Preaching re-imagined

There's a great post from my friend Albert on his blog, read it here.

Albert is responding to a post by Krish Kandiah on preaching as part of the biblefresh initiative, read that post here. I'll get to commenting of Krish's post soon.

I think Albert is right, we need to see preaching more intimately connected to the life of the congregation and the Christian than it often can be at present.
We need to encourage and affirm those hearing sermons to respond with questions and comments.
We need to create opportunities for this to happen in a safe environment, i.e. one where the preacher does not feel 'got at'.

This is a real challenge to us as preacher, and a significant change in engagement with preaching for those who listen. But I think it is worth it.

Being Eucharist and Preaching

In a challenging chapter from their book Jesus Wants To Save Christians,
Rob Bell and Don Golden write of eucharist:

Eucharist is a good gift and, 'Jesus is God's good gift to the world' (p. 148). And then, because the church is the body of Christ, 'The church is a living Eucharist, because followers of Christ are living Eucharists' (p. 150).

The church here becomes a good gift from God to the world. Not an empire which uses power or resources to defend a position or maintain influence. A good gift from God to a hurting world that needs to see weakness and brokenness in God and his people.

So, this is, among other things, cashed out in relation to preaching as follows:
The measure of a sermon is not whether it affirms what you already believe. A sermon is not a product to be consumed and then evaluated according to how good it was or whether it was pleasing or enjoyable.
If a sermon can be resolved in the time it took to deliver it, then it missed something central to what a sermon even is, which is connected with what the Eucharist is. The gathering of the church, in a service or worship or teaching setting, is to remind, instruct, and inspire people about being Eucharist for the worlds they find themselves in. It's written in the letter to the Hebrews that they shouldn't give up meeting together because they should "consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds." (Heb 10:24)
These gatherings aren't the end; they're the beginning. They're the start. They put things in perspective, they remind, they provoke, they comfort, they inspire, they challenge, but ultimately they are about the Eucharist. About these people in this place at this time being equipped to be a Eucharist.
The Eucharist is ultimately about what we do out there, in the flow of everyday life. (p. 159-160)


How many sermons are preached to the gallery and applauded only because they tell us what we already believe?
How many sermons are forgotten before the last hymn is finished and never influence life in any way?
How poor is our form of worship when we omit a weekly celebration of the Eucharist as central to our calling as the church and our being God's good gift to God's world?

Saturday Night Ephesians

I’ve been studying Ephesians for preaching and want to share some thoughts on Ephesians 1:4-5. I’ve copied some English versions below:

KJV
Ephesians 1:4-5 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

RSV
Ephesians 1:4-5 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. 5 He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

NIV
Ephesians 1:4-5 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—

NLT
Ephesians 1:4-5 4 Long ago, even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes. 5 His unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. And this gave him great pleasure.

ESV
Ephesians 1:4-5 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

In each of these versions the phrase ‘in love’ is taken with v. 5 – in the New Living Translation the sense is given as ‘God loved us’, which is in keeping with a v. 5 ‘in love’, except the KJV which takes ‘in love’ with v. 4.

Interestingly the commentators, including Calvin, Barth, Lincoln and Wright all take the phrase ‘in love’ with v. 4, e.g Tom Wright ‘4 He chose us in him before the world was made, so as to be holy and irreproachable before him in love. 5 He foreordained us for himself …’

The Greek texts reads as one sentence from 1:3 down to 1:14 and in the NA 27 edition en agape is separated from v. 5 by a comma.

It seems to me that it makes a great difference where you read this short phrase. If you take it with v. 5 you end up reading that the predestination of us by God was undertaken ‘in love’, presumably God acting in love to predestine those he will predestine. Now this is good theology, I’m sure God did act in love when he issued his decree of predestination. However, I don’t think that is what Paul is trying to say here.

Rather taking the phrase in v. 4, Lincoln writes
‘But “in love” should rather be seen as part of the goal of election is intended to achieve in those it embraces – a life before God which is holy and blameless and lived in love.’ (page 17)

God’s decree of election has a goal, a purpose. The election of Abraham and through him Israel had the purpose of bringing a blessing to the nations – election is to service. In NT terms God elects those he elects to live a life which can be characterised by love, described as being lived ‘in love’. And so a sermon on these verses rather than focusing upon God’s secret and still hidden decree of election should exhort and encourage God’s people to live lives ‘in love’ which are holy and blameless before God.

I find it sad, and dangerous, that so many otherwise fine English versions have made a translation choice here which reflects an orthodox theology rather than the intention of the Holy Spirit at work in the Apostle. The sentence structure imposed upon Eph 1:3-14 in every English version is based upon interpretative choices. I don’t think I would like to see bibles printed where all of these choices are explained, but I do think such verses highlight the need for careful exegesis and good exposition on the part of those called by God and appointed by the church to teach Holy Scripture.

Final Thoughts on The Word Became Fresh

I haven't offered a full review of all the chapters in this really good book. It's a long time since I've read a book of just 154 pages so full of really helpful comments and ideas.

Just two more, see earlier posts

On application:
God has given his word for our instruction and obedience, for our endurance and encouragement; therefore any interpretation that stops short of appropriation [application] is illegitimate. (page 94)
What a great definition of application,wholly grounded upon our understanding of the nature of Scripture as God's word and the purpose of Scripture which God desires to see in our lives. Too many sermons fail to be sermons at this point. A fine exposition of God's word ends at the point of exposition and never touches any kind of application. Davis shows in his chapter on this that application may obviously be applied to our behaviour, but also - and this is really important - to our thinking. Sometimes what needs to change is our thinking about God which can easily become un-biblical. In relation to narrative text Davis is very helpful in illustrating where the application can be doxological, the outcome of a story may be the glorifying of God and an out pouring of praise from those who respond properly to the wonders of our God.

On centre:
For a student of OT talk of a centre raises the spectre of a search for the unifying centre of the OT. Rather Davis offers a premier presupposition,
God has given his word as a revelation of himself; if then I use his word rightly, I will long to see him, and he will be the focus of my study. (page 121 - what a sentence to have on a page bearing this number!!)

Yes, Scripture is about God, a gracious self-revelation of God to humanity. It is only about humanity in relation to God, not about humanity and not about God in relation to humanity. If we go wrong at the beginning we won't get back on line at all. Too many sermons, and far to much of what is called contemporary theology is not worthy the name being rather sociological or anthropological studies in which some kind of god may or may not be involved. A theocentric approach to Scripture will serve us like a compass needle and keep us in the right direction.

This book is most highly commended for all preachers and all students of God's word. It has a particular focus upon OT narrative texts but the points made can be transferred to other genres and passages of Scripture.

The Fresh Word on Theology

You just knew theology was going to come into it somewhere.

There is a use of the term 'theology' which has to do with arranging and analysing themes and topics related to God, perhaps using Scripture as a proof text, but not being tied to the patterns of Scripture. This is not how Dale Ralph Davis uses the term in his third chapter. Theology can be a study of how to live together with God. In Scripture we see the great God of the Bible involving himself in the lives of his people. It is this 'practical' theology that we need to help our preaching and interpretation of all texts, including Old Testament texts.

Davis takes the example of the Abraham narratives, Gen 12 following and identifies the four-fold promise of Gen 12:1-3 as the theological centre of the complex of narratives.

Gen 12:10-20: Abram lies to Pharaoh about Sarai being his sister. This lie puts the covenant promise of descendants at risk. Abram's major defect here is not lying (this is not a Victorian morality tale), but a failure to trust Yahweh the promise making God. Protection should be entrusted to Yahweh and his promise.
Or what about Gen 23, a sad tale of death and burial arrangements. The point is not that we should all have pre-paid funeral plans and all the arrangments made in advance. No, the promise of the land, Gen 12:1-3, is beginning to be fulfilled - even if only in a cemetery! This small beginning can be over looked if we are not watching for the theology at work in the narratives.

What a contrast to a commentator like say Brueggemann, whose insights are often very helpful. However, a great weakness in Brueggemann is his insistence that each of the OT narratives is independant from every other OT narrative. Even to the point where Gen 12 does not relate to Gen 13 or Gen 14!

Although Davis ends his chapter with a comment on the OT scholars search for 'the centre' his use of theology as a category for studying OT narrative texts does not depend upon resolving this riddle. Rather theology provides a coherent, whole bible framework within which each text can be held together. We can't be simple bible readers if we want to be biblical preachers, we need a robust, whole bible theology.

Textual Quirks

I'm really enjoying this book. Chapter 2 is on Quirks, those aspects of narrative texts that crop up again and again and you need to watch out for them.

On the author, "We want, when reading narrative, to get into the narrator's own head, to know how he looks upon the matters he describes, or - what is the same for me, how God looks upon those matters." (p. 12)

I am grateful for this reminder of the overlap between the human author and the Divine author, when using the best tools we have to understand literature, we remember to submit to God the author.

Some quirks: reticence (a narrative author doesn't always tell us what the point is), eavesdropping (a narrative author will sometimes tell us information the characters in the events narrated don't know).

Selectivity (a narrative author doesn't always tell us everything we want to know). "You are dying of curiosity and the narrator answers none of your questions. Hence they must not be that important!" (p. 15) It is a sign of great pride to imagine that our concerns are greater in importance than those of the author of Scripture. I've heard too many good sermons go bad when a preacher begins to imagine (read - make up) details that are not given in the text. This is not a complaint about extra-biblical historical background, but about the imposition of psychological and/or emotional motives upon biblical characters where there is no evidence in the text for this. Since God is the author, his concerns should become our concerns, and if God doesn't tell us we don't need to know.

I like what Dale writes about surprise, "Sometimes we may be so familiar with the flow of a biblical story that we fail to be surprised when we should. We need to cultivate a 'first-time-reader' frame of mind." (p. 19)

In biblical narrative emphasis is achieved by repetition. Let me make the point this way:

"For a man solemnly to undertake the interpretation of any portion of Scripture without invocation of God, to be taught and instructed by his Spirit, is a high provocation of him; now shall I expect the discovery of truth from any one who thus proudly engages in a work so much above his ability." (from John Owen on p. 1 - see my earlier post!!)

There are other quirks in chapter 2, but buy the book - it's well worth it.

I can't finish without one final quote.

"But this tension (in Ex 2:1-10) is not some mere literary device; it is a theological primer. It tells us that sometimes Yahweh's providence is a heart-stoping providence. In fact, it tells us something important about God - he is not boring; he is able to keep you interested. He may perplex you; he may even drive you to despair; he may keep you on the edge of your seat far longer than you want - but no one who knows him will ever call the God of the Bible boring." (p. 28-29)

On a Friday morning, may those of us called to preach by this God on Sunday be excited by the great big God of the Bible.

Approaching Preaching

I found this book at Keswick, and already am glad that I did. Dale Ralph Davis was speaking on the first week, check out the programmes on clayton.tv

This is a book on preaching, or perphas a book on Old Testament narratives in preparation for preaching. In chapter 1 Dale writes on an approach to preaching.

Quoting John Owen, "For a man solemnly to undertake the interpretation of any portion of Scripture without invocation of God, to be taught and instructed by his Spirit, is a high provocation of him; now shall I expect the discovery of truth from any one who thus proudly engages in a work so much above his ability." (p. 1)

I found this a humbling reminder of my human weakness, a great challenge to any professional pride in handling Scripture. A call to prayer and dependance upon God is surely the only way to approach preaching.

Later on, "In facing Scripture one must take account of two realities: Spirit and text. This fact forces me to one of my operating presuppositions: God has given his word in the form of literature, part of which is narrative; I should therefore use all available tools for understanding literature. So I seek the Spirit's aid and use an approach suited to the form of his word." (p. 3)

What a great operating presupposition! Let's try to understand God's word starting from the form in which he has given us his word - literature, narrative. This leads to some obvious questions.

Why? What is the authors intention?

"Now all this concern with a writer's intention is terribly out of step. I call it 'dinosaur hermeneutics'. Reader-response criticism is more the current rage; it only wants to answer, 'How does this text affect me?' There is no precise or correct meaning but only meanings which arise from within the reader. I admit my preoccupatin with a writer's intention is dated. And I really don't care. It's hard to get away from the suspicion that someone meant to mean something with a text. Sooner or later folks will recognize that - again." (p. 4-5)

Yes, yes, yes! Words consciously and deliberately placed in sentences, in paragraphs, in narratives mean something. I do not construct a meaning by imposing my meaning upon a text - that is textual abuse. Submission to Scripture begins with a sustained seeking of the purpose of the text, the intention of the author.

Dale then comments on: (ii) How? What is the Structure of the text? (iii) What? What is the actual content of the text? Before coming to So what?

"We need to hear some loving mockery behind us, crying, 'So what? What difference does all this study make for anyone? Why should I want to pay any attention to this?' If we are constantly 'berated' that way, it will make us far better interpreters." (p. 7)

We have not preached, we have not studied a portion of Scripture until and unless we have answered this 'So what?' question. The authors intention must connect with my life. The structure and content of the passage must bear down upon me and land on Monday morning.

What a simple and straighforward approach to understanding Scripture in preparation for preaching. Pray as though everything depended upon the Spirit (which it does) and work hard at a few simple questions as though the whole thing is depending upon your study (which it does).

May God raise up such preachers and ministers of his word in our land.