Agonistic Preaching

I recently read an essay by Lee A. Wyatt from Confident Witness-Changing World: Rediscovering the Gospel in North America, in which he describes a model for preaching in a postmodern context. The model he terms, "agonistic preaching." The word 'agonistic' is derived from the Greek word agon meaning to struggle, fight, or compete. He claims that the Grand Story (metanarrative), that is, God's workings in past, present, and future, must encounter a culture that rejects the idea of a metanarrative but instead embraces the idea of micronarratives or individual stories (notice the plural), i.e., a postmodern culture. In other words,Wyatt says, the purpose of preaching is "to proclaim the gospel in such a way that it 'frames' the entirety of our ministry in light of the context we live in....Preachers live the questions of our time, as it were, questioning the text from where we are, and then reshaping or counter-questioning those questions in response to God's word. Out of such an 'encounter with the culture,' a sermon is born."
He divides this model of preaching into three parts: re-telling, forth-telling, and fore-telling. He understands "re-telling" as the telling of the Grand Story. The function of this stage is "a reframing of all of life within the horizon of the will and work of the Triune God," and essentially answers the question: "Who are we?" (161). It then moves to "forth-telling," defining where such moments of that Grand Story are being played out in the lives of the church. Here the function is to refine the Grand Story's insights and implications in a specific situation, thus answering the question: "Where we are?" (161-2). The last stage, "fore-telling", being dependent on the former two stages, helps people to envision the future based on the recognition of their significance and current place in the Grand Story. Its function is to "retool" or prepare people for what is to come and answers the question: "What are we to do?" (162).
As ambassadors for the mission or Grand Story of redemption through Jesus Christ, we need to carefully consider the implications of the growing presuppositions of postmodernity, specifically the rejection of metanarrative.
I believe Wyatt's model to be helpful in three ways. First, in formulating our proclamation of the Grand Story it forces us to begin with an initial "reframing" of one's concept of existence/creation, namely, that there is a purpose, a beginning, a middle, and an end, to life. Secondly, it intentionally seeks to draw people into that Grand Story, by revealing the reality that they are being sought by the Redeemer to be made complete and active in the Narrative. Thirdly, with this integration of the Grand Story into people's lives, it spurs people forward to willfully give themselves more fully to their present and future role in it.
Of course, the preacher or proclaimer must not see his/her role in the Grand Story cease as he steps from the pulpit. Instead, he/she/we/I must also integrate our lives into that story and then most importantly, into the lives of other people's stories. It is here where the "agonistic" aspect of Wyatt's model really begins to manifest itself, while the pulpit serves as a stepping stone into the redeeming plot of the Grand Story.