Evaluating the Situation: The Normative Task

Osmer’s third phase of practical theology is the normative task. Asking the question, ‘What ought to be going on?’, he advocates three specific tasks: ‘Using theological concepts to interpret particular episodes, situations, or contexts, constructing ethical norms to guide our responses, and learning from ‘“good practice”’.296 His normative task is biblically located in ‘prophetic discernment’, which, based in part on a brief overview of the prophetic office in the OT, ‘involves both divine disclosure and the human shaping of God’s word’.297 Of significance to Osmer and befitting the local church context in terms of its Constitution and Basis of Faith, is that the NT draws on this prophetic tradition but extends it, where Jesus is seen as not just a messenger of God’s word but he is God’s Word himself. This means that prophetic discernment by congregational leaders does not ‘look for other words from God alongside of or in competition with this Word’.298 This coheres with the ABBC Basis of Faith statement about the Bible being the Word of God, the Deity of Jesus Christ and his authoritative teaching. 299 _{ABBC implicitly recognises Jesus as the Word of God, although he is} not explicitly stated as such in the Basis of Faith. Preaching in ABBC is seen as ‘preaching the Word’ when the preacher calls upon the Bible as the textual Word of God to preach Jesus as the embodied Word of God. ABBC would therefore agree with Osmer in regarding preaching as human words that should be in conformity rather than competition with God’s Word. Indeed, I perceive that my own developing preaching style has increased awareness in ABBC of the human shaping of 296 _{Osmer, Theology, p.4.} 297 _{Osmer, Theology, pp.134-135.} 298 Osmer, Theology, p.135. 299 _{See p.24, n.43.}

preaching as a form of God’s Word. Both the suggestion for other voices within sermons and the clear desire among some people to make their own sermon conclusions indicate a growing awareness of ‘the human shaping of God’s Word’.

In this chapter I take up Osmer’s normative task, mainly to examine the theological undergirding for preaching and in particular the narrative-critical approach to preaching that, amongst other things, I examine in this thesis.

First, I must clarify what ‘normative’ means in context. The church has, by definition, its own normative position, for example on its approach to the Bible, set within the

Basis of Faith as stated in Chapter 1. It is normative that those formally in

membership of the church affirm the Basis of Faith. With the church’s clear attention to the centrality of the Bible in preaching, evidenced among other things through the archives, its historical normative position is clear. With no denominational association, however, evaluation of what ought to be normative must be centred in wider Christian tradition, but this raises the question of which tradition or theological norm. Helen Cameron and others worked as a team to develop a methodology for ‘better understanding and articulating the mystery of “God in practice”’ using four theological ‘voices’: normative theology, formal theology, espoused theology and operant theology.300 In this chapter I primarily consider normative theology but this is not to exclude other voices. Cameron lists as part of normative theology, ‘Scriptures’, ‘The creeds’, ‘Official church teaching’ and ‘Liturgies’.301 These will inevitably be self- selecting to a degree: which creeds, official teaching or liturgies? My own tradition almost totally ignores formal liturgy or creeds (other than its own Basis of Faith, which in my perception seems to be used mainly for protection of belief rather than active

300

Helen Cameron and others, Talking about God in Practice: Theological Action Research and Practical Theology, (London: SCM Press, 2010), p.49 and p.54.

confession). Whilst these factors are themselves good reason for reflection and external normalisation, the lack of creedal or denominational involvement leaves only the centrality of the Bible as normative and the basis for preaching in this church.302 Formal theology will largely assist my task in the absence of a denominational connection.

With these perspectives in mind, I shall use the framework of ‘authority’ to consider the normative task: what authority does the Bible have in preaching?; what authority does the congregation have?; what authority does the preacher have? Authority as the framework is particularly apt for three reasons. First, I have highlighted in chapter 1 that ABBC places central priority on the Bible as being authoritative. Second, chapter 2 showed that both the church sermon archives and research interviewees regard the position and authority of the preacher as important in bringing ‘God’s word’ to the congregation. Third, however, the research highlighted a desire for active congregational involvement, suggesting that preaching authority should not be the sole prerogative of the preacher. These reasons collectively endorse an appropriate framework for examination of the normative task through the lens of ‘Authority’.

I will also focus on the narrative-critical perspectives that are central to this thesis in terms of an extension into narrative theology, which offers a wider theological and normative perspective to narrative-critical interpretation. Narrative theology insofar as it intersects with themes in this thesis, first, recognises the literary form of scripture and invites us to reflect on story, affirming that God meets us and speaks to us in

302

As the first draft of this Chapter was being written, however, I preached through ‘The Apostles’ Creed’ on the back of a narrative overview of the Bible, in an effort to integrate creedal material with the (ongoing) meta-narrative of the Bible.

history.303 Second, it self-consciously engages and reflects on theology’s task in relation to its ecclesial settings, and third, it concretely embodies scripture rather than seeking to ‘lift’ teachings or moral truths from the text.304 These aspects of narrative theology relate directly to the three areas of authority that I will address.