A plea for expositional teaching

[I wrote this over-impassioned post for something else a little while ago, and just amended it slightly in honour of my 1000th post... I had in mind both preaching and small group study]

God inspired both the form and the content of the Bible. The Bible is a work of literature, a symphony or a work of art. The Bible’s content is words and concepts, even truths, but this content is always presented in the form of a collection of books of law, history, poetry and more. Only when the Biblical content is put in the Biblical form do we meet Christ.

If I want to read Shakespeare I could learn Elizabethan English, or study the sonnet form, but still never hear Shakespeare’s voice. I could read a library of literary critics telling me what Shakespeare is trying to communicate, but I won’t hear him say it without reading his words.

If I want to hear Beethoven’s fifth I could memorise the rhythm of the opening five bars, practice the C minor scale or even read a biography of his life. None, by themselves, will allow me to hear Beethoven.

Doctrines are sometimes understood as the grammar of the Christian faith. George Linbeck describes the historic creeds as “the grammar of religion”. The Reformation Catechisms can be understood in a similar way. They help us understand what is already being told in the Bible. They are introductions intended to make guide us to listen to the Bible, not to distract from it. That is partly why they are so short compared to the length of the Bible. They’re not meant to compete with God’s voice, but to open our ears to all that he’s saying.

I am often jealous of musically trained people who can enjoy a piece of music at a level I can never reach. But, I also remember how my uncle recalled being envied by his brother who felt he had lost the ability to enjoy music through over-criticism. There is a line to tread, but the key is to understand which has the priority. Gerhard Forde has a book entitled “Theology is for Proclamation” because he thought theology’s role was as a servant of proclamation. I agree. Theological study, at whatever level, is the servant of proclaiming Christ in the Bible.

When Calvin sat down to write the Institutes he intended it as an introduction to the study of Scriptures, with his commentaries and exegetical sermons as his major life’s work (Letter to the Reader 1539). I believe that this is a model we should follow. Thematic teaching, and Bible study skills have their place as aids, but the moment they crowd out God speaking in the form and content he chose as his revelation, we’ve made a big mistake. Biblical teaching shouldn't be an exercise in archaeology: digging through the muck, extracting the doctrines/applications and putting them in a glass box. Biblical teaching is proclaiming to someone what you’ve just heard God announce in the text. In doing this you become God’s mouthpiece, introducing the listeners to the same Jesus you saw, tasted and touched as God spoke to you by his Spirit.

We cannot explain sin better than David in Psalm 51. Theories of the atonement will not sing like the Passion narrative. Exhortations to evangelism will not encourage like hearing Paul ask for prayer that the door to the message be opened even as he sits in prison for the Gospel (Col 4). The incarnation won’t make sense until Jesus’ miracles make any other option nonsensical.

Similarly, “the one who does these things will live by them” (Lev 18) taken out of the melody line of the dialectic between law and Gospel, will lead you away from God to hell. As part of the melody it will lead you to Jesus and resurrection life, against which there is no law.

Thematic teaching will indirectly help people hear God, but they are less likely to directly hear God through it than through expositional Bible teaching. I think we should be going where the action is; where God meets us...his Word. The primary reason Christians assemble together to hear God speak, whether it is round the feet of Sinai (the original ecclesia in the Greek Old Testament) or the shore of Galilee. It should be the same for the church.

I also think that the Bible will always be more exciting than anything else. We never wanted to spend long doing football skills at school, we always just wanted to play games. Playing scales was always boring in comparison to playing a tune. Spelling was annoying, but Tolkien was engrossing. The former things are all good for enjoying the latter more, but they must play the supporting role for the main event. In the same way, having done some thematic/systematic teaching, lets go where the Father speaks in his own voice to his children.

I can’t finish without quoting Luther, who in the Preface to the German edition of his collected works, disparaged the volumes of his own writing, saying: “It was also our intention and hope, when we ourselves began to translate the Bible into German, that there should be less writing, and instead more studying and reading of the Scriptures. For all other writing is to lead the way into and point toward the Scriptures, as John the Baptist did toward Christ, saying, "He must increase, but I must decrease" [John 3:30], in order that each person may drink of the fresh spring himself.”

WE built a monster

...or our heart is a factory of idols.

Two hot things to say in my circles these days are:

1. People trust in the idols of sex, money and power and they fail to deliver.
2. Too many 'Christians' preach an ugly, tyrannical god

I agree with both statements, but I'm afraid I have to admit that to a large degree I still trust and promote both the first and second set of idols.

We are not in the habit of disbelieving monster gods, we're in the habit of making them!

And that applies to non-Christians as well. My non-Christian friends and family do not disbelieve in the God of Jesus Christ because they perceive him to be a distant bully, whatever they may say. And the reason I don't believe them when they tell me that is because the gods they do believe in are just as monstrous as anything I have heard preached by someone who calls them Christian. Their gods are killing them and giving them nothing in return - but they love them anyway.

Only God by his Spirit and through his Word, which kills the old heart and creates a new one ex nihilo, will we see change in the God we love so that we love beauty.

The structure of sharing the Gospel

This is an attempt to explain some of the convictions I've gained about the structure of our attempts to share the Gospel with people. Because it is mainly about structure it only skims over the actual content which is the exciting part. It also misses the power which is all found in asking God the Father to act through his Word and Spirit. It also misses the context which should be a loving community of sinners with changed lives! It is also quite hastily written, so please forgive the errors, but feel free to pull it apart in a constructive way.

1. Prologomena - death

As we are both actors and those acted upon the law shows us both that we are sinners and sufferers. So we should connect with unfulfilled desires and with painful experiences as well as with guilt.

There are three ways in which this bad 'news' can be part of preaching:

1. Direct communication
• For example you can say, "you are a dirty rotten sinner" or "don't you feel really empty and purposeless without God?" This may be useful sometimes, but generally it is counter-productive. I think too much direct communication is what has given law-Gospel preaching a bad name.
2. Indirect communication
• To get past people's defences tell stories, make cultural references and make people so think that they end up telling themselves the bad news:
• Nathan told David a fable so that he convicted himself (2 Sam 12).
• Bizarrely God gave people a law which said "do this and live" for the purpose of increasing and convicting people of sin! The law may well be "indirect communication" par excellence.
• Tim Keller paints this beautiful picture of what friendship should be and his hearers are broken because as they apply it to their own lives they realise that it is something they have only tasted and barely experienced.
• Kierkegaard in The Point of View for My Work as an Author explains that you cannot communicate directly to one who is suffering under a delusion because "direct communication presupposes that the receiver's ability to receive is undisturbed". Instead you have to "deceive [!] a person into the truth", which means "one does not begin directly with the matter one wants to communicate, but begins by accepting the other man's illusion as good money". To natural legalists the law does just that, but it heightens our illusion to such an extent that is snaps.
3. Present beforehand
• Simeon Zahl comments that "the ‘Law’ is being preached by the Spirit as ‘negative’ experience long before the hearer enters the pew". People carry with them guilt and suffering that weighs them down before they hear anything explicitly Christian.
• GK Chesterton said that "original sin... is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved". It is not essential for the 'bad news' to be declared because it is already known and experienced (Romans 1). As Rob Bell has commented, many people already know an awful lot about hell from their experience

Although I believe in death before life, and bad news before good, I hope this shows that we should not simplistically or insensitively 'lay down the law' at the beginning of any sermon. Instead indirect communication and God's prior alien work can take precedence.

2. The Gospel - The source of Life

The bad news is our point of connection, but in contrast, while there are echoes and similarities of the Gospel in our experience, there is nothing that matches the "love unknown" of the Gospel. Because of this it must be declared and carry the life it promises with it.

The Gospel has three dimensions:

1. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit...
• The identity of God is the Gospel. God gave us not just to eternal life, but eternal life with him, which is good news only because he is so lovely.
2. ...acted in salvation in Jesus Christ who was "born of the Virgin Mary...crucified [but] On the third day he rose again [and] ascended into heaven"...
• The act of salvation is the Gospel. God did not just symphathise with us in our plight, but did something about it.
3. ...for us.
• That God and his acts are all directed in love towards us, and not someone else, is the Gospel.

People often seem to emphasise only one of the three and so risk losing the whole Gospel in the process. It is an useful thought experiment to think through which movements/teachers are strong on which point, and which we are weak on.

3. Our goal in preaching - The living of life

Again, in preaching we can aim for just one of the following and fail to have a holistic view of salvation.

1. New hearts
• Christianity is an affective faith. We love our God and desire to be with him.
2. New heads
• Christianity requires us to think differently about ourselves, our world and our God. We think through what it means that Jesus is Lord over every square inch of this world.
3. New hands
• We go out in words and deed as part of Christ's Gospel mission and in neighbourly love.

Again, it is an useful thought experiment to think through which movements/teachers are strong on which point, and which we are weak on.

Mockery

Listening to: Arcade Fire: The Suburbs

Peter calls us to give a explain our hope “with gentleness and respect” (1 Pet 3:15). But at first sight that does not seem to fit with the strong language that other biblical authors deploy.

Amos calls people “cows” (Amos 4:1), Jesus and John the Baptist call people a “brood of vipers” and “hypocrites” (Luke 3:7; Matt 12:34, 23:35). Paul wishes false teachers would castrate themselves (Gal 5:12) and Elijah questions whether Baal is not displaying his power because he is asleep (1 Kings 18:27). The examples could be multiplied.

I am not exactly sure how to fit these things together, but I think it may be something like this...

Instances of mockery in the Bible are not within the context of ‘evangelism’ or preaching to a congregation but declarations of judgment upon certain people. They do not seem to be directed against ordinary people but are spoken about teachers or those in some other kind of authority. Jesus and Paul could be remarkably generous and open to people either in deep sin (e.g. Zacchaeus), or held deeply heretical beliefs (e.g. Corinthian church). However, these people tended to be the marginalised, powerless, or poorly taught. To teachers or leaders they tended to be scathing in their language and strikingly condemnatory.

Therefore it appears that when ‘speaking truth to power’ mockery is appropriate and we shouldn't hold back in our language. But when we are the one in a position of ‘power’, e.g. in the pulpit of our own church or leading a Bible study, we should be gentle and respectful. When on-the-level with friends we can ask searching questions and make people feel a little uncomfortable, but only in love and within limits.

Any thoughts?

A low voice trembling in the hearts of men

"Without your wound, where would your power be? It is your very remorse that makes your low voice tremble in the hearts of men. The very angels themselves cannot persuade the wretched and blundering children on earth as can one human being broken on the wheels of living. In love’s service only the wounded soldiers can serve."

(Thornton Wilder, The Angel That Troubled the Waters, HT PZ)

Do you want the Gospel to "tremble in the hearts" of those you speak to?

It will not happen through eloquence, even eloquence in the service of extolling the beauties of our God.

Paul says that he was among the Corinthians "in weakness and in fear and much trembling"! It was in just this that the Spirit demonstrated his power and Christ was believed on (1 Cor 2:3-4).

I know my temptation when talking about the Gospel is to appear strong, have all the answers and a wide smile. Paul knew better and stood exposed as a weak and sinful Apostle through whom the Spirit powerfully worked.

One of many reasons we should prioritise hearing the word, not studying and reading

'...preaching in its essence is an authorized human being speaking the words of God to listening human beings; and every culture understands that.

An interactive Bible study is not culturally-neutral. To sit around drinking coffee with a book open, reading and talking about that book in a way that forces me to keep looking at that book and finding my place and showing a high level of mental agility, functional literacy, spoken coherence and fluency, that is something that only some of the human race are comfortable doing. Not everyone feels comfortable when the bright spark in the corner pipes up, "Ah, yes, but I was wondering about the significance of the word "However" in verse 3b. What do you think about that?" Some of us love that kind of seminar interaction, but many do not. For those who can do it, it may way be profitable; but many people can't, and just feel daunted or excluded by the exercise.

In some churches we have slipped into assuming that personal Bible reading and one-to-one Bible studies and Bible study groups are the normative way for Christian people to hear the Word of God. This, we say, is what a healthy Christian life looks like. But in redefining the Christian life like that we may unwittingly have alienated the illiterate, the functionally illiterate, the less-educated, those less confident in studying a text. I wonder if, quite unintentionally, we may have contributed to making some of our churches more monocultural than they might otherwise be. Paradoxically it is not that preaching is culturally outmoded, but rather that the study of written Biblical texts is culturally narrow.'

(HT Ed Shaw, Christopher Ash, The Priority of Preaching, p.28)

Everything in Christ poured into this moment by his Spirit

Listening to: Radiohead: The Bends

The deed of proclamation in the living present is the deed of the living God! It is what God has in mind for us. The mighty acts of God are not over, not relegated to the past ...Everything that God has done in Jesus Christ has been poured into this moment. The incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God in Jesus is the authorization for the proclamation of the will of God in the living present. The preacher needs the "nerve" - the Spirit - to act on that...

The preacher acts on the presupposition that only the present-tense, here-and-now deed of God, the proclamation itself, can be the solution to the problem of God. The proclamation is the end result, the culmination, of the great acts of God in history. The preacher ought to have the consciousness of standing in that place knowing that the Word and sacrament are themselves the end (telos), the purpose of it all. The concrete moment of the proclamation is the doing of the mighty act of God in the living present.

(pp. 30-35, Gerhard Forde, Theology is for Proclamation)

I'd qualify whether the Word and sacrament are "the end", otherwise we are over-realizing our eschatology. We must not forget that the glory is still hidden with Christ in God until the he is revealed in power and we are revealed as sons in our bodily resurrection.

I love that phrase: "Everything that God has done in Jesus Christ has been poured into this moment". Perfect! But don't you want to add something? That poured into our hearts by hearing through our ears and consuming by the mouth, the Spirit of Christ is bursting to be revealed - to transform us from the inside out in holy lives in the present and glorify our bodies when Christ comes again so that the whole world gives God the glory.

Directions how to hear sermons (by Charles Simeon)

'Take heed therefore how ye hear' (Luke 8:18)

The office of a Christian minister is arduous. He is to explain and enforce every part of man's duty: he is to search out and censure every sin. After all his labours he will see but little fruit. However faithfully he preach, there are but few who will hear aright. This our Lord had just declared in the parable of the sower. He then enforced His declaration with this most important caution.

1. THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR LORD'S CAUTION

Our Lord elsewhere cautions His people to take heed what they hear; nor can any thing be more necessary than to be on our guard against error. But the caution how we hear was also necessary for the following reasons.

1. Because many hear in an unbecoming manner.

a. The generality are careless hearers. They attend God's house merely in conformity with the customs of the country. They suffer their thoughts to rove after earthly and carnal things. They discern very little difference in the doctrines which they hear. They, like Gallio, seem to 'care for none of these things'.

b. Many are critical hearers. They can attend to nothing which is not composed with elegance; or they affect only what accords with their own views of religion. They judge of all they hear by a standard of their own. Hence they form parties, and set up one minister against another (cf. 1 Cor 3:3,4)

c. Many also are captious hearers. They will not hear any thing which militates against their prejudices . They cannot bear to have their favourite habits condemned. They are offended if their bosom lusts be faithfully reproved. They too much resemble the scribes and Pharisees of old. (See Luke 11:45; Mark 6:17,18; Luke 11:54.) While there continue such hearers, the caution will be necessary.

2. Because God Himself speaks to us by the preacher.

Ministers are ambassadors for God, and speak in Christ's stead. If they preach what is founded on the Scriptures, their word, as far as it is agreeable to the mind of God, is to be considered as God's. This is asserted by our Lord and His apostles. We ought therefore to receive the preacher's word as the word of God Himself. With what humility then ought we to attend to it! What judgments may we not expect, if we slight it. Surely therefore on this account also we need the caution in the text. (See 2 Cor 5:20; John 13:20; 1 Thes 4:8, 2:13.)

3. Because every discourse increases either our salvation or condemnation.

The word delivered is either a savour of life or of death. Our Lord Himself intimates this reason for the caution in the verse from which our text is taken. Hence our Lord's preaching eventually enhanced the guilt of the Jews. The same awful effects will be felt by those who slight His ministers. What stronger reasons for such a caution can possibly be imagined? (See 2 Cor 2:15,16; John 15:22.)

II. OBEYING OUR LORD'S CAUTION

An humble mind will naturally receive instruction in a proper manner.

1. We should hear with candour.

We cannot too carefully divest ourselves of prejudices. We should not call any man 'master' upon earth. We should rather weigh what we hear, in the balance of the sanctuary; but we ought to have our minds open to conviction. We should receive the seed in 'an honest and good heart': we should 'receive with meekness the engrafted word': nor can we hope to profit, if we do not cultivate this disposition. (See Matt 23:10; 1 Thes 5:21; Luke 8:15; James 1:21.)

2. We should hear with a desire to profit.

The Word of God is profitable for many blessed purposes; yet it cannot be serviceable to us if it be not received in faith. But, when applied to the soul, its operation is very powerful. We should therefore at all times apply it to ourselves. We should go to the ordinances, as the sick to Bethesda's pool. Nor do we ever hear aright except when we attend in this spirit. It is the practical hearer only that derives benefit to his soul. (See 2 Tim 3:16,17; Heb 4:2,12; 1 Pet 2:2; James 1:22-25.)

3. We should hear with humble dependence on God's Spirit.

It is God alone who 'teacheth us to profit'. Human labours, without His blessing will be in vain. It is His work to open the understanding and the heart. To Him therefore should we look for the teaching of His Spirit. We should plead the promise which God has given us. In this way we shall experience much benefit from the Word. No obstacles whatever shall be able to withstand its power:L it shall be a rich source of grace and wisdom to us. (See Luke 24:45; Acts 16:14; Is 55:10,11; 2 Cor 10:4; Col 3:16.)

Let us then offer in sincerity that petition in the Litany. 'That it may please thee to give to all thy people increase of grace, to hear meekly thy Word, and to receive it with pure affection, and to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit.'

[From Let Wisdom Judge: University Addresses and Sermon Outlines by Charles Simeon (Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1959, pp. 188-190).

My feelings about this sermon outline are quite mixed. I was prompted to read it today after I found it referenced in Christopher Ash's little booklet Listen Up! A practical guide to listening to sermons. I think Ash has drawn a lot from Simeon, and I respect them both a great deal. I hope to explain later why I'm quite torn about the advice of Ash and Simeon... perhaps you can guess why... It may be another 2 weeks though. I'm revising at the moment.]

Triperspectival application

Still listening to Tim Keller on applying Biblical texts. Keller draws out some helpful stuff from Vern Polythress on triperspectivalism in application:

Vern Poythress in [God-Centered Biblical Interpretation] takes John Frame's 3-perspectives of normative (prophetic). existential (priestly), and situational (kingly) and works this out for hermeneutics [...]

Each perspective is true in that it eventually comprises the whole, but each approach begins with a particular 'door' or aspect.

[1. 'Doctrinalist'] The 'normative' aspect I'll call "the gospel of Christ" - stresses objective, historic work of Christ that Jesus really came in time-space and history to accomplish all for us. It will talk much more about the real, historicity of Jesus life. death and resurrection...This view thinks that the problem addressed by Paul in Galatians was a doctrinal heresy.

[2. 'Pietist'] The 'existential' aspect I'll call "the gospel of sonship"- stresses our new identity in Christ as adopted children, liberated from the law. It will talk much of the power of the spirit to renew broken hearts and psyches...This view thinks that the problem addressed by Paul in Galatians was a pastoral one of Christians falling back into legalism.

[3. 'Cultural-transformationist'] The 'situational' aspect I'll call "the gospel of the kingdom" - stresses the reversal of values in the new creation. It will talk about healed community, cultural transformation, ministry of deed and justice... This view thinks that the problem addressed by Paul in Galatians was the lack of 'table fellowship' between Jew and Gentile.

We need all three perspectives, though each perspective is not simply a 'part' of the gospel. For example, the 'kingdom' perspective contains the other two. If God is king, then salvation must be by grace, for if we are saved by works, something else will be our Lord and Savior . Or, if we have a new identity in Christ by sheer grace. then we must not look down at anyone else, and self-justification is the basis of racism and injustice. If you go deep enough into any one perspective, you will find the other two.

(From the lecture notes here)

The plot to moral reasoning

In his excellent lectures on preaching, Tim Keller gives his basic outline for preaching to the heart as well as to behaviour. In fact, he describes it as the foundational outline for all the moral reasoning and argument that lies at the heart of application.

a. The Plot winds up: WHAT YOU MUST DO.

• "This is what you have to do! Here is what the text/narrative tells us that we must do or what we must be."

b. The Plot thickens: WHY YOU CAN'T DO IT.

• "But you can't do it! Here are all the reasons that you will never become like this just by trying very hard."

c. The Plot resolves: HOW HE DID IT.

• "But there's One who did. Perfectly. Wholly. Jesus the---. He has done this for us, in our place."

d. The Plot winds down: HOW, THROUGH HIM, YOU CAN DO IT.

• "Our failure to do it is due to our functional rejection of what he did. Remembering him frees our heart so we can change like this ..."

(From the lecture notes here)

We're all preachers, not least to our own hearts, so it is important to think how we apply the Bible to our hearts. This structure is biblical, Christ-centred and packed with grace where it matters. But it is important that it is also a story. This makes it interesting to hear because there's dramatic tension and it is effective because it also takes the Christian on a journey from death to life, law to Gospel and self to Christ. We all want to make that journey, and by starting with the command, and not Christ, you don't just preach the goal but how to get there.

That's why I love the distinction between law and Gospel. It is about a movement. It's not an exercise in chopping up scripture but a dynamic.

Seeking to do something in preaching

In the previous post I noted what Tim Saleska thought he saw "God doing to people in the bible". The reason he spent most of his lecture on this was because he thought that the preacher should find in God's actions the model for what he does when talking to people about God.

Tim Saleska wants us to read the bible asking: "what is God actually doing here to his people?" "What does he do to you as a reader?" And once we have answered that question, he wants us to seek to achieve the same in the people we speak to about God. So having set out what he sees God doing in the Bible he concludes that the preacher's task is:

to make people Israel. It is your job to kill the old and resurrect them to the new. We bring people into the kingdom and make the story of Israel their story; the experience of Israel their experience. So rather than thinking about the sermon in terms of Law and Gospel as content - in other words it is my responsibility to give a bunch of cognitive propositions that I can label 'law' and then move from that to a bunch of cognitive propositions and label those 'Gospel' - think of the sermon in more functional terms. What you want to actually accomplish, what you want to do, in your speaking.

... you actually want to bring them through this death and life experience. Remember as Lutherans we think of the whole Christian life as a continual death and resurrection. ... we mean that baptism was this once-for-all death and resurrection that actually plays itself out day-in-day-out in the life of a Christian. Repentance is nothing but death to the old and ... faith is the resurrection to the new. In the Christian life, one of repentance and faith, that's the experience that comes to us which is a foretaste of what is going to happen at the end of time when God comes and raises us from the death for all to see.