Abstract:
Progression of any dynamic reality is governed by theories. In other words, anything that is dynamic presupposes the functionality of one or another theory. So also, it is in homiletics and preaching, which are bombshells of dynamism and progression. In this dynamic activity/reality of homiletics and preaching, I perceive dominant interplay of ethos, vision, and mission as contextual, progressive, and pragmatic homiletic theories. These theories are operative right in the topic and title of the sermon as well as throughout the progression of the sermon. Defining each of these three realities within the context of homiletics and preaching would guide the theoretical functionalities. Ethos is conviction that emerges out of a specific context and experience. This conviction is not just a temporary emotional outburst, but a futuristic action plan which is not static but a dynamic progression. Vision is a responsive optimization of conviction (ethos) for futuristic pragmatism. Mission is a dynamic pragmatic endeavor to actualize ethos and vision. It is just being human and Christian witnessing. Every effective sermon capsulizes or must capsulize within its ethos, vision, and mission. Homiletic theories that govern the dynamic progression of these realities are contextual, progressive and pragmatic theories. In this article the author defines ethos, vision, and mission in global and local perspectives and examines the interplay of contextual, progressive, and pragmatic homiletic theories from the Indian perspective
Introduction
Origin of my contextual, progressive and pragmatic homiletic theory can be traced back to my talk on ethos, vision and mission in Christian higher education, in a leadership development program for members of faculty in Christian colleges in India. Challenged by the reality of Indian education which is centralized, commercialized, commodified, coloured, monopolized, made a tool of segregation, made a power centre, a tool of oppression rather than liberation, a tool of accumulation rather than sharing, intellectual property of the affluent, denied to the powerless, deprived, more individualistic than communitarian, more private than public, more closed than open, I was drawn to a shocking and disturbing similarities in theologizing and sermonizing process in India and elsewhere in the world. Driven by the conviction that week-by-week preaching, based on the almanac of my church which is very carefully formulated taking the contextual challenges into consideration, is lacking relevant interpretative process and appropriate homiletic theoretical framework, I developed this homiletic theory to try and make preaching more relevant and contextual as well as pragmatic. 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 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 formulated this theory 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 wilfully 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 ethos, vision and mission in a 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.
Ethos, vision and mission, as defined in the abstract, 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 ethos, vision and mission 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 ethos, vision and mission. 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] I wish to add one more element to this process that is perception lead to convictions and convictions are translated into ethos. I wish to reiterate my thesis that context leads to convictions and ultimately to formation of ethos. To be precise context and experience lead to development of ethos, interpretation and understanding lead to development of vision and perception leads to mission. Interconnectedness of the three is the very hermeneutic spiral which directs the process of sermon and preaching. Although ethos, vision and mission cannot be separated, it could be distinguished by the particularity of the context, experience and demands of the time. It is this interconnectedness that leads to the theoretical framework of ethos, vision and mission.
1.Ethos as Contextual Homiletics Theory
Ethos as contextual homiletic theory is based on the very definition of ethos I have proposed in this article. Ethos 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. Oxford dictionary defines ethos as ‘characteristic spirit of a culture, era or community, as manifested in its attitudes and aspirations’. Although there are many definitions explaining ethos as persuasive speech, distinctive character, credibility and authority of a person, a person’s credentials and many more, they all refer directly to the outcome or result of something that has happened earlier. My concern here is that which has ‘happened earlier’, the ‘cause’ which has given impetus , the starting point of the emergence of whatever one speaks or does or motivates others with. It is for this reason I call ethos as conviction emerged out of a specific context.
1.1 Context leading to Ethos in Psycho-social developmental process of convictions
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.[i] 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 ethos is both contextual and experiential. Development of ethos is based basically on the convictions which have emerged through the consequential process of the metaphysical social realities. Further, it is on the basis of the psycho-developmental process. As mentioned above, convictions are not a temporary emotional outburst, but a futuristic action plan. Convictions are closely related to psycho-developmental process. While reflecting on the psychology of conviction, Prof. Joseph Justrow of University of Wisconsin states,
[i] Counsellors use this story for family and marriage counselling as well as crisis counselling. Preachers use both stories in their preaching on family Sunday.
“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 focussed 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”[i]
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 theology and politics.
1.2 Context leading to Ethos in socio-political and cultural developmental process of convictions
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.
1.3 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.”[i]
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.
1.4. Theoretical basis of Ethos 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”.
Ethos as homiletic theory 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.
Ethos is based on context and experiences
Ethos is based on public and personal interests
Ethos is common and individual
Ethos is institutional and organizational
Ethos is societal and political
Ethos is local and global
Ethos can be for common and selfish goals
Ethos can have public and personal agenda
First, Ethos, 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, ethos, 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, Ethos, 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, Ethos, 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, Ethos, 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, Ethos, 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.
2. Vision as Progressive Homiletic Theory
Vision as progressive homiletic theory, in the same way ethos as contextual homiletic theory, is based on the definition I have proposed within the context of homiletics and preaching. Vision is responsive optimization of conviction i.e. ethos for a futuristic pragmatism. It is interpretation/translation of lived experiences and convictions. It is aspiration of idealism and desire to alleviate distortion. Ethos, when it is formed, it 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 propagate the progressive element of vision as homiletic theory. Anyone is free to visualize the meanings that underlie these words and life which were driving force for the formation of ethos and vision. Here the connection between the context that has given rise to conviction which in turn led to ethos and the vision that is formed on the basis of ethos is the connection between the gospel and the sermon we preach. It comes to us with challenge to have deeper convictions and purposeful response in our vision.
2.1. Vision is responsive optimisation
Vision calls for relevant and corresponding response to the context. 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.
Bible speaks of vision where prophets encountered God and God imparted special knowledge and revelation of His message for the people. Prophets in the Old Testament are the appropriate examples of this responsive encounter towards vision. Prophets in turn encountered the context with the message of God for a new world which God intends people to live in. Vision and responding to it by implementing the vision and realization of the same starts with encounter with God and obeying God’s command. God, who is in constant communion with the people and context in which they live, is aware of and convinced of the need of the context. God has vision and plan for the context and it is revealed to the prophets in the encounter who in turn encounters the context and implements and actualizes the vision in fullest optimisation.
Optimisation of ethos towards vision has a coherence of progressive movement towards vision. The relationship between each of these coherent verbs operates both in the dismantling as well as in progression of thoughts.
Optimising is internalizing
Internalizing is becoming one with the reality
Becoming one is acceptance
Acceptance dilution
Dilution is disfiguring
Disfiguring leads to new creation
New creation is vision
2.2. Vision is Pragmatic in nature
As has been defined and argued, vision is responsive optimisation of conviction (ethos) for futuristic pragmatism. 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 wilful 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. Reality of human nature is that our actions are directed by our desire and commitment. Our desire depends on our commitment and our commitment is based on the influential factors. Whatever or whoever is the influential factor determines the need. Therefore need is a predominant force which make the vision pragmatic in nature.
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 practised. 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 vision 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 vision in the light of responsive – optimisation – pragmatism, it is evident vision is progressive in nature because it relates to ethos and both ethos and vision are interconnected to past, present and future. They are timely and governed by time.
“Three perspectives are critical to a proper understanding of the interpretative task. Frist, hermeneutics is a science, since it provides a logical orderly classification of the laws of interpretation……. Second, hermeneutics is an art, for it is an acquired skill demanding both imagination and ability to apply the law to selected passage or book………..Third and the most important, hermeneutics when utilized to interpret Scripture, is a spiritual act depending on the leading of the Holy Spirit”
He further states
“Three major premise of this is that biblical interpretation entails a “spiral” from text to context, from its original meaning to tis contextualization or significance for the church today. Scholars since the New Hermeneutics have been fond of describing a “hermeneutical circle” within which our interpretation of the text leads to its interpreting us. However, siucj a closed circle is dangerous because the priority of the text is lost in the shared getalt of the language event”
However, I hold my argument that hermeneutical and homiletical questions that arise in the argument that interpretation is translation of lived experiences into dynamic understanding, is that if interpretation is translation of lived experience into dynamic understanding, what is the ultimacy of the truth of the scripture? Can there be one universal truth? Where does the truth lie? Is it in the dynamic understanding or in the content that is interpreted? Do people understand the truth from their standpoint? Does dynamism of understanding lie in the understanding of the truth in the light of and within the contextual reality? When experiences of people vary from context to context and country to country, does dynamism operate in enabling people to have their own understanding against the background of their context? In the light of the above discussion, it is evident that vision is dominated by the existential reality and the need for change, farsightedness and pragmatic plans to bring about intended change. It is a plan of God. This leads us to the objective of this argument that is vision as the progressive homiletic theory.
2.3. Vision is Interpretation of Lived Experience and Conviction
Vision is argued here as interpretation of lived experiences and conviction on the basis of the truth that interpretation is translation of existential reality and lived experiences into dynamic understanding. In other words and to be precise vision is interpretation of lived experiences and interpretation is translation of lived experiences into dynamic understanding. The predominant and connecting point of vision here is the dynamism of both interpretation and understanding which is proactive in nature. It emerges as result of influences and influencing factors from the context (lived experiences) and moves towards developing plans for futuristic actions (vision). These plans are born out of the context and experiences in the context. They move and motivate to move further for change in the context and experiences. Newness is anticipated in the plans and movements. Therefore, it is certain that dynamic understanding is governed both by existential reality of a person, institution, family, society even church as well as the lived experiences within this contextual reality and moves towards a definite action plan.
While hermeneutics is defined and explained as a process of moving from the original meaning to a contextualised meaning, I am taking a reversal order to present my progressive homiletic theory. Osborne R. Grant in his book Hermeneutic Spiral argues,
“Three perspectives are critical to a proper understanding of the interpretative task. Frist, hermeneutics is a science, since it provides a logical orderly classification of the laws of interpretation……. Second, hermeneutics is an art, for it is an acquired skill demanding both imagination and ability to apply the law to selected passage or book………..Third and the most important, hermeneutics when utilized to interpret Scripture, is a spiritual act depending on the leading of the Holy Spirit”
He further states
“Three major premise of this is that biblical interpretation entails a “spiral” from text to context, from its original meaning to tis contextualization or significance for the church today. Scholars since the New Hermeneutics have been fond of describing a “hermeneutical circle” within which our interpretation of the text leads to its interpreting us. However, siucj a closed circle is dangerous because the priority of the text is lost in the shared getalt of the language event”
However, I hold my argument that hermeneutical and homiletical questions that arise in the argument that interpretation is translation of lived experiences into dynamic understanding, is that if interpretation is translation of lived experience into dynamic understanding, what is the ultimacy of the truth of the scripture? Can there be one universal truth? Where does the truth lie? Is it in the dynamic understanding or in the content that is interpreted? Do people understand the truth from their standpoint? Does dynamism of understanding lie in the understanding of the truth in the light of and within the contextual reality? When experiences of people vary from context to context and country to country, does dynamism operate in enabling people to have their own understanding against the background of their context? In the light of the above discussion, it is evident that vision is dominated by the existential reality and the need for change, farsightedness and pragmatic plans to bring about intended change. It is a plan of God. This leads us to the objective of this argument that is vision as the progressive homiletic theory.
2.4. Progressive Homiletic Theory
To be specific I highlight the theoretical frames which are operative applications in the process of interpretation of the scripture. These are focal points of interpretation which prompt preachers to look for progressive elements in the scripture passages. They direct preachers, sermon and preaching towards futuristic visionary goals. They are tools used for unearthing visionary elements from the scripture. These theoretical frames generate transforming power from the contextual realities.
Progressive theory 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.
A closer look at these theoretical frames would, no doubt, reveal the functionalities of these frames on the one hand and on the other, their focus on the meaning of the definition of vision i.e. vision is responsive optimisation of conviction (ethos) for futuristic pragmatism. Vision is interpretation of lived experiences and convictions. Vision is an aspiration of idealism and desire to alleviate distortion.
- Mission as Pragmatic Homiletic Theory
Mission is dynamic pragmatic endeavour to actualise ethos and vision. It is just being human, Christian and witnessing. This definition I propose is the result of observation on the developments and paradigm shift in the theological, ministerial understanding of missions and mission history in India over the past many centuries. My task here is not to study the entire history of mission India beginning from its origin, but my aim is to confine my search to the significant shift in mission paradigms as response to the development in the world within which one lives, especially in Indian context. I confine myself to the definition I have proposed in the first sentence of this paragraph, and understanding mission within the context of ethos and vision and still confining to the pragmatic homiletic theory which the definition unfolds. I precisely conceive of the dynamic pragmatism as a response from various aspects. Mission has been defined in numerous ways taking the purpose and focus of the mission. Donald Senior. C.P. and Carroll Stuhlmueller, C.P. in their book on Biblical Foundations of Mission, state
“By “missiom” in this book we mean the God-given call to appreciate and share one’s religious experience and insights, first within one’s own community and tradition, and then with people and communities of other cultural, social and religious traditions. In doing so Christians attempt to fulfil the divine mandte given to the church that humanity reflect :God’s own life
As one people drawn together in love and respect. Such a notion means that mission is two-way: faith is shared but not imposed, and the missionary will be instructed and enriched by discovering God’s salvation is already at work in the people and culture to who he or she is sent.”
Taking reconciliation as a paradigm of mission, Kirsteen Kim and the other contributors to the book have emphasised that mission is reconciliation and healing. Their main focus in the book is that healing take place where there is reconciliation and acceptance of the other, even the enemies. In the light of his experiences as missionary for many years in Africa and considering the vulnerability and need for mission, , Jim Harries and other contributors emphasise the economic change and development as well as evangelistic work. Encyclopaedia of Christianity defines mission as
“A branch of missiology, the theology of mission is a discipline of faithful questioning that focuses on the basis, methods, and purposes of Christian witness in all its forms…….. Theories of mission become theologies of mission when abstract theses definitions and strategies are tested against the imperative of the gospel. Depth and authenticity are added as the history of actual missionary practice is rigorously evaluated. Such theology must also responsive to contextual factors if it is to be relevant for particular communities of faith.”
Taking the above sample definitions and numerous others into consideration, and in the light of the development in the Indian mission history, it is very clear that we have progressed in mission paradigms. In my observation of Indian mission history, we have moved progressively from evangelism to affirming the life of people. The following list explains the progression in mission model in the history of mission in India.
Mission through Evangelism, Mission though Education, Mission through Equipping, Mission though Empowering, Mission through Engaging, Mission through Experiencing, Mission through Accompanying, Mission of Affirming the identity of a person. God is a God of life and affirming the life must the focal point of any mission we carry out. Building living communities must be the objective of our mission. As much as the interpretation of the gospel progresses in the newly emerging contexts, new theories emerge as well. These theories lead to development of new paradigm of mission. In the light of the demands that contexts create and the paradigm shift, theology of mission is determined by three factors namely, the inner coherence within context, need and purpose. Second, the ability to meet the needs of the people in their own context through the corresponding missionary models or pattern. Third, the capacity to proclaim Christ within the specific context.
3.1. Mission as Response to the context
As has been presented in the beginning of this part, mission is a dynamic pragmatic endeavour to actualize the ethos and vision. It is basically our response. The context in which we live is a context of an open world, where possibilities and impossibilities are placed on the same pedestal. Both possibilities and impossibilities are put together over against each other where domination of one over the other is strikingly as well as painfully experienced. In this open world we are facing challenges of contextuality of what we are doing. People are deprived, crushed, made invisible, by the power of the mighty and powerful and by all types of atrocities which are legalized. Within this living situation and context people try to derive meaning of both their life and the scripture on the basis of their experiences and try to affirm their life, because for every one their own identity is and life are important and they make possible efforts to affirm them. Mission, understood against this background is definitely RESPONSE.
Mission is outset is biblical, theological, ministerial and missional response. It is a biblical response because we engage in contextual reading of the Bible. It is a theological response because we contextualise the theological paradigms and the very theologizing itself. It is a missional response because we widen the scope of our perspectives and mission locations. Mission is also a ministerial response because we diversify the forms and focus of our ministry, reaching to al areas of life. Mission is a spiritual response because we answer questions related to the faith of the people.
Mission is also a social response because the society, world, context and situation in which we live demand it. Mission is a psychological response because we address the emotional needs of the people who are put into difficult situations. Responding to the needs of the people in their own context is the pragmatic aspect of homiletics and mission. It draws us into the theoretical frames of pragmatic homiletic theory.
3.2. Pragmatic Homiletic Frames
Pragmatic homiletic theory focuses on engaging with the text to identify the pragmatic elements in the text by operating on regaining power, rights, status etc of the people. It seeks to reposition the original situations of the people through a process of deconstructing and reconstructing and also decentralizing and recentralizing. Pragmatic homiletic theory operates on major principle of repositioning at two opposite levels: One, regaining all what people have lost as result of authoritative misuse of power by one group of people. This leads to the second level of decentralizing of power concentration among one group of people.
Pragmatic homiletic theory operates subversively by questioning and toppling the unlawful power. Subversive theory seeks to reorganize the power structures. It seeks to identify unlawful means power is accumulated and misused. It also seeks to distribute the power to those it originally belongs. These theoretical frameworks are operative forces in the paradigm of mission which are proposed above and the crux of the model i.e. mission is contextually pragmatic, paradigmatic and praxis-oriented.
Conclusion
As has been mentioned in the introduction, this article is more an essay on the homiletic theories and my purpose was to make these theories available to pastors, preachers to use them, if necessary, in their sermons and teachers of homiletics to use them in their homiletic classes. The task of preaching involves theological reflections on the message of salvation from the biblical passages that are given for preaching. As much as theological reflection on the biblical passage in its original context is a ‘required must’, so is reflection on the biblical passage from the perspective of the context is a ‘demanding must’ in the present context of an open world of individual thinking which is dominated by the context in which one lives. Context and people in and around it are sources/causes of experiences every individual has. Given the crucial reality of experiences, it is undeniable fact that these experiences are fundamental to the process of interpretation leading to dynamic understanding within each individual, so also in preachers. Perspectives, conviction and ethos emerge out of the understandings. Such a notion means that context leads to the formation and development of contextual homiletic theories. Contemporary life of the church and the multiple nature of demands the society puts forth demand that more importance be given to the question of relevant preaching which enable congregation members to make meaning of what they hear in sermons that are preached, because they try to translate their lived experiences into dynamic understanding. Although, from the faith perspective, Bible stands as the unique source of guidance and reflection and reveal experiences of people, we are in a crucial time where people take these experiences to form their views and vision about their own future. Therefore, it is predominantly important for pastors, preachers and teachers of homiletics to concentrate on the progressive homiletic theory, taking dynamic understanding into consideration. Mission, in all possible meaning, is a graceful and loving call of God to people. Within this call lie God’s multiple missional expectations such as evangelism, education, equipping, empowering, engaging, experiencing and affirming the life. Very vital is God’s call for repositioning the mispositioned realities. There is an authentic call that preaching need to take the pragmatic homiletic theory from the missionary call of God. It is evident that ethos, vision and mission lead to contextual, progressive and pragmatic homiletic theories.
A sample application of the theories: A Postscript
Applying contextual, progressive and pragmatic homiletic theories on a biblical text would be helpful in understanding their functionality. For this purpose, I have chosen the parable of the talents. Matthew 25: 14 – 30 ; Luke 19 : 11 – 27
For centuries churches have imparted the lesson from this parable that God gives everyone spiritual gifts and we need to utilize them and develop and multiply them for the good our spiritual growth. On the other hand this parable has been a supportive interpretation for those who are capitalistic in mindset. “For those who have, more will be given” has been interpreted and used to justify the accumulation of wealth. This has been a driving force for many Christian business people.
As I observe, Jesus has said three types of parables namely, directive, non-directive and subversive They are not readings or approaches to parables but clear types. The parable of the talents or minas is one of subversive in type which Jesus used to bring out the truth about the Kingdom of God. Applying ethos contextual theory and vison as progressive theory and mission as pragmatic theory to this parable leads us to understand the purpose the parable.
Ethos: The nobleman – capitalistic (Luke 19 :13)
People of the city – Just community who hated the unlawful leader (14)
Servants who received ten and five minas: Capitalistic (13)
Servant who received one mina – Courageous
Ethos as contextual homiletic theory helps us identify the plots in the parable.
Vision: (Translation of conviction and ethos into dynamic understanding)
Nobleman – multiplication of wealth (16,17) taking other’s property (21, 22) amassing wealth through oppressive ways (23)
People in the city – Representation would prevent unjust rule in the city\
Servants who received ten and five minas – multiplying would result in gathering more power
Servant who received one mina – Exposed the unlawful leader (21), siding with the poor by not investing the mina in the bank and making the rich richer through means of interest (23)
Vision as progressive homiletic theory leads to the understanding how each of the characters in the parables translated their own ethos into their way of moving forward to achieve their goals. In this movement of plots, we need to be mindful of Jesus’s subversive way of explaining the truth about the Kingdom of God.
Mission:
Nobleman – Applying mission as pragmatic homiletic theory explains the subversive nature of Jusus’ parable. Further it explains that the mission of the nobleman is against the values of the Kingdom of God in the light of the following facts that come out while applying the pragmatic theory. Accumulation of wealth which is against the values of the Kingdom of God is exposed here.
Accumulation of wealth through oppressive means is very much evident here.
His greed for power and ruling people against their wishes is revealed in his efforts to get authority to rule the city against the wishes of the people who sent delegation to prevent his leadership.
His call for other people who opposed him to be the leader to be killed in front of him exposes the fact that the nobleman cannot be compared to Christ or God who gives us talents.
Servant who received one mina: Applying mission as pragmatic homiletic theory reveals that the servant who received one mina is the model of the Kingdom of God whom Jesus highlights subversively. Following pragmatic moves he takes are evidences of Jesus’ explanations of the reversal model of the Kingdom of God:
He exposes the unlawful ways of the nobleman through his confrontation saying, you are a hard man who take from the place where you did not deposit and reap from the place where you did not sow. These qualities of the nobleman are nothing but robbery and cheating. The nobleman also accepts and acknowledges what the servant said about him and further asks him why he did not keep the mina in the bank which could have gathered interests. The servant’s intention of not keeping it in the bank seems to show that he was aware that only poor people borrow and they are squeezed to pay interest and made poorer. Therefore he takes sides with the poor people. He questions and challenges the capitalistic and oppressive leadership which are very signs of the Kingdom of God.
