Homiletical Theory as a Pedagogical Paradigm

Abstract

Every preacher has a unique homiletical theory evident in their preaching, regardless of whether it is understood through scholarly examination. Homiletical theory is the academic examination of disciplines in the understanding of the methodological functionality in preaching. Historically, theology and rhetoric constitute frames of reference in homiletical theory. However, as the field evolves, other frames of reference emerge, including pastoral care. In this paper, I argue that homiletical theory is a pedagogical paradigm in which the lead partner, either rhetoric or theology, determines the point of departure for teaching, with emphasis on the rhetorical situation or the theological implications. Therefore, understanding one’s homiletical theory can lead to a pedagogical experience that translates to more effective preaching by developing a coherent delineation from theory to praxis. As a case study, I use my approach to teaching students how to preach funerals with a rhetorical point of departure that focuses on answering the existential question: how then shall we live now that our loved one has died?

1. Introduction

Every preacher has a unique homiletical theory evident in their preaching, regardless of whether it is understood through scholarly examination. Homiletical theory is the academic examination of disciplines in the understanding of the methodological functionality of preaching. The broad categories of homiletical theory include the nature and purpose of preaching, hermeneutics, the authority of scripture, and language. These broad categories unearth the proclaimer’s core beliefs about preaching that inform each sermon. Understanding one’s homiletical theory may assist with a proclaimer’s congruity in that one’s message remains consistent from sermon to sermon concerning theology, sermon structure, etc.

Homiletical theory has many frames of reference, such as theology, rhetoric, and poetics (aesthetics). However, for this article, the focal emphasis is theology and rhetoric. In the Christian tradition, theology is the words of God, words to God, and the words about God (Kay 2007, p. 4). “Rhetoric is a study of the rhetorical situations that gave rise to the response, and is an examination of how the speaker/writer invited the audience to respond” (Johnson 2010, p. 282). Some homileticians consider a third frame of reference as poetics, which means aesthetics. As the field evolves through examining the homiletical theory of African American preachers, other frames of reference emerge, including ecclesiology, epistemology, and ethnography. However, this conversation focuses on the two traditional frames of reference, theology and rhetoric, and how the leading discipline in homiletical theory determines preaching pedagogy.

Homiletical theory is a pedagogical paradigm in which the lead partner, either rhetoric or theology, determines the point of departure for teaching, with an emphasis on the rhetorical situation or theological implications. For example, Frank A. Thomas believes theology leads, with rhetoric closely following (Thomas 2016, p. 69). Therefore, Thomas teaches preaching from a theological point of departure with an emphasis on the preacher’s core beliefs about God. Additionally, the lead partner and contributing disciplines determine the course resources used for the class.1 Therefore, understanding one’s homiletical theory can lead to a pedagogical experience that translates to more effective preaching by developing a coherent delineation from theory to praxis.

In this paper, I provide a historical context of homiletical theory, with an emphasis on the leading disciplines of either theology or rhetoric. Then, I outline the two homiletical methods of African American preachers, Isaac Rufus Clark’s Metaethical Method scribed by Katie G. Cannon and the Celebration Method from Frank A. Thomas. Next, I explain the teaching techniques of the practitioner–scholars, with Thomas teaching from a theological point of departure and Cannon teaching from a rhetorical point of departure. I discuss how the point of departure impacts pedagogical praxis in the classroom. Lastly, I use my pedagogy of preaching funerals as a case study that further proves my claims about homiletical theory as a pedagogical paradigm.

2. The Relationship between Theology and Rhetoric in Homiletical Theory

In homiletical theory, the question of the discipline of rhetoric within Christian preaching has been debated since the early church. Plato rejects rhetoric as flattery language that ignores truth, whereas Augustine incorporates the field of rhetoric in preaching by arguing that the task of the Christian teacher is to discover and teach scripture. This understanding stems from Cicero’s principles of rhetoric to “teach, delight, and move the audience”. Additionally, Karl Barth engages both theology and rhetoric. He argues that rhetoric makes claims upon the preacher with respect to accountability and intentionality with words; subsequently, preaching requires a pious eloquence. Theologically, Barth argues that preaching is “the Word of God which (God) himself speaks, claiming for the purpose the exposition of a biblical text in free human words” (Barth 1991, p. 44).

The debate continues with contemporary homileticians, such as Richard Lischer and Lucy Lind Hogan. Lischer believes rhetoric as an act of persuasion is an incomplete understanding of preaching that does not account for the revelation of the Gospel, the distinctive mark of the God speech of preaching as a theological calling of the preacher (Lischer 1999, pp. 14–15). However, Hogan develops “an incarnational theology of preaching (that) sees the human as redeemed and thus empowered to invite others to redemption, a redemption only possible through the grace of God” (Hogan 1999, p. 11). For Hogan, preaching is both human and divine speech, explained through an incarnational theology of preaching.

Frank A. Thomas and Cleophus J. LaRue contribute to the discussion of theology and rhetoric in homiletical theory with a specific interest in African American preaching. In the Introduction to the Practice of African American Preaching, Frank A. Thomas contributes to the discussion by suggesting that in African American preaching both theology and rhetoric are inherently connected and equally important to the conversation of homiletical theory. For Thomas, “The nature and purpose of African American preaching is to help people experience the assurance of grace (the good news) that is the gospel of Jesus the Christ” (Thomas 1997, p. 17). In The Heart of Black Preaching, Cleophus J. LaRue argues that the lived experiences of African Americans are held in tandem with scripture, not overshadowing the exegetical work within the sermon, but equally significant. LaRue states that the departure points of the sermon for black preaching are both “the content of black socio-cultural experience and how that content impacts the sense in which God is believed to be present in and through scripture” (LaRue 2000, p. 14).

In doing so, historically African American preaching has used rhetorical strategies, such as imagery, alliteration, metaphors, and persona, to create an experiential experience with God’s word. According to Mitchell, the use of vivid imagery in black preaching reflects an understanding of hearing, other senses, and how they relate to belief, which is necessary for an experiential encounter with the Word (Mitchell 2008, p. 20). Therefore, one cannot separate rhetoric from theology in African American preaching. Subsequently, the question becomes which discipline leads, theology or rhetoric?

There are many metaphors that homileticians use to describe the relationship between theology and rhetoric. Frank A. Thomas describes the relationship as a dance, with theology being the lead partner and rhetoric closely following (Thomas 2016, p. 69). The use of the dance metaphor does not consider the contributing disciplines that impact a preacher’s homiletical theory. Therefore, I would like to add another metaphor for our understanding of the relationship between rhetoric and theology.

Homiletical theory is like a cycling team. In cycling, the team consists of four to nine cyclists in a race. The team lead is the strongest member of the team. The other cyclists are domestiques, secondary riders that work together supporting the team lead towards winning the race. During the race, the first rider sets the pace for the team. This rider exerts enormous amounts of energy to set a strong pace for the group. The team lead who rides in the last position conserves energy by drafting behind the other team members. Drafting is when a rider moves into a low-pressure area closely behind another rider. The team cycles together by working collectively with varying strategies to position the team lead to win the race.

In homiletical theory, for Thomas, theology is the first cyclist that sets the tone of the sermon. Theology does the heavy lifting of the sermon, meaning that the preacher’s understanding of the nature and character of God takes center stage. Hopefully, the preacher articulates her theology clearly for the listeners. Rhetoric is the team lead that all the other frames of reference are working together for rhetoric to bring the sermon home for the win. The domestiques, the secondary disciplines that support rhetoric, vary depending upon the context and experience of the preacher. For my homiletical theory, the secondary discipline includes pastoral care, which heavily informs my preaching as a chaplain practitioner–scholar. I will briefly discuss my homiletical theory in the case study of teaching students how to preach funerals.

3. Homiletical Methods of Isaac Rufus Clark and Frank A. Thomas

There are many African American preachers who have distinctive homiletical methods. The two practitioner scholars that will be examined for this paper are the late Rev. Dr. Katie G. Cannon, who scribed the Metaethical Method of the Rev. Dr. Isaac Rufus Clark, and the Rev. Dr. Frank A. Thomas, who teaches his own Celebration Method. Cannon teaches the Metaethical Method with a rhetorical point of departure, whereas Thomas teaches the Celebration Method from a theological point of departure.

3.1. Isaac Rufus Clark—The Metaethical Method

In Teaching Preaching, Katie Geneva Cannon scribes the Metaethical Method, the homiletical method of her preaching professor, Isaac Rufus Clark, the Fuller E. Callaway Professor of Homiletics at the International Theological Center. The method begins with the anatomy of the idea that “has to do with grasping the full thrust of an issue being discussed, by means of raising certain kinds of basic comprehending questions about what is being said or written, with a view toward understanding what the issue means-in-itself and what it implies-for-the-audience” (Cannon 2002, p. 171). This idea can begin with the Biblical text or the social context. The anatomy of the idea is formed from the following questions: what is the issue about, how do we experience the issue, and why does the issue matter? An example of an anatomy of the idea from a lived experience is as follows: (what) The inauguration of the first African American woman as the Vice President of the United States of America (how) inspires black and brown girls to dream big (why) to fulfill their God-given purpose in life.

The next step is to decide what kind of sermon one is developing. The kind of sermon is either being, doing, or thinking. A being title might be Becoming A Dreamer, for a sermon which explains how to be a dreamer. Verbs will be used as the moves of this sermon to show how one becomes a dreamer possibly by living, loving, and learning. A thinking title might be The Relevance of a Dream, for a sermon which explains why dreams are important. The moves in the body could be that dreams are important because dreams nurture authenticity, develop assertiveness, and create aspirations. These moves are nouns—authenticity, assertiveness, and aspirations. A doing sermon might be Choosing to Dream, one which challenges the hearers to live their dreams. Possible moves for directives on choosing to dream are facing fear, managing mistakes, and reaping rewards.

The sermonic development consists of the following parts: a title, a proposition, an introduction, a transition, and the body. According to Cannon, Clark’s battle cry is “If you ain’t got no proposition, you ain’t got no sermon neither!” The proposition is where the congregation hears the whole sermon. “The proposition is the central, integrating, controlling sentence of the entire sermonic discourse, embracing in its makeup a clear, procedural how-meaning that is added to an already established and previously given what-meaning (Title/Subject) and why-meaning (Introduction) of the discourse” (Cannon 2002, p. 16). For example, the proposition for the inauguration idea could be as follows: The people of God must choose to dream by seeking inspiration in order to fulfill our God-given purpose in life. Within the sermon, the proposition could either be placed before or after the introduction, but it must come before the body.

The transition from the introduction to the body is the “So what?” For the Choosing to Dream sermon, the “So what?” could be as follows: So what—if we don’t choose to dream? If we don’t choose to dream, we will never imagine a life outside of our abilities. So what—if we don’t imagine a life outside of our abilities? We will never live a life dependent on God. So what—if we don’t depend on God? We will never know the purpose-driven life that God has for us. So what—if we never know our purpose? Our life would have been lived in vain.

A life lived in vain is the ultimate consequence of not dreaming. Therefore, living a life in vain is then exemplified by an allegory, metaphor, or something that paints a picture of a life lived in vain. For this transition, a life lived in vain is a life lived beneath your privilege marred by mediocrity. So, let us choose to dream so that we can live a life of purpose in excellence.

The next step is the body, which tells the audience how to choose to dream to live a purpose-driven life. The people of God choose to dream by facing fears, managing mistakes, and reaping rewards. These moves must be outlined in the sermonic text. The conclusion reflects the intended sermonic response of the congregation choosing to dream. Therefore, the conclusion could be a run of naming historical figures who chose to dream and accomplished feats bigger than themselves through the power of God.

In Teaching Preaching, Cannon delineates Clark’s perspective on closing a sermon as it relates to the sought congregational responses to the sermon. “The response sought will determine not only the kind of conclusion employed, but also the introduction, the proposition, and the body” (Cannon 2002, p. 163). Jubilation is but one response to the sermon. Other responses outlined in Clark’s method include the following: repentance, conversion, edification, growing edge of concern, sympathy, concrete action, spiritual curiosity, renewal, and a sense of human dignity. These responses determine the type of conclusion. The list of conclusions is as follows: resume—reiterating the main points with elements of force and persuasion, direct appeal—tied to the concern of conversion, directive—directions for the congregation, the Christian answer to the big question—when the entire sermon has been of problem-raising nature, and open dare—a challenge for the congregation to put their faith on the line (Cannon 2002, p. 168). Neither the list of responses nor types of conclusions are exhaustive lists. However, the lists draw the proclaimers towards other forms of closing, rather than the celebration.

In Teaching Preaching, Cannon discusses the misrepresentation of the close which becomes a disjointed performance that is disconnected from the main theme of the sermon. A close that does not connect with the entirety of the sermon is a misrepresentation of the African American preaching tradition. This misrepresentation is prevalent in Black preaching. Therefore, Black practitioner scholars address the “proper” close, which may not necessarily always be a celebration.

3.2. Rhetorical Pedagogical Point of Departure

The Metaethical Method is a homiletical method whose point of departure is rhetoric. A rhetorical point of departure emphasizes the rhetorical situation, either in the Biblical text or lived experience. The rhetorical situation is “a natural context of persons, events, objects, relations, and an exigency which strongly invites utterance; this invited utterance participants naturally in the situation, is in many instances necessary to the completion of situational activity, and by means of its participation with situation obtains its meaning and its rhetorical character” (Bitzer 1999, p. 219). In the Metaethical Method, the rhetorical situation is the anatomy of an idea stemming from either the Biblical text or lived experience.

From a pedagogical standpoint, the rhetorical point of departure is grounded in the idea that practice makes better. When I was taught the Metaethical Method by the late Rev. Dr. Katie Geneva Cannon, we practiced writing each step of the method with in-class exercises as well as class homework, beginning with the anatomy of an idea. The task was to write the what, how, and why of an issue that the preacher wanted to address. What is the problem? How do we exhibit that problem? Why is the problem necessary to address? Then develop introductions of sermons based on the what, how, and why. Each part of the method was practiced repeatedly. Dr. Cannon distributed handouts with body points, such as red light, yellow light, and green light. She employed the students to create files with our body points, sermon titles, and sermonic illustrations. The rhetorical point of departure focuses on the repetition of practicing the parts of the method.

3.3. Frank A. Thomas—The Celebration Method

The final homiletic method is the Celebration Method of Frank A. Thomas. In They Like to Never Quit Praisin’ God: The Role of Celebration in Preaching, Frank A. Thomas describes his Celebration Preaching Method that was re-packaged as a teaching tool in Preaching as Celebration: Digital Lecture Series and Workbook. The Celebration Method consists of the following components: Situation, Complication, Resolution, and Celebration. Thomas creates a worksheet that asks six questions, which becomes the components of the method. The situation is the problem in the biblical text or society. To develop the situation, Thomas asks the following two questions as they relate to God: 1. What does the passage say to me (about God)? 2. What does this passage say about the needs of people in our time (concerning God)? (Thomas 2018).

The complication helps the hearers understand how the problem is exacerbated or worsened. In a literary sense, the plot thickens with the complication. To develop the complication, Thomas asks the following questions: 1. What is the “bad news” in the text? 2. What is the “bad news” for our time? (Thomas 2018, p. 66). The resolution is how the problem is resolved in the text and the life application of the resolution. To develop the resolution, Thomas asks the following questions: 1. What is the “good news” in the text? 2. What is the “good news” for our time? (Thomas 2018, p. 66). The next step is to determine the behavioral purpose statement, the mission statement of the sermon (Thomas 2018, p. 64). The behavioral purpose is a behavioral goal, either stated or implied by the biblical text, which moves the hearers in the direction of the life modeled by Jesus Christ (Mitchell 1990, p. 13). Lastly, Thomas creates a strategy for celebration, “the joyful and ecstatic reinforcement of the truth already taught and delivered in the main body of the sermon” (Thomas 1997, p. 85). To develop the celebration, Thomas asks the following questions: 1. What shall we celebrate? 2. How shall we celebrate our response in question 1? 3. What materials of celebration shall we use? (Thomas 2018, p. 67).

The close is a significant discussion in African American preaching, specifically the close of a celebration, which is a hallmark of Black preaching. In Celebration and Experience in Preaching, Henry Mitchell defines the celebration as ecstatic reinforcement as “the timed peak of emotional impact is climatically applied to the sermon’s text and behavioral purpose” (Mitchell 1990, p. 35). The behavioral purpose is a behavioral goal, either stated or implied by the biblical text, which moves the hearers in the direction of the life modeled by Jesus Christ (Mitchell 1990, p. 13). In They Like to Never Quit Praisin’ God, Frank A. Thomas builds upon Mitchell’s definition of celebration by defining celebration as “the final stage of the sermon (that) functions as the joyful and ecstatic reinforcement of the truth already taught and delivered in the main body of the sermon” (Thomas 1997, p. 85). Both Mitchell and Thomas emphasize the celebration as a reinforcement of the core belief or behavioral purpose of the sermon.

3.4. Theological Pedagogical Point of Departure

The Celebration Method is taught with a theological emphasis with reflections on the preacher’s core belief. “In the Christian context, core beliefs are our working opinions about whether God can be trusted” (Thomas 2018, p. 33) This theological pedagogy reflects a more pastoral approach to teaching preaching with regard to self-reflection on one’s personal experiences that shape the beliefs about God, such as God being faithful. Then, rhetoric closely follows with regard to the actual steps of the method which begins with the situation (Thomas 2018, p. 66).

From a pedagogical standpoint, a theological point of departure is grounded in the idea of reflecting on one’s own experiences with God to understand the preacher’s belief about the nature and character of God. Dr. Frank A. Thomas teaches preaching from his workbook, Preaching as Celebration: Digital Lecture Series and Workbook. One of the first exercises is entitled Discovering Core Belief. “According to Henry H. Mitchell and Nicholas Cooper-Lewter, core belief encompasses the ways in which one trusts or fails to trust in one’s inner core” (Thomas 2018, p. 33). Thomas asks the following questions: What do you know to be true at your inner core? What is your core belief? How did you come to know what you most deeply believe to be true? These questions are then followed by specific questions about God. What is it that you most deeply believe about the character of God? How did you come to believe this about the character of God? What experience or story can you share that convinced you of this particular aspect of God’s character? (Thomas 2018, pp. 33–34).

4. Case Study: How to Preach Funerals of Persons You Do Not Know

The following case study correlates theory and praxis by demonstrating how I teach students to preach funerals using homiletical theory. This method is useful for any funeral sermon. However, it is most useful for preaching funerals for people the preacher does not know well. From my experience as a hospice chaplain who preached funerals for strangers regularly, I used this method to gain an understanding of the life of the deceased. Then, I was able to connect the life of the deceased with the characteristics of God in a manner that celebrated life and honored God.

In this section, I provide a brief introduction to Christian funeral preaching. Then, I claim that funeral preaching is taught best with rhetoric leading as focal attention on the rhetorical situation of the death of a loved one. Next, to further substantiate my claim, I delineate potential course material for the class. Using the cycling metaphor, the course material aligns with my homiletical theory of rhetoric leading, pastoral care following, and theology bringing the sermon home for the win. An indicator of rhetoric leading is that each assigned book is about the Christian funeral, which deepens the student’s understanding of the rhetorical situation in various cultural contexts, the African American community, and mainstream Protestantism in the United States of America. Even though the cultural understanding of Christian values is not monolithic, the course material provides foundational knowledge for the preacher. Then, in praxis, the cultural understanding is nuanced through pastoral care with the deceased’s family. The particularities of the deceased’s faith are understood as the preacher asks the family questions that point towards the existential question: how then shall we live now that the deceased has died? The theological constructs supporting the deceased’s faith bring the sermon home for the win.

4.1. Introduction to Christian Funeral Preaching

Christian clergy are tasked with preaching funerals for persons they may not know due to a myriad of reasons. For pastors, the deceased may be a member’s adult child who is inactive in the church or the death of a local community member without any church affiliation. For military chaplains, often the deceased is a soldier assigned to their unit who was not active in the spiritual life of the unit. Further, for hospice chaplains, the deceased may be a patient who was in a coma-like state during admission to hospice or a patient that the chaplain visited once before their death. At the time of death, these individuals are not actively engaged in the Christian religious community. However, they identify as Christians and desire a Christian funeral. Their expectation presents a dilemma for the clergy presiding over their funerals: how do clergy honor the faith of the deceased who identified as Christian, but lived outside of a faith community?

Typically, the type of sermon preached for the deceased within the faith community is a eulogy, presumably, because the clergy has firsthand knowledge of the details of the life of the deceased. If the deceased is unknown to the clergy, he/she delivers a generic funeral sermon. My working definitions of a eulogy and funeral sermon are as follows: The eulogy honors the deceased by describing how the deceased’s life exuded Christian characteristics, i.e., the image of God. The funeral sermon focuses on the Gospel message of hope and negates the details of the deceased’s life. However, through the use of pastoral care, clergy may develop a eulogy regardless of the relationship between clergy and the deceased.

Eulogies redeem the value of the deceased by revealing their Christian witness as a testament to their faith. The eulogy narrates the deceased’s faith by giving examples of how his/her life exemplified Christian characteristics. Since the details of the deceased’s faith are unknown to the clergy, during the bereavement visit clergy must employ pastoral care skills to understand the Christian witness of the deceased. Through the integration of pastoral care and prophetic preaching, clergy can develop eulogies for people they do not know, rather than generic funeral sermons. These eulogies require distinct skills in pastoral care that help the clergy “get to know” the essence of the deceased as they listen to the stories told by the bereaved family and friends.

As a hospice chaplain, my point of departure is always the image of God in the life of the deceased, regardless of how they lived or died. As I prepare a eulogy for someone I do not know very well, I ask myself the following questions as I reflect on the stories shared by the deceased’s family and friends: In the life of the deceased, where do I hear God’s love, grace and mercy as the family engaged the life review process? What godly characteristics are evident in the life of the deceased? Then, how do I uphold these God-like qualities as an offering honoring the life of the deceased and the living God in a manner that comforts the audience of accountability? The fundamental question that eulogies answer is as follows: how then shall we live now that s/he has died?

How then shall we live now that the deceased has died is an existential question grounded in the rhetorical situation. “Rhetoric is a study of the rhetorical situations that gave rise to the response, and is an examination of how the speaker/writer invited the audience to respond” (Johnson 2010, p. 282). The rhetorical situation is “a natural context of persons, events, objects, relations, and an exigency which strongly invites utterance; this invited utterance participants naturally in the situation, is in many instances necessary to the completion of situational activity, and by means of its participation with situation obtains its meaning and its rhetorical character” (Bitzer 1999, p. 219). Therefore, the grounding question situates the audience in the reality of death while inviting them to reflect on the Godly characteristics of the deceased that can be emulated in honor of the deceased and to the glory of God. Theology drives the sermonic development concerning the character of God displayed in the life of the deceased. The preacher’s personal reflection is that of their understanding of the nature and character of God and how that is exhibited in the life of the deceased.

4.2. The Pedagogy of Funeral Peaching

Pertaining to homiletical theory, the pedagogical approach of the existential question driving sermonic development hinges on the frames of references of rhetoric, pastoral care, and theology. Using the cycling metaphor, the homiletical theory of preaching funerals consists of rhetoric being the team lead, the first in line doing the heavy lifting of the sermon. Rhetoric grounds the sermon in the rhetorical situation of the death of the loved one, which asks the question, “How then shall we live now that the deceased has died?” The answer to this question is anthropomorphic in that the preacher places human qualities on God; thereby, expanding our theological understanding of God.

For example, the preacher could highlight the deceased’s smile and their ability to find joy. Joy becomes the anthropomorphic quality attributed to God. Joy is an aspect of the deceased’s life that we can honor and can contribute to our faith formation regardless of whether the deceased was an active member in the church. The preacher honors the deceased’s life, specifically how the deceased lived faithfully. Pastoral care is the ministry of comfort the preacher provides to the bereaved family and friends through visitations, listening during the life review process, and the words of comfort expressed in the sermon and worship service. The disciplines of rhetoric and pastoral care work together for theology to bring the sermon home for the win. Theology determines the sermon’s effectiveness by presenting the case for how the listeners might live the anthropomorphic characteristics of God now that the deceased has died.

The syllabus for the course on funeral preaching reflects the cycling pedagogical paradigm with rhetoric setting the tone, pastoral care supporting rhetoric, and theology bringing the sermon home for the win. The course material addresses all the disciplines that create the frames of reference of my homiletical theory. Course materials may include the books Passed On: African American Mourning Stories: A Memorial Collection by Karla Holloway, Accompany Them with Singing: The Christian Funeral by Thomas Long, Preaching Funerals in the Black Church: Bring Perspective to Pain by Peter Wherry, and A Balm in Gilead: Eulogies of Comfort compiled by Randall C. Webber.

Passed On is an intimate portrayal of the funeral history of African Americans in the 20th Century. Karla Holloway provides personal narratives along with detailed historical accounts of African American mourning and burial practices. Beginning with the death of her son, Holloway interweaves personal experience with ethnography, church history, and socio-economic research to tell the story of the death and dying of Africans of the diaspora in America. This book centers on the rhetorical situation of funerals within the African American context.

In Accompany Them with Singing, Thomas Long provides a history of the Christian funeral, theologically and liturgically. The historical aspects focus on funeral trends based on religious and cultural shifts in America. The final chapters emphasize Long’s perspective of a good funeral, wherein he provides concrete examples for preachers to model as best practices for funeral preparations. This book centers on the rhetorical situation of the Christian funeral to identify best practices for funeral worship within the social context of America.

In Preaching Funerals in the Black Church, Peter Wherry provides a pastoral approach to preaching funerals within the context of the African American church. Wherry gives practical examples based on his pastoral experience preaching funerals in the church. For example, Wherry states that inductive preaching is possibly the most effective method for preaching funerals. He compares the inductive preacher to a docent in a museum taking listeners on a guided tour of biblical content. The preacher introduces the hearers to the sermon, not forcing them to view the exhibit. When done well, this method facilitates “Aha!” moments in which the hearers perceive some biblical insight that sheds light on the life of the deceased. Wherry merges pastoral care and pastoral preaching to develop a book that centers on the rhetorical situation of death within the religious context of the Black church.

A Balm in Gilead: Eulogies of Comfort provides examples of funeral sermons for students to model. The sermons come from various African Americans, including Gerald J. Joiner, President Barack Obama, and Nicole McDonald. Webber includes an introduction that contextualizes each sermon. This resource demonstrates how theological implications impact funeral sermons, especially considering how the deceased lived their theological beliefs.

In the classroom, since rhetoric sets the tone, the focal emphasis is the question, “How then shall we live now that the deceased has died”? The students reflect on the life of the deceased to determine the anthropomorphic characteristics that the living can emulate as an act of faith in God. These anthropomorphic characteristics expand our understanding of God. The written assignments reflect a rhetorical pedagogical approach to teaching preaching—practice, practice, practice. During class, the students work collectively to write an outline for a funeral sermon based on an obituary from the paper. Additionally, the students select the sermonic scripture and choose a title for the sermon. The class discusses which sermonic form might work best to answer the existential question. Additionally, as an individual assignment, the students write a funeral sermon from reading a biography or autobiography of a historical figure. The funeral sermon must answer the question, how then shall we live now that the s/he has died?

The students do not learn a particular method in this course; however, they learn various sermonic forms that represent the best approach for funeral preaching. By teaching sermonic forms, students learn how to structure their funeral sermons to have a more significant impact on the hearers. Henry Mitchell, Peter Wherry, and John McClure provide best practice approaches to funeral preaching. Mitchell introduces the character sketch as a best practice for funeral preaching. The character sketch is a genre in preaching that consists of the combination of biblical data and other materials, designed to bring to full, living proportions, a character from the Bible (Mitchell 1990, p. 101). To develop a character sketch, the preacher chooses a biblical character that presents a trait worthy of emulation. The preacher gathers small narratives, not entire biographical sketches, to illustrate the trait in a manner that resonates with the hearers. The connection with the character provokes the hearers to embody that trait in their lives.

Both Wherry and McClure identify inductive preaching as a best practice for funeral preaching. Inductive preaching is a form of preaching in which the preacher delays the full statement of the sermon’s theme or idea (McClure 2007, p. 62). In Preaching Words: 144 Key Terms in Homiletics, McClure attributes the move towards inductive preaching to Fred Craddock, who encouraged inductive preaching as a means to meet the need for more participative forms of communication from the pulpit in the 1970s. Through inductive preaching, Craddock believed the preacher and listeners traveled together toward insight within the preaching experience. The insight that comes from the stories is often more ambiguous than other forms of preaching. According to McClure, the preacher’s subject weaves through stories and images that invite the listeners to resonate with the shared experiences, leading up to the sermon’s theme. The listeners participate in the sermon by making their own connections and conclusions; therefore, the preacher leaves the inductive sermon open-ended.

Wherry identifies the following guidelines for inductive sermons:

• They must be textual, always anchored in the biblical text to keep the focus on the message of biblical transformation.
• They assist the hearers in drawing connections between the text and the story (typically some aspect of the life story of the deceased in funerals) using transitional phrases, word pictures, and/or quotations from songs.
• They are amorphous in terms of structure, and not likely to have three (3) neat points of exposition and a poem at the end (Wherry 2013, p. 57).

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, while this paper focused on the correlation between homiletical theory and teaching funeral preaching, the applicability of homiletical theory and preaching pedagogy is diverse. For example, one could teach queer womanist preaching from either rhetoric or theology. If taught with rhetoric leading, the course material would emphasize the rhetorical situation of being a queer, Black woman in the margins of society. Books might include fictional and non-fictional portraits of the life of queer, Black women. The sermons would capture these livid experiences, while the theological lens would be the four tenets of womanism: radical subjectivity, traditional communalism, redemptive self-love, and critical engagement. However, theology leads with the Apocalyptic Method, the preaching method of Yvette A. Flunder, a self-proclaimed same-gender-loving Black, womanist congregational pastor. Theology leads because Flunder’s method hinges on the theological lens of radical inclusivity. Due to theology leading, in the class, I introduce the students to Yvette A. Flunder biographically, then turn to her theology of radical inclusivity and womanist theology. Additionally, I teach the actual parts of her method; an introduction to the Biblical text, a core theological belief, an illustration of a lived text, and the celebratory charge. Lastly, wediscuss the rhetorical tools Flunder uses to enhance the impact of the sermon, such as the queer motif of coming out. These examples demonstrate the role of homiletical theory as an essential concept concerning preaching pedagogy. As claimed in the introduction, a homiletician’s understanding of their homiletical theory can lead to a pedagogical experience that translates to more effective preaching by developing a coherent delineation from theory to praxis.