Page 152 - A Dissertation for Doctor of Philosophy

Kim distills the significance when he points out that the success-oriented preaching jeopardizes

11
the essential message of kerygma. If indeed, the Korean church finds herself in that situation,

the nature and function of Jesus’ preaching provides a medicinal standard by which the Korean

church may reevaluates her priorities concerning the nature and function of preaching. The

nature and function of Jesus’ preaching, taken up again in this section, was examined from three

perspectives in the second section of chapter two of this dissertation.

First, the nature of Jesus’ preaching is the kerygma with didache. Mounce explicates the

relationship between kerygma and didache:

Thus, teaching is the expounding in detail of that which is proclaimed. The relation is that

of an axiom to its explanation and application. As such, the connection is logical rather than

chronological. Or, to change the figure, kerygma is foundation and didache is superstructure; but

no building is complete without both. It is only when they are ideally conceived that teaching

and preaching can be taken as entirely distinct. In actual practice they overlap, and may be so

intermingled that one can hardly ever say, “Now this is preaching,” or, “This, on the other hand,

is teaching. All didiache is based on kerygma, and it may be seriously doubted whether ant

12
kerygma ever stands without some measure of explanatory didache.

Korean preaching is overly didactic pedagogy, ignoring the kerygmatic proclamation. To build a

proper foundation for didache, the Korean preaching first needs to restore the kerygma, that

includes: “(1) A proclamation of the death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus, seen as the

11 Eun Kim, Preaching of Transfiguration, 67.

12
Mounce, The Essential Nature, 42-3.