Preaching from Narative

Status
Not open for further replies.

brymaes

Puritan Board Sophomore
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? :candle:
 
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]
 
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.
 
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 :2cents:
 
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.

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 :2cents:

wow
 
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
The message must be tailored according to the audience and the circumstances. Anyway, that's my :2cents:

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

R.
 
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.

The Rev. Dr. William Dennison, Associate Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at Covenant College and a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), presented the case for redemptive-historical preaching. He began by stating that, in his view, there was no longer a peaceful co-existence between the two positions, but that rather there was a cloud of suspicion hanging over the debate. He noted that the Biblical theological approach which he represented had come in for three basic criticisms. One, Biblical theology has its origin as a specific theological discipline in the German Enlightenment. Two, the historical-redemptive genre is one of many genres of Scripture, and therefore the redemptive-historical approach is not the only legitimate one. Three, Biblical theology fails to apply the text of Scripture to the lives of God's people. Biblical theology has been said to be analogous to the way an air plane flies, i.e., never touching the ground.

Dr. Dennison maintained that both sides in the dispute agree on the necessity of application, and the reality of progressive revelation. The problem is the presuppositional grid that informs each perspective. The discussion needs a dose of Cornelius Van Til's methodology, viz., transcendental critique.

The Covenant College professor then gave an overview of Western thought,
as he spoke of the interrelationship of ethics, history, grammar, and rhetoric. The classical view of history was to make it subservient to ethics, and the Medieval church, as well as the Protestant Reformation, largely adopted the Greco-Roman approach to history.

"The relationship among rhetoric, history and ethics found a home in the church, especially with respect to preaching. Preaching was viewed as an application of history." Ethics thus took precedence over history, with the result that the study of history was appreciated more for the moral lessons which it teaches than for its own sake.

Professor Dennison applauded the Reformers for helping to turn the classical world upside down. However, in his view, they like all of us were products of their time, and so did not fully liberate their world-and-life view from the liberal arts tradition.

In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, it was Geerhardus Vos, an Old Princeton scholar, who helped to define the discipline of Biblical Theology, and in so doing to recapture some of the pristine perspective of the original Reformers. "Vos saw the focus of history in Christ, not ethics. The focus of history is on Christ, not on morality."

For Dr. Dennis on, the traditional approach of grammatico-historical exegesis should be reversed, so that the emphasis is upon history - an historico-grammatical exegesis.

In his opinion, "Good preaching does not apply the text to you, but applies you to the text. The preacher is not drawing the text into your world, he is drawing you into the world of the text."

An Opposing Voice

Responding to Dr. Dennison was the Rev. John Carrick, also a minister in the OPC. Mr. Carrick, who is Assistant Professor of Applied and Doctrinal Theology at Greenville Seminary, began by stating that the explanation and application of the text is the traditional approach. After referring to Robert Lewis Dabney, who said that preaching is "to make men do", Professor Carrick attacked those who in the Exemplaristic Redemptive/Historical Controversy in Holland in the 1930s and 1940s eschewed the use of Biblical characters as examples. The redemptive-historical advocates also charged the exemplarists with moralism and anthropocentricity.

Professor Carrick, on the other hand, wants to maintain a balance between the objective and the subjective, or between the indicative and the imperative - a balance which he believes "is illustrated by Apostolic preaching."

In his view, redemptive-historical preaching has gone astray in its "failure to note and to implement the indicative-imperative pattern." J. Gresham Machen, one of the founders of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, "highlights the fundamental difference between liberalism and Christianity by saying that liberalism has only the imperative, while Christianity has the indicative as the foundation of the imperative. The Christian preacher begins with a triumphant indicative." However, Machen does not leave it there, but goes to application: "Christianity is not always in the indicative mood."

The New Testament reveals a double indicative into which a double indicative is interwoven. Christ died for sinners (indicative); therefore, repent and believe (imperative). You are dead to sin (indicative); therefore, reckon yourself dead to sin (imperative).

The Necessity of Balance

Professor Carrick, while expressing appreciation for a redemptive-historical perspective, argued for a balanced approach, and he attacked what he called the extremes of the redemptive-historical movement. He noted that Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, generally considered one of the champions of a redemptive-historical approach to Scripture, has himself been critical of some in the redemptive-historical camp who have apparently not been willing to grant a legitimate use of example and of the imperative. With respect to James' use of Elijah as an example of a man of fervent prayer, Dr. Gaffin, according to Professor Carrick, "points out that James has seized on an incidental and subordinate point and turned it into a major point." The Greenville professor rhetorically asked: "Does
the redemptive-historical school regard James' appeal to I Kings 18 to be 'atomistic' and moralistic?"

He continued: "The fact that Christ is our Saviour does not mean that He is not also an example." Atoning value and exemplaristic value lie
side-by-side. Using Gaffin-type language, Professor Carrick declared,
"Christocentricity must not be permitted to
degenerate into Christomonism."

Professor Carrick again appealed to Dr. Gaffin, who has expressed concern that "some redemptive-historical preaching is one-sided, especially because it has an eye only for the typological institutions of the Old Testament. Old Testament figures should be regarded as believers, as well as types." Furthermore, we must not "polarize by underplaying the continuity." And, "some so-called redemptive-historical preaching doesn't do justice to the imperative. There is a concreteness and specificity about the imperatives of Scripture."

Professor Carrick took to task the overemphasis on eschatology, which "goes hand-in-hand with an underemphasis on the ethical. It's one thing to assert that eschatology is prior to soteriology in logical terms; it's another to assert its priority in terms of importance.

Bill Dennison Replies

Dr. Dennison replied by saying, "I don't see myself in terms of the Netherlands discussion [i.e., the exemplaristic v. Redemptive/Historical Controversy, Ed.]. I don't see myself as one who is carrying this battle cry of being against application."

The college professor professed that he didn't recognize himself in the critique that John Carrick had presented of the redemptive-historical school, especially with regard to the lack of the imperative. Dr. Dennison later made reference to a 1979 article of his in the 'Calvin Theological Journal' in which he wrote (approvingly) on the indicative-imperative paradigm. For Professor Dennison, the contemporary controversy is the result of the redemptive-historical and the traditional approaches operating on two different paradigms, with the result that application looks differently to each of the two schools. He agrees that Paul holds up Israel as an example in I Corinthians 10, but he does so in terms of eschatology. "We use examples; but they're examples in the sense that you are in the eschatological drama." In Exodus 32, "Israel was rejecting union with Jehovah God. If they stayed in union with the God who brought them out of Egypt, they would not have made idols. The imperatives [of Scripture] are nonsense without union."

Rejecting Professor Carrick's call for "balance," Dr. Dennison declared, "I'm not interested in 'balance' - that's an Aristotelian golden mean idea. . . The Christian life is indicative and imperative. I'm interested in the intimate . . . or existential union. You just don't have the Christian life [without] ... loving God and keeping His commandments."

He continued: "Your life is found in the Bible. In terms of 'example,' it's not the example of aspiration but the example of assimilation. Aspiration is Platonic - 'Jesus is the ideal to which you aspire to be."' Rather, you assimilate the life pattern. Aspiration is works-religion. "You're called to suffer in the world, and as you do so, you will be exalted with Christ. He allows you to live the exact same life pattern. . . . You walk in the world as a suffering servant. . . . The Platonic model of aspiration ... is nothing but works-righteousness."

John Carrick Responds

Prof. Carrick said that it was reductionistic to attribute the exemplary or moralistic strain in interpretation uniquely to the classical tradition, as if the word of God itself did not sanction the use of such a strain.

Despite Dr. Dennison 's protestations, Professor Carrick stated that
Kerux, a journal on biblical theological preaching edited by James T. Dennison, Bill's brother, "does represent the extreme wing" of the redemptive-historical approach. Speaking of the sermons found in Kerux, he
stated: "You can count the imperatives on the fingers of your hands. It's all in the indicative mood."

Prof. Carrick also rejected Bill Dennison's assertion: "When Christ died, I died with Him. There is no imperative beyond that paradigm." Carrick noted that it was wrong so to highlight definitive sanctification that one neglected the imperatives of progressive sanctification with which the New Testament literally teems.

He maintained that "we do believe in Biblical theology; but, we don't want to emphasize Biblical theology to the exclusion of systematic theology and the grammatico-historical approach."
 
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.
 
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.....:eek: )


R.

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by Robin]
 
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.

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

R.

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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top