or betray it. You have nothing else but you. Give it reverence and give it freedom. To cut through all artificialities of bearing, to put off all the pompous habits of a false dignity, to hang somewhere on a hook all the seeming which is so far other than being, and to let that essential you, redeemed and enabled in the love and fellowship of Jesus Christ, do its proper work in the world-—that is to turn loose something God has never tried before; and He will pever try it again: make what you please of that! Ilion Jones comments upon the subJect when he reports on the value of adopting the natural self to the Gospel: Preaching will be most impressive when the congregation knows the preacher has experienced what he talks about. The French have a saying, "It must come out of one's self." That is true of a sermon. In his letters Paul spoke many times of "the" gospel. But occasionally he used the expression "my" gospel. By this he usually meant not what he had heard from others but what he had received from Christ directly and experienced for himself. . . . One cannot preach "the" gospel effectively until, by right of his own experience, he can call it "my" gospel. Along with their comments on these four general items of style, the seminary professors and the homiletical lScherer, op. cit., pp. 37-38. 2Ibid., pp. 38-39. 3Jones, 0p. cit., p. 60. 107 theorists used for comparison speak about some specific considerations regarding style especially as they concern special "problems" which confront the preacher. The specific "problem areas" involve: the sermon title, the introduction and conclusion, the biblical translations used, the use of illustrations, and the incorporation of humor in the pulpit. In each instance, criteria are either expressed or implied. The Title of the Sermon The title of the sermon has received much attention in the preaching of the Protestant Church. Often, ministers will go out of their way to create interesting or "catchy" themes for their sermons with the hope that an imaginative phrase will compel the apathetic member of his flock to attend worship services as a result of a clever sermon title announced in the local paper or on the church bulle- tin board outside. Yet, clever sermon titles have one grave danger--they often do not truly reflect the message of the text or arrive at the core of the topic for the day. How, then, do we have a blending of the two? What are the marks of good style when we consider the sermon title? The three seminary professors take the time to discuss with their students the importance of style as it relates to the sermon title. 108 Dr. Schneider of Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary maintains his position in favor of textual preaching by suggesting that the style of the title should be similar to the style of the text: title: A text supplies the theme of a sermon. The text always supplies the content of the theme and many times will supply the form in which that con- tent is developed. In the development of the ser- mon, the theme is important. . . . On special occasions, it may be that the preacher will have a theme suggested by the occasion and will then try to find an appropriate text. More generally, particularly for Sunday morning preaching, the text will be read and studied, and then it will supply the theme for development.1 Schneider comments further on the style of the "The title should always be in the form of a sentence or at least an implied sentence; never should it 2 be a mere word or phrase." In his book, As One Who Speaks for God, Schneider describes what he feels to be marks of a good theme [title] in terms of style: 3 l. A good theme is a sentence, expressly stated or obviously implied. . A good theme expresses the unity of the text. A good theme should be exclusive. A good theme should proJect the particular revelation of the text. A good theme is capable of division. A good theme should be brief, concise, and capable of being rememberednl O\U'l J=UU N O O title lSchneider, op. cit., p. 55. 2Schneider, interview. 3Note, in his textbook, Schneider refers to a sermon as a "theme." “Schneider, op. cit., pp. 66-68. 109 In an interview, he called particular attention to point three of the preceding quotation: "Every title," he said, "should be so unique to the particular text of the sermon that by the theme alone the listener could identify the text to which it refers."1 Arndt Halvorson comments on Schneider's teaching about the uniqueness of the title when he said, "This is an ideal situation which is not realistic."2 Does Halvorson, then, agree with Schneider that every title should be in the form of a sentence? "I be— lieve," he states, "that every title should have a verb. It should, then, imply action."3 Halvorson concentrates his teaching upon the value of incorporating a sharply defined title or theme. He points to a section in the textbook by Donald Miller, The Way to Biblical Preaching: "Any sermon worthy of the name should have a theme. Ideally, any single sermon should have Just one maJor idea."u As does Halvorson, the Rev. Mr. Poovey of Wartburg also comments on Schneider's urging of a full sentence title when he said, "I don't care if the title is a phrase or sentence, I am more concerned as to whether or not it offers a proposition of some kind."5 Schneider, interview. Halvorson, interview. 3Ibid. Miller. op. cit., p. 53. U‘l-E'NH Poovey, interview. 110 In terms of the specific uniqueness of the title in relationship to the text as advocated by Stanley Schneider, Poovey sides with Luther's Halvorson and disagrees with Schneider. "To say that the title must be unique to the text is fiction," he declares. "Each text has a special 'flavor,' but not necessarily a unique title."l Briefly stated, Schneider is interested in a full sentence title that is unique to the text, Halvorson is concerned more with the text showing clarity and action, while Poovey looks to the title to offer a proposition of some kind. How do these views compare with the teachings of the homiletical texts used for comparison? Three of the six theorists write particularly about the style involved in the sermon title. Ilion Jones is aware of the frustrations which can mount when trying to be creative in the wording of the title while, at the same time, holding to the truth of the text or theme. He writes: "Strive diligently on the one hand to avoid commonplace subJects and on the other to create striking subJects that will attract the atten- tion of busy modern folk. But beware of cheap sensation- alism."2 lIbid. 2Jones, op. cit., p. 86. 111 If the preacher decides to use a text, Jones urges, "Make the truth of the text the theme of the sermon.":L Whereas Schneider feels a necessity of using a title unique to the text, Jones does not go this far. However, he does state that "the relationship of the two [text and title] should be unmistakable."2 H. Grady Davis, while not elaborating on the method, does remind his readers about the importance of phrasing the sermon title: "The true subJect, how one defines for himself the exact thing he is to talk about, is the primary factor in sermonic design."3 Andrew Blackwood advises that while a sermon title should be interesting, it should not be sensational: A sensational topic calls attention to itself and the preacher, not to Christ and His gospel. . . . No man can bear witness to Christ and himself at the same time. - A young fellow who afterwards resigned the ministry held forth about "The Sex Life of Samson." An older man spoke about "A Night with the Witch of Endor." A third "preached" about John the Baptist as "The Man Who Lost His Head at a Dance." A fourth perpetrated a pun about his home town: "Putting the Ill in Clarksville," and again drew a laugh about "The Middle-Age Spread." And yet we wondfir why thoughtful laymen quit coming to church! Blackwood does not take the same position as does Schneider in the insistence that the sermon title should l 2 Ibid., p. 77. Ibid., p. 155. 3Davis, op. cit., p. 76. “Blackwood, op. cit., p. 93. 112 be always in sentence form. In fact, he cites a reason for his stand: "Give the preference to g phrase rather than a sentence or a single word. A phrase suggests far more than it says, whereas a sentence may tell the whole story."1 Blackwood advises his reader to take advantage of the way the memory works and phrase a title in a manner that will aid in his remembering it: "If the layman is to remember your next sermon, he will associate it with a subJect. Why not give it a name that he will recall with ease?"2 The Sermon's Introduction and Conclusion Not much is reported by the seminary professors or the homiletical theorists regarding the style involved in the introduction and conclusion. Stanley Schneider, for example, merely states that the language of both the introduction and conclusion should be "natural." It therefore, should consist not of a style foreign to the rest of the sermon.3 Poovey says of the introduction and conclusion: "The sentence structure should be simple and uninvolved. l 2 Ibid., p. 96. Ibid., p. 91. 3 Schneider, interview. 113 Complicated sentences and closely reasoned material are not apt to stimulate the interest of the listener."1 Halvorson makes no statements regarding the style of the introduction and conclusion. His reason for not doing so is simply, "It never occurred to me that this was a genuine problem."2 It may be concluded that this issue is also not of much concern to the six homiletical theorists. Only two comment on the style of the introduction and conclusion, and what they say deals more with a summary than with specifics. From His Word Through Preaching, Gerald Kennedy says, "The sermon which begins in generalities is under such a handicap that it hardly ever overcomes it. The introduction should be precise and picturesque."3 Concerning the style of the introduction, Paul Scherer writes: "You may begin . . . in any one of a number of ways; remembering only that if you are too brilliant, you will not live up to it, and if you are too heavy, you will never live it down or preach up to it."u The same author comments briefly on the conclusion: "One should stOp, yet do more than stop: one should finish, with a little finish."5 lPoovey, interview. 2Halvorson, interview. 3Kennedy, op. cit., p. 59. “Scherer, op. cit., p. 170. 5Ibid., p. 175. 114 To summarize the positions of the professors and of the homiletical theorists who write on the subJect, the style of the introduction and conclusion should be re- freshing, yet not get in the way of the overall effect of the rest of the sermon. The Biblical Translations Used What biblical translation should the pastor use while preaching? On this point, all three professors make known their ideas, yet not one of the six homiletical theorists says one word on the subJect. The possible reasons for this fact will be discussed later. Stanley Schneider says, "As a rule, use the Revised Standard Version. If you use any other, you ought to identify it and ought to have a good reason for using it."1 Poovey's comment on this subJect is nearly a carbon copy of Schneider's feelings: "Use any translation which properly reflects the truth of the text. If, however, the preacher uses any translation other than the Revised Standard Version, he should so indicate to his congregation."2 Arndt Halvorson, on the other hand, while not in- clined to use only the Revised Standard Version, insists on informing the people about any change from the weekly routine: lSchneider, interview. 2Poovey, interview. 115 Use the translation that best catches the flavor of the text for you. There are some Old Testament Psalms that are best read in the King James Version. At other times the Revised Standard Version or one of the more modern translations is best. At any rate, I urge my students to adapt one standard translation. If he chooses on a given Sunday to use another, he should so indicate to his people. As mentioned before, none of the six homiletical theorists mentions a preference for one biblical trans- lation over another. Two reasons may account for this situation: (1) the authors of the homiletical texts are writing for general audiences, some of which prefer the Revised Standard Version of Holy Scripture while others are loyal to the King James Version or one of the more modern translations. (2) The problem surrounding the use of different biblical translations did not occur until the Revised Standard Version arrived on the scene. Before the printing of this translation in 1952, only the King James Version of 1611 was regarded as a standard text. Since only two of the authors (Davis and Jones) wrote their textbooks after 1952, the other four would have no reason to endorse one translation over another. The Use of Illustrations2 Opinions differ sharply about illustrations in terms of the number used, their effect, and the amount of lHalvorson, interview. 2A3 in the case of the use of imagination, the subJect of illustrations may sometimes be classified under the heading of "Invention." In this study, the use of illustrative material centers in the choice of words and 116 imagination which can be Justified in creating the situ— ations about which the pastor speaks. Therefore, it is not surprising to note that the three seminary professors employ different emphases regarding the use and purpose of sermon illustrative material. Stanley D. Schneider writes about the relation be— tween the illustration and the point which is being pro- moted: In the use of illustrations, it is well to remember that they do not prove anything. They do exactly what the word illustrate says, they shed light on a point. The most elementary way of using an illustration is to state a point, then illustrate with a story or an incident. If the illustration is too long, it may be remembered but the point for- gotten. If the point is forgotten, the illustration is not good.1 The Rev. Mr. Poovey of Wartburg Seminary is concerned with the relevance of illustrations adopted by the preacher. The choice of illustrations may be determined by the type of audience to which a minister addresses his remarks. "As an example," says Poovey, "a man in a city congregation may be wise to use different illustrations than one who preaches to a rural audience."2 Poovey goes on to Justify this teaching: "Our Lord, himself, used illustrative material that was familiar to those who heard him teach."3 word composition for the purpose of making more relevant the message of the problem or text of the sermon. In the interviews with the seminary professors, the subJect of illustrations pertained to the matter of language. lSchneider, 0p. cit., p. 100. 3 2Poovey, interview. Ibid. 117 The subJect of illustrations is treated abruptly by Dr. Halvorson of Luther. "Illustrations," he says, "should be brief, to the point, and the result of keen imagination."l Schneider, therefore, is concerned with the relationship of the illustration and the point to be made clear, Poovey with the relevance of the illustration to the audience, and Halvorson with the preciseness of the material. How do the teachings of the three seminaries compare with the homiletical textbooks used for comparison? Andrew Blackwood is one of three of the six homi- letical theorists who make mention of illustrative material. He is concerned with the variety of opinions surrounding the number of illustrations which should be used in a sermon or in a year's pulpit work: An elderly pastor may insist, "Have none at all, or few at most. Why waste time?" A younger minister replies, "Preachers to common people, from the days of our Lord until now, have relied largely on illustrations." Which side ought to win the argument? Neither! The older man probably employs too few, and the younger one too many. Laymen feel that the elderly minister's abode needs more open windows; the younger one's, more solid walls.2 Of the six homiletical theorists, the one most con- cerned with the art of illustrations is Dr. Paul Scherer, lHalvorson, interview. 2Blackwood, op. cit., p. 152. 118 who urges his readers to be sure to use examples that are genuinely their own: Certainly the most effective of all illustrations are the scenes, the incidents, the stories from Scrip- ture, from fiction, from life, that come most readily to a well-furnished mind, so readily that they seem themselves to be integral parts in the movement of the whole. They are not often to be had from books of so- called illustrative matter, though no doubt at the beginning we all use such first-aid kits; but in the end, nothing that is set down there is really yours. That is the trouble with it: it is alien, it has not your spirit, it does not speak your language. Let me urge you to gather your own, if you must be a gleaner of them; index them as you go, if you have a bent for such methodical practice; better still, review them, appropriate them, get them somehow into your very system, so that they come running with a kind of inevitableness when your need of them is hardly conscious. That way and no other, by open-eyed awareness and the fixed habit of assimilation, on a day not too far distant, the dividends will begin trickling in. For a while it may be nothing more than a trickle; but things will improve. It is in this realm too, that the rewards of diligence are most sure.i Further on in the same book, the author outlines the danger of using personal experiences as illustrations: I heard a forty—minute sermon some time ago that was not much of anything else. The preacher began with a few incidents which had marked the past week; and every time he made a point, he reached back in his knapsack for another incident. If nothing had happened to him that week we should not have had a sermon, and that might not have been so bad. ‘ "The illustration," Scherer goes on to say, "must not only illustrate the truth; it must itself be that truth."3 lScherer, op. cit., pp. 185-186. 2Ibid., p. 182. 31bid., p. 185. Pl 119 Illustrations should be "natural" according to the author: Illustrations should illustrate, throw light and luster where it is needed; not like the in- candescent suns that cart up in front of a movie set: you do not run off-stage and drag them in after any such fashion as that. They should be as natural to the content, as much in place, as unstudied and unobstrusive, as the glint of the moon on water. Dr. Scherer reminds his students, "The first duty "2 This seems to be of an illustration is to illustrate. an obvious fact, but he further explains why he makes such a statement: "It [the illustration] should never itself take the place of thought and standing forth alone presume to offer the sermon its shoulders for a picka- back ride."3 The third of the homiletical theorists to comment on illustrative material is Ilion Jones. "Illustrations which the preacher invents for himself," he writes, "are the most effective because they are part and parcel of his own thinking.“4 Jones' statement, of course, is much like one of the previous statements of Paul Scherer. What, then, can we say regarding the teachings of the art of illustrations? With different variations in emphasis, all of the men involved in this study (the 1Ibid., p. 183. 2Scherer, op. cit., p. 183. 3Ibid. ”Jones, op. cit., p. 140. 120 seminary professors and the homiletical theorists) teach that the illustration used in a sermon is a means to an end, not an end in itself. They agree that the illus- trative material should be natural to the subJect, the preacher, and the audience. Further, they believe that illustrations should be the product of genuine experi— ences or original ideas of the pastor. The Use of Humor in the Pulpit Because the Lutheran Church has its Sunday worship grounded in the formal liturgy, the question of how much humor should be included in the sermon may well be asked. Perhaps a better question would be, "Should humor be used at all?". Many old German or Norwegian congregations would be offended if anything resembling a Joke were told from the pulpit. Never would they compromise by blending the Word of God with levity. Yet, times are changing. For example, people are accustomed to hearing the President of the United States mixing humor with statements on world- shaking issues. Arndt Halvorson realizes that because his seminary is the product of a Norwegian tradition, the place of humor in the pulpit must be considered in terms of that tradition. Whereas humor in the pulpit formerly was non- existent, "now, it is slowly being accepted if the in- clusion of the humor has some purpose in making the 121 biblical truth relevant to the audience," he says.1 He goes on to warn, "Humor should never be used for its own sake."2 Is it proper to use humor when preaching? When asked this question, Stanley Schneider casually re- sponded, "Some men can tell a Joke, and some can't; it's as simple as that. There are some who should never tell a Joke."3 Poovey, however, treats the subJect of humor in the pulpit with much more depth: The use of humor in the pulpit depends upon three things: (1) The individual--some can relate humorous events in a natural way which offends no one and yet aids in developing the message. (2) The congregation--there are congregations which are offended by this. You'll find that some of our older congregations will be quite upset if the preacher says something that is amusing in the pulpit. (3) The purpose of the humor-—if humor helps to make the point of the sermon, then it serves its purpose. If, however, it is employed only to tell the congregation that the pastor is a "Good Joe" and knows a good Joke when he hears one, then this calls attention to the preacher and noE to the message. This, no minister should do. According to the three professors of the American Lutheran Church seminaries, the use of humor is finding its way into the pulpits of the Church, and they emphasize lHalvorson, interview. 2 3 Ibid. Schneider, interview. “Poovey, interview. 122 that common sense should tell us that its inclusion should be geared at amplifying the biblical truth and not aimed at exaulting the personality of the preacher. While the subJect of humor in the pulpit is treated in some degree or another by the seminary professors, only Ilion Jones of the six homiletical theorists makes mention of the subJect. He speaks about the inclusion of humor from both the positive and negative aspects. On the "plus" side, he writes, "If humor comes naturally, it can be used with good effect. Often a whimsical turn to a subJect, a touch of humor, can drive home a truth better than a serious statement."1 On the "minus" side, he warns about a caustic approach to humor: "The desire to tell a funny story that contains the slightest tinge of vindictiveness should al- ways be inhibited. Even if a person is endowed with native wit, he should use his ability with restraint."2 Also, Jones cautions his reader to avoid the temptation to use humor for humor's sake (as also cited by Poovey and Halvorson): "If humor has little or no relevance to what is being said; if, so to speak, it is dragged in by the feet merely to provoke laughter—-it is an inter— ruption, a diversion, and an impertinence.n3 lJones, op. cit., p. 1A1. 2Ibid., p. 1M1. 31bid., p. 1A1. 123 Summary The constituent of homiletics known as "style" has received substantial attention by the homiletic pro— fessors of the American Lutheran Church. On the other hand, the six homiletical theorists used for comparison in this study are often conspicuous through their lack of comments surrounding various items within the frame- work of style. The reasons for this fact may be many, such as: l. The possibility that the authors did not feel that every issue was of equal importance. 2. Some of the issues (e.g., biblical translations) were not considerations at the time of the writing of the six homiletical texts. 3. The American Lutheran Church professors were all given opportunities to comment on each issue as a result of direct questions by the writer during the interviews. However, what cannot be overlooked is this fact: often when one of the six homiletical theorists comments upon an issue under the heading of style, his admonition is centered on the negative aspects or the dangers of the wrong use of style. The seminary professors, in their search for ways to develop the individual styles of their students, concentrate on the positive aspects of style 12A development. Perhaps the authors of the six homiletical texts realized that it is impossible for them to offer personalized instruction ygg_the printed page; therefore, to render a genuine service to the reader, they can point to the hurdles which are set before the young minister. A substantial value, then, can be realized as a result of the blending of the theories promoted through the homiletical texts and the personal guidance of the semi- nary professors on this important matter called "style." I. II. III. IV. VI. OUTLINE FOR CHAPTER V HOMILETICAL THEORIES REGARDING "MEMORY" Purposes of the Chapter Definition of "Memory" Word Memory A. According to the Seminary Professors B. According to the Homiletical Theorists C. Summary Thought Memory A. According to the Seminary Professors B. According to the Homiletical Theorists C. Summary Aids to Word or Thought Memory A. According to the Seminary Professors B. According to the Homiletical Theorists C. Summary . Summary of the Chapter 125 F’ CHAPTER V HOMILETICAL THEORIES REGARDING "MEMORY" The Purpose The purposes of this chapter are: (l) to describe the homiletical theories regarding the constituent of homiletics known as "Memory" as taught by the three semi- naries of the American Lutheran Church, (2) to describe . the theories about "Memory" as presented through the writings of the six textbooks authored by the most in- fluential homiletical theorists of today as revealed through the study conducted by Daniel E. Weiss,1 and (3) to compare the sets of theories as to the similarities and differences in teaching or emphasis. Definition That constituent of homiletics concerned with the storing up in the mind of principles, bodies of factual material, lines of thought, and phrases which will be ready for use in a sermon will be known in this study as "Memory." This constituent embodies word memory and lDaniel Edwin Weiss, "Conceptions of 'Arrangement' in American Protestant Homiletical Theory" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Speech, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1964). 126 127 thought memory. The suggested use of a manuscript, out— line, or lack of both is of special interest in this study. Word Memory Should the pastor memorize his sermons word for word? Are there advantages in memorized sermons? What are the pitfalls that accompany the same? The seminary professors and the homiletical theorists used for compari- son have some definite thoughts about this issue.1 Arndt Halvorson of Luther said, "I never want a man to memorize a sermon. This is unnatural, and the people to whom he preaches will know it."2 Schneider of Evangelical Lutheran Theological Semi- nary realizes that some theorists advocate the memori- zation of a sermon. "If a man can memorize, let him do so," he advises. "But, more important than memory is the ability of the man to find the method that works best for him. "3 Since Schneider advocates the use of a text in preaching, what does he say regarding the memorization 1Throughout this study, certain elements of homi- letical theory are not treated by all of the six theorists used for comparison. The writer, therefore, mentions only those theorists who comment on the particular element under discussion. 2Halvorson, interview. 3 Schneider, interview. 128 of a text? "This depends on the ability of the preacher to memorize," he writes. "At least he [the preacher] should be familiar with the essential content of the text if not of its exact form."1 The Rev. Mr. Poovey of Wartburg does not advocate the word—for-word memorization of sermons, but prefers, instead, the memorization of the outline; this concept will be handled later in this chapter. Regarding the constituent of "Memory," it is Halvorson who is definite in his statement against memorized sermons. Schneider avoids making a rigid pro- nouncement but remains rather flexible in his approach. Poovey endorses the memorization of outlines. How do these views of the seminary professors com- pare to those promoted by the homiletical theorists used for comparison in this study? Only Luccock, Jones, and Blackwood offer comments, and all three express definite opinions against memorized sermons. As an example, Luccock says that if the preach— er's attention is centered "in the hippodrome of his mind, around which he is chasing a fleeting idea or form of words, instead of out in front of him in the audience-— his voice and eyes will show it."2 In the same textbook, lSchneider, op. cit., p. 60. 2Luccock, op. cit., p. 198. ‘ml" 129 the author anticipates that a tragic fate will greet the preacher when the audience knows that he has memorized his talk and begins to lose interest.1 falls Ilion Jones feels that the preacher who memorizes victim to the danger of being chained to mechanics: Under such circumstances the preacher is not free. His chief concern cannot be to get his message over but to recall the next word or sen- tence. This keeps his gestures from being natural—- makes them stiff, mechanical, and artificial. Practically the only faculty of the mind in oper- ation is memory. In the same vein, Jones adds a commentary on his previous statement by recalling the chief purpose of the man in the pulpit: In the pulpit a man is engaged in speaking the truth of God to the hearts and consciences of men. He is out for a verdict on important issues. He is pleading, entreating, beseeching men in be- half of Christ to be reconciled to God. He cannot achieve his persuasive purpose adequately if he gives the people the slightest impression he is demonstrating his artistic abilities instead of pouring out his soul.3 When commenting on memorizing the Sunday morning message, Andrew Blackwood confesses, "Few ministers . . . A can rely on such powers." The homiletical theorists are of one voice which says that sermons memorized word-for-word are inclined 1Ibid. 2Jones, op. cit., p. 197. 3Ibid., p. 198. ”Blackwood, 0p. cit., p. 196. 130 to call attention to the skills of the pastor more than to the message which he seeks to bring to his audience. Perhaps the advice given by Ilion Jones crystallizes the feelings of the theorists: "Once you get on your feet, center your attention upon what to say instead of upon the way you wish to say it."1 Thought Memory While the other seminary professors and the homi- letical theorists used for comparison argue against memorized sermons, W. A. Poovey of Wartburg promotes a positive approach to memory; he feels that the obJect of memory is not to retain each word of the message, but, instead, to know fully the outline. In other words, Poovey encourages the preacher to memorize his order of main thoughts. "While I do not look for word-by—word memory," he declares, "I do demand that the man in the pulpit be able to know his ultimate purpose in preaching his sermon. It would, therefore, be to his advantage to memorize the sermon outline."2 Poovey's philosophy receives support from H. Grady Davis, who writes: If a sermon is to be preached without notes, or with notes but without manuscript, then no other preparation whatever can be so valuable to lJones, op. cit., p. 221. 2Poovey, interview. 131 the preacher and to his hearers as the idea clearly thought out and brought to scrupulous expression. Even if the preacher has nothing at all but a subJect clearly defined, an inclusive predicate and supporting points lucidly and unambiguously expressed, he is better prepared than if he had any kind of quality of notes without a clear grasp of the central idea.1 Aids to Word or Thought Memory What tools does the preacher have at his disposal to assist in the memorization of words or thoughts in the sermon? One aid can be found in manuscripts; another is the use of sermon rehearsals. One aid to memory is the use of manuscripts. If a man is not gifted with powers to memorize, or if he is in agreement with those who say that memorized sermons are less than desirable, he may take a manuscript into the pulpit. By a manuscript, the writer refers to the com- pleted form of the message written out word-for-word. The manuscript can become a valuable aid not only in helping the preacher in saying what he wants to say but also in helping him to express his thoughts in the way he wants to say them. With the use of a manuscript, the preacher is apt to avoid the consequences which accompany the moment his mind draws a blank or when, for some rea— son or another, he loses his train of thought. At moments such as these, the printed text is a "blessing." lDavis, op. cit., p. 38. 132 Stanley Schneider is aware of some of the problems surrounding the use of manuscripts, but is also confident that these problems can be overcome: At the outset there may be some questions about whether or not a sermon should be written out in advance of its delivery. Poorly read ser- mons and too much reliance on a manuscript have caused some to think that a fully written sermon gives the impression of insincerity on the part of the preacher. Furthermore, there is a difference in writing something which is to be read by others and something which is to be heard by others. These are different kinds of writing. But a man can be sincere in his writing and in his delivery. He can master the contents of his manuscript so that he is not a slave to it. He can learn to write for hearers rather than readers. And he will be better off for it.1 How, then, should a man use the manuscript when he is in the pulpit? Schneider gives his opinion in this manner: The particular way in which he [the preacher] uses a manuscript will depend on his own talents and abilities. But regardless of these, he will be better off for having put his thoughts into words, for having struggled with his expression so that the impression he makes matches as exactly as possible the expression that he thinks he is making.2 While Schneider encourages the minister, especially the beginning minister, to take a manuscript with him into the pulpit, W. A. Poovey advocates an entirely opposite viewpoint: lSchneider, op. cit., p. 93. 21bid. 133 While I permit my students to take notes or whatever else may be of assistance into the pulpit, I forbid them to take a manuscript. While it is possible for a few preachers to work so hard on their manuscript that they almost have it memorized and use their manuscript merely as a set of notes, the modern parish demands are so great on him that the person who takes a manuscript with him is simply going to read it.1 Halvorson of Luther aims for another goal: "I urge the man to take into the pulpit whatever he needs with the eventual goal of not taking anything into the pulpit but the Bible."2 To summarize the three positions, then, Schneider urges the use of a manuscript in the pulpit; Poovey wants anything but a manuscript; and Halvorson prefers nothing outside of the Bible. Which of these three can claim support for their teachings from the homiletical texts used for comparison? Andrew Blackwood, at first glance, seems to support the philosophy held by Schneider when he advises, "The wise young minister forms the habit of writing a sermon every week."3 Also, the same author tells the young minister, "Write out the sermon as a whole, at one sitting."u However, Blackwood goes on to say that while it is wise lPoovey, interview. 2Halvorson, interview. 3Blackwood, op. cit., p. 174. “Ibid., p. 93. 13“ for the minister to write out his message in full, it is not advisable for him to take the manuscript with him into the pulpit. "Except in the hands of a minister with rare pulpit gifts," writes Blackwood, "the use of "l a manuscript constitutes a handicap. Why does Black— wood give such advice? His rationale is spelled out in this manner: "The ordinary reader of sermons from the pulpit . . . seems to lose himself in the manuscript and forgets the hearers."2 Blackwood warns the preacher about the danger of falling into a trap which leads to a feeling of security merely because each word of a sermon is written on paper: "No amount of writing can atone for lack of a message or muddiness of thought."3 Davis, too, centers his thoughts on the same danger and expounds on the results of same: Attempting to write the sermon before the idea is worked out is perhaps the most dangerous way of all and the most deceptive. A man can extemporize on paper as easily as on his feet. A fully written manuscript is no guarantee of a prepared sermon. It may be as carelessly done as if he got up and spoke without any preparation at all. If writing is a substitute for thinking the idea through, it rather guarantees that the sermon will never be thoroughly prepared. Some young men, however, seem unable to develop a sermon, unable to find out what they have to say without writing at some length about l 2 Ibid., p. 198. Ibid., p. 197- 3Ibid., p. 17A. 135 it. If a man has to write first, let him write. But let him keep looking for the idea while he writes, and let him understand that all his writin is tentative until the idea becomes clear. Regarding the subJect of manuscripts, then, Stanley Schneider is alone in his urging of the use of manuscripts in the pulpit. Poovey and Halvorson, who encourage the student to take only notes into the pulpit, find support for their approaches in the writings of Blackwood and Davis. The second aid to memory is often referred to as "sermon rehearsals." Before an actor performs on stage, he is expected to take part in some rehearsals so that his "lines" are known and he can better communicate to his audience. Since the pastor is, in a sense, "performing" on Sunday morning, is it advisable for him to engage in sermon rehearsals? The three homiletic professors of the American Lutheran Church differ somewhat in their opinions at this point. Schneider does not consider re- hearsals as a necessary ingredient to good sermons. "Sermon rehearsals," he said, "are artificial situations, and I do not advocate their use."2 W. A. Poovey, however, says Just the opposite: "Every student is urged to preach the sermon aloud to himself. In this manner he knows not only what he is going to say, but also how he is going to say it."3 lDavis, 0p. cit., pp. 38-39. 2Schneider, interview. 3 Poovey, interview. 136 Arndt Halvorson generally advocates sermon re- hearsals. However, he realizes that with rehearsals there is an ever present danger. As a result of re- hearsals, a minister may aim for performance in lieu of communication. He told this writer about one of his students in the seminary who was guilty of performing instead of communicating while preaching. With this student Halvorson attempted an experiment. Normally a student will deliver "practice sermons" to his professor and classmates in the seminary chapel. Halvorson ex— plained how he worked at correcting this particular fault in the student's preaching: Instead of the class meeting in the chapel, I had them come into a room in which we had the chairs in a circular pattern. I asked the student in question to merely explain his sermon. At first he was nervous, and he really could not get across to us his message. When I began to prick him, he became "alive" and full of passion. Then I said, "Now get up and preach it. That's what I mean by preaching." In summary, Schneider says, "No rehearsals"; Poovey likes the use of rehearsals; and Halvorson, while advocat- ing rehearsals, realizes the dangers surrounding them. Ilion Jones and Andrew Blackwood are the two homi- letical theorists used for comparison who comment on sermon rehearsals. Both men, like Poovey and Halvorson, are in favor of sermon rehearsals. Jones writes: "One lHalvorson, interview. 137 can wisely practice graceful movements during the week, as he speaks various sections of the sermon aloud, until he sees for himself why they are natural ways of ex- pressing the ideas that go with them."1 Blackwood, in his textbook, The Preparation of Sermons, encourages sermon rehearsals of some kind or another: "Even if a minister expects to speak without notes and without having memorized more than four or five sentences, he ought to prepare for the right sort of emphasis."2 Blackwood also says that after a pastor has a sermon in shape, has it all written out and re- vised, "he should go through it with care to be sure that he can pronounce every word correctly and to decide which parts he ought to emphasize most."3 Summary Within the constituent called "Memory," Schneider of Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary is in a different camp from that of his colleagues regarding "word" memory, "thought" memory, and the use of aids to memorization such as manuscripts and sermon rehearsals. The consensus of opinions among the homiletical theor- ists appears to Jell with those of Poovey and Halvorson. lJones, op. cit., p. 220. 2Blackwood, op. cit., p. 201. 3Ibid., p. 210. 138 The question may be asked as to why there is sur- prisingly little said by the homiletical theorists re— garding both the aspects of "word" memory and "thought" memory. Relying solely upon intuition and an educated guess, the writer feels that the purpose of the text- book authors is to present theories in the composition of sermons. The writings of the homiletical theorists are not aimed at the memory and delivery of a sermon. Perhaps the maJority of the theorists feel that comments on "Memory" would be given better through textbooks on basic speech. The seminary professors, on the other hand, are responsible for the total communication of the gospel from the pulpit. This includes the memory and delivery of a sermon. However, as will be seen in the chapter on evaluation, the stress on the memory and delivery of sermons is somewhat slighted at the three American Lutheran seminaries. OUTLINE FOR CHAPTER VI HOMILETICAL THEORIES REGARDING "DELIVERY" I. Purposes of the Chapter II. Definition of "Delivery" III. The Oral Expression A. According to the Seminary Professors B. According to the Homiletical Theorists C. Summary IV. The Visible Expression A. According to the Seminary Professors B. According to the Homiletical Theorists C. Summary V. Added Advice Regarding Delivery A. By Stanley Schneider B. By Andrew Blackwood VI. Summary of the Chapter 139 CHAPTER VI HOMILETICAL THEORIES REGARDING "DELIVERY" The Purpose The purposes of this chapter are: (l) to describe the homiletical theories regarding the constituent of homiletics known as "Delivery" as taught by the three seminaries of the American Lutheran Church, (2) to de- scribe the theories about "Delivery" as presented through the writings of the six textbooks authored by the most influential homiletical theorists of today as revealed through the study conducted by Daniel E.Weiss,l and (3) to compare the sets of theories as to the similarities and differences in teaching or emphasis. Definition Within this study, "Delivery" refers to that constituent of homiletics concerned with oral and visi— ble expression; it embodies those elements concerned with the actual preaching of the sermon. The Oral Expression In the chapter relating to "Style," the writer addressed himself to the dangers surrounding the use of lDaniel Edwin Weiss, "Conceptions of 'Arrangement' in American Protestant Homiletical Theory" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Speech, Michigan State Uni— versity, 1964). lUO 141 artificial language often referred to as the "Ministerial Moan" or the "Stained Glass Voice." These artificial religious tones are a blending of a hushed speaking and pseudo—chanting which may be an attempt to create an atmosphere of heavenly bliss in which the listener is expected to feel awe and reverence. However, according to the three seminary professors, such tones are not to be present in the pulpit; the delivery of the sermon, above everything else, must be natural. The way a man sounds in the pulpit should be no different from the way he sounds in his daily life among his parishioners.l To emphasize the importance of being natural, the American Lutheran Church seminaries have purchased video tape recorders which are used to record each student who preaches his class sermons. At Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary a portable General Electric Video Recorder serves the purpose of recording the chapel ser- mons for viewing by the preacher and his classmates. Wartburg Seminary has a portable Sony system. The most elaborate equipment, however, is to be found at Luther Seminary, where the sophisticated recording and playback units equal those of some commercial television stations. According to the professors of homiletics at the three seminaries, the chief value of the television lThe seminary professors feel that the admonition to be "natural" covers items such as "pitch," "melody," and other aspects of delivery. In fact, very little attention is paid to sermon delivery by the seminary professor. 1&2 recorders is to make the student aware of the importance of remaining natural while preaching. Any attempt on his part to be other than natural will be highlighted through this visual aid. The importance of the preacher in remaining natural in his delivery is also a focal point of Ilion Jones, the only author among the six homiletical theor- ists who addresses himself to the concept of a natural de1ivery.l In his book, Principles and Practice of Preaching, Jones writes about the importance of adopt- ing one's own method of delivery. In the matter of delivery every preacher must "work out [his] own salvation with fear and trembl- ing" (Phil. 2:12). Each must study himself and his congregation and adopt for himself the method of preaching that promises, in the light of all known factors, including the will of God, to be the most effective for pip ministry.2 Later, in the same book, Jones states, "The most important thing in delivery is the man: what he is, what he thinks, how he feels, his motives, purposes, and yearnings."3 Consequently, Jones is in total agreement with the seminary professors that a natural delivery is the most 1Throughout this study, certain elements of homi— letical theory are not treated by all of the six theorists used for comparison. The writer, therefore, mentions only those theorists who comment on the parti- cular element under discussion. 2Jones, op. cit., p. 203. 3Ibid., p. 222. 1A3 effective kind of delivery in communicating the gospel through preaching. The Visible Expression Since the constituent known as "Delivery" encom- passes the visible expression as well as the oral expres— sion, what are the teachings of the American Lutheran Church seminaries and the homiletical theorists regard- ing the visible expression in delivery commonly known as "gestures"?l As in the oral expression of delivery, the three professors of homiletics of the American Lutheran Church adVocate the importance of remaining natural. If ges- tures will enhance the communication of the message, the professors feel that they should be used as a natural part of the preacher's speaking. All three men told this writer that the most telling aid in terms of un- necessary or improper gestures is the video recorder at their disposal. The so—called "forced" gestures or the nervous habits of the preacher are bound to be revealed through the recorders. The only mention about the subJect of gestures among the six homiletical theorists used for comparison 1While the writer is aware that the visible expres- sion of delivery may include more than the item known as "gestures" (e.g., the preacher's stance, etc.), these subJects have been treated in the chapter on "Invention" under the section entitled "Ethos." 14“ is found in Blackwood's The Preparation of Sermons. He appears to be rather hesitant on this point: In certain localities, especially where ministers wear the robe and read sermons, one of them may go for a year without making gesture in the pulpit. In view of such divergent cus- toms, why not seek for the golden mean? Use gestures at times, but not early in the sermon, and not often at any one stage.‘ When in doubt, don't.l For some reason, unknown to this writer, the remain- ing five of the six theorists make no comment on the tOpic of gestures. Only an educated guess, similar to that referred to in the previous chapter, leads the writer to assume that the authors of the six homiletical texts are concerned primarily with the composition of sermons and rely upon textbooks on basic speech to offer sug- gestions about sermon delivery. Added Advice Regarding Delivery As a result of the research concerning the constituent of homiletics known as "Delivery," the writer has recorded two bits of advice which do not belong under the maJor headings within this chapter, but which are isolated admonitions that he feels are worth mentioning at this point. The first comment comes from Schneider of the semi— nary in Columbus, Ohio. He speaks about the merits of lBlackwood, op. cit., p. 213. 145 writing the entire sermon word-for-word as related to the actual delivery of the message:1 Generally speaking, a man will do a better Job in delivery if he has first written out his message. It's almost like taking a trip. If he has been over the route before, he will probably not get lost. Therefore, he is bound to have a smoother delivery if he does not have to be concerned about what he is going to say next.2 Andrew Blackwood offers the second piece of advice along the line of delivery at the start of the sermon for the purposes of creating the proper atmosphere: Follow an order of service that will lead everyone to rise and sing Just before the sermon. When at last you stand ready to preach, wait for a moment or two silently, in the spirit of prayer, but not with eyes closed. Look at the people, kindly, and when you hear nothing but your own heartbeat, you may begin with the text or with an ascription of praise that calls no attention to yourself; e.g. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."3 Summary Regarding the oral expression of the constituent of homiletics known as "Delivery," all three seminary professors admonish their students to "be natural." Ilion Jones, the only one of the six homiletical theor- ists to comment, is in agreement. lFurther comments on the use of manuscripts may be found in the chapter on "Memory" under the section en— titled "Aids to Word or Thought Memory." 2Schneider, interview. 3Blackwood, op. cit., p. 207. 146 As to the use of the visible expression of "De- livery" referred to as "gestures," the three American Lutheran Church men again urge a "natural approach," while Andrew Blackwood, the only theorist of the six to offer suggestions on this point, states, "When in doubt, don't!" Finally, Schneider comments on the rewards of writing out the sermon, and Blackwood calls attention to the setting of the scene at the beginning of the sermon. OUTLINE FOR CHAPTER VII EVALUATION OF THE HOMILETICAL THEORIES OF THE AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH Introduction H II. Survey of the Class of 1969 A. Nature of the Survey B. Results of the Survey III. Survey of the Class of 1961 A. Nature of the Survey B. Results of the Survey IV. Interpretation of the Surveys A. Question #2 B. Question #3 C. Question #4 D. Question #5 E. Question #6 V. Opinions of the Writer A. Regarding Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary B. Regarding Luther Seminary C. Regarding Wartburg Seminary VI. Outside Influences 147 CHAPTER VII EVALUATION OF THE HOMILETICAL THEORIES OF THE AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH Introduction In the preceding chapters, the homiletical theories presented through the seminaries of the American Lutheran Church have been outlined and compared with those theories presented through the writings of six textbooks authored by the most influential homiletical theorists of today as revealed through the study conducted by Daniel E. Weiss.l These theories concerned themselves with the constituents of homiletics known as "Invention," "Arrangement," "Style," "Memory," and "Delivery." However, the question may be asked, "How good are these theories?" Perhaps a more pragmatic individual would ask, "Of how much practical help are these courses to my preaching?" In order to answer these and parallel questions, the writer will use three sources for purposes of evaluation, namely a survey of the class of 1969 of lDaniel Edwin Weiss, "Conceptions of 'Arrangement' in American Protestant Homiletical Theory" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Speech, Michigan State Uni— versity, 1964). 148 149 the three seminaries, a survey of the class of 1961 of the three seminaries, and the Opinions of the writer. Survey of the Class of 1969 The first source for purposes of evaluation comes from the 1969 graduating class of each of the three American Lutheran Church seminaries. The students were asked to comment upon the relative merits of the program of homiletics at their school through a questionnaire given them via their homiletics professors. Nature of the Survey The following letter (p. 150) was sent to the pro— fessors of homiletics at the three American Lutheran Church seminaries. Along with the letter, a questionnaire (p. 151) was given to each member of the graduating classes. Results of the Survey A total of 99 of the 191 (approximately 52%) of the graduating classes contacted made some kind of response to the questionnaire, these reports ranging all the way from partially answered to completed questionnaires. The following results were obtained from the three seminaries: 150 9 May 1969 Dear ; I have enclosed a number of questionnaires which I hope you will be able to have distributed to the senior class of the seminary. This questionnaire will provide the basis for my final chapters in the dissertation sur— rounding the homiletical theories of the American Lutheran Church. I will appreciate greatly any help which you may render in seeing that most of the senior class will com- plete the forms. As a part of my dissertation, I am seeking the opinions of the members of the senior classes at Luther, Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary, and Wartburg regarding the instruction in homiletics at the seminaries which they attend. The same questions will be covered yig a question— naire sent to the senior class of 1961. In this manner, we can compare the results. I shall be sure to send to you the final tabulation of the answers. I realize that this is an extremely busy time for both faculty and student body, however, this survey is most important to the relative merits of my dissertation. Enclosed is a self-addressed stamped envelope for the return of these forms. I thank you for your kindness in assisting in this matter. I owe you a favor. God's richest blessings! John C. McCollister Bethlehem Lutheran Church 549 E. Mt. HOpe Ave. Lansing, Michigan 48910 151 QUESTIONNAIRE At which seminary have you studied basic homiletics? E. L. T. S. Luther Wartburg During your ministry, you anticipate your preaching will be chiefly: Textual TOpical Problem-centered Other (explain) Do you anticipate that your preaching will be based upon the lessons of the Liturgical Year? Always Most often Sometimes Seldom Never What type of ministry do you plan to enter? Parish ministry Institutional chaplaincy Military chaplaincy Specialized ministry (explain) Other (explain) In your opinion, what are the strengths in your seminary's program of homiletical instruction? In your opinion, what are its weaknesses? What suggestions do you have for future instruction in homiletics at your seminary?l Thank you for your COOperation! 1The results of question #7 will be reported and commented upon in the next chapter. 152 1. At which seminary have you studied basic homiletics? E. L. T. s. (16)1 Luther (59)2 Wartburg (23)3 2. During your ministry, you anticipate your preaching will be chiefly: E. L. T. S. Textual (15) TOpical (0) Problem-centered (0) Other (1) (a combination of the above three) Luther Textual (23) Topical (19) Problem-centered (15) Other (2) (a combination of the above three) Wartburg Textual (ll) Topical (2) Problem-centered (7) Other (2) (a combination of the above three) No response (1) 3. Do you anticipate that your preaching will be based upon the lessons of the Liturgical Year? E. L. T. S. Always (0) Most often (14) Sometimes (2) Seldom (0) Never (0) 1A total of sixteen out of forty-two (38%) of the questionnaires were returned. The rather low percentage of response was due primarily to the fact that the survey at E. L. T. S. was conducted during the week of final examinations. 2A total of 59 out of 102 (53%) of the question- naires were returned. 3A total of twenty-three of thirty-nine (59%) of the questionnaires were returned. 153 Luther Always (4) Most often (53) Sometimes (2) Seldom (0) Never (0) Wartburg Always (0) Most often (17) Sometimes (5) Seldom (0) Never (0) No response (1) What type of ministry do you plan to enter? E. L. T. S. Parish ministry (16) Institutional chaplaincy (0) Military chaplaincy (O) Specialized ministry (0) Other (0) Luther Parish ministry (55) Institutional chaplaincy (0) Military chaplaincy (0) Specialized ministry (0) Other (0) No response (4) Wartburg Parish ministry (21) Institutional chaplaincy (0) Military chaplaincy (l) Specialized ministry (O) Other (1) (A. L. C. Headquarters) 154 5. In your opinion, what are the strengths in your seminary's program of homiletical instruction?l E. L. Tgs. The method of outlining a sermon (6) The beginning class of homiletics (5) The stress on textual preaching (4) Guidelines for biblical preaching (3) Interrelationship with other seminary courses (2) The use of a video recorder (l) Luther The use of a video recorder (22) Interrelationship with other seminary courses (19) The professor (l7) Emphasis on exegesis (ll) Emphasis on Liturgical Year (9) The system of evaluation (5) No strengths (5) The stress on textual preaching (3) The beginning class of homiletics (3) Guidelines for biblical preaching (1) Freedom of expression (1) Individual attention (1) Wartburg The professor (9) The system of evaluation (9) Guidelines for biblical preaching (8) The use of a video recorder (6) The beginning class in homiletics (5) The stress on textual preaching (4) The practical value of homiletics (2) The variety of preaching types (2) The method of outlining a sermon (l) The opportunity to practice in congregations (l) lTwo notes should be made at this point: (1) on certain occasions the writer does not include the exact phrasing of each response given in the questionnaires. At times the comments were grouped under specific head- ings. For example, while one subJect may write about the necessity for instruction in speaking techniques, another may comment upon the need for a realization that some stu- dents are unable to speak well in front of others. Both of these items are classified under the heading "Basic speech methods." (2) The reader will notice that due to the fact that most of the returned questionnaires contained a variety of responses to questions 5 and 6, the total num— ber of responses surpasses the number of questionnaires re- turned. 155 6. In your opinion, what are its weaknesses? E. L. T. S. Limited view of preaching (7) Lack of experimentation (5) Lack of basic speech methods (4) Limited to a one—man department (4) Limited opportunities to preach (2) Over-emphasis on outlines (l) Luther Limited opportunities to preach (30) Classes too large (21) Artificial conditions for preaching (11) Lack of individual attention (11) Lack of basic speech methods (10) Lack of application to social issues (10) Lack of relevancy (10) Lack of emphasis on Liturgical Year (7) Lack of stress on Hebrew and Greek (7) No weaknesses (6) Limited use of imagination (3) Lack of exposure to successful preachers (3) Lack of experimentation (2) The system of evaluation (1) “fix--9". y... w ' .6. ~ - I Wartburg Artificial conditions for preaching (5) Limited view of preaching (5) Lack of basic speech methods (4) Limited opportunities to preach (4) Poor relationship with other departments (4) Limited to a one—man department (3) Lack of experimentation (3) Lack of relevancy (2) Lack of Old Testament preaching (2) Unwillingness of some students to prepare for class (1) Lack of problem—centered preaching (1) Too much stress on special occasion preaching (1) Survey of the Class of 1961 The second source for evaluation is a result of a similar questionnaire sent to the graduating classes of 1961 of the three American Lutheran Church seminaries. 156 These classes were chosen for two reasons: (1) 1961 was the year that marked the official merger of various Lutheran Synods into the present American Lutheran Church, and (2) 1961 was the earliest year in which the three present professors of homiletics were actively engaged in teaching at the seminaries. 71' mg. ._-. :5 «.42: ai‘.rR wimp. u 4.‘ J _. Nature of the Survey The following letter (p. 157) and questionnaire (p. 158) were sent to 210 members of the graduating classes of the three American Lutheran Church seminaries.l Results of the Survey One—hundred-twenty—eight out of 210 (approximately 61%) of the 1961 graduating classes contacted responded to the questionnaire, these responses ranging all the way from partially answered to completed questionnaires. The results of the questionnaires sent to the 1961 graduates of the three seminaries were as follows: lQuestionnaires were sent to all of the 1961 graduates currently residing in the continental United States and Canada. Questionnaires were not sent to approximately fifteen graduates who serve in foreign mission fields or in the overseas military chaplaincy. 157 19 May 1969 Dear 5 I am seeking your help in a proJect which is of importance to me. I am completing the requirements for a Ph.D. degree in Speech at Michigan State University. My thesis concerns the survey and evaluation of the theories of homiletics taught in the seminaries of our American Lutheran Church. A vital part of this thesis is the result of a survey taken through the enclosed brief questionnaire which I hope you will complete and return in the self—addressed stamped envelope. This questionnaire is being sent to the 1961 graduates of the three American Lutheran Church seminaries. A similar form has been sent to the graduating seniors of this year. In advance, let me thank you for your cooperation. God's richest blessings as you serve our Lord in his Church. Yours in Xp, John C. McCollister Pastor Bethlehem Lutheran Church Lansing, Michigan 158 QUESTIONNAIREl 1. At which seminary have you studied basic homiletics? \ E. L. T. S. ' Luther Wartburg 2. During your ministry, your preaching has been chiefly: Textual Topical Problem—centered Other (explain) Ill 3. Is your preaching based upon the lessons of the Liturgical Year? Always Most often Sometimes Seldom Never 4. In what type of ministry are you engaged? Parish ministry Institutional chaplaincy Military chaplaincy Specialized ministry (explain) Other (explain) 5. In your opinion, what were the strengths in your seminary's program of homiletical instruction? 6. In your opinion, what were its weaknesses? 7. What suggestions do you have for future instruction in homiletics at the seminary?2 1This questionnaire asks basically the same questions as did the survey of the 1969 graduating classes. Added to. this questionnaire are other questions regarding specific items relating to location and size of congregation. Later, in this chapter, some conclusions will be recorded in terms of possible relationships between areas and/or types of preaching with location or size of congregation. 2As with the previous survey, the results of question #7 will be reported and commented upon in the next chapter. 10. 11. 12. 159 The district in which your church is located is the district. The size of community in which your church is located is: 1,000 or less 1,000 — 5,000 5,000 - 10,000 10,000 - 25,000 25,000 — 50,000 50,000 — 100,000 100,000 - 250,000 250,000 - 500,000 500,000 - 1,000,000 Over 1,000,000 The size of your congregation (baptized): 100 or less 100 — 250 250 - 500 500 - 750 750 — 1,000 1,500 — 2,000 2,000 — 2,500 2,500 - 3,000 Over 3,000 If you are serving in a team ministry, what is your position? Senior pastor Associate pastor Assistant pastor Would you desire to have available a yearly publi- cation of sermons from A. L. C. pulpits?l Yes No Thank you! 1Question #12 has no relationship to the previous questions, but was an attempt of the writer to find the degree of interest (or lack of interest) in such a publication. The editing of a work of this nature is a possible proJect of the writer. fix- 160 At which seminary have you studied basic E. L. T. s. (31)1 Luther (73)2 Wartburg (27>3 During your ministry, your preaching has E. L. T. S. Textual (28) Topical (2) Problem-centered (0) Other (1) (a combination of the above Luther, Textual (43) TOpical (20) Problem-centered (9) Other (1) (a combination of the above Wartburg Textual (21) Topical (2) Problem-centered (1) _Other (3) (a combination of the above Is your preaching based upon the lessons Liturgical Year? E. L. T. S. Always (4) Most often (18) Sometimes (9) Seldom (0) Never (0) 1 the questionnaires were returned. 2A total of 73 out of 125 (58%) of the naires were returned. 3 of the questionnaires were returned. homiletics? been chiefly: three) three) three) of the A total of thirty-one out of forty-three (72%) of question- A total of twenty-seven out of forty—two (64%) PA, 'I amass-1.- cum... '1’ 161 Luther Always (8) Most often (58) Sometimes (2) Seldon (2) Never (0) . No response (3) Wartburg Always (2) Most often (15) Sometimes (9) Seldom (1) Never (0) In what type of ministry are you engaged? E. L. T. S. Parish ministry (27) Institutional chaplaincy (0) Military chaplaincy (0) Specialized ministry (2) (1 social work, 1 campus ministry) Other (2) (1 graduate study, 1 school administration) Luther Parish ministry (59) Institutional chaplaincy (1) Military chaplaincy (l) Specialized ministry (4) (2 campus ministry, l aforeign missions, 1 social work) Other (6) (3 A. L. C. Headquarters, 1 graduate study, 1 school administration, 1 teaching) No response (2) Wartburg Parish ministry (22) Institutional chaplaincy (1) Military chaplaincy (O) Specialized ministry (1) (foreign missions) 0 Other (3) (l A. L. C. Headquarters, I graduate study, 1 teaching) - .1 ‘. 5 _ ‘- unwv ! 162 5. In your Opinion, what were the strengths in your seminary's program Of homiletical instruction?l E. L.vT. s. The stress on textual preaching (23) The method of outlining a sermon (14) The system of evaluation (5) Emphasis on exegesis (4) The stress on the theology of preaching (3) Emphasis on Liturgical Year (2) The beginning class of homiletics (2) Emphasis on the gospel (2) The professor (l) Preaching in a worship structure (1) Instruction in the use of manuscripts (l) Luther The professor (21) NO strengths (17) The stress on textual preaching (15) Interrelationship with other seminary courses (9) Emphasis on exegesis (7) Balance between law and gospel (5) Pastoral emphasis (4) Emphasis on Liturgical Year (4) The system of evaluation (3) The beginning class of homiletics (2) The Opportunity to practice preach (2) Guidelines for biblical preaching (2) Relevancy (2) Exposure to successful preachers (1) Freedom of expression (1) The stress on the theology of preaching (1) Individual attention (1) The stress on personal conviction (1) The stress on doctrine (l) Textbook by Reu (l) 1As was the case regarding the questionnaire re- ceived from the 1969 graduates, the writer does not always include the exact phrasing of each response, and has taken the libergy to group some of the comments under specific headings. Also, as with the returns from the 1969 graduates, because of the fact that most of the returned questionnaires contained a variety of responses to questions 5 and 6, the total number of responses surpasses the number Of questionnaires re— turned. Wartburg The professor (12) The stress on textual preaching (10) Guidelines for biblical preaching (5) Freedom Of expression (4) Relevancy (4) The method of outlining a sermon (3) The stress on the theology Of preaching (2) Interrelationship with other seminary courses (2) In Exposure to a variety Of types of preaching (2) Emphasis on Liturgical Year (1) 163 NO strengths (1) 5 The beginning class of homiletics (l) The system of evaluation (1) The opportunity to practice preach (l) Emphasis on positive preaching (l) Preaching without manuscripts (l) (— Practicality of program (1) ' your Opinion, what are its weaknesses? L. T. S. Limited Lack of Lack of Lack Of Limited Failure Limited Lack of Limited view of preaching (l3) relevancy (11) basic speech methods (9) experimentation (6) Opportunities to preach (5) to use recording equipment (4) use of imagination (3) stress on Hebrew and Greek (2) follow-through on internship program (2) NO weaknesses (2) Limited to a one—man department (1) Assumption that congregations know Bible well (1) Greater need for textual study (1) Outdated method of outlining (l) The system of evaluation (1) Lack of Lack of Luther Limited Lack of Lack Of Lack of Classes Lack of emphasis on Bible study (1) application to social issues (1) Opportunities to preach (26) relevancy (21) individual attention (16) basic speech methods (12) too large (11) emphasis on homiletics (8) The system Of evaluation (7) Lack of Limited application to social issues (6) view of preaching (5) 164 Luther (con't.) Instruction in sermon preparation (4) Artificial conditions for preaching (4) Lack Of experimentation (4) Instruction in the art Of illustrations (3) Lack of emphasis on Liturgical Year (2) Lack of stress on Hebrew and Greek (2) Lack of knowledge of homiletics by other departments (2) NO weaknesses (2) . Textbook by Reu (2) g, Lack Of emphasis on the gospel (l) ; Wartburg é Lack of Opportunities to preach (8) ’ Lack Of relevancy (7) I Lack of basic speech methods (5) NO weaknesses ( ) Limited view of preaching (3) Lack of experimentation (3) Lack Of stress on theology Of preaching (2) Lack of exposure to successful preachers (l) Allowing students to preach prematurely (l) The professor (1) Lack of stress on Hebrew and Greek (1) Lack of individual attention (1) Lack of instruction in special occasion preaching (1) Lack Of pastoral emphasis (1) Over emphasis on preaching (1) Interpretation Of the Surveys What, exactly, do the results of these surveys tell us? Can we see any emphases in Opinions? Are there any trends which can be detected? Are there basic differ- ences in the attitudes Of the graduates of one seminary as Opposed to those of another? Are there any significant differences between the graduates of 1961 and those of 1969 of one particular seminary? Questions 2 through 6 are nearly identical in both surveys. Therefore, in this study the answers by both 165 the classes of 1969 and 1961 to these questions through the surveys will be reported and compared together. Question #2 deals with the type of preaching that is being done chiefly by the 1961 graduate or is antici- pated by the 1969 graduate. According to the results Of the questionnaires, .F; both the 1961 and 1969 graduating classes Of Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary have adopted textual preach- ing far and above topical, problem-centered, or any other “1-.....” "n w" 4‘ form Of preaching. At Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary, 94 per cent of the 1969 senior class anticipate that they will preach textual sermons; this figure closely resembles the 90 per cent Of the 1961 class who report that they are primarily engaged in textual preaching above the other alternatives. Undoubtedly, the strong influence of Professor Schneider has been the main factor in these results. At both Luther and Wartburg, however, there are different stories. Luther Seminary's 1969 graduating class reports a fairly even distribution in anticipated types Of preaching. Thirty-nine per cent anticipate textual preaching, 32 per cent topical, 28 per cent problem-centered, and 3 per cent a combination of the three. These results are not surprising, since the professor, Arndt Halvorson, encourages the use Of all three types of preaching. What is noteworthy, however, 166 is the fact that 59 per cent Of the 1961 class are now chiefly engaged in textual preaching, while only 27 per cent use topical sermons, and 12 per cent preach problem- centered messages. At Wartburg Seminary, the same trend is evident only on a more Obvious scale. The 1969 graduates who {7 responded to the question indicated that 49 per cent J anticipate using chiefly textual sermons while 9 per cent anticipate topical preaching, 30 per cent problem- I centered preaching, and 9 per cent a combination of the 7 three. Compare these figures with the class of 1961 who reported that 78 per cent preach primarily textual sermons with only 7 per cent preaching topical, 4 per cent problem-centered, and 10 per cent a combination Of the three. The reasons for the difference in attitude Of the 1969 and 1961 graduating classes toward textual preaching may be many. It is possible that those who are benefactors Of eight years of experience find that textual preaching is more desirable; it is also con- ceivable that a change in the teaching of the pro— fessors or in the attitude of the students has taken place. While it is possible that those who have read this study or who are familiar with the seminaries of the American Lutheran Church have some definite Opinions as to the reasons for the difference in attitudes 167 toward textual preaching, on the basis of the evidence supplied by the surveys alone, it is impossible to draw a definite conclusion. However, it would be interesting to survey the 1969 graduating classes five or ten years from now as to their attitudes in this regard. Question #3, dealing with the type Of ministry anticipated or engaged in by the graduates, will be considered later in this chapter. Question #4 raises the issue of the Liturgical Year. From the results Of the surveys to the 1961 and 1969 graduating classes, it may be concluded that the Liturgical Year is Of definite influence upon the preach- ing within the churches Of the American Lutheran Church. This is not surprising, since the Lutheran Church is basically a liturgical church. Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary graduates who responded to the questionnsire sent them indicate that 88 per cent will use the lesSons set aside for particular Sundays of the Church Year as the basis for their preach- ing most of the time. The other 22 per cent anticipate using these lessons sometimes. Those who graduated in 1961 have similar leanings, with 13 per cent reporting that they always use the prescribed lessons, 58 per cent use them most Often, and 29 per cent sometimes. The same pattern is established by the other semi- naries. A large maJority of Luther's 1969 and 1961 168 graduates say that the lessons of the Liturgical Year will either always, or most Often, be the basis for their preaching. Ninety—six per cent of the 1969 class and 90 per cent Of the 1961 class indicate that such is the case for them. Wartburg Seminary's 1969 graduates show the same ‘4‘“. ..'-F' trend, with 71 per cent reporting their anticipation to use mostly the lessons Of the Liturgical Year as the basis for their preaching. The 1961 graduates, while indicating that 63 per cent have used these lessons as a basis for ( their preaching, report that 33 per cent use the lessons sometimes and 3 per cent seldom use them at all. Question #5 dealt with the strengths of the seminary programs in homiletical theory. In lieu of interpretations on every remark made by those who responded to this ques- tion, this section of the study will concern itself with the two or three most Often cited comments by those who responded to this question. At Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary, the 1969 graduates indicated that the strengths Of the program involved the instruction on sermon outlining (38%), the objectives and general content of beginning class in homi- letics (31%), and the stress on textual preaching (25%). Similar comments were made by the 1961 graduates as 74 per cent appreciated the stress on textual preaching and 45 per cent felt that the instruction on sermon out- lining was Of value. 169 Luther Seminary graduates are somewhat different in their Opinions of the strengths of their programs. Of the 1969 graduates, 39 per cent felt the video re- corder to be of assistance,1 32 per cent appreciated the interrelationship with other seminary departments, and 29 per cent felt that a strength of the program was the Professor, Arndt Halvorson. Likewise, 29 per cent of the 1961 graduates recall that their professor was a definite strength in the homiletics program. However, 12 per cent of this class indicated that they could think of no strengths of the program. Wartburg Seminary graduates also favored the pro— fessor as a strength of the program. Thirty—nine per cent of the class of 1969 and 44 per cent of the class of 1961 have indicated this to be the case. Along with the strength to the program by the professor, W. A. Poovey, the 1969 graduates appreciated the system of evaluation (39%) and the stress on biblical preaching (35%). The 1961 graduates felt that the stress on textual preaching is a definite strength (37%). This appreciation Of in- struction on textual preaching by the class Of 1961 is also reflected in their leanings toward textual preaching as reported earlier in this chapter. lThe video recorder endorsed by the 1969 graduates was not a part of equipment used by the seminary until 1967, thereby explaining the absence Of its mention by the class of 1961. ~14” 170 Question #6 seeks responses regarding the Opinions Of the graduates as to the weaknesses of the programs on homiletical instruction. As with question #5, this section will concern itself with the two or three most often cited comments by those who responded to this question. The most Often expressed criticism of the program at Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary by both the 1969 and 1961 graduating classes was the limited view Of preaching (44% Of the class Of 1969 and 42% of the class of 1961). It is interesting to note that even though a large maJority Of both classes accept textual preaching as a norm, there is a substantial number Of the same men who feel that the strong endorsement of only one view of preaching is a weakness in the program. Other weaknesses as indicated by the class of 1969 are the lack of experi— ' mentation (31%), lack of basic speech methods (25%) and the fact that the program is limited to a one—man depart— ment (25%). The 1961 class felt that the homiletics in— struction has a lack of relevancy (35%) and, like the 1969 class, thought it lacked instruction in basic speech methods (29%). Because Luther Seminary is much larger than the other two seminaries Of the American Lutheran Church, it may be anticipated that over-crowded conditions may create weaknesses. According to the seminary graduates, this is the case. As a result, 51 per cent of the 1969 171 graduates feel that there are limited opportunities to practice-preach. Likewise, 36 per cent Of the 1961 graduates express the same feeling. Due to the large enrollment, the students have only three Opportunities to preach throughout the three years of seminary in- struction. The large classes (felt to be a weakness by 36% of the 1969 graduates and 15% of the 1961 graduates) seem to breed other weaknesses as indicated by the class Of 1961 such as lack of individual attention (22%). Other weaknesses cited by the same class were lack of relevancy (29%) and lack of basic speech instruction (16%). Wartburg Seminary graduates of 1969 were equally concerned about two weaknesses: artificial conditions for practice preaching (22%) and a limited view of preaching (22%). The artificial Conditions for practice preaching here referred to are the situations in which the students are required to practice preach to class— mates in a classroom setting. From the questionnaires received, it is apparent that the students would prefer a worship setting. The class Of 1961 seemed to be concerned about three other items: the lack of Opportunity to practice preach (30%), the lack of relevancy (26%) and the lack of instruction in basic speech (19%). In terms of the strengths and weaknesses of the seminary programs in homiletical instruction, for the 172 most part there is general agreement between the gradu- ates Of 1969 and 1961 as to the relative merits or weak— nesses Of the respective institutions. Opinions Of the Writer The Opinions of the writer regarding the homi- 1etical theories of the American Lutheran Church are based upon a variety of experiences and associations, namely three years Of study at one Of the American Lutheran Church seminaries,1 eight years in the parish ministry of the American Lutheran Church, the associ- ation during his undergraduate and graduate training with the theories Of rhetoric and public address, and the insights gained through personal visits to the semi- naries and the professors of homiletics serving as subJects for this study. It is evident to the writer that the theories of homiletics presented at the seminary in Columbus, Ohio (E. L. T. S.) are direct results of the extensive pro- motion of textual preaching as the "Officially accepted form" Of proclamation from the pulpit. This strong emphasis upon textual preaching has received criticism from the professors of the two other American Lutheran Church seminaries, from most Of the 1The writer was a student of the Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary of Columbus, Ohio, from 1957 to 1961 (one of the years consisting Of a required internship). 173 six homiletical theorists, and from some of the students Of the seminary. However, although the teachings of Stanley Schneider do not appear to be in the main stream Of contemporary homiletical theory, one item cannot be overlooked. The results of the surveys Of the 1961 and 1969 graduating classes show that textual preaching is F used more than any other type by American Lutheran 1? Church pastors. A maJor advantage Of stressing one method of preach- ing lies in the fact that the student gets to know well ? one approach to preaching. This might be compared to teaching a student about the fine points of swimming. In order to excel, he first must be taught the fundamentals. Once he has mastered the basic techniques, then he can be— gin tO adOpt his own style. Many young swimmers have faltered not because they lack the necessary physical ability, but because they have not learned well the basic fundamentals. The same holds true in preaching. Once the basic methods are mastered, then the preacher may begin to "experiment." However, from what has been revealed through the surveys and through conversation with other graduates Of the seminaries, there is sufficient reason to believe that textual preaching is still regarded as "standard." Of the things which are lacking in the homiletical department at Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary, the writer is Of the Opinion that the absence of training in basic speech methods leaves a vacuum in the homiletics 174 program. It seems as though all of the instruction in theology or in the theories Of preaching are of little importance to the preacher if he is unable properly to communicate the gospel to his audience. Another apparent lack in the program is the hesi- tance Of the professor to give "equal time" to topical F and problem-centered preaching. While textual preaching i} may be the "norm," the writer feels that there is a ' definite place in Lutheran pulpits for the other forms Of preaching. i Missing from the classes in homiletics at Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary, is a genuine emphasis on so—called "experimental" preaching such as "dialogue" sermons, "chancel dramas," etc. The writer feels that preaching of this type not only is effective, but can be also in harmony with the emphasis on textual preach- ing. At Luther Seminary the chief asset to the program of instruction lies in two areas: (1) the professor, and (2) the resources. The professor, Arndt Halvorson, is a man who seeks to present to his students a variety of preaching methods while, at the same time, developing the individual personalities Of the candidates for the ministry. The resources for homiletical instruction at Luther Seminary far surpass those at the other two schools. 175 The elaborate video recorder, the presence Of a part- time assistant in homiletics, and the availability Of a man to aid students with speech problems, are of extreme importance in Offering the potential for a well-rounded program in homiletics. However, due to the size of the enrollment at the seminary, it is virtually impossible for the pro- fessor to develop the individual personalities of the students, let alone have the Opportunity to hear each of them preach a sufficient number of times. Even the use of the video recorder, while a useful teaching aid, cannot create the proper atmosphere for the serious student of preaching. More will be said about this later in the chapter. In Dubuque, Iowa, the professor at Wartburg Seminary is deemed to be the most vital element to the success of the program by both the 1969 and 1961 graduates of the school. W. A. Poovey is not only schooled in the theories of preaching, but is also an apt preacher. His chief asset lies in the fact that he is able to stimulate his students through his zeal for preaching. This enthusi- asm for preaching is contagious as the students of Wart— burg tend to reflect their professor's urgency to preach. Of importance, too, is the Rev. Mr. Poovey's concern that his students write their sermons in the light of their positions as pastors. Each sermon, he feels, should be composed with the congregation in mind. 176 Lacking in the Wartburg program is the presence on the staff Of at least one man trained in the instruction of basic speech methods. As with the situation at Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary, the students sometimes find themselves frustrated at having the knowledge of theology and homiletical theories, while not having the communication skills necessary to relate the gospel in the most effective manner. £7 While Poovey is willing to "experiment" in preaching through the use Of dialogue, chancel drama, etc., there y appears to be limited Opportunity for the students to preach in a worship setting. The writer is convinced that while preaching in a classroom may Offer some Oppor— tunities for practice, the student will benefit much more from the experience of preaching in a worship setting. Preaching in artificial conditions tends to encourage artificial sermons; the student who preaches in the class— room setting probably will be inclined to preach in a different manner than he would while participating in the atmosphere Of worship. While the three seminaries are not of one mind regarding the theories of homiletics, the writer feels that the American Lutheran Church is stronger as a result of the different emphases. Various ways of communicating the gospel tend to be more effective with more people than the insistence of preaching one way and one way only. 177 For the conscientious student who knows for what he is looking in a seminary, there is available a choice of theories and emphases of homiletics within the frame- work Of the American Lutheran Church. Also, for the student who may transfer from one seminary to another, there is the Opportunity to become associated with a different approach to homiletical theory. (However, the writer is aware of the fact that most of the seminary students attend a particular school on the basis of geo— graphical location and are not apt to transfer. There— fore, for most of the American Lutheran Church seminarians, there is little Opportunity to become acquainted with a variety of approaches to homiletical theory.) For the writer, there is the frustration in seeing an apparent lessening Of emphasis on the homiletics por- tion Of the seminary curriculum. He feels that preaching is of paramount importance to the Church. Therefore, much more stress should be placed upon upgrading programs and increasing personnel within the homiletics depart— ments. More will be said about this in the next chapter on suggestions for the future. Outside Influences Is it possible that application of the theories taught in the seminary classroom is influenced to any degree by the situation in which the preacher finds himself after graduation? Are textual sermons more 7 ‘ J 178 commonly preached by those in, let us say, rural parishes while tOpical sermons are delivered to congregations in the larger urban centers? Through the surveys sent to the classes of 1969 and 1961 of the seminaries, an attempt was made to relate the effects of outside influences upon the application Of these theories. Prior to receiving the results from the questionnaires, it was thought by the writer that there might be a correlation between the type of preach- ing and the location of a congregation (question #8), the size of the community (question #9), the size of congre— gation (question #10), or the type of ministry (questions #4 and #11). However, as a result Of the surveys, no significant correlation could be detected between the method of preaching and the types Of ministry in which the pastors are engaged. II. III. IV. VI. VII. OUTLINE FOR CHAPTER VIII SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE Introduction Survey of the Class of 1969 Survey of the Class of 1961 Interpretation Of the Surveys A. Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary B. Luther Seminary C. Wartburg Seminary Opinions Of the Seminary Professors A. Stanley Schneider B. Arndt Halvorson C. W. A. Poovey Opinions of the Writer A. Regarding the Seminaries B. Regarding Parish Pastors Summary 179 CHAPTER VIII SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE Introduction In Chapter VII, an evaluation Of the homiletical theories of the American Lutheran Church was made in terms of Judgments expressed by the graduating classes of 1969 and 1961 of the three seminaries Of the Ameri— can Lutheran Church and in terms of the Opinions Of the writer. This chapter concerns itself with the suggestions for the future instruction in homiletics at the three seminaries. As was the case in the previous chapter, various sources will be used: the survey of the class of 1969 of the three seminaries, the survey Of the class Of 1961 of the three seminaries, the opinions Of the pro— fessors Of homiletics at the three seminaries, and the opinions of the writer. Survey of the Class of 1969 The first source for the purpose of Offering sug- gestions for the future comes from the 1969 graduating classes of the three American Lutheran Church seminaries. The students were asked to Offer suggestions for the 180 181 future through a questionnaire given them via their homi— letics professors. The nature Of this survey was dis— cussed at length at the beginning of Chapter VII. Results Of the Survey1 The following results were Obtained frOm the three seminaries regarding question #7, "What suggestions do you have for future instruction in homiletics at your seminary?": E. L. T. s. More preaching opportunities (4) The use of experimental preaching (4) Additional staff (3) More stress on basic speech methods (2) Exposure to successful preachers (2) More stress on problem-centered sermons (2) Better seminary class scheduling (1) More use of the video recorders (1) Luther Smaller classes (24) More relevancy (21) More experience in congregational preaching (16) More stress on basic speech methods (14) Exposure to successful preachers (11) More stress on the effect of the sermon on the audience (9) Better use Of imagination (9) More importance placed on homiletics (9) More emphasis on sermon preparation (6) More experimental preaching (5) 1It will be noted that the suggestions for the future are concerned with the mechanics Of the classes in homiletics more than with the constituents of "In- vention," "Arrangement," "Style," "Memory," and "De- livery" as reported in Chapters II through VI. Conse- quently, the graduates Of 1969 were concerned not as much about the basic theories presented in the class- rooms, but with the Opportunities to put these theories into practice. Within this chapter, the comments Of the graduates of 1961, the seminary professors, and the writer reflect the same feeling. 182 Luther (con't.) NO suggestions for the future (5) Additional staff (u) . Stress on special occasion preaching (1) Better use of Hebrew and Greek (1) Maintaining of competent instructors (l) Wartburg A wider base for evaluation (6) The use of experimental preaching (5) More individual attention (3) More preaching Opportunities (2) More stress on basic speech methods (2) More stress on problem-centered sermons (1) Less artificial conditions (1) Preaching workshOps for graduates (1) Survey of the Class of 1961 The second source for the purpose of Offering sug- gestions for the future comes from the 1961 graduating classes of the three American Lutheran Church seminaries. The pastors were asked to Offer suggestions for the future through a questionnaire sent to them. The nature Of this survey was discussed at the beginning Of Chapter VII. Results of the Survey The following results were Obtained from the pastors who graduated in 1961 from the three American Lutheran Church seminaries regarding question #7, "What suggestions do you have for future instruction in homiletics at your seminary?": ‘IL 183 E. L. T. S. More stress on basic speech methods (12) More experimental preaching (6) Exposure to successful preachers (6) Use Of recording equipment (4) Additional staff (A) Better use of imagination (4) More relevancy (3) Stress of the natural style (3) More Opportunities to preach (3) NO suggestions for the future (2) Use of speech therapy when needed (1) Stress on preaching for commitment (1) Stress of pastoral emphasis (1) More stress of the Liturgical Year (1) Study Of the use Of mass media (1) Stress on more biblical preaching (1) Stress on the effect of the sermon on the audience (1) Maintaining Of competent instructors (1) Better balance between law and gospel (l) Emphasis of Bible study (1) Luther More relevancy (23) More opportunities to preach (18) More stress on basic speech methods (14) Smaller classes (11) More experimental preaching (ll) Exposure to successful preachers (11) More importance placed upon homiletics (5) No suggestions for the future (5) Preaching workshOps for graduates (4) More emphasis on sermon preparation (3) More experience in congregational preaching (3) Better use of imagination (2) Better use Of Hebrew and Greek (2) Professors who are good preachers (2) Stress on need for prayer as part of preparation (2) Stress on more biblical sermons (1) More theological sermons (1) Stress on the work of the Holy Spirit (1) Additional staff (1) Less emphasis on the courses in homiletics (1) Use of sensitivity groups (1) More help in sermon outlining (1) Use of both professors and laymen as critics (l) WI‘AI'A‘_ '—"T“‘-‘- wuv. A . . N . ‘K‘b . 184 Wartburg More stress on basic speech methods (6) More experimental preaching (6) More Opportunities to preach (5) Better use of Hebrew and Greek (2) Preaching workshops for graduates (2) Better use of imagination (2) More importance placed upon homiletics (2) Exposure to successful preachers (l) Emphasis on sermons for children (1) Stress on the problem areas of preaching (1) Better professor (1) More relevancy (l) Smaller classes (1) Stress on special occasion preaching (1) Instruction in series preaching (1) Stress on the value of manuscripts (1) More stress on topical and problem-centered preaching (1) Stress on pastoral emphasis (1) Interpretation of the Surveye As in the case of Chapter VII, since the same ques- tion was asked Of both groups,the interpretation Of the surveys Of both the 1969 and 1961 graduates will be con— sidered together and compared as to the results. Also, as in the case of Chapter VII, comments will be made upon the two or three most Often cited statements given by the seminarians and pastors who responded to the question- naires. At Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary, al— though no specific statement(s) seemed to stand out from the rest in terms of numbers, it can be reported that 25 per cent Of those who responded indicated a desire for more preaching Opportunities and more experimental preaching. In view of these results and those of the 185 former questions, it is apparent that the students desire to practice preach more than three times during their three years at the seminary. They feel, too, that while the emphasis on textual preaching may be appreciated, a wider variety of sermon types in future instruction would be desirable. The pastors Of the American Lutheran Church who were graduated from the seminaries in 1961 have appealed for more stress on basic speech methods (38%). In fact, this suggestion comes from the 1961 class Of all three seminaries. On top Of this, 19 per cent express a de— sire for more eXperimental preaching in the seminary and for the Opportunity to become exposed to some Of the successful preachers. As indicated through the returned questionnaires, this exposure to successful preachers could be in the form of personal contacts or recorded sermons. The students Of Luther Seminary were aware Of the problems created through the extremely large classes; therefore, they were strong in their plea for smaller class enrollments (41%). Also, 36 per cent of the class Of 1969 suggested that there be more instruction in the ways of making a sermon more relevant. This suggestion for the future is shared by the 1961 graduates (31%) who returned the survey. Nineteen per cent Of the surveys of the class of 1969 contained the suggestion for more 186 congregational preaching (as Opposed to practice preach- ing in a classroom). Along with the comments for more relevancy in the future, the 1961 graduates look for more Opportunities to practice preach (25%) and for some system to place more stress on basic speech methods (19%). At Wartburg Seminary, as with the 1969 class at Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary, there is not much numerical separation in terms Of suggestions for the future. However, 26 per cent of those who answered question #7 indicated a desire for more Of the experi- mental preaching and for a wider base for evaluation (i.e., sermon critiques from more sources than the pro- fessor and student body); suggestions in this regard included the use Of outside pastors or laymen from local congregations. The pastors Of the 1961 graduating class, like those of the other seminaries, looked for instruction in basic speech criteria (22%). The same percentage sought more Of the so—called experimental preaching. Finally, 19 per cent thought that more Opportunities to practice preach would be Of merit. Opinions Of the Seminary Professors What do the seminary professors, themselves, suggest for the future of the programs for which they are responsi— ble? During recent interviews, the writer had the Oppor- tunity to ask this question Of all three men. 187 Stanley Schneider of Evangelical Lutheran Theologi- cal Seminary has four specific suggestions for the future instruction of homiletics. The first involves the possi- bility of conducting preaching conferences for the pastors of the American Lutheran Church. Similar to the sug- gestions Offered by the classes of 1969 and 1961, these conferences would be designed to Offer to the pastors in the various parishes throughout the country an Opportunity to review the basic concepts of homiletical theory along with the chance to receive critical evaluation of their preaching by other pastors. Schneider's second suggestion is centered on the level of the local parish. He encourages the pastors from various local congregations to meet weekly and discuss the text for Sunday's sermon. Such a "cell group" approach would Offer stimulation and insight for the pastors in— volved. Third, regarding the seminary program itself, Schneider gives a plea for a greater emphasis upon homi- letics. "In 1961," he says, "our seminary had two and one-half years of required homiletics; today, one year is required. We have too many people today who are attempting to minimize the importance of the sermon."1 lSchneider, interview. ._.- at.-. 188 Finally, the Evangelical Lutheran Theological Semi- nary professor desires that more pastors practice the method known as textual preaching. In a recent conver- sation, he addressed himself to this very issue: Most of the pastors don't follow our method. From what I hear, mostly topical sermons are given. The men may know the mechanics Of textual preaching, but do not use it. This is foolish- ness. It is as though he had a fine automobile but continually kept it on Jacks in the garage. The potential and mechanism are there, but they are simply not being used.1 In St. Paul, Minnesota, Luther Seminary's Arndt Halvorson suggests that something be done to encourage relevant preaching. He feels that perhaps this lack of relevancy may be directly related to the multitude Of duties Of the parish pastor. "I get the feeling," he said, "that pastors are so busy administratively, that they have neither the time to capture the flavor of the text nor the time to know well their congregation in order to apply the truth of the text in the most meaning- ful way."2 Three suggestions are offered by Wartburg's Poovey. According to him, the future of homiletical theory, or Of preaching itself, would be enhanced if (1) preachers learn more about their Bible. This, according to Poovey, is "a most vital element in a successful future for lIbid. 2Halvorson, interview. 189 "l (2) There should be some opportunity in preaching. the future to encourage a response from the audience to the sermon. Perhaps this means that sermons should contain more clearly an invitation for the listener to respond. (3) Pastors should know their congregations better. "TOO Often, we are so text-centered that we forget the people to whom we are preaching."2 Opinions of the Writer In view of the results of this study, the inter— views, the surveys, and the conversations with other pastors of the American Lutheran Church, the writer is convinced that the next few years will be Of genuine importance in setting the pace for the future of homi- letical instruction at the three seminaries of the American Lutheran Church. During recent years, the trend in homiletical edu— cation has been to lessen the emphasis on instruction in preaching. In lieu Of required courses in homiletics for each term that the student is in seminary, other courses have been substituted which deal with pastoral counseling, clinical training, and the "Social Gospel." This attitude within the seminaries cannot help but be reflected in the type of ministry within the parishes of the Church. 1Poovey, interview. Ibid. 190 Therefore, the writer Offers suggestions in two directions. The first is geared toward the seminaries; the second involves the parish pastors. For the three seminaries of the American Lutheran Church there should be an increasing awareness of the importance Of preaching. Certainly, the Holy Scriptures, themselves, bear witness to the fact that preaching is important: "How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?" (Romans 10:14). Consequently, at least one course in homiletical theory should be required Of each student for each term in the seminary. V In terms of the nature of these courses, the writer feels that the particular emphases of each professor should be maintained, yet, ample Opportunity should be given the students to become exposed to all forms of preaching both as to the types Of sermon (textual, topi- cal, and problem-centered), and as to the various methods of expressing the message (dialogue sermons, chancel drama, etc.). Of value, too, would be the Opportunity for the seminarians to become acquainted with successful preachers. Why not invite the great preachers of our day into the seminary for the purpose Of giving lectures or examples on effective preaching? While the writer is aware that with this exposure comes the danger of the student's 191 wanting to imitate another's style instead of develop- ing his own, he is also convinced that there is supreme value in learning through such exposure. Finally, the seminary program should aim for the increasing of the size of the staff by including, above everything else, a man who can assist in developing sound theories and practice of good speech. This in- struction can be aimed at the student's speech while delivering the sermon, reading the lessons, conducting the Liturgy, or in working with his congregation. How valuable it would be for the student who is afraid to stand in front of a group to develop confidence. How much easier it is to correct poor speaking habits early in a man's career. What a blessing would be courses in discussion for a man who will spend much of his valuable time in working with committees. All in all, the writer is Of the Opinion that an increased emphasis in homiletical instruction which in- cludes attention to the importance of good speech would assist the young candidates for the ministry in the really important phases Of their pastoral responsibilities. For the parish pastors Of the American Lutheran Church, the writer urges the Church to consider the con- ducting of workshops on preaching. The purpose of each workshop would be to stimulate men to become better preachers, to stress the importance of sermon preparation, 192 to acquaint the men with various ways of preaching, to Offer concrete examples of successful sermons, to intro— duce the men to successful preachers Of our day, and to give each the opportunity to preach at least one sermon during the workshop for purposes of evaluation and criticism by his peers. The success of this workshop would depend upon a number of items: 1. Someone would have to assume full responsi- bility for the program. This person, perhaps a man from Church Headquarters, would see to it that workshops are established in key locations with competent individuals at the head Of each. Each district of the Church should have at least one such workshop Offered each year. Each workshop should contain the same basic format. Finances for the Operation Of the workshops should come from the pastors who participate in the same. Possibly, the finances would be supplied by the congregations. The workshop experience should not be con- sidered a part of the pastor's vacation. This is a part of his continuing education. 193 6. The workshop should last about three days. Any less time would not permit adequate development; more time would lead to redundancy. 7. The workshop would be limited to thirty pastors per session. 8. Pastors who attend the workshops should have been in the active ministry for at least five years. 9. A charge of $50.00 per pastor would cover the costs for each session including room and board. A workshop of this nature possibly could be arranged in this manner: First_Day Registration Introduction of the program Presentation by guest speaker Lunch , Instruction in various preaching methods Illustrations of successful preaching Recess Dinner "Cell groups" for sermons and critical evaluation 1The guest speaker for each Of these workshops would be someone who has been associated with successful preach- ing. Examples Of such personalities are: Dr. Ralph W. Sockman (Minister Emeritus, Christ Church, New York City); Bishop Gerald Kennedy (The Methodist Church, Los Angeles); Rev. David O. Woodyard (Dean of the Chapel, Denison Uni- versity); or Dr. G. Paul Butler (Editor of the series, Best Sermons). 194 Second Day Presentation by guest speaker Display of helpful aids to preaching (books, etc.) Question-answer session between men and guest speaker Lunch Instruction in "experimental" preaching Illustrations of successful preaching Recess Dinner "Cell groups" for sermons and critical evaluation Third Day Presentation by guest speaker Display Of stimulating sermon outlines Question-answer session between men and guest speaker Lunch Instruction in use Of mass media "Cell groups" for sermons and critical evaluation Dinner Closing devotions Summary Through the suggestions for the future, along with the survey of the homiletical theories of the American Lutheran Church and the evaluation of the same by various sources, the writer has hoped to present a picture of the current homiletical practice in one of our nation's larger Protestant denominations. Through this study, the writer has attempted to show the contributions that the seminaries Of the American Lutheran Church have made to the field Of preaching (especially in terms of textual preaching). Through interviews, surveys, and associ— ation with the principles Of effective speech, the writer has presented Opinions regarding the strengths 195 and weaknesses of the seminary programs along with sug- gestions for the future. In short, the writer has sought to tell the story of how the American Lutheran Church, through its homiletical theories promotes that which is known in St. Paul's first letter to the Church in Corinth as "the foolishness of preaching." BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Blackwood, Andrew W. The Preparation Of Sermons. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1948. Davis, H. Grady. Design for Preaching. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1958. Frank, C. A. History of the German Lutheran Seminary of the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod Of ' O and Other States Located at ColumbuE, Ohio. ngumbus, Ohio: Ohio Synodical Printing House, 1 0. Jones, Ilion T. Principles and Practice of Preaching. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1956. Kennedy, Gerald. His Word Through Preaching. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947. Lenski, R. C. H. The Sermon: Its Homiletical Construc- tion. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book—HOuse, 1968. Luccock, Halford E. In the Minister's Workshop. Nash- ville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1944. Miller, Donald G. The Way to Biblical Preaching. Nash- ville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1957. Palmer, Christian. Homiletik. Stuttgart: T. F. Steinkopf, 1850. Reu, M. Homiletics. Chicago: Wartburg Publishing House, 1924. Scherer, Paul E. For We Have This Treasure. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1944. Schneider, Stanley D. As One Who Speaks for God. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1965. 196 197 Sheatsley, C. V. History of the First Lutheran Seminary of the West 1830—1900. Columbus, Ohio: Lutheran Book Concern, n.d. Shodde, George H. Historical Sketch of the Theological Seminary of the Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod Of Ohio and Other States. Columbus, Ohio: Joint Synod of Ohio,gl905. Stewart, James S. A Faith to Proclaim. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1953. Catalogs Annual Catalog Of the Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary, 1968. Columbus, Ohio: Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary, 1968. r Catalog of the United Church Seminary, Minneapolis, Minnesota 1894—1895. Minneapolis, Minnesota: United Church Seminary, 1895. Luther Theological Seminapy Review. St. Paul, Minne- sota: Luther Theological Seminary, VII, 1 (1968). Wartburg Theological Seminary Catalogl969-l970. Dubuque, Iowa: The Association of Theological Faculties Of Iowa, Inc., n.d. Unpublished Material Fritchel, Sigmund. Unpublished notes, 1872. Fritchel, Sigmund. Unpublished notes, 1874. Ludwig, Leonard L. Unpublished notes, 1915. Ottersberg, Gerhard S. "The Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Iowa and Other States 1854-1904." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, Uni- versity Of Nebraska, 1949. Proehl, W. L. "Homiletik." Unpublished manuscript, 1897. Weiss, Daniel E. "Conceptions Of 'Arrangement' in American Protestant Homiletical Theory." Un— published Ph.D. dissertation, Department Of Speech, Michigan State University, 1964. 198 Other Sources Personal interview with Dr. Arndt L. Halvorson, Pro- fessor of Homiletics, Luther Theological Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota. March 18, 1969. Personal interview with Dr. Herbert C. Leupold, Professor of Old Testament, Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary, Columbus, Ohio. February 24, 1969. Personal interview with W. A. Poovey, Professor Of Homiletics, Wartburg Theological Seminary, Dubuque, Iowa. March 17, 1969. Personal interview with Dr. Stanley D. Schneider, Pro. fessor of Homiletics, Evangelical Lutheran Theo- logical Seminary, Columbus, Ohio. February 25, 1969. Personal interview with Robert C. Wiederanders, Archivist of the American Lutheran Church, Dubuque, Iowa. March 17, 1969.