From: MarkH7557@aol.com
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: Mmtc42@aol.com
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" <jwdoll@ticon.net>
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: JoeWayWat@aol.com
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 <whitecg@juno.com> 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" <attema@ma.ultranet.com> To: <Tuesday@indwes.edu>
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: PEvalyn@aol.com
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 the case of the man thanking God, publicly in the temple for not making him a woman, for example!) But that does not diminish the Bible. The truly amazing charm and continuity of the Scriptures derive from their ability to achieve connectivity with all levels of society in all generations.
"Thank you, Lord, for loving me, in a unique and individual and modern way!" --P. Evalyn Cole -
From: Stevan P Sheets <navets@juno.com> :
I say yes. I say, "enough of this 'what did it mean for the original hearers', and more of what does God have for us today?!" As a student in the Christian Ministries Department here at Indiana Wesleyan, I have come to know how to do a great exegesis and know how to prepare the "perfect sermon" and know how to tell people about things they didn't know about. Those things are fine and dandy...But aren't we losing sight of the fact that God still moves! "In the hearts of people, God still moves", "He does not sleep, nor does he slumber..." I am willing to say that God can use a sermon such as what "Pastor Mike" preached and what I've heard preached elsewhere to reach souls! And that totally excites me. I know it is beneficial to look at the exegetical content/context, etc., but what about a missionary who is trying to reach the lost in the "bush"... More than likely they don't have access to the Greek lexicon, commentaries, Bible dictionaries, that I do...and yet there ministry is fruitful. Where does Dr. Drury stand? -Stevan P. Sheets
From: "Jonathan Ward" <jward777@hotmail.com> To: Tuesday@indwes.edu
1. Can the Bible mean something it never meant or does the Bible only mean what it meant to the original writers and readers? Response (not necessarily answer): Bible as the inspired Word of God never has, nor ever will mean anything but what the original author (God) meant. Can it mean more than the original readers understood - of course. Paul speaks many times about the mystery of God which has just now been made known (although it had been spoken of throughout the Old Testament). The Apostles interpreted many passages from the Old Testament to mean other/more than what any Old Testament person would have understood them to mean. Whether or not we can apply the same criteria to the New Testament, I am unsure. Whether or not we should interpret the New or Old Testaments as other than the original readers would have understood or as they have been interpreted for us by the writers of the Testaments, the answer is no. If we are allowed to interpret the passage anyway we please, there is no Scripture - just opinions.
2. 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 wrong is a preacher still safe? Response: No. Does the end justify the means? No. Our theology is based upon our understanding of the Scriptures, how then can we have right theology that is divorced from the very source of our understanding of theology? Though the preacher build a beautiful house, if there is no foundation the house will fall. What will happen if his parishioners realize that he is interpreting Scripture incorrectly - they will throw out the theology as well, and should. In Geometry you must start with a true "given," the same is true of theology. If the "given" is false, then the proof is false, even though the answer is right.
3. In what sense is preaching Scripture different than teaching Scripture? Response: Preaching is more of the public proclamation, the heralding of a message, announcing in largesse teaching is more of instructing and training in our church, the preaching focuses on inspiring the people while the teaching focuses on instructing the people. They should be the same in their approach to Scripture. What does the Scripture say? That is what I will say.
From: daviddrury@juno.com
The teaching pastor at our church (Rob Paterson) and I had a discussion this very morning about this issue (before the Tues. Col. came out). We referenced the "Ethiopian Eunuch" passage in posing your very question. Yours may be one of the largest hermeneutical questions one can ask. Throughout most of church history preachers have viciously misappropriated the intent of passages and God has blessed their efforts.
But I would hope that God could change the world because of us not in spite of us and so the question lingers. It may come down to a *means-and-ends* ministry ethics question. From my very utilitarian/John Wesley standpoint the "means are justified by the end unless they are in essence contrary to the end." So I spend my days analyzing the *gray area* while prepping for a message! --Dave Drury
From: "RobPaterson" <mooserob@email.msn.com> To: <Tuesday@indwes.edu>
What an interesting column in talking about the "Creative Liberties" that we preachers many times afford ourselves. I don't have a difficulty with those who begin with the actual meaning of a passage and then make some known speculation, unless a "thus saith the Lord" is tacked onto the conjecture. It seems that the Bible says enough by itself, without us needing to manufacture a few other good thoughts to help it along. I am a firm believer that the means dictate the ends and in as much we must remain true to what we are talking about. If there is a good and true point to be made that is separate from scripture then we should just make it, instead of robbing the Bible of it's own context and meaning in an attempt to lend false authority to our words. Perhaps the problem is not the Pastor Mike in all of us tends to neglect the scriptures meaning from time to time, but that by doing this we rely on ourselves instead of God to make the eternal difference! --Robert S.M. Paterson, Teaching Pastor
From: "James Petticrew" <James@petticrew.fsnet.co.uk> To: <Tuesday@indwes.edu>
All of us who are preachers probably inwardly giggled at your examples of Pastor Mike's sermons when we read them. In a more reflective we would probably all admit to doing a "Mike" and know that we had the best intentions when we hammered the square peg of Paul's words into the round hole of what we wanted to say.
I wonder however if we lose the point in our amusement and good intentions. Cults begin when preachers bend the words of Scripture to fit what they want to say, rather than the other way around. Scripture twisting isn't that amusing when it leads to Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions for their children, wild charismatic refusing medical treatment or when it leads to mass suicides in Latin American Jungles or horrific deaths in Waco Texas. If we want to avoid those dangers and warn against them, then those of us who are evangelical need to be serious about Scripture and its interpretation. That will mean sometimes missing a great opportunity to hang a good sermon on a text but ultimately it will be more beneficial to our people and our ministry. We need to be topical or expository in our sermons and be honest about which we are delivering. Let's not pretend that we are being expository when we are not, it could lead to some dangerous places and some damaged people. --James Petticrew
\From: mike@nhcoc.com
This reminds me of an old "Brother Biddle" cartoon. The preacher says, "So Paul says in verse 14 that because of his chains, others have been encouraged. What do you think he means?" Responses: 1) "Paul's writing a letter, right? So this is a chain letter like the one I just got.
2) "No, no, you're missing the point. I'm a chain smoker, and God is speaking to me through this to encourage other chain smokers." 3) "Well, it reminds me of that Aretha Franklin song "Chain of Fools." Maybe Paul means that we're fools for Christ." Preacher: "Um... Those are some interesting insights, but do you think Paul could simply be referring to his prison chains in Rome?" 2 whispering to 3: "I told you this Bible study wasn't about practical living."
I think you are right on this one. Too many texts are being used out of context and when you remove "text" from context, you are left with just a "con." On many occasions I've heard a preacher use an obscure translation simply because it made his point (regardless of whether it was the author's point). The Bible cannot mean what it never meant. I think it's better to make a true point without Scripture, than it is to make the same true point with Scripture used out of context. This kind of preaching/teaching fosters a kind of "Scripture means whatever I feel it means" mentality, which leads to major theological errors. --Mike Kjergaard
From: ioweuone@webtv.net
Received: from storefull-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net (storefull-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net [209.240.198.218])
by mailsorter-105-2.iap.bryant.webtv.net (WebTV_Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B4FF2DEDE
for <kdrury@indwes.edu>; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:21:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from production@localhost) by storefull-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8-wtv-e/mt.gso.26Feb98) id QAA09596; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:21:19 -0800 (PST)
AN EXEGESIS OF THE ABOVE RESPONSES
by: "Mike"
Just what am I? a cultist?, a cutie?, a clever devil?, a fictional character?, a chronic playboy?, a glued-to-the-television monster?, a cartoon character?, a non- geometric sermon designer?, an obscure transalationist?, a non-Christian (since Christians are to be responsible to the truth)?, ............are there no more descriptive adjectives that would be meaningful?
Just what should I really do? go back to school? stay in my cult? seek a more profound cult? join with the dead (who are living) holiness crowd? be fired from my pastorate? work more on my golf game? stick to non-fiction anecdotes?
THESE WERE JUST A FEW SERIOUS QUESTIONS I HAD WHILE READING THE RESPONSES. YOU CAN READILY DISCERN THAT I REALLY NEED MORE HELP! BY THE WAY------ [the] responses were coated with overdoses of Vitamin "I". The extreme usage of "I"......"ME"...."WE".. MY"... "OUR".... "US"..... et.al ...really frightened me.
SO...you can see why I am unsure as to who I am or what I should do! Maybe we should all strive to be more indirectly direct. Then again, as the old preacher down home, used to say: "if the shoe fits don't go home barefooted." At least, by that, we had consensus! "MIKE".......
Responses to Keith Drury's "Tuesday Column" posted at http://www.indwes.edu/tuesday
To respond or contribute to the thinking on this issue email: tuesday@indwes.edu