Research in Homiletics

International Conference Singapore

Societas Homiletica ∗
Gerrit Immink
Theo Pleizier
June 2004

We teach homiletics in the hope that students become effective preachers. Our
teaching is rather practical. We ask questions like: how to prepare and deliver
a sermon, how to communicate the gospel in such a way that the community
of faith is adequately addressed? But is homiletics also a serious field for doc-
toral research? In this workshop we will deal with homiletics as an academic
discipline in the broader field of Practical Theology. We are reflecting on a real
praxis, a praxis in which human beings act and in which the life of faith is a
relevant factor. One of the main issues in this field of research is the nature of
the theoretical framework that structures the research. How do we perceive
real practices and what exactly is a practical theological theory?

1 Research in the Practice of Faith

1.1 Practice of faith
I suggest that the practice on which practical theology reflects is best defined
as a practice of faith.1 In Practical Theology we primarily deal with faith-as-
it-is-lived. We can differentiate between the following four dimensions: (a)
faith as a subjective personal commitment and (b) faith as it is expressed in
our daily lives (as faith becomes manifest in ordinary life, in one’s calling and
lifestyle). According to Charles Taylor the combination of these two elements,
namely personal commitment and the emphasis on the concrete practice of
∗ Published
in the conference proceedings 2005.
1 See my Faith:
A Practical Theological Reconstruction, forthcoming spring 2005, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans. Dutch edition: F.G. Immink, In God geloven. Een praktisch-theologische reconstructie,
Zoetermeer: Meinema 2003

1
daily life, is characteristic for the Protestant view on faith.2 Faith also has an (c)
institutional component: the praxis of the church. This implies among other
things the communication and celebration of faith; the social interaction, et
cetera. And, finally, there also is (d) a civil religion: traces of faith in the public
realm.3

1.2 Theory of practice

Practical Theology as an academic discipline is a theory of practice. We seek to
develop a theoretical framework in order to gain more insight in the life and
the communication of faith. What type of theory is developed in Practical The-
ology? Here it becomes manifest that the field of research is rather complex.
For faith-as-it-is-lived always finds it shape and form in the human condition.
Faith-as-it-is-lived expresses itself in the mental and spiritual capacities of the
human heart, in the psycho-social life-style of the human existence. In addi-
tion, the practice of faith by nature is a communicative practice. Therefore,
when we reflect on faith-as-it-is-lived we have the deal with anthropological
and social structures. When we reflect on the communication of faith, we have
to reflect on human interaction. Consequently the nature of this practice de-
mands an intradisciplinary approach.4 As we reflect on faith we will eventually
have to deal with the human being as a spiritual and social being and with the
various forms of interpersonal discourse. Therefore, it seems reasonable that
we incorporate the findings of the human and social sciences, for they also re-
flect on these matters. For homiletics this implies that we have to deal with
rhetoric and discourse analysis.

1.3 Theological discipline

Nonetheless, Practical Theology remains a theological discipline. We have to
conceptualize the practice of faith with theological concepts. However, at the
same time we take due notice of the results of other disciplines. Not in the
sense that practical theology simply follows the other sciences. We must rather
think in terms of a critical correlation - practical theology has the lead and must
define the field of inquiry and specify the nature of this field. The main task is
to develop theological theory that fits the domain and to find the appropriate
practical theological question which must be answered.

1.4 Faith
What is characteristic for a theological theory? Here the structure of faith might
help. We observed that faith is a human phenomenon. The human self is in-
volved and this implies that we can analyse faith from a psychological and a
2 Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self. The Making of the Modern Identity, Cambridge 1989, 211–233.
3 DietrichRössler, Grundriß der Praktischen Theologie, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 1986, 81.
4 See below, section 4.1.

2
sociological perspective. Faith, however, also is a relationship between God
and the human being in which God has the initiative and the priority. Faith is
a gift of grace; it is an answer to God’s word of forgiveness. In Reformation
theology the concept of faith is intrinsically related to the doctrine of divine
justification: it is God who justifies the sinner. Faith just is the approval of the
divine judgement. God is the primary actor, his benevolent word is decisive.
This movement from God towards humanity is characteristic for the Christian
practice. Concepts like revelation, promise, covenant, election, justification, et
cetera underline this. From a theological perspective we cannot construe faith
simply as an antroplogical category. Faith is not simply our awareness of God,
but it consists in an existential relationship between God and the human being
- a relationship in which God’s word and promise take priority. Thiemann ob-
serves that ’[p]romise provides a category within which the notions of relation
and priority can be held in a dialectical balance’.5 God therefore recieves pri-
ority in the divine - human encounter and consequently God is depicted as a
subject of speech and communication.

Thesis 1 Practical theological research employs theological concepts in an intradisci-

plinary frame of reference. Practical theology has to search for those theological con-
cepts which fit the field of research.

2 The communication of faith.

Preaching is a communicative act in the community of faith and preaching
intends to initiate and to sustain the life of faith. Before we plunge into the
field of preaching, let us first make a short inquiry into the complexity of the
communication of faith. We notice that at least two dimensions are involved.
Firstly, preaching is an inter- and intrahuman act of discourse. In our reflec-
tion on preaching we have to consider the psycho-social structure of discourse.
Since discourse is intrinsically related to the social and cultural environment,
the communication of faith is always contextual. Secondly, we have to consider
that human discourse functions as an intermediair: the life of faith is activated
and intensified by means of this human discourse. Thus human discourse
plays a mediating role with respect to our communion with God. Does this
imply that human discourse brings about /accomplishes our communion with
God? Is there some sacramental/causal our pneumatological/spiritual rela-
tion between the act of discourse and the life of faith? Or more precise, does
the human act of discourse bring about the divine presence?
Preaching is an act of human discourse in a dialogue situation. In homilet-
ics recently much attention is paid to this aspect of preaching. However, the
emphasis was mostly on the preacher. Homileticians argued that the preacher
must pay full attention to the experiences, questions and beliefs of the hearers.6
5 Ronald F. Thiemann, Revelation and Theology. The Gospel as Narrated Promise, Notre Dame 1985,
151
6 Henning Luther, ‘Predigt als Handlung’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, (80) 1983. Lucy

3
However, in addition, we must also turn to the listener for his or her own sake.
The hearer has an active role in the preaching process: he or she completes the
sermon. Here we come across a new complexity which we must describe both
in terms of discourse as well as in terms of theology. Both in continental Euro-
pean and in American homiletics we have seen a turn towards the listener7 In
contemporary homiletics the preaching process is understood as a circulair
process of speaking and hearing, producing and receiving, re-presentation and
reception. This turn to the hearer is, however, primarily carried through on
the level of human discourse. Attention is paid to the reception process, espe-
cially to easthetics, to the plurality of social consciousness as a characteristic of
postmodernism8 , to hermeneutics as an interpretation of the hearer.9
But what happened to the theological dimension of homiletics? Unfortu-
nately, the hearer did not receive full attention from this perspective. Perhaps
our theological grammar must be elaborated a little more in detail before we
can reflect theologically on this subject. It is often argued that preaching is the
proclamation of the gospel, the ministering of the Word. Indeed it is. But we
cannot solely look at the christological part, for preaching also has a pneumato-
logical structure.10 The gospel is not only proclaimed, but also, be it incomplete
and fragmentary, realized in the human world and history. The sinner is not
only justified, but also regenerated and renewed. Divine grace is not only be-
stowed upon us, but also internalized and lived. This is the distinctive work
of the Spirit, a work in us and with us. In Reformed theology we can find the
very helpful idea of the inhabitation of the Spirit, the indwelling of the Spirit.
Through the work of the holy Spirit the human subject receives a new under-
standing. The Spirit brings enlightenment and change in the human self. This
is accomplished by the gratia interna, the internal teaching of the Spirit11 There-
fore, when we analyse the process of preaching, it is important that we not only
look at the christological dimension, but that we also consider the pneumato-
logical dimension: the work of God in the appropriation of salvation, the ordo
salutis.
Under the influence of kerygmatic theology preaching was primarily con-
sidered to be proclamation. In the Protestant tradition, this certainly is a central
focus; it is in line with the doctrine of iustification of the sinner. And especially
in our modern times where human experience receives full attention, we must
remember the divine initiative and the priority of God in the human-divine
relation. However, we would miss the point if we were not able to do jus-
tice to the role of the human subject as a hearer. For preaching does mediate
Atkinson Rose, Sharing the Word. Preaching in the Roundtable Church, Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press 1997
7 See F. Gerrit Immink, ‘Homiletics: The Current Debate’, International Journal of Practical Theol-

ogy 2004, Heft 1

8 John S. McClure, Other-wise preaching. A postmodern ethic for homiletics, St. Louis: Chalice Press

2001
9 G.D.J. Dingemans, Als hoorder onder de hoorders. Een hermeneutische homiletiek, Kampen: Kok

1991.
10 See F.G. Immink, In God geloven, chapter 5
11 Calvin, Institutes, III.1.1

4
understanding, experience and volitional power in the human consciousness.
God brings it about in the mode of the Spirit, that means that the human self
is subjectively involved, creative and active. Isn’t it significant that in the New
Testament with respect to preaching we also find concepts like teaching and
paraklesis?12 More than kerygma, these concepts focus attention to the appro-
priation of salvation. The Spirit does not exterminate our human subjectivity,
instead she stimulates and regenerates the human self.
Thesis 2 Interhuman discourse mediates divine salvation. How?

3 Faith as Human Awareness of God

Preachers do name God, at least kerygmatic preachers do. They expect that
naming God - however not as a matter of course - will bring about God’s
self-disclosure. ‘Predigt ist Namenrede’ Bohren argues.13 But what about our
human awareness of God? Do we really experience God in and through the
sermon? The question arises how the divine self-disclosure is related to our
subjective understanding of God.
If we want to investigate faith-as-it-is-lived, we must review the fact that
faith is a relationship between the divine and the human subject. In theologi-
cal terms, faith implies the actual communion between God and humankind.
Consequently, the structure of faith is such that we cannot reduce faith to
an antropological phenomenon. Nonetheless, faith finds its concrete shape
and form in the human realm. The community of faith has a certain opin-
ion about God and individual members do experience God in a specific way.
I assume that the sermon (and of course the liturgy) plays a role in the forma-
tion and sustainance of faith-as-it-is-lived. Even stronger, sermons shape our
faith-cognitions and bring about and deepen our awareness of God. But how
does it work? Can we investigate how faith is nurtured by the sermon?
If we want to investigate the reception of the sermon, we have to interview
the hearers. In one of our Ph D projects in Practical Theology at Utrecht Uni-
versity Theo Pleizier is doing this type of research. I will present a small part
of that project.
He gathers data from interviews with a broad selection of hearers: both
man and woman, adults from different ages, people with a different religious
biography. The data he generates consist of in-depth interviews addressing
issues of sermon expectations and evaluations.
The analysis of the data starts with sensitizing questions like: ’what do the
data reveal about the function of preaching for the hearer’s faith-as-it-is-lived’
or ’what do the data show about the hearer as an active agent in the produc-
tion of meaning.’ These questions open the data to let substantial codes emerge
as building blocks for the theory that conceptualizes the reception of preach-
ing in both its anthropological and theological dimensions. Let me highlight
12 See H. Grady Davis, Design for Preaching, Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1958, 98–138
13 Rudolf Bohren, Predigtlehre, München: Chr. Kaiser 1986, 90–91

5
three categories that emerge from the data by following standard procedures
of analysis and coding.
Category 1 Revelation
Listening to the sermon helps to see everyday life in the light of the gospel.
The sermon opens new dimensions. People receive fresh insight in the real-
ity of faith. These notions can be captured under the category of revelation.
Listening to a sermon is participating in a revelatory event. There is a sense of
otherness. The struggle of everyday life is finally not the end of things. Hearers
feel elevated to new hights, transcended beyond the here and now.
Category 2 Cultivation of faith
The hearers find that their life of faith is cultivated by the sermon. The sermon
brings new knowledge and makes old knowledge alive. They receive conso-
lation from the gospel, and take courage to continue a Christian lifestyle. Fur-
ther, the sermon creates a sense of togetherness among the people in the pews.
These aspects are captured under the heading cultivation of faith. Cultivation
is the effect of the performative power of the sermon that helps the believer’s
faith to grow and flourish.
Category 3 Concentration
The third category that emerges, concentration, requires a stronger sense of ac-
tivity on the part of the hearer than the cultivation of faith. It turns out that
hearers are more or less actively involved in gaining, retaining or loosing con-
centration. Sometimes hearers need to work hard to concentrate on what is
being said. A highly motivated hearer is able to capture the sermon, but a
less motivated hearer will loose attention. At other times rhetorical qualities of
the sermon facilitate the concentration, so that the hearer is being ’helped’ in
retaining attention. The data strongly suggest to unravel the category of con-
centration into a level-dimension (concentration can be high or low), an involve-
ment-dimension (the hearer is passively or actively involved), and a process-
dimension (gaining, retaining and loosing concentration). Unlike the other two
categories, concentration does not have a specific theological content, but is a
rather common concept in communication studies.
The data give reason to assume relationships between the three categories.
Take for example the categories revelation and concentration. They correlate
positively, which means that when a hearer talks about a revelatory moment
in the sermon, she also talks about a high level of concentration. The attention
is high, when the otherness is experienced. This brings an interesting ques-
tion to the fore: are more attentive hearers more open to aspects of revelation?
If this will be confirmed in a next phase in the research-cycle, hearer’s activ-
ity becomes an important, maybe even central concept in a theory of sermon
reception.
Thesis 3 When revelation and concentration do correspond, then revelation has be-
come illumination.

6
4 Methodology
4.1 Emperical homiletics and intradisciplinarity
Research is conducted according to certain methodological standards and pro-
cedures. Since the preaching event is theology in praxis, we have to do with
an empirical dimension in homiletics that is unsufficiently dealt with if only
systematically described. Actual practice needs an empirical approach. We
have to consider, however, that emperical homiletics is yet theology and not a
reduction of theology to social scientific research. The place of social sciences
in practical theology is a matter of much discussion, and this is not the place
to enter this discussion here. I will only touch on the issue of intradiscipli-
narity to explain the point that use of empirical methodology does not reduce
homiletics to a subsidiary of social scientify research. In the research project
that has been described above, we attempt to incorporate both the commu-
nicative dimension as well as the dimension of the divine involvement in the
act of preaching. In order to do so, we need two different types of theoretical
concepts that satisfy the following conditions. First, the concepts cannot be re-
duced to one another. Second, they are being used to describe dimensions of
the same phenomenon, namely sermon-listening. Finally, concepts are open
for theoretical integration. They do not exclude each other on a higher theo-
retical level of abstraction. One way to work resist the temptation of reducing
homiletics to another type of communication science is to generate concepts
that are the result of an intradisciplinary research design.14

4.2 Grounded Theory

Empirical research can be done in several ways. Two strategies are favourite
among researchers: the empirical survey method and ethnographic desciption.
Survey research starts with a set of precisely defined concepts from which hy-
phothesis are derived and finally a survey is compiled consisting of several
topics. Data are generated from a specifically defined sample, and analysed
by statistical procedures. Variation is determined and correlations mapped in
matrices. In homiletics this procedure has been applied to a large amount of
data taken from a representative sample of congregations and listeners in Ger-
many during the seventies and eigthies of the 20th century.15 The results show
interesting correlations for instance between the religious orientation of hear-
ers (normative versus progressive believers), background variables like age,
14 Johannes van der Ven discusses intradisciplinarity in practical theological research in his Prac-

tical Theology. An Empirical Approach, Kampen (The Netherlands): Kok Pharos Publishing 1993,
101–112. See also F. Gerrit Immink, Faith (forthcoming), Chapter 9.
15 See for instance, K.-F. Daiber et. al., Predigen und Hören. Band II. Kommunikation zwischen Predi-

gern und Hörern. Sozialwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen, München: Kaiser 1982 and its subsubse-
quent volume Predigt als religöse Rede (1991). A similar approach though departing from a differ-
ent theoretical framework had been adopted by Grandthyll in his thesis Die Wirkung der Predigt.
Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer empirischen Überprüfung, Münster 1977.

7
gender (even income and employment are included) on the one hand and fea-
tures of the sermon like themes, tone and structure on the other hand. A sec-
ond strategy to obtain empirical knowledge is by studying a social practice by
means of ethnographic observation and description.16 A practice is studied to
produce a ’thick description’17 of it and captures cultural meanings of partici-
pants. Description is usually limited to a few individual units and the results
can hardly be generalised.
To these two more common approaches of empirical research I would like
to introduce an approach that is developed by the Americal sociologists Barney
Glaser and Anselm Strauss: Grounded Theory (GT).18 Glaser and Strauss offer
a strategy for qualitative research including both using inductive and deduc-
tive research techniques that aim for a more generalisable theory on the level of
conceptuality. The objective of GT is to produce a conceptualisation of a partic-
ular substantive research area. Usually these areas are social practices, that are
analysed by coding strategies and captured in concepts, categories and theoret-
ical statements. GT enables the researcher to analyse texts, documents, inter-
view material and field-notes to capture ideas and phenomena that are present
in the data into abstract concepts. The process of conceptualisation leads to
broader categories and dimensions, that together forms a theory with concep-
tual propositions. Here we have left the level of individual units, but we are
only interested in concepts and their relationships. A well-written grounded
theory presents those concepts that fit the substantive area of research, are rel-
evant to the participants in the social practice and work in terms of the partici-
pant’s interest in her participating in the practice that is being inverstigated.
To connect this irresponsible brief characterisation of GT with the previous
issue of intradisciplinarity: GT is open to employ whatever concept is needed,
so both communication and theological concepts are candidates to be used
within a substantive theory generated by GT-procedures.

4.3 Demarcating the field of study

Grounded Theory attempts to conceptualise a substantive area. In homiletics
we can define the field of study or substantive area with help of the term ’
homiletic interaction’. The communicative interaction between a preacher and
his hearers is a form of interaction in which the participants believe God is in-
volved, both actively as a subject in the communicative event and intentionally
in the referential acts in speaking and listening. Preaching is a communicative
act between human beings, but transcends the social dimension and turns hu-
man discourse into a means of grace. In studying homiletic interaction we
study how the call of the gospel is received. Since hearing is part of a commu-
16 An influential manual following this approach is J.P. Spradley’s Participant Observation, New

York: Rinehart and Winston 1980.

17 The term is from the anthropologist Clifford Geertz, see his The Interpretation of Cultures,

New York: Basic 1973.

18 B.G. Glaser, A.L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research,

Chicago: Aldine 1967.

8
nicative event we need to employ empirical means to understand this event.
The theological conceptualisation of the substantive area keeps the researcher
open for theological dimensions in the data.
The main focus in generating Grounded Theory is concern of the partic-
ipants in a particular social practice. In the practice of preaching we study
the concerns of its participants, and an important participant in the event of
preaching is the listener. In listening to the sermon a listener has her own role
in the co-creation of meaning. The experiences of the listener are worth being
investigated from a theological point of view. Sermon-hearing is as much a the-
ological act as sermon-speaking. The Spirit does not need to open the mouth
of the speaker only, but in the process of reception hearts are being opened by
the Spirit as well. The event of preaching does not only involve an act of faith
on the part of the speaker, but also an act of faith on the part of the listeners.
These brief notes will suffice to understand the study of sermon reception
as a intradisciplinary study of both communication and theology. As such we
present it as a truly homiletical research problem, that attempts to take the em-
pirical dimension as seriously as possible. The main problem for our project
is captured in the question: what are hearers doing when listening to a ser-
mon as a Christian community gathers for worship? What is their interest and
what constitutes the practice of sermon listening? Homiletic interaction there-
fore is being studied as a social-psychological communicative event in which
somehow a theological reality is present or at least expected.
In sum, the issue of intradisciplinarity prevents us from starting with an
implicit assumption of homiletics being reduced to some kind of social social
science, without neglecting the social dimension of the practice of preaching.
The method of grounded theory provides us with procedures and techniques
to produce concepts that are needed for a fruitful intradisciplinary approach
of the field. The issue of demarcation turns the attention of researchers to the
actual interest of hearers and takes their practise of listening seriously from a
theological point of view.