Alfred Stephen
Introduction
Method in research is simply the way one approaches the research. Methodology is the way one perceives the way of approach. Method is approach and methodology is perception of the approach. Research is a process that connects the past, the present and the future together towards a scholarly reconsideration, contextual relocation, pragmatic reapplication, appropriate repositioning as well as innovative reapproaching. The list of ‘Res’ re-present the past, present and future. Reconsideration presupposes the existence of a reality in the past which was commonly considered to be true. Relocation refers to the contextual validity and the relevance of the pre-considered reality. Reapplication foresees the pragmatic values which will be experienced. Repositioning presupposes the possible/probable change that could happen in the future. Past is a context in which a reality has existed, knowledge has emerged, enumerated and engaged with, incident has been experienced and questions have been raised. Any research has or even to say must have a past, because we start our search with an existing problem or question. To put in other words, something has happened and we are trying to have a relook at it. Research has high magnitude of present because in research we raise the predominant question what is going on and why is it happening so? We attempt to visualize the issue or the happenings in the lens of contextuality and contextual validity. Research focuses on elucidating the disturbing or questionable past through a process of descriptive and systematic study. Research has a future we try to answer the question what ought to be going on through our findings. This futuristic element in research could be the probable findings to the search, probable clarity to the existing reality, probable answer to the question, probable solution to the dispute, probable integration of the horizons, probable proposal to implement, probable perspective to the reality, probable new explanation to the old convictions, probable newness to the old thoughts and probable new bridge between the old poles.
Research is time based. It has a past tense and present tense and future tense. Time itself cannot be separated except the particularity of events that take place in a specific time, so also research. There is one single thread in research that connects the past, the present and the future. This is the ‘METHOD’ in any research. Methodology needs to be studied in light of the past, present and future. Methodological past is the conviction that emerged out of a specific context and documented. This conviction is not a temporary emotional outburst but a futuristic action plan. It is not static but dynamic progression. Methodological present is responsive optimization of the documented convictions for futuristic pragmatism. Methodological future is dynamic and pragmatic endeavour to actualize the past and the present. We are here to understand how this thread that connects the tenses in each discipline of study. To illustrate this I wish to draw on explaining four research based terminologies or even nouns. Motto, Topic, Title and Theme. Motto is basically convictions based on context and purpose. Topic is what the reality (text) tells about itself. Title is what we tell about the topic. Theme is combination of all the three. All the four represent as well as link the past, present and future.
Methodological Presuppositions/Element in Homiletics
Locating the particularity of methodological presuppositions or elements with in the wider context of the horizons of method and methodology would no doubt demand defining homiletics because objectivity of research method is directly linked to the definition.
“Homiletics is defined as the Science and Art of preaching. Science of preaching explains the internal scientific aspects in the process of sermon formation. In other words, this could be called the grammar of preaching. Anything that is dynamic and functional is based on a certain set of theories or grammar or principles which govern its functions. When principles are properly set, the functions are carried out without any obstructions. Scientific facts are explained on the basis of the theories and theories explain the principles on which theories are formed…..Science of Homiletics deals with various theoretical and practical aspects such as context, exegesis, theological reflections, various approaches to the sermon .”
Art of preaching refers to practical aspects of preaching which include both practical and physical presentation of a sermon. Use of language in terms of modesty, expression, coherence, formation of thoughts and presentation of the same, connotating the thoughts with modulation. It also include involvement of physical aspects.
Definition of Preaching
Sermon/Preaching is Word of God because it fulfils God’s Redemptive and Liberative purpose, it answers the basic question of humans which is Who one is, it facilitates people to live together as one community under God, initiated by God prompted by the Holy Spirit and challenged by Christ.
Approaches to Homiletics
There are two major methodological elements in Homiletics. They are Biblical method or approach which include exegesis, theologizing, and sermonizing. It is moving from the text to sermon. The second is Contextual method or approach. It is moving from the context to text.
Biblical Method/Approach
As has been mentioned above, Biblical method comprises of three major elements namely exegesis, theologizing, and sermonizing.
Exegesis is walking through the text
It is word Study which leads to get at the intended meaning of the author. Exegesis is a process of analysing the three fold components of the text namely language, content and meaning. Exegesis connects the biblical text with the interpretation. The role of exegesis is to bring clarity of the multi-faceted text, familiarity of the chosen text. Exegesis is a process of analyzing the three worlds of the text namely, the world behind the text, world within the text and world in front of the text.
Theologizing is walking through the understanding
It is basically explained as understanding the revelation of God in the present context. Theology itself is human’s efforts to understand God as revealed in the Old Testament and in Jesus Christ. God revealed God’s self at one point of history and it is recorded in the Bible. Every effort we make to understand this revealed God within our own context is precisely formulated as theology. Donald K. Mckim in his book, Bible in Theology and Preaching lists the following theological developments.
“Liberal Theology : Scripture as Experience, Fundamentalist Theology : Scripture as Proposition, Scholastic Theology : Scripture as Doctrine, Neo-Orthodoxy Theology : Scripture as Witness, New-Evangelical Theology : Scripture as Message,
Existential Theology : Scripture as Living Encounter, Process Theology : Scripture as unfolding Action, Narrative Theology : Scripture as Stories that shape, Latin American Liberation Theology : Scripture as the Foundation for freedom, Black Theology : Scripture as Liberation for the Oppressed, Asian Theology: Scripture as Stories for Freedom, Feministk and Womenist Theology : Scripture as the Mother of Model”
All these theologies are unique efforts to understand the revealed God and the God of revelation.
Sermonizing is walking with the meaning
Biblical method emphasizes moving from the theologizing to sermonizing as methodological climax. This move is done through two vitally important processes. First, using different hermeneutic approaches and applying the tools with which the hermeneutics itself functions. The second way is to have the purpose as the point of departure and applying the interpreted text to the life of the people.
Contextual Method/Approach
As mentioned above, Contextual approach is having the context as point of departure and moving from the context to the text.
Context as Methodological past in Homiletic Research
Major part of this paper are my personal reflections emerged out of my own situation, not much of research-based content, because the theories which I have put forth are my authentic experiential response to the distressful and disturbing situations in the church and society and my longing for repositioning of interpretative process and methods which will unearth the relevant message from the scripture and make it meaningful to those who eagerly wait to hear their own stories and solutions for their struggles in the sermons they listen to. Therefore, my approach here is not the rigid regular homiletic process of reading the text in its historical background and applying it to the lives of the hearers, but in a way reversal of it as the hermeneutic process begins with the pews in the church and the streets and gutters in the city slums and villages where people live with more questions than answers about God and the Gospel that is preached week after week. My method is a process of moving from the context to the text and then to the context. It is a hermeneutic, theological and interpretative spiral.
Highlighting few factors about the context in which I address this methodological presupposition would be helpful to understand the purpose and process of this theory. Urgency of need for relevant preaching is evident within the present context of Indian socio-economic, and political and social realities. Combination of many realities such as politics, economy, especially threat of dominant religion and religious ideology has resulted in threatening the rights of many who live in powerless situations not being able to voice their struggles and pains. Untold stories of communal clashes within the same region, brutal attack on vulnerable communities of caste, gender and age, search for identity and acceptance within the rubbles of disowning and hatred are an everyday reality of majority of people here in India. Fear and humiliation of discrimination within and outside the church is normalized in the form of systems in cultural beliefs and practices. Church is no more a place of comfort and shelter as corruption and power mongering, misuse of power, irresponsible selfish way of handling church property, bribe, and exercising of power for selfish ends are shamefully common. Harassments by the ruthless authorities who willfully misuse their power of positions they hold, security of women that is threatened in the work place are silenced in the name of sustainment of employment and at the cost of their very livelihood. Within this context it is of predominant importance to be aware that I use this specific way taking the context as dominant force and as hermeneutic tool and also as basis for theologizing and sermonizing. This paper is a combination of ideological theoretical framework and contextual situational possibilities. It is a combination of plots and practical.
Methodological past, present and future are governed by time and they are ‘timely’ and linked to all the three tenses, past present and future, through processes of conviction, progression and action. As much as the time cannot be separated from the past, present and future, except by the particularity of events and incidents, so also conviction, progression and action cannot also be separated because they are in a process of dynamic progression. Dynamic progression initiates, energizes, vitalizes, and actualizes dynamism into a visibility of the past, present and future. Operational modality of progressive dynamism is administered by the metaphysics of social realities such as context, experience, interpretation, understanding and perception. Context leads to experience and experience leads to interpretation and interpretation leads to understanding and understanding leads to perception. I wish to add one more element to this process that is perception leads to convictions and convictions are translated into ethos. I wish to reiterate my thesis that context leads to convictions and ultimately to formation of a concrete past. To be precise context and experience lead to methodological past, interpretation and understanding lead to methodological present and perception leads to methodological future. Interconnectedness of the three is the very hermeneutic spiral which directs the process of sermon and preaching
Methodological past as Contextual Homiletics
Methodological past as contextual homiletics is based on the very definition of the methodological past. It is conviction emerged out of a specific context and experience. This conviction is not a temporary emotional outburst but a futuristic action plan. It is not static but dynamic progression.
Context leading to Psycho-social developmental process of the methodological past
Context is a concrete lived reality and dynamic experience. It includes within it socio, political, cultural, religious economic aspects which influence, affect, contribute to, create impact on emotional, psychological, spiritual worldviews. World’s most important and influential theories have emerged out of impacts created by contexts. Social theories such as I am what I am because of me, I am what I am because of others and many more are results of one or the other contexts. These theories not only are powerful words but revelation and expression of world of truths which people behind these words have lived out and given themselves to the outburst of their social, emotional and psychological status and realities.
A story is told of a Sunday school student walking out of a class when the Sunday school teacher said that God is like our father, while she was narrating the love and care that God extends to us. When asked why she was going out of the class she replied saying, if God is like my father, then I do not want this God, because I am not loved and cared for by my father. Look at what another girl in a family went through, she called and cried to her father not to leave the house but the father left not listening to and not caring for this anguish and fearful cry of this young kid. She cried herself to sleep in the lap of the mother. New day dawned but fear gripped this little child. Days went by and one fine day the mother pointed to a regular visitor to their house and said he is her father hereafter. Still later, she was left to the care of her grandparents who found her absence more comfortable for them than her presence. Friends had great understanding leads to perception. I wish to add one more element to this process that is perception leads to convictions and convictions are translated into ethos. I wish to reiterate my thesis that context leads to convictions and ultimately to formation of a concrete past. To be precise context and experience lead to methodological past, interpretation and understanding lead to methodological present and perception leads to methodological future. Interconnectedness of the three is the very hermeneutic spiral which directs the process of sermon and preaching
Methodological past as Contextual Homiletics
Methodological past as contextual homiletics is based on the very definition of the methodological past. It is conviction emerged out of a specific context and experience. This conviction is not a temporary emotional outburst but a futuristic action plan. It is not static but dynamic progression.
Context leading to Psycho-social developmental process of the methodological past
Context is a concrete lived reality and dynamic experience. It includes within it socio, political, cultural, religious economic aspects which influence, affect, contribute to, create impact on emotional, psychological, spiritual worldviews. World’s most important and influential theories have emerged out of impacts created by contexts. Social theories such as I am what I am because of me, I am what I am because of others and many more are results of one or the other contexts. These theories not only are powerful words but revelation and expression of world of truths which people behind these words have lived out and given themselves to the outburst of their social, emotional and psychological status and realities.
A story is told of a Sunday school student walking out of a class when the Sunday school teacher said that God is like our father, while she was narrating the love and care that God extends to us. When asked why she was going out of the class she replied saying, if God is like my father, then I do not want this God, because I am not loved and cared for by my father. Look at what another girl in a family went through, she called and cried to her father not to leave the house but the father left not listening to and not caring for this anguish and fearful cry of this young kid. She cried herself to sleep in the lap of the mother. New day dawned but fear gripped this little child. Days went by and one fine day the mother pointed to a regular visitor to their house and said he is her father hereafter. Still later, she was left to the care of her grandparents who found her absence more comfortable for them than her presence. Friends had great stories to tell about their family but not this little one. Loneliness is more comforting to her than company of others. Here the context is home and the people living there. In the first story, the child’s context has led her to a specific experience with her father which has led her to interpret the image of her father in particular and ‘fathers’ in general and come to an understanding that fathers are universally like her father. As her understanding has become prolonged and long lasting perennial experiences, her understanding has become her perception and she has come to a conviction or conclusion that fathers are hard persons with no love and care. Here the context is both contextual and experiential. While reflecting on the psychology of conviction, Prof. Joseph Justrow of University of Wisconsin states,
“To reach convictions implies an impulse toward thinking; it implies the elementary data of experience and standard social environment in which beliefs operate and determine conduct. With these assumed, attention may be focused at once upon a constant, world-old and ever active factor, which may be called docility, contagion, complacency, imitation, conviction – one and all of nature compact. In this broader view, men’s convictions, generation by generation, have been accepted traditionally, as they still are”
It is clear that contexts lead to convictions. When convictions are translated into actions, they are progressive and are dynamically futuristic and signs and expressions of ethos. These expressions of ethos which traces its origin in contexts are vibrantly visible in many areas. To mention a few theologies and politics.
Context leading to socio-political and cultural developmental process of Methodological Past
Ambedkar in India who worked for the rights of the deprived class of Indian population, Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela, Barak Obama are few prominent personalities among many others who have been motivated positively to develop their ethos through a process of context leading to conviction and to the development of their ethos. Vibrance of their contextual realities could be felt in their conviction and ethos filled speeches. Ambedkar was first person who worked for the liberation and constitutional rights of the Dalit community of India at the political level. His ethos was formed through the conviction that religious ideology which discriminates one person from the other on the basis of caste must be removed to bring about equality of rights to everyone. Caste in India, color in Africa and other parts of the world, gender all over the world are cultural realities which have discriminated people on the basis of their cultural, racial and gender identity leading to economic, social, political powerlessness. Powerlessness is a reality with which these people have to live. They are dependent people and self-reliance is only a point of fantasy and imagination. Conviction and ethos of political leaders is that powerlessness must be replaced by powerfulness for a rightful and undiscriminated future where social, cultural, economic and political change is realized and equality and human rights are respected and valued and a liberated life is experienced. There must be a world of reversal order of the present world.
Contexts leading to Contextual Theologies
Contextual theologies are expression of ethos driven by convictions which emerged out specific contexts. Contextual theologies such as Black Theology, Liberation Theology, Feminist Theology, Dalit Theology in India, and Eco Theology and many more are results of contextual reflections and praxis. Stephen B. Bevans in his book Models of Contextual Theology, explains why theology must be contextual taking various factors into consideration. He states that
“Theology today, we can conclude must be contextual theology. Several important movements hand currents of our times point out aspects in Christianity that make imperative a theology that takes seriously human experience, social location, particular cultures and social change in those cultures. Pluralism in theology, as well as on every level of Christian life, must not only be tolerated, t must be positively encouraged and cultivated.”
Contextual theologies are not just abstract theoretical framework, but perspectival truth and reality of a particular context. As mentioned above, perceptions are formed in and through a rigorous process of coherencies of lived journey. These theologies are signs of results of convictions that emerged out a specific contexts and driving force (ethos) to make it a practical possibility and understand God in their existential reality.
Theoretical basis of Methodological past as Contextual Homiletic Theory
Pulpit is at the intersection of faith and existential reality of humans. People are both nourished in the faith an also brought to the challenges of the society face to face in the pulpit and challenged to understand the life and faith in the light of each other. Pulpit heaves the faith and the realities of life and explains faith in the lit of the existential reality of people an vice versa. Occupying the pulpit is a great privilege. Preachers or pastors can either use the privilege for proactive purposes or abuse it failing to take it seriously and using it for manipulative purposes.
“Given the multi-dimensional nature of the congregation and increasing complexity and problems, growing diversity in all possible avenues, the church in general and preaching particular can no longer ignore or escape the responsibility of responding to the imperative issue of diversity and problems that arise out of it. People are diverse in their status, religion, and cultural practices. While there is unity in spite of all the diversities, on cannot overlook the problems that have arisen, for example, hatred, injustice, inequality etc, which the oppressed community experience in their day-to-day life”.
Methodological past needs to address those issues that are underlying any context, because ethos is created bt context combined within it psychological, social, political, economic, theological and spiritual dimensions of human life. Having a wider as well as close look at ethos following truths emerge.
Methodological past is based on context and experiences
Methodological past is based on public and personal interests
Methodological past is common and individual
Methodological past is institutional and organizational
Methodological past is societal and political
Methodological past is local and global
Methodological past can be for common and selfish goals
Methodological past can have public and personal agenda
First, Methodological past, as psychological homiletic theory, need to address the issues directly related to the very identity of a person. It must work towards the assertion of the identity as human being, having equal rights of all types like any other person in the world. It must address the issue of human rights and fight against any power that intend to or making unlawful progression to violate any of them. Human rights violation affecting and disfiguring anybody’s identity is a point of condemnation and against the very truth about God’s creation of human being in God’s own image. Affirming identity of a person, be it individual identity or group identity, must be the hermeneutical tool and interpretative process in the homiletic theory.
Second, in the light of the plight of the children in the afore mentioned story, Methodological past, as social homiletic theory, needs to address the issue of separation of one from the other. It must also raise suspicion about the isolation based on the contextual reality one is living and must question any force that attacks the dignity and equality and freedom of all those who are made voiceless and inexpressive, overpowered, silenced, and powerless, especially children who are helpless and homeless.
Third, Methodological past, as social contextual homiletic theory, must work towards the empowerment of the powerless mass by giving identity through a process of eliminating subjugating power and bringing about freedom and translate them to empowerment and self-reliance.
Forth, Methodological past, as communitarian and egalitarian homiletic theory, must seek to challenge the unlawful authority and leadership and question those who hold power and authority and misuse them.
Sixth, Methodological past, as economic homiletic theory, must address the issue of economic centralization and accumulation wealth and work towards economic change by enforcing interpretations on equal distribution of resources.
Seventh, Methodological past, as political homiletic theory, must deal with political subjugation as means of interpretation of the scripture. It must lead to equal representation of all in the political governing bodies and decision-making process. In this process, equality in the governance will be property and rights of all people.
All these seven contextual realities are proposed to function as hermeneutic tools in the interpretative process in preaching and homiletics.
Methodological Present in Homiletics
Methodological present is responsive optimization of the methodological past for a futuristic pragmatism. It is interpretation/translation of lived experiences and convictions. It is aspiration of idealism and desire to alleviate distortion. Methodological past cannot be and will not be idle or static. It will call for a response which ultimately based on the way one optimizes ethos which is developed from and within a context. Each word in this definition leads us to the implications they on formation of the progressive theory as well as enhance our understanding and use of it in the homiletic spiral. In detailing each word of the definition, I seek to propagate the progressive element as homiletic theory.
Methodological present is Responsive Optimisation
Responses are not just relative, but correspondingly concrete to the context. Within the purview of vision as progressive homiletic theory which has been generated as response to the context, conviction and ethos, ‘response’ unfolds a newer explanation. Response starts with an encounter with the reality of the context. Responsive encounter is a collision of contextual reality and conviction which in turn leads to desire and aspiration for a new future and a new world. Responsive encounter is result of both force behind and a force ahead. It is this encounter which determines the response, either proactive or protestive or progressive.
Optimizing is internalizing
Internalizing is becoming one with the reality
Becoming one is acceptance
Acceptance is dilution
Dilution is disfiguring
Disfiguring leads to new creation
New creation is the methodological present
Methodological Present is Pragmatic in nature
Pragmatism could be explained as a force which is a combination of needed, practical, and useful realities. These realities are spirally connected to the context and through the coherent process leading to conviction and ethos. The first reality of the combination of pragmatism is need. Need is based on the demands of the context. In all speres of life, be it economic, political, social, ideological, cultural, religious, spiritual etc, context is what people create and it is the concrete result of people’s actions. The truth here is that we are caught up between our legitimate ability to create a just context on the on hand our arrogant willful desire to create an unjust context. When the latter becomes the predominant force within the contextual reality, the need to be pragmatic and need for pragmatic activities for materializing the vision becomes tough and strong.
The second reality of vision as pragmatism is practicality. Practicality is always simple truth which we have ignored doing. It is a possible reality and not an impossible target to be achieved. It is accessible to everyone. Practicality is also a necessary good which needs to be practiced. It is a process of internalizing and feeling. It is an act. It is again a demonstration of what is spoken of/about. It is a complete visibility of thought.
The third reality of the methodological present as pragmatism is usefulness. Usefulness is always seen in the light of productivity. In the light of pragmatism usefulness is understood as an end result which is put to use for all good purposes. It is simply the purpose and meaning of the very existence and it is revelation of worth of persons or thing.
Reflecting on methodological present in the light of responsive – optimization – pragmatism, it is evident it is progressive in nature because it relates to the methodological past and they are interconnected to past, present and future. They are timely and governed by time.
Methodological Present is Interpretation of Lived Experience into dynamic understanding
Methodological Future is dynamic pragmatic endeavor to actualize the past and the present
Methodological Present as Homiletic Theory
Methodological Present focusses on empowerment as objective of reading any text.
The interpreted text is an outcome of the praxis and reflective process
The interpretation point of departure is the powerlessness of people
Progressive theory reads into the destabilized realities in order to restabilize
It works towards reengineering of the powerless community
It works towards reengineering of the distorted psyche, disfigured identity, dislocated rootedness, dispossessed ownership through a process of dismantling of the text
It focusses on assuring hope, affirming dignity, and identity, actualizing the reality
It seeks to revitalizing confidence
It seeks to reenergize vitality
It seeks to identify the power point possibilities.
Methodological Future as Pragmatism
Methodological Future as Response to the Context
Conclusion
In conclusion, methodological presuppositions are governed by time and it starts with a past and interacts with the present and moves to the future for pragmatic endeavour.
