I need to start this review with a confession: I have not finished the book. And I do not plan on doing so. I don’t think that’s a problem, though, because Stiller has been doing the same thing for the last 60 pages and leafing through the last 80, he’s going to continue on until the end. So if he denies the virgin birth in the last 15 pages and I don’t comment on that…my bad.
Stiller devotes the first section of his book to introduce postmodernism. The second part explains what parables are and how they function. The third section goes through ten parables with exegetical and expositional discussions. The final section consists of four sample sermon manuscripts. I stopped reading most of the way through section three because I think I get his point.
I picked up this book hoping to gain insight into preaching to postmoderns. What I got instead was an excellent exegetical introduction to parables. I read Craig Blomberg’s Preaching the Parables: From Responsible Interpretation to Powerful Proclamation a year ago and was sorely disappointed. First of all, Blomberg, in my opinion, failed to disprove the one-point interpretive approach to parables in favor of a “each main character gets his own point” approach. More importantly, Blomberg dealt with parables as sealed off units rather than parts of a greater narrative in the gospels. He dealt, for instance, with the Good Samaritan as a story unto itself without asking the most important question: Why does Luke include this parable? That is why Stiller’s work was so refreshing. Part of the interpretation of each one of his parables is the question of literary context. Thus, Luke’s account of a parable will have its own flavor and purpose while Matthew’s account of the very same one might be different. This aspect alone makes Stiller’s book a must-have when purchasing resources for parable-study. And it’s cheap, too!
The reason I bought the book, though, was because it had “postmodern” in its title. Nice marketing ploy. Unfortunately it doesn’t live up to that aspect of its title. Stiller’s 9 page introduction to postmodernism is VERY broad and VERY general. The basic concept is: Postmoderns like stories; parables are stories; postmoderns will like parables. He gives a “preaching window for postmoderns” for each of his parables. But that’s all he does. And even that seems forced at times and filled with generalities about postmodernism.
Bottom line: Buy the book if you want to study parables. It’s cheaper and much better than Blomberg’s. But don’t expect suddenly to be able to connect with postmoderns in your congregation because of it.
I’ve known for a long time that reviewers didn’t always read all of the books they reviewed, even in major academic journals. Now in the age of instant messaging, constant blogging and demands for record amounts of verbiage on-line, I’m not surprised that someone should even admit to not doing so. But I am disappointed. I hope your readers won’t think it a model to be followed.
In the case of Stiller’s book, you got away with it with impunity. I read the whole book and agree: excellent exegesis but not much distinctively for postmoderns. In the case of my book, you missed some key elements, such as my explanation early on that a full defense of my approach appeared in my earlier work, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove: IVP, 1990), and that all I was doing in my later work was providing a brief summary of my approach before launching into actual sermons. As for distinctives related to context in a particular Gospel, that’s precisely what I did in my sermon on the trio of shorter parables in Matthew 13 and again in my treatment of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25. I also did quite a bit with distinctive context in the narrative sermon on the children in the marketplace and with a lot of the Sermon on the Mount in the sermon on the parable of the two builders.
Reviewers are, of course, more than welcome to disagree with the points of view held in the books they read and to explain why they are not convinced by the evidence used to support those points. But only to read portions of books, to overlook that evidence, or to misrepresent works they read too rapidly, is to abdicate common courtesy, disclose irresponsible scholarship and mislead their readership. Plus I’m sure you wouldn’t want your material treated that way.
Dr. Blomberg,
If it’s possible to be flattered and embarrassed at the same that’s what I’m feeling right now. I do want to thank you for your interaction, stinging as it was. At the outset please allow me to clarify two things. The reason I did not finish Stiller’s book was that I was interested in his method, not his particular interpretation of each parable. His method did not change for the remainder of the book which is why I stopped reading it. I will, however, take your criticism to heart and from now on only post on books I have read cover to cover. Second, I did in fact read your book cover to cover. That is why I felt at liberty to compare the two works and be more critical of yours.
It’s interesting that you bring up Matthew 13 because that is actually an example of one of the elements I was referring to in my post. You argue, “the main points of the parable, and hence of any sermon on it, remain unchanged from Matthew to Mark to Luke, though detailed nuancing varies a little” (114). Two weeks ago I preached on this parable. In the morning service I preached it from Matthew and in the evening from Luke. They were two different sermons, because, in my opinion, they make two different points. I compared the texts (see below) by putting them on the screen so my hearers could see these differences.
Matthew 13:18 “You, then, listen to the parable of the sower, 19 When anyone hears the WORD ABOUT THE KINGDOM and doesn’t understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the one sown along the path.
Luke 8:11 “This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. 12 The seeds along the path are those who have heard. Then the Devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, SO THAT THEY MAY NOT BELIEVE AND BE SAVED.
Matthew 13:20 And the one sown on rocky ground– this is one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy. 21 Yet he has no root in himself, but is short-lived. When pressure or persecution comes because of the word, immediately he stumbles
Luke 8:13 And the seeds on the rock are those who, when they hear, welcome the word with joy. Having no root, THESE BELIEVE FOR A LITTEL WHILE AND DEPART in a time of testing.
Matthew 13:22 Now the one sown among the thorns– this is one who hears the word, but the worries of this age and the seduction of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.
Luke 8:14 As for the seed that fell among thorns, these are the ones who, when they have heard, go on their way and are choked with worries, riches, and pleasures of life, and produce no mature fruit.
Matthew 13:23 But the one sown on the good ground– this is one who hears and understands the word, who does bear fruit and yields: some 100, some 60, some 30 times what was sown.”
Luke 8:15 But the seed in the good ground– these are the ones who, having heard the word WITH AN HONEST AND GOOD HEART, HOLD ON TO IT AND BY ENDURING, BEAR FRUIT.
Luke uses the parable of the sower for soteriological purposes. The thrust of chapters 7 and 8 are (1) how people respond to the person of Jesus and (2) that faith is the correct response to Him. The first pericope deals with the centurion who evidenced more faith than anyone He had seen in Israel. Interestingly, Luke leaves out the Matthean comment about the inclusion of many Gentiles in the kingdom and the exclusion of many Jews. Matthew’s focus on the kingdom will be discussed below. The next paragraph recounts the Elijah-like raising of the widow’s son which serves both the interaction with John as well as the climactic “Who do they say that I am?” of chapter 9. The John encounter in the next pericope, the unresponsive generation, the women at the beginning of chapter 8, and the pig-farmers are different responses to the person of Jesus. Jesus says to the prostitute, “Your faith has saved you,” to the disciples, “Where is your faith?” and to the woman with the blood problem, “Your faith has made you well.” In the middle of all of this is the parable of the sower. It is notably different than Matthew’s in its theme of true saving faith. The disciples, the pig-farmers, the centurion, the women-followers, His mother and brothers, and even John the Baptist are typified in this parable. Will they respond in faith to this Jesus or will the worries of this life (pig farmers) choke their faith? Will Satan immediately destroy it (the unrepentant generation)? Will they after initially believing Him with excitement fall away (disciples, specifically Judas)? Or will they embrace Him with faith (typical for Luke the heroes are the prostitute outcast and the band of women followers).
Matthew’s sower parable, however, is not soteriological. One of the permeating thematic elements in Matthew’s gospel is the kingdom—specifically, the misunderstanding on part of the Jews as to the nature of the kingdom and their willful rejection of the King. Instead of bold, strong warriors entering the kingdom, the poor in spirit and the persecuted inherit it. To the utter surprise of His hearers, only those get to enter that are more righteous than Pharisees. Even more surprisingly, many Gentiles will be included and Jews left out. Then, finally, He tells His hearers what the kingdom is all about. But in an act of judgment, He tells them about this kingdom through parables. So, how will they respond to the words about this kingdom? The parable of the sower tells us. Thus, the stony ground in Matthew is not about people getting saved (or almost saved, depending on one’s systematic leanings) and falling away, but about people responding with joy to Christ’s preaching of the kingdom and then falling away when persecution comes.
The issue I took with your take on this parable, Dr. Blomberg, is that, in my opinion, you preached Luke’s sermon from Matthew. You address questions of eternal security and falling from the faith, which would fit Luke’s version of the parable, but not Matthew’s. Stiller, in his section “Position of the Parable within the Text,” ties this parable in with the problems Jesus’ hearers had in understanding the kingdom. He follows Haddon Robinson’s Subject-Complement model and makes “How does the kingdom take hold of the world” the subject and “The kingdom of God takes hold as people become hearers through whom God spreads the divine life” (39-40) the complement. His approach to parables which stresses the literary context led him to this subject and complement. It is because of his method that I recommend his book over yours.
In your comment I perceived a certain disgust for what I call “Micro-Wave Theology.” Responsible scholars like you have had to sacrifice years of your life before anyone would publish you. Today, all you need is an internet connection to publish your theological musings. As can be expected, a lot of the times these musings are garbage. So I understand and am thankful for your concern. My concern, on the other hand, is different. Seminary students with blogs, I believe, are not are not what is plaguing the American church. The plague is a church that knows what it believes without knowing why it believes it. There is an epidemic disconnect between the systematic theology in people’s head and the Bibles in their lap. I don’t want to tell people Bible stories with cute moral applications and then separately inform them that this position over hear is good theology and that position over there is heresy. I want to tell them what a certain story is doing in one particular Gospel, why that evangelist included it in the first place, why he placed it where he did it in his Gospel, what his agenda is, and how one’s disposition to that Holy-Spirit given agenda is of eternal consequence. The reason I love Stiller’s book is that he models that kind of exegesis for preachers.
In your post you accuse me of overlooking evidence, misrepresenting works by reading them too rapidly, abdicating common courtesy, disclosing irresponsible scholarship, and misleading my readership. If I have misrepresented Stiller which I have not read fully or your book which I have, please show me where and I will gladly retract what I have written. If I have been irresponsible in my scholarship, if I have mislead someone, or if I have overlooked evidence, please, as a brother in Christ, point this out to me so I can avoid this error in the future.
I guess it’s the questions of generalizations and levels of confidence that concern me. And I’m still wondering how carefully you read something, even if you read it “all.” If you go back and re-read my first post (and thanks for being willing to post it) ,you’ll see that I don’t say a thing about the parable of the sower but about different sermons, including one out of Matthew 13 that treats a trio of parables, where I tried to focus on the given evangelist’s distinctive interests. You say that I treat the parables as “sealed off units rather than parts of greater narratives in the gospel,” when in fact I refer to literary context in a majority of my messages and in my previous post I cite four specific ones where it forms a major part of my message.
I was concerned that you were “sorely disappointed” at not finding something in the book that I had explicitly said was not part of the book’s scope but could be found in my earlier, more detailed work. I “failed to disprove” something that I wasn’t trying to disprove in the work at hand.
You may be right about the differences between the Synoptics on the parable of the sower, but your earlier critique never mentioned that it was ONE parable you disagreed with me on; you accused me of not attending to the evangelists’ distinctives, period. I have, however, read probably a few hundred interpretations of the sower over the years and I can simply report that you are reading into some minor changes more than the vast majority of commentators have felt appropriate. But even if they ARE appropriate, the MAIN imagery, lessons and details remain comparatively unchanged, as once can see from the amount of material you have not highlighted in your laying out of the passages.
It’s interesting that you read into my remarks some dissatisfaction with seminary students’ blogs. I said nothing about seminary students. I deliberately did not even look to see your profile until after I had made my response and clicked “submit.” Indeed, I was surprised by it, since usually I find seminary students’ blogs much more carefully crafted and nuanced than the average blog on the web and not so dismissive of works via broad generalizations and levels of confidence that simply state as fact what are in reality interpretive options and minority ones at that.
I am glad that you are willing to try harder in the future and trust you will improve greatly with that commitment.
Dr. Blomberg,
Thanks again for your lively interaction. I think we will just have to agree to disagree about the differences in the sower parable. You pointed out the significant amount of material I did not highlight and choose to see essential agreement within the accounts. I see the small and, in my opinion, purposeful dissimilarity between the accounts and choose to see a different emphasis and point because of that dissimilarity. Please note, however, that I did say that this parable is one example of what I was criticizing in my initial post. You accused me of being irresponsible, misleading, and too general so I was hoping that an in-depth look at one example might acquit me.
Since you took offense at the negative review of someone you didn’t know from Adam (and did not want to get to know until you posted a reply as you mentioned above) maybe praise from someone you don’t know from Adam may smooth things out a bit. So here is one thing I loved about your book. You get how parables work. Gordon Fee compares parables to jokes (How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 153). If you have to explain why a joke was funny, you understand why you should have laughed, but you don’t laugh. Thus, if you explain a parable, you miss its effect just as with a joke. In your examples you “update” the parables so they have a similar shock/surprise value that they would have had in their original setting. My favorite one is the Parable of the Recovering Homosexual—great title! I loved that about your book.
Bob