Every  week the preacher faces a problem. Two, actually. What to preach about, and how to preach about it. If the topic is a social or moral issue or a principle of doctrine, all that is at stake is the extent of the preacher's grasp of the issues, knowledge of doctrine, and ability to make these insights relevant to Christian living.

But if the sermon is based on a biblical passage, the problems begin. To what extent do we incorporate biblical and historical criticism? Is scholarly research best shared not from a parish pulpit, but in the context of a university chapel, a study group, even a cathedral? Is it pastoral to shield worshippers from questions raised by biblical scholars? Is consideration of the extent to which symbolic truth has informed, fashioned, even created events described by the writers best restricted to private discussions amongst scholarly clergy and intellectually inquisitive lay people? In a nutshell, should biblical study be kept separate from preaching?

It may come as no surprise that I believe it should not, for several reasons.

First, withholding biblical research exposes us to the charge of clericalism, paternalism, even elitism. It is condescending. It assumes congregations are unintelligent, and withholds from them insights into more profound understanding of the dynamics of faith in contemporary society. It is the equivalent of a medical doctor performing surgery with a bread-knife and a bottle of Dettol on the grounds that these are the tools with which the patient isfamiliar, and that to introduce the result of new discoveries only disorientates and confuses. It does no-one any favours to protect people from the findings of scriptural research.

Secondly, Christians are refused the means to come to deeper understandings of the Bible, leaving them open to attack for the naivete of their faith.

Third, faithlessness is at the root of an attitude that separates inspiration of the biblical critic from inspiration of the church, as if the source of each is not identical. Surely no-one suggests scholars and their findings are excluded from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

Fourth, simple and literal readings of the Bible are dangerous. A literal reading can lead believers to imagine that whatever they ask in Jesus' name will be granted, and if not it is due to lack of faith. Expounding the raising of jairus' daughter as straightforward reportage makes us ask if this happened back then why not now? Why not pray for the restoration to life of the victims of car accidents, illnesses, plane crashes, and so on?

All in all, New Testament criticism allows us to see the sacred texts as expressions of faith in Jesus after the resurrection. It is through a profound knowledge of the faith of these writers and the techniques by which they expressed this faith, that preachers construct sermons properly appropriate and compelling for today.

 

John 

 

From an article in the May 'Messenger'