Friday, May 1, 2009

Why Sequential Exposition?--My 3 & 4

I prepared my own list of ten advantages for sequential exposition for our sermoneutics class. Follow the links to see reasons 10 & 9, 8 & 7 and 6 & 5

Advantages 4 and 3 to Sequential Exposition.

4. Current events are seen through the lens of God’s sovereignty.

    Preacher—The preacher is not forced to read the newspaper as often as the Scriptures to make sure he is relevant, but instead delights in seeing how God causes current events to bring to light the points in the Text. Scriptures can be determined months (even years?) in advance, yet God can cause circumstances to match up well with the point predetermined by the text.
    Congregation—The members of the congregation see the sovereignty of God and that He still ordains that which happens. The congregation grows in their awe and peace of the Lord as He affirms His hand over all things. The congregation is reminded that the world responds to God, not that God is constantly responding to the events of the world.

3. The Word is lifted up.
    Preacher—The preacher is relieved of needing to provide wisdom or a good thought for his congregation, but is simply to explain the Text. This releases him of the pressure of building a congregation solely around his gifts, skills and personality. A pastor can find himself a fit for any congregation or overwhelmed with his need to “perform,” for it is the Word that will do the work.
    Congregation—The congregation is reminded to listen to God and not simply their pastor. They are better prepared for “water cooler” talk as they can now say, “The Bible says,” instead of, “my pastor says.” The congregation is reminded that they are not their to be educated or entertained by their pastor, but they are present to be transformed by the Holy Spirit as they hear the Word of God.

8 comments:

Brad said...

Perhaps I'm missing some complex numerical pattern here (you can ask your MIL what a math whiz I was), but why is this post subtitled "My 10 and 9"?

danny2 said...

probably because i missed it when i hit copy and paste! ;-)

correction made

Brad said...

I thought maybe you were wanting to start the conversation about those first points all over again.

David Mohler said...

I am curious regarding #4.

Consider an event where Iran bombs Israel.

Or, consider that the pending hate-crime legislation is passed in the United States.

(Think in terms of the principle here; I do not mean that you should fixate on those specific examples.)

If either of those regrettable events (or something else) occurred, do you expect the nexus of the event and your sequential exposition to dictate whether you would deliver a biblical exposition concerning that event?

In other words, if your sequential exposition did NOT correlate with the significant event, would you refrain from expositing God's Word concerning it on the basis that God did not "cause circumstances to match up well with the point predetermined by the text"?

danny2 said...

i could see the merit in either direction...

suppose another 9/11 strike happens:

a) preacher 1 decides to change his topic and address fear, terror, why the world hates Jesus, etc. this could be very timely and provide great hope.

b) preacher 2 may decide that he will simply keep preaching what he was going to preach anyway. it may address certain issues anyway, or the preacher can obviously provide some direct application to the circumstances, but it could also provide a sense of peace to the congregation, as it reminds them not to panic, but that the believer continues to do what he does to glorify God.

i wouldn't thunder against either perspective. though i will say that adapting to cultural news around us too often can make every story seem equally important, and then none seem truly important.

guess bottom line is that i could see a pastor adjusting his message due to world events and another not adjusting and can see how either one can truly feed the sheep.

Darby Livingston said...

I agree with you Danny. It seems to me what one preacher thinks is a critical opportunity a second preacher thinks is just another day at the office. I'm not one to preach out of the papers, though I may use a recent event as an illustration of something already in the text I'm set to preach.

On a different note, Iran bombing Israel would be no different according to redemptive-historical hermeneutics than the U.S. bombing Iraq - tragic for the loss of life, but somewhat expected in a fallen world.

danny2 said...

actually, from a redemptive-historical perspective that still holds to a prophesied future for ethnic israel...we may see it as a bit different. that's where david and i would probably see it a bit different than you and brad. [but this post ain't intended to go there!]

however, you are right, the lives lost are not more/less tragic.

Brad said...

Brad-believes-in-a-prophesied-future-for-ethnic-Israel.

Just thought I'd say it for the 667th time--or the 1001st, depending on who's counting.