Dear Astute Pastor,
Thanks for writing. It's a great encouragement to know my writing is even being read, let alone provoking thought a couple years on!
I don't have much of a concrete answer for you, as I believe much of the act of preaching is a matter of wisdom. Exegesis is, by comparison, straightforward: one must determine what the text means. But when shaping the sermon, the preacher must determine how best to communicate this particular text's meaning to this particular group of people on this particular day. Thus, I might decide not to mention a particular text-critical issue to my congregation, but you know that raising it will help your congregation better grasp the point.
Having said that, the general rule is that preaching follows exegesis, and so the sermon should only contain whatever information is necessary to get the text's main point across. So to take your examples, do the Roman confession "Caesar is Lord" or the current understandings of 1st-century gnostic thought help to get that point across? And even if so, is there information gleaned directly from the Scriptures which will do the job equally well? While the tone of my essay was confrontational, I should say quite clearly that I don't believe every preacher who mentions archaeological findings is prideful. I do think, though, we must all get into the habit of presenting our congregations with arguments clearly derived from the Bible itself.
You might want to consider the role of commentaries in your preparation. For example, as I work with 1 & 2 Corinthians, I am struck by the quantity and variety of theories on who was opposing Paul and why, and am even more struck by how unimportant resolving that question is to conveying the implications of Paul's responses to his critics in the sermon. My rule is to exegete the text and sketch out the basic sermon outline before consulting any commentaries. It would be impossible to do the extensive research commentators do here in my study, so my exegesis depends on the Bible and perhaps a Bible dictionary &/or atlas, not the latest archaeological dig. I think most of us tend to bring whatever we needed to understand the text into our explanation of it from the pulpit; if that's right, then those who begin with commentaries and their extensive background information will be more likely to incorporate that information into sermons.
As I found when preaching Isaiah's prophecies against the nations (let alone against Israel), it's impossible to entirely avoid bringing background information into one's sermons; that's the nature of grammatico-historical exegesis. But I do believe that if we follow Jay Adams' rule and preach only the purpose of the text, we'll have much fewer occasions to dwell on that background information at any great length.
That was kind of rambling, but I hope helpful. Again, thanks for writing, and do feel free to write back. May the Spirit work through the preaching of the Word to convict and convert sinners!
grace & peace,
The Presbyterian Curmudgeon
Thanks for writing. It's a great encouragement to know my writing is even being read, let alone provoking thought a couple years on!
I don't have much of a concrete answer for you, as I believe much of the act of preaching is a matter of wisdom. Exegesis is, by comparison, straightforward: one must determine what the text means. But when shaping the sermon, the preacher must determine how best to communicate this particular text's meaning to this particular group of people on this particular day. Thus, I might decide not to mention a particular text-critical issue to my congregation, but you know that raising it will help your congregation better grasp the point.
Having said that, the general rule is that preaching follows exegesis, and so the sermon should only contain whatever information is necessary to get the text's main point across. So to take your examples, do the Roman confession "Caesar is Lord" or the current understandings of 1st-century gnostic thought help to get that point across? And even if so, is there information gleaned directly from the Scriptures which will do the job equally well? While the tone of my essay was confrontational, I should say quite clearly that I don't believe every preacher who mentions archaeological findings is prideful. I do think, though, we must all get into the habit of presenting our congregations with arguments clearly derived from the Bible itself.
You might want to consider the role of commentaries in your preparation. For example, as I work with 1 & 2 Corinthians, I am struck by the quantity and variety of theories on who was opposing Paul and why, and am even more struck by how unimportant resolving that question is to conveying the implications of Paul's responses to his critics in the sermon. My rule is to exegete the text and sketch out the basic sermon outline before consulting any commentaries. It would be impossible to do the extensive research commentators do here in my study, so my exegesis depends on the Bible and perhaps a Bible dictionary &/or atlas, not the latest archaeological dig. I think most of us tend to bring whatever we needed to understand the text into our explanation of it from the pulpit; if that's right, then those who begin with commentaries and their extensive background information will be more likely to incorporate that information into sermons.
As I found when preaching Isaiah's prophecies against the nations (let alone against Israel), it's impossible to entirely avoid bringing background information into one's sermons; that's the nature of grammatico-historical exegesis. But I do believe that if we follow Jay Adams' rule and preach only the purpose of the text, we'll have much fewer occasions to dwell on that background information at any great length.
That was kind of rambling, but I hope helpful. Again, thanks for writing, and do feel free to write back. May the Spirit work through the preaching of the Word to convict and convert sinners!
grace & peace,
The Presbyterian Curmudgeon
No comments:
Post a Comment