AUDIO
 |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
Nearly two years ago to the day, Mark Thompson wrote a small piece on the Sola Panel called Now What Was That Text Again? It was immediately bumped by another post, and hence received only a handful of comments. This is a shame, as I can think of few other posts from the last few years that are more vitally and directly relevant to the health of our churches.
Mark’s thesis is that we are being increasingly influenced by overseas preachers who use the so-called “springboard” approach to a scriptural text. Following this method, the preacher will extract a theme from the text, develop it systematically, and then apply pastoral and biblical wisdom to the ideas that result. He contrasts this with the strictly expository approach popularised by John Stott a generation ago, which sought to carefully and contextually explain and apply the text, usually verse by verse. Mark is much in favour of the latter approach, and he fears the effect of the former.
Those who want to see a wholesale return to the Stott model will need to demonstrate it’s superiority. Mark comments that the best preaching of this type is “...biblical, profoundly theological and thoroughly engaging. It is suffused with a sense of urgency and importance…” I have heard preaching in this vein. But I’ve also heard many dull, lifeless, repetitive, shallow and cliched sermons preached in the Stott model. And I’ve wondered if the model itself has limitations - our preachers are very comfortable with doctrinal passages, but less so with great slabs of narrative text.
I think this is an excellent debate to have. And although I hope a few more people will read Mark’s post, this particular battle is not going to be won in blogs - it is ultimately going to be won from the pulpit. The challenge for those on Mark’s side is to produce sermons that are not just faithful to Stottian exposition, but are highly engaging, theologically rich and pastorally informed.
I agree that the place for this to be worked out is in the pulpit, not in blogs, but can I suggest that the challenge you provide in your last line needs to be equally given to the 'springboard' model as 'dull, lifeless, repetitive, shallow and cliched' are adjectives that can be applied to many a 'springboard' sermon as well.
There seems to be an implication (don't know if its intended of not) in your article that it is up to the 'Stotters' (not sure if that is a word - in fact I am sure it isn't) to prove their pudding, whereas the 'Springboarders' already have runs on the board (to terribly mix metaphors). I'm not sure that is the case.
Yeah, I should have been clearer. My point (and I think Mark's) is that the springboard model is gaining momentum due to the influence of American preachers, whereas the Stott model was previously unchallenged. If people wish to halt the rise of the springboard model, they will need to do some work. If they are happy with how things are going, obviously they don't have to do anything in particular.
Is that clearer?
What we actually need are those preachers who are engaging etc as well as treating the biblical text with care and exegetical faithfulness. That is the issue. I can think of quite a few people who can do this, but also have many examples of those preachers who are, in one sense "correct" but who end up being dis-connected to their hearers because of a lack of some of the elements of a good communication event.
This is a key issue Craig (and Mark Thompson).
What I mean is, certainly in my part of the world I perceive that the way to become a great preacher is to learn all about communication - often at the expense of theology. I think the result of that is that you become a great communicator, but you don't really have anything to say. (all a bit of an over-simplification)
I wonder if the best preparation for a great sermon is such a deep and rich understanding of the text that the important, the complicated and the challenging can be preached simply, clearly and with sharp application. For me, to do that requires careful and thoughtful theology first and communication skills second.
Could it be that sometimes the temptation is to reverse that order?
This becomes a real issue when others who have worked hard on the "theology" are quite clearly "poor communicators" in contrast (even if their main thrust and content is excellent, and their hearts right.) This becomes known as "boring" or "cognitive" or just plain old inaccessible. Ironically, these talks are often very thoroughly prepared- (too prepared) and its like listening to a first draft of a book rather than a particular speech event.
We must not bifurcate good communication from good theology. In fact, a solid theology of preaching will lead to us to value preaching so much that we will make sure it is excellent as a communication event, suitable for the culture and language of the intended hearers. That is why those who may want to teach or preach are actually wanting to do a very difficult thing. I'd be surprised is anyone questioned this- but until we do the "spring board" preachers will have the pulpit.
It addresses, with clarity of thought, issues that have been raised in this forum piece. Highly recommend the read!
cheers Di
Wow! How not to teach the congregation how to get the gist of a passage. I'd want to see this as the exception to the rule. It reminds me of the Sola Panel discussion on how to conduct great public bible reading. Great preaching has to let the text do a lot of the talking for us.
If we're only looking at one VERSE at a time, then mathematically it is required that the majority of that sermon is going to be the preacher, not the passage. ;-)
good expository preaching is about making the point of the sermon the point of the passage - and in a sense expose the hearer to that reality. In doing so there are many systematic implications and applications - it is not a necessary to pitch systematics against expository.
great initiative in the Cornhill Sydney course. it is also the kind of preaching that has been modelled here in Melbourne by Dr Adam, and done well is never boring.