New Testament evidence for sermons as we hear them today.

[Ackbeet]

I did check to see if someone had posted on this before posting my thread. I'm reading a book, Total Church, by Tim Chester and Steve Timmis. in Chapter 7, Discipleship and Training, they write the following:

The reality is that there is little New Testament evidence for the sermon as we understand it today. Jesus taught primarily through dialogue, sayings, and stories. He occasionally taught in synagogues, but more often he taught in homes, along the road, and in the open air. The so-called "Sermon on the Mount" is probably a summary of a whole day of teaching, giving us little clue about the nature of interaction that went on. The sermons in Acts are for the most part unprepared defense speeches. They are not delivered from a pulpit on a Sunday morning but before a court or before a mob. When Paul does address Christians on a Sunday (and Eutychus falls asleep!), the word used to describe his teaching is the Greek word from which we get our English word dialogue (Acts 20:7). The word commonly translated "preach" means to proclaim the gospel to unbelievers. It covers any verbal communication including discussion, dialogue, or debate. It actually conveys what we mean when we speak today of evangelism rather than simply a forty-five-minute monologue delivered from a pulpit. Historically the sermon as monologue arose after the "conversion" of Constantine, and imperial backing for Christianity brought large numbers of nominal Christians into the church. As a result, it was no longer possible for a group of genuine followers of Christ to discuss God's word with a Bible teacher.

It should come as no surprise that Jesus taught through dialogue and questions. Studies by IBM and the UK Post Office show that people who lean by hearing alone retain just 10 percent of what they have learned after three months. People who learn by hearing, being shown, and experience retain 65 percent. This means the only person experiencing good learning in a sermon is the preacher!

(pp. 114-5, emphasis original)

Now, I'm a firm believer in the regulative principle. I don't think that ends the question of what should be done in worship, because the question becomes, "What has God commanded us to do in Scripture?" And that's something people can get pretty worked up about, particularly in the case of music.

This question, however, I think, is considerably more important. What has God commanded us to do, in Scripture, with respect to preaching? Are forty-five-minute monologue sermons what God has commanded us to do? If so, where's the precedent? If that precedent is in the Old Testament, then how does it get filtered through the Christ event?

Since authors Tim Chester and Steve Timmis use the word "dialogue" with apparent gusto, how suspicious of them should I be?

Now I'm going to ask the world of my readers: if I could get a closely reasoned, biblical, scholarly response before 6pm EST today, that would be absolutely terrific! Thanks!

In Christ.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

If the teaching we read of in the Bible is mainly dialogical (back-and-forth) where do we find evidence of that "give-and-take"? Start with Moses, esp. Deuteronomy. Does it sound like he's "interacting" with the people? How about the prophets? Occasionally, we seem to encounter an "interuption" but that's pretty exceptional.

The sermons (including the SotM) and sermon-synopses in Acts don't include any indication that the exposition of Scripture or gospel-proclamation was interspersed with Q&A. Of course, it is highly likely that time for queries was commonplace, but the problem in the OP seems to be with the whole sitting and listening and being receptive.

Here's the main point: When God speaks, even through his representative, people have an obligation to be silent, to listen, to make an effort to follow his argument. Worship is "dialogical." We "respond" to God's Word with songs and prayers (preferably with as much of God's own previously given Word pouring forth from our mouths as possible). But there is a time for "conscionable hearing", for patience, for submission.

What was one of Paul's problems with the Corinthians? That order was lacking, because no one would shut-up. Everyone thought he should interrupt another's prophetic-preaching moment, as soon as some idea (or question) popped into his head. So a severe rebuke was in order.

Again, the issue isn't whether there is a time and place for questions. But where is that place? And where is the place for silence, and listening to the Voice of Authority?

 

[Ackbeet]

Bruce,

Just playing devil's advocate, here: the authors seem to point to the meaning of the word translated "preach", to say that dialogue was included. You'd have to say that there certainly was a good deal of interaction in Jesus' ministry (e.g., "Should we pay taxes to Caesar?", the woman "caught" in adultery, the woman at the well, Nicodemus, etc.)

Certainly, Moses and the prophets had a good deal of monologue going on.

Question: what does "OP" stand for?

I liked the idea of worship as a whole being dialogue, and the idea that there is a time for conscionable hearing. Perhaps authors Chester and Timmis overlooked that idea.

Thanks!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

"Preach" is a herald's term. I can't imagine Caesar's heraldic representative offering anything less than an authoritative declaration of what was entrusted to him by the emperor. His job wasn't to listen, and engage with his audience in a critical dissection and entertainment of a variety of opinions on Caesar's dictate. His job is to present that word.

Restricting "preaching" to a gospel-presentation is unfounded. That's reflecting the notion that I'm not preaching the gospel every single Sunday to a room dominated by professing Christians. I am bringing THE GOSPEL to a crowd that needs it, and devours it, every Lord's Day. Nor is the "gospel" some "invitation" I tack on to the end of my messages. The gospel is the message, centered on Christ, that instructs the people-of-Christ, about Christ, and in the doctrine and practice of Christ.

The time for Q&A is someplace else.

Interaction with Jesus? Certainly. No one says otherwise. But Jesus got up to read the Scripture in the synagogue, and sat down to teach. He didn't take the place of the teacher to have a back-and-forth. Where is there evidence that the typical speaker took questions before he was done? Where is there evidence that in synagogue worship the congregation interrogated the teacher?

The authors simply "claim" that they think Jesus' SotM was punctuated by Q&A. Who cares what they think? Where is their exegetical demonstration?


OP means "opening post"

 

[goodnews]

Dr. Hughes Oliphant Old has a series (I believe it's 7 volumes now) that answers this very question.

 

[Ackbeet]

Reply to Bruce,

Thanks very much for all of that! Very helpful. (Can't do "forum thanks" just yet. Working on that.)

In Christ.

---------- Post added at 05:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 PM ----------

Reply to Jeff,

Would that be in volume 1, do you think? I'm assuming you mean Old's Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures series. I don't suppose you have an even more specific reference, eh?

Thanks!

 

[py3ak]

Look at the book of Hebrews. Like Paul's uninterrupted speech in Acts 13, it is a "word of exhortation". It takes about an hour to read aloud, and apart from a sort of postscript at the end seems to have many marks of discourse (e.g., "we are persuaded better things of you my brethren, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak"; "Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum"; "but one in a certain place testified"). This makes me think that the suggestion that it is the transcript of a discourse with some personal matters relative to to its recipients adjoined at the end has quite a lot of merit.

 

[goodnews]

Reply to Bruce,

Thanks very much for all of that! Very helpful. (Can't do "forum thanks" just yet. Working on that.)

In Christ.

---------- Post added at 05:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 PM ----------

Reply to Jeff,

Would that be in volume 1, do you think? I'm assuming you mean Old's Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures series. I don't suppose you have an even more specific reference, eh?

Thanks!

Yes, that the series I was referring to. And if you're just looking for the Biblical witness on the topic vol. 1 would be the one you want. I can't remember which books of the Bible he covers but I seem to remember most are looked into on the subject. The series can get a tad expensive but I'm sure you can find an affordable used copy on Amazon.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I reject the author's assessment of the historical record, that preaching as we know it began after Constantine's conversion. The reason is that the ante-nicean fathers' letters themselves read like sermons, and in addition, they reference the preaching of the word in such a manner that it was surely occuring.

 

[Pergamum]

Does shouting "Crucify Him!!!" constitute a dialogue?

 

[SemperEruditio]

Theology matters.

The author of that needs to be careful because their soteriology is showing. Last I checked the foolishness of preaching was not to teach via hearing, being shown, and experience. I guess it makes sense that the chapter is about discipleship because what he is presenting is discipleship not preaching. No preacher is disciplining from the pulpit.

Plus is the author really wanting us to compare ourselves to Christ? Based on any corporation's standard Jesus' ministry on earth was an utter failure. The other thing is what percentage of visual, auditory, or kinetic senses are touched when the Holy Spirit gets involved???

This is the same logic that has sermons via powerpoint. While I have heard and seen some good ones it was always too much like a passionate lecture than preaching.