From: [email protected]
How can we know the theology is right if the exegesis is wrong? Whether we like it or not there must be an absolute standard. If it isn't the Bible then it will be our own personal preferences or the latest best seller or the current fad on TBN. I'm afraid we can make the Bible "mean" whatever we want -- but the real question is still what does God mean? All kinds of cults and heresies have grown out of seeking a newer, "deeper" meaning in the Scriptures.
Cute little sermons like your examples remind me of the weaknesses of the holiness movement in the last generation. I heard many sermons by evangelists who read their text and then launched into message that had little or nothing to do with it. Preaching and teaching both must tied to the text and its meaning in the original conversation between God and man. Our task (and it is hard work) is to enter that conversation under the Holy Spirit's direction and see how it connects with our life today. --Mark Haines
From: [email protected]
I think, on principle, "pastor mike" is clearly in the wrong. As Christians, even more so as pastors, we have a responsibility to present scripture in its intended purpose; we must be careful, honest, and authentic in any interpretation. Granted, any and all hermeneutic is subject to presupposed, unconscious bias. Still, to knowingly misrepresent a text, even with good intentions and seemingly good results, allows for a potentially loose, manipulative approach to scripture. Certainly, in my tradition there is no question that God chooses to speak through mediums other than scripture, and nature is a means of revelation like scripture. There is, perhaps, nothing wrong with the content of the sermon. But as a pastor I would have a responsibility not only for what I say and my leadership decisions, but also to communicate and educate my congregation in a way that encourages their spiritual maturity. Teaching them proper methods of biblical interpretation is, seemingly, one of the most important things a pastor must do. In my opinion, such a casual treatment of scripture as this model seemed to suggest would implicitly teach principles I don't think I subscribe to, and quite possibly lead to dangerous mistakes and misinterpretations from those less mature.
From: "James Doll" <[email protected]>
I preached 42 years before retiring this year. And I think you ought to allow the Scripture to say what it does say. Not use it to prove our point. We can make the point we want to make without, using it wrong. What is the difference between that and what the cults do? Even if our point is true, we should not twist the meaning of Scripture to prove it.
From: [email protected]
To argue that God has never used "bad preaching" at any time during the Christian era would not likely hold up in any serious debate on the subject.
Who can understand all the ways His wonders to perform? I seem to remember some pretty unfortunate excuses for a sermon (I preached a couple of them) on the subject of the sanctified life from my earlier days in the ministry. Its a wonder anyone discovered the sanctified life! And yet, many did, and even went on to sort out the truth from the fiction in the process.
But should we excuse Mike from taking seriously his gift of preaching which by necessity includes properly interpreting and applying the scriptures?
Absolutely not! The Word of God must be handled with great care at all costs. Frivolous and frothy sermons which come off sounding "clever" or "cute" but fail to properly convey the real message of the passage being used, is not a standard of excellence that deserves serious consideration.
"Come on Mike! You can do better than this. If God called you to preach, he called you to excellence in handling the Word of God. Reduce the number of days you spend on the golf course, cut down on the time you spend watching TV, and use that time to apply yourself to becoming a better preacher. Your congregation deserves the best from you."--J. W. Watkins --Vancouver, WA
From: Clarence G White <[email protected]> Status:
This is an interesting column. Personally I think "Pastor Mike" should be either sent back to school or given his walking papers. My responses to the questions you asked are below. I have a D.Min. with a major concentration in Hermeneutics. The idea of "Meaning" is a technical term for the authors intended meaning. No passage ever means anything else. There may be contemporary parallels and applications, but they are ALWAYS linked to the original meaning. We may not always be able to totally arrive at the meaning of a passage--but by definition meaning is tied to authorial intent.
<Is it OK for a preacher to use Scripture improperly to make a true point -- that is; if the theology is right and the exegesis is wrong is a preacher still safe? > No. Because we are to "correctly handle the word of truth."
<In what sense is preaching Scripture different than teaching Scripture? Are they different in their approach to Scripture, or are they essentially the same things?> They should be the same because the meaning of a text never varies. -- C.G. White, Pastor Pilot View Friends Church Yadkinville NC
From: "Lee Attema" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>
If the preaching does not reflect the intent of the author it is inappropriate. If we misuse scripture to make points we believe are helpful and then point to the scripture as the authority behind our thoughts what is to prevent someone from taking Scripture and misusing it. For example, the Christian Identity Movement. I would not sit under the preaching of someone who made a practice of that sort of eisogesis.
I think that the difference between teaching and preaching has much to do with motivation. Teaching is designed to build a strong belief system or the ability to understand. Good preaching overlaps but has an additional extortive function. I am not comfortable with going beyond what the original authors intended and what the first century church probably understood. I think that we can use any number of examples to make our passages clear but the original meaning must be unpacked so that the hearers understand what was intended and can differentiate between the use of the example and the use of the text. To do otherwise may mislead people and cause confusion and it also allows the hijacking of scripture to make it mean things that were never intended. --Lee Attema Fairhaven, MA
From: [email protected]
One of the truly amazing facts about the Bible is that it continues to stay relevant to everyone from then to now.
Did Jesus use a computer? Probably not! Did Jesus know that computers would eventually allow forums such as this? Definitely! Isaiah 64:4 says, " Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you." That thought is repeated generations later in I Corinthians 2:9...well, sort of. "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him." So, why can't I apply that passage to say that we, today enjoy computers which, in ancient times "no eye had seen, no ear had heard, no mind had conceived but that God prepared this technology for us who love him to use to further his kingdom." The principle is the same, even if the details are not. I am certain that, though I read and enjoy many Bible passages, I do not truly experience their original pathos because I did not live under those societal customs. (Take th