This article first appeared as Charles Cameron, “The Use of the Bible in Evangelical Preaching Today,” Evangel 13.1 (Spring 1995): 16-21.
_____________________
Ernest Best was professor of New Testament at the University of Glasgow. Robert Davidson was professor of Old Testament at the University of Glasgow. The late George Macleod was the founder of the Iona Community. Each of these men has exerted a significant influence on the ministry of the church of Scotland. Comments made by Best, Davidson and Macleod provide an appropriate point of departure for this short study concerning contemporary preaching. In his book, From Text to Sermon Best writes, ‘The preacher ... ought to avoid merely using a text as a jumping-off for what he wants to say.’(1) When invited to introduce a former student – Rev. Fraser Aitken – to his first charge, Neilston Parish Church, Davidson preached from Ephesians 3:8, concerning Paul’s description of his ministry in terms of preaching ‘the unsearchable riches of Christ’. Macleod’s book, Speaking the Truth in Love, contains this arresting remark concerning ‘preaching’ which, though it ‘may be without doctrinal error hardly stirs a soul’. (2)
Taken together, these three comments highlight three essential features which must surely characterize evangelical preaching in every generation. Our preaching should be grounded in Scripture, centred on Christ and empowered by the Spirit. The Scriptures, the Saviour and the Spirit – here we have a ‘threefold cord’ that cannot be broken. By stressing the importance of the Bible for contemporary preaching we are not simply being ‘traditional’. We ground our preaching in Scripture because we find Christ in the Scriptures (Lk. 24:27; Jn. 5:40; 2 Tim. 3:15). We do not base our preaching on Scripture simply because we wish to be ‘Biblicists’. We preach from Scripture because the Spirit points us to the Son through the Scriptures (Lk. 24:2; Rom. 10:17). This ‘threefold cord’, the Scriptures, the Saviour and the Spirit, must be preserved if contemporary preaching is to be truly evangelical.
Today’s preachers are, like Paul, called to ‘preach the unsearchable riches of Christ’. Our situation is not however precisely the same as Paul’s. We are to preach the Word of God ‘as addressed to modem man’. (3) This application of the gospel to the situation of modem man requires to be handled in a careful and sensitive manner. We dare not remain locked in the past if we are to speak a word which has genuine relevance for the present day. On the other hand, the threat of ‘modernism’ is real. We can be so easily ‘squeezed into the mould of the world’s way of thinking’, rather than allowing our minds to be renewed by ‘the living and abiding world of God (cf. Rom. 12:1-2 J. B. Phillips; 1 Pet. 1:23). Where modern thinking is accorded an undue importance, the gospel can be seriously distorted. This kind of distortion takes place in the theologies offered to us by Rudolf Bultmann and Paul Tillich. Commenting on Bultmann theology, G. C. Berkouwer writes, ‘The fact that he proceeds from a pastoral and missionary motive – namely, to preserve modern man from rejecting the New Testament because of its mythical structure – do not diminish by one iota the theological presumption of this undertaking.’(4) K. Hamilton describes Tillich theology thus: ‘Jesus Christ and the biblical revelatic have been fitted into a structure already complex without them.’(5)
One particularly serious consequence of this type of theological reductionism is selectivity in the use of Scripture. This may be illustrated with particular reference to the theology of Bultmann. Discussing Bultmann’s exegetical procedure, N. J. Young offers penetrating analysis. Bultmann’s norm for understanding the New Testament is the theology of Paul and John as interpreted by Bultmann. Those parts of the New Testament which do not accord with Bultmann are not given careful attention. Paul and John, as well as the rest of the New Testament, are treated in this way. (6) This method of exegesis, ‘in which a variety of views are acknowledged, but only one selected for attention, leaving the others virtually ignored’ (7) is particularly noticeable when he discusses Paul’s eschatology. He acknowledges that there is evidence that Paul does have an ‘apocalyptic eschatology with its expectation of a cosmic catastrophe’. (8) Nevertheless, Bultmann pays no further attention to this aspect of Paul’s eschatology.
What are we to make of this approach to the New Testament? This is what Young says: ‘If some parts of the New Testament prove to be impervious to a particular hermeneutical approach ... it may be because the hermeneutical approach is not adequate for the task, not because it claims too much.’ (9)
Young contends that there is a better way than Bultmann’s way. ‘A proper recognition of the diversity of the New Testament witness... makes unnecessary Bultmann’s attempt to achieve harmony by silencing those voices which appear to him to be off-key.’ (10)
Best makes this point more positively – without any direct reference to Bultmann’s theology. ‘Christ is greater than any single description of him, and we need the variety we have in the New Testament.’ (11) What relevance does this discussion of Bultmann’s selective exegesis have for the preacher? N. Weeks, clearly alluding to the kind of theology propounded by Bultmann, makes an astute and most important observation: ‘The belief that modem man cannot understand biblical concepts becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we believe that men cannot accept such truths, then we will not preach and teach them. Hence they will not be received because faith comes by hearing the word preached. (12)
If we would preach the ‘whole counsel of God’ from the pulpit, there must be a thorough searching of the Scriptures in the study. Selective exegesis can never be a real option for those who would seek to ground their preaching in the Scriptures.
To dissociate ourselves from Bultmann’s method of reading the New Testament is not to involve us in stepping back from the complexities of biblical interpretation. Rather, we stress that the complex business of biblical interpretation will never permit one particular line of interpretation to take a stranglehold over our thinking. Whenever a particular method of interpretation dominates our thinking, it becomes our authority. Scripture – the authoritative Word of God – is then moulded to fit what we think it should be. The interpretation of Scripture is not to be separated from the authority of Scripture. Divorced from an authoritative word from the Lord, biblical interpretation can become a very confusing business. We are not, however, forced to choose between a real involvement in the complex issues of biblical interpretation and a naive biblicism which refuses to get involved with the difficult questions. It has been said that ‘the Bible is like a pool in which a child can wade and an elephant can swim’. (13) There are many areas where differences of interpretation can leave us quite confused. Nevertheless, we are still able to affirm that Jesus Christ is the centre of the biblical message. We are still able to experience the power of the Holy Spirit as he leads us to Christ through the Scripture.
By refusing to align ourselves with Bultmann’s approach to the New Testament we are not dissociating ourselves from his concern with relevance. We are, however, stressing that there is another concern to which we must give careful attention – faithfulness: ‘In seeking for relevance we must not renounce faithfulness.’ (14) We must not set relevance and faithfulness over against each other, as though we are forced to choose between them – be faithful at the expense of relevance; be relevant at the expense of faithfulness. Relevance and faithfulness belong together. Relevance is not to be divorced from faithfulness but grounded in faithfulness. God’s Word is seen to be ‘the living and abiding word of God’ as God’s people believe it to be and proclaim it as ‘the living and abiding word of God’. The faithfulness which is ever relevant involves a real commitment to walking in the Spirit as ‘ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills but the Spirit gives life’ (2 Cor. 3:6). J. Veenhof, expounding the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Holy Scriptures, emphasizes that it is the Holy Spirit who binds faithfulness and relevance together. He ‘makes it clear that this ancient word never becomes antiquated but is permanently relevant’. (15) This relevance is always a matter of something more than mere words. Our lives as well as our words must be faithful to the Word of the Lord. Faithfulness and relevance do not belong only to the study and the pulpit. There is a life to be lived in the world as well as a sermon to be preached in the church. Our lives are to be a ‘letter from Christ’, ‘known and read by all men’ (2 Cor. 3:2).
In the pulpit, faithfulness and relevance are to be held together. In the study authority and interpretation are to be held together. If, in the study, Scripture is not honoured as the authoritative word of God, there will not be faithful preaching from the pulpit. A commitment to faithfulness carries with it a concern for relevance, since God ‘is not God of the dead, but of the living’ (Matt. 22:32). He is the living God and his word is to be proclaimed as the living word. If we are to speak a word of relevance, we need to interpret God’s word for this generation. It is not sufficient to affirm the authority of the Bible, if we do not give serious consideration to understanding what God is saying to the world of today. The preacher, who seeks both faithfulness and relevance, will seek to understand the relationship between authority and interpretation. In the preface to his book, A Theology of the New Testament, G. E. Ladd writes: ‘All theology is a human undertaking and no man’s position can be considered final. (16) However strongly we affirm the authority of Scripture, we dare not elevate our own theological understanding to the level of Scripture itself. When we recognize clearly the distinction between authority and interpretation, we will not be afraid of interacting with theological perspectives different from our own. We need openness without a loss of the divine word. We need not make the ideal of ‘open-mindedness’ so prominent in our thinking that we end up empty-minded, with no clear conviction concerning the divine word.
Nevertheless, we must surely welcome the kind of openness described by G. C. Berkouwer in the foreword to his book, A Half Century of Theology:
A curiosity that works itself out in passionate study and serious listening to others promises surprises, clearer insight, and deeper understanding – no matter from which direction they came. (17)
Our interpretation of the vital relationship between authority and interpretation is directly connected to our understanding of the dual character of Scripture as both the word of God and the words of men. Scripture speaks to us with authority because it speaks to us as the word of God. The study of Scripture involves us in the complex business of interpretation, since it speaks to us as the words of men, words written at various times and places by many writers. E. Schillebeeck describes the dual character of Scripture in a helpful way:
All human speech about what comes ‘from above’ (‘it has been revealed’) is uttered by human beings, i.e. from below ... However human it may be, this language is not an autonomous human initiative. (18)
G. C. Berkouwer offers an insightful perspective on Scripture as both word of God and words of men. He describes ‘scripture’ as ‘the human witness empowered by the Spirit’. (19) He stresses the divine origin of this witness:
This witness does not well up from the human heart but from the witness of God in which it finds its foundation and empowering as a human witness ... This Scripture finds its origin in the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Christ, and witnesses of him through the human witness.’ (20)
Berkouwer emphasizes that this ancient word speaks with relevance to every generation:
These witnesses are not ‘lifted out’ of their time and milieu, but as living witnesses could interpret in their era what was destined for all times.’ (21)
He helps us to understand both how we are to approach Scripture and how we are not to approach Scripture:
Believing Scripture does not mean staring at a holy and mysterious book, but hearing the witness concerning Christ. (22)
It is within this context of a human yet divine, ancient yet permanently relevant witness concerning Jesus Christ that we are to understand our confession of faith. The Bible is the word of God:
The respect for the concrete words is related to this and the ‘is’ of the confession points to the mystery of the Spirit, who wants to bind men to Christ through these words, through this witness. (23)
The faith with which we are to receive God’s word has been well described by Calvin:
The word is not received in faith when it merely flutters in the brain, but when it has taken deep root in the heart. (24)
From Berkouwer and Calvin the preacher can learn much. Faithful, relevant, authoritative preaching is preaching which focuses upon Christ, preaching which is empowered by the Spirit, preaching which calls for faith that takes deep root in the heart.
ENDNOTES
(1) The Saint Andrew Press, Edinburgh, (1978), p. 100.
(2) SCM Press, London, (1936), p. 30.
(3) A. Richardson (citing G. Ebeling) ‘Hermeneutics’ in A. Richardson (ed.) A Dictionary of Christian Theology, SCM Press, (1969), p. 154 (emphasis original).
(4) The Person of Christ, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, (1954), p. 41.
(5) ‘Paul Tillich’ in P. E. Hughes (Ed.) Creative Minds in Contemporary Theology, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids (Second Revised Edition), (1969), p. 473 (emphasis original).
(6) History and Existential Theology, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, (1969), pp. 51-55.
(7) Young, p. 53.
(8) Young, p. 53 (citing Bultmann, History and Eschatology, p. 151).
(9) p. 54.
(10) p. 55.
(11) From Text to Sermon, p. 29.
(12) The Sufficiency of Scripture, The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, (1988), pp. 82-83.
(13) D. A. Carson ‘Interpreting the Bible’ in Evangel, 3:2 (Summer 1985), p. 13.
(14) B. Meeking & J. Stott (eds.) The Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission, 1977-1984, The Paternoster Press, Exeter, (1984), p. 21.
(15) ‘Holy Spirit and Holy Scripture' in The Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Autumn 1986), p. 76.
(16) Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, (1974), p. 5.
(17) Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, (1977), pp. 7-8.
(18) Christ, the Christian Experience in the Modem World, SCM Press, London, (1980), p. 46.
(19) Holy Scripture, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, (1925), p. 167.
(20) Holy Scripture, pp. 165-166.
(21) Holy Scripture, p. 167.
(22) Holy Scripture, p. 166.
(23) Holy Scripture, p. 166.
(24) Institutes, III.36 (Associated Publishers and Authors Inc., Grand Rapids, p. 304).
© 1995 Evangel. Reproduced by permission. Rev. Dr. Charles M. Cameron is a Church of Scotland minister in Dunfermline and a regular contributor to Evangel.
