# Preaching from Narative



## brymaes (May 25, 2005)

A question for all you preachers out there...

Do you ever have trouble preaching from narative passages? I often find myself, as much as a try to avoid it, leaning to a too "moralistic," i.e. assigning an arbitrary moral to a narative, type of preaching. My desire is to demonstrate Christ throughout all of Scripture, but doing this through preaching from narative texts seems daunting!

Any advice?


----------



## Robin (May 25, 2005)

Bryan,

"Preaching Christ in All the Scriptures" by Edmund Clowney is some of the best there is on why Christ should (and can) be preached from all of the Bible.

Dr. Clowney is now in glory (our unfortunate loss) but there are many CD lectures on this subject also:

http://www.wtsbooks.com/mcdec600set.html

Plus, here is a sample of a good Redemptive Historical sermon on the narrative of Samson:

http://www.kerux.com/documents/keruxv17n3a3.htm

Be encouraged....the drama of the Greatest Story Ever Told, awaits!!!

Robin

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by Robin]


----------



## RamistThomist (May 25, 2005)

That is a good question, and Clowney does come to the rescue. The Bible is more than 2/3 narrative. More on this later. Now, it can often be abused by liberals and postmodernists.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 25, 2005)

The key to preaching narrative is, truly: maintaining a perspective on the place of that narrative in Redemptive History. And this I speak as someone who also maintains a "puritan" approach to preaching, as one who insists on spelling out the practical applications to be drawn from the text for appropriation by God's people. The indicative precedes the imperative, but remains barren apart from the imperative.

We must ask the questions, every time we take up the text: Why is this passage here? Why did the Spirit inspire this passage? What purpose (telos) did the inspired writer have by including this passage here--its details, it's connections? We _must_ gain some grasp of the answer--however imperfectly--before we can faithfully preach.

If we stay at the level of raw information (though useful in many ways) we shall indeed fall victim to the tendency to moralize--to preach "life-lessons" or simply history. We might even preach a sermon that a Unitarian or rabbi could rehearse, practically verbatim. What a waste of the people's time! But let us not forget that moral and immoral lessons are sprinkled copiously throughout the narratives, and we benefit greatly from them. They too must be preached in context.

Israelite history, and the associated human history found in the Bible, has yet more value--beside its _Redemptive-Historical_ value_, its truth_ value, and its _moral-exemplar_ value. It is possible to find abundant analogs to our own circumstances in the centuries of history contained in the Bible. "There is nothing new under the sun." The Puritans were masters at this art. They recognized God had spoken to believers in situations that were similar (though not identical) to ones present in thier own day. Later errorists might confound the national identity with Israel, but I don't believe the Puritans were generally guilty of this. They found those analogs, and having proved their point _historically,_ they then lifted the spiritual lesson out, and hammered it home to the hearts of their listeners.

How God's people would benefit today from this kind of instruction! They would learn to evaluate the signs of the times, the social and cultural conditions in which they live, the events of their lives (considered narrowly or broadly) _through the lens of the Bible_ and NOT through other sources. It is because this process is seldom done, nor done well when it is attempted, that the people instead have _reversed_ the order, and now interpret the Bible and "prophecy" through the grid of the newspaper.

Secular interpretations _abound._ People addicted to talk radio, or NPR, or Time Magazine, or a dozen other media outlets are PREACHED AT, for 20-50 hours a week. They are fed the secular grist from the mill. And they think that 2 hours a week at church is 1 hour too many. This is perhaps the least important _Use_ of narrative Scripture, but that does not make it _unimportant,_ and the neglect of a thing can make it's relative significance grow proportionately.

I do not suggest that everything of value in a narrative text must or can be preached in every sermon. It's neither beneficial nor appropriate. The message must be tailored according to the audience and the circumstances. Anyway, that's my


----------



## RamistThomist (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> The key to preaching narrative is, truly: maintaining a perspective on the place of that narrative in Redemptive History. And this I speak as someone who also maintains a "puritan" approach to preaching, as one who insists on spelling out the practical applications to be drawn from the text for appropriation by God's people. The indicative precedes the imperative, but remains barren apart from the imperative.
> 
> We must ask the questions, every time we take up the text: Why is this passage here? Why did the Spirit inspire this passage? What purpose (telos) did the inspired writer have by including this passage here--its details, it's connections? We _must_ gain some grasp of the answer--however imperfectly--before we can faithfully preach.
> ...



wow


----------



## Robin (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> The message must be tailored according to the audience and the circumstances. Anyway, that's my



Bruce - forgive me, I'm not trying to counter your important post - I add this on account of conscious. I beg to emphasize:

God is the Audience --- the Message to be preached is: *Christ* The circumstances: the present evil age is passing away. (See the sermons in Acts.)

Examples: note the content of the sermons. Not one sermon is about the "affects" (Christian living) *of* the Gospel -- they are all about Christ (*the* Gospel.) The results of Peter's sermon (Acts 2) about Israel's sin (narrative) and Christ's life-death-resurrection, is that 3,000 people are saved on the spot!

Talk about "power preaching".....Peter made good use of narrative, indeed. (I wonder why Pete didn't use his great-personal testimony: (sobbing voice) "I was a lousy fisherman, then Jesus came into my life and made me a fisher of men...."?)

In courtesy and a bit of humor,

R.

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by Robin]


----------



## fredtgreco (May 25, 2005)

Robin,

Forgive me, but your posts seems typical of the radical Redemptive Historical homiletic that eschews the imperative in favor of all indicative. The point is not that the gospel is not to be preached; rather that Christian duty is ALSO to be preached. 

The Scriptures are made up of more than the sermons reported in them, as Paul's letters attest to. The divines put it well:

WSC 3 What do the Scriptures principally teach? A. The Scriptures principally teach, what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.

The result of continually preaching in the vein of the kerux web site is all but antinomian congregation, that grows little, but is excited to find every fanciful and new way to "find Christ" under every twig, rock and bush.


----------



## Robin (May 25, 2005)

Thinking out loud here....I wonder if Dr. R. Scott Clark would comment on this? (whistling ......)

R.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Thinking out loud here....I wonder if Dr. R. Scott Clark would comment on this? (whistling ......)
> 
> R.



Maybe,

and maybe perhaps Dr. Carrick could be of some assistance:

Dr. John Carrick's Lecture on Preaching

his book as well:
http://tinyurl.com/atf5t


and a book review

and a report in Banner of Truth of the debate held between Carrick and Dennison:


> Redemptive-Historical vs. Traditional Preaching
> 
> Thursday morning was given over to a discussion as to what type of preaching, redemptive-historical or traditional, is the most Biblical.
> 
> ...


----------



## fredtgreco (May 25, 2005)

Note also, that this does not mean that narrative should be preached as moralism, and that a bridge to Christ and the gospel cannot be found - I attempt to do that every week as I preach through Exodus (you can check me on it in the MP3s).

But preaching is more than saying, week after week, "you're not good enough, but don't worry, Christ is." That is true, but there is Romans 12-16 after Romans 1-11. Balance between indicative and imperative is essential.

For this reason, I find Graeme Goldsworthy and others of that mold less than helpful.


----------



## Robin (May 25, 2005)

Fred,

Your input is especially meaningful -- I will take time to review Carrick...meanwhile, there must be some mistake? Do you really think I'm asserting that imperatives ought not be preached? I hope not.... As in Paul's preaching...I'd only point out that his imperative language comes after he used indicative language and that we're wise to do the same and/or conclude "Law language" with "Gospel language" thus emphasizing the only power that even gives the hearer ability or desire to obey.

I'll take a break to study....(still whistling......in the dark....O, Dr. Clark..... )


R.

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Robin (May 25, 2005)

Oh...and I look forward to enjoying your Exodus MP3's....


----------



## fredtgreco (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Fred,
> 
> Your input is especially meaningful -- I will take time to review Carrick...meanwhile, there must be some mistake? Do you really think I'm asserting that imperatives ought not be preached? I hope not.... As in Paul's preaching...I'd only point out that his imperative language comes after he used indicative language and that we're wise to do the same.
> ...



Robin,

I did not presume so - that is why I made my comment about what your post _seemed_ to be endorsing such a view - especially when kerux or twoage.com are referenced. Again, the matter is not one of heresy, but of balance. The indicatives MUST be preached. But they also MUST lead to the imperatives. I directly asked one RH (redemptive historical) preacher what he thought the imperatives were in Scripture, and he limited them to one "believe the gospel."

This is troubling.


----------



## Robin (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> .... I directly asked one RH (redemptive historical) preacher what he thought the imperatives were in Scripture, and he limited them to one "believe the gospel."
> 
> This is troubling.



This would be curious and troubling, indeed! I don't know enough yet about the Kerux site question....formerly, I thought they had much variety in the archives....and for time being, could not accuse them of being antinomian out of hand.

Still whistling.....

R.


----------

