Transcript
I'm Nancy Lammers-Gross. I'm on the faculty at Princeton Seminary. I teach speech, communication, and ministry. So you should be able to hear me and understand me. And if you don't, talk to one of my students back there and they'll get after me later. Earl mentioned that we have shared time together on the Student Life Committee of the Board. I was a Dean of Student Life here for six years, some years ago. But even before that,
and he would remember this, we were in the Presbytery of San Francisco together. I was on staff at the church in Burlingame, first Presbyterian. He was the pastor at Berkeley. And when I had days off, I would run over and listen to Earl preach or do what he just did here on Sunday morning, which was pretty fantastic. He was a good friend to me in ministry back in those days. So there's far more here to talk
about, more on the plate, right, than we can say grace over. But let me start with a few observations. I was assigned, I think the responders, it was a common letter, were assigned to reflect on Earl's presentation, but with the idea that overall Earl's trying to make the case for expositional or expository preaching and teaching in the church. So one of the first things I need to say about that is I don't know anybody and I've
never heard anybody who does that better than Earl Palmer, which is one of the reasons we're all here and want to listen to him. So I'm both encouraged by what he does, but also daunted. Because it's he doesn't just go word by word or lead us into the mysteries of truth of the word, you know, catastrophe. But the history, the biblical history, the early church history, the Greek, the old, it just pours out of him. So
I think it's both an encouragement and it's also daunting to think about doing this effectively when we don't do it effectively. At least the way I have heard ineffective expositional or expository preaching, it's a lack of preparation that is the preachers off the cuff, ruminations about the text going verse by verse or maybe backed up by a little commentary research before beginning. And I just want to say that that Earl never hears that because he's always
the one who's preaching. But I sit in the pews now as a full time faculty person and I do hear it when I'm out and about, not at my church here at Nassau. Don't ever say that. And of course, every once in a while by student preachers who think that this is the way to go about expository preaching. It's not. It has very careful preparation and perhaps way more preparation on a week to week basis than
constructing a sermon that's sort of beautiful and flowery and has a lot of stories that may or may not connect. So in terms of the case for well, you know, the Holy Spirit, right, is we've got that second half of our brains. There's always a voice, an editor's voice, a second voice going on in your head while you're preaching. And sometimes it's tempting you with the things you already rejected during the week. You already said during
the week, no, that doesn't belong here or that doesn't really go or that's not effective or that's distracting or that's a bunny trail. But when it comes back in your head on Sunday morning, all of a sudden that thought gets ordained by the Holy Spirit and you think that you're supposed to say it. Well, I suggest you listen to that more reasoned voice throughout the week because more often it's a lack of confidence in our preparation
that leads us to go ahead and say all those things that when we were thinking more clearly, we had rejected. So the case for the expository preaching this verse by verse and word by word has to include this careful deep long term week by week by month by year preparation and immersion into the scriptures, not just the text. As one of our teachers here at Princeton says, we don't preach the text. We preach the gospel and
the text points to the gospel and the more we can understand about the text, the fuller our understanding of the gospel is. But you don't preach a text any more than you preach your story. Or yesterday in my preaching from Paul class, I had the students use a contemporary movie as the story to move the sermon along. And they'd say, well, when we when we preach from these movies, I said, no, no, no, no, no, no.
You don't preach from the movies. All right. You pick up a story or the image or a theme that you see in the movies that reflects the theological themes that Paul is working on. And then you connect those to what's going on in the scripture. Here's your story. People complain and Paul, there's no story. Could you listen to one of these presentations and say there's no story in Paul? How can you get there from here? Paul
is all about story. It's just that he doesn't write in story form. He's writing letters. So, of course, there's story in Paul. So we, you know, using a movie is simply a vehicle for telling a story that implies the theological themes that we see in everyday life and that are reflected in scripture. But we don't preach from the movies. We preach from scripture. OK, I'm preaching to the choir. There is no lack of information in a
Christian land. Something else is lacking. We know who said that. There is no lack of information in a Christian land. Something else is lacking. Well, where you perhaps have read it is Fred Craddock's Overhearing the Gospel. Right. But he's quoting Soren Kierkegaard. Both are coming out of the same place. Soren Kierkegaard deeply immersed in a Christian land. It's not actually Christian. Right. It's just conventionally Christian. And Fred Craddock saying, OK, we've got this Christendom, especially in
North America, and it's not information that we're missing. It's conviction. It's actually hearing. It's the word sinking into us. And so Fred Craddock begins the whole inductive preaching movement because we're all tired of three points in a poem because we've all heard all the explanations because we already know what the Bible says. It's our biggest problem with Paul. We already know what he says before we get there. We know what he says. Guard the gospel. We
know what that means. You know, we've been justified by faith. We know what that means. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. We know what that means. And we just pick those up as bylines. Because reformers taught us what it means. And that's what we go with until you dig in. And when you dig in, you find out that it's in flesh and that there's far more going on now than
just using it as as a byline. But, you know, in a land that is so has, you know, where everybody's been to Sunday school. Right. And we all heard the Bible stories. What Fred Craddock was saying is there is no lack of information. We've heard the Bible stories. We know all about the prodigal son. And, you know, suddenly an angel, the Lord appeared and the glory Lord showed around them and they're so afraid. Yeah, OK. We've
all heard it before. Right. It's not a lack of information. It's something else that's inspiring, that's compelling, that moves our hearts. And so we move to this idea of inductive preaching and seeing how our story lines up with the biblical story. And we've lived now with about 45 years of that since the early '70s with as one without authority. Fred Craddock as one without authority. I always forget it's '71 or '78 or '76. There's a new
revised version. It's 2001. But no, it goes back to the '70s. Charles Rice. So we moved away from preaching that was more immersed in the text, preaching that explained the text and moved to this inductive narrative model where sometimes people actually didn't overhear the gospel at all. They didn't catch it. And we even moved to lines like listen now for the word of God to you today. Trying to get personal, trying to reach out, say this
word is really for you. And there we are sitting in the seat in full control, listening for you. No, that's for him. That's not for me. Listen, listen, open your hearing apparatus so you can discern what is the word of God for you today. And now we're in the driver's seat. I'm listening. But no, that was for yesterday. Well, I don't really hear a word for me today. Right. That's as opposed to Barth's hear the word
of God. This is the word of God. You don't decide what is and what isn't. Hear the word of God and let it sink into you. Barth says that's the difference between hearing and listening. Hear it. Let it just soak into you. Receive it into your heart. That's hearing the word of God. The problem with inductive or narrative preaching run amok. Not good inductive preaching. Not good narrative preaching. But poorly done is that we never actually
figure out what the good news is. We never really figure out what the gospel is. Now there are a lot of reasons why today there is a lack of information in a Christian land. See, we're not where we were back in the early '70s with the beginning of inductive and narrative preaching. We're not there anymore. There is a distinct lack of information in a land that it could be said is no longer Christian. You know, if
you go with the folks who say we now live in post-Christendom. Right. And I'm not talking about the numbers of people who profess or in the pew polls or the numbers of people who actually go to church. You know, we're talking about what is the culture actually like. And so the case for, I'm going back to this, the case for expositional or expository. Are they the same to you? Expositional and expository. Thank you. You used
expositional in your letter to me and I've always said expository so I don't want to get you wrong. Isn't it time again? It's time for information in a post-Christendom land. But it can't be done by just a preacher's sort of faithful, that is I believe, and out of my belief I'm informed. And so I just open the Bible on Saturday night and get a feel for where that scripture is going. And now I'll sort of
ruminate on it on Sunday morning. So this is my case for yes, but boy is it hard work. And don't think for a moment it's not. Okay. Now, what is one of the challenges, major challenges of expository preaching? Besides the hard work involved week by week by week, which we hope all preachers would do. But if that's what you're going to take into the pulpit, you really have to, you know, you can't hide. There's no hiding.
But I think the danger is never getting to the so what. And I think preaching needs a so what. Preaching needs what Henry Mitchell called that behavioral purpose. That is not what you want what Tom Long called the function of the sermon. So it's not what you want to accomplish in your sermon. It's what do you want to have happen in the lives of your hearers? What do you want to happen in them? Do you want
to rekindle their faith? Do you want that to happen in them? Do you want them to be compelled to sign up for the CROP Walk? Do you want them to begin rethinking what it means to do mission in the life of the church? Do you want them to rethink who we are as a church that literally sits on a hill as one of my recent graduates church does? It literally sits on a hill in a coal
mining town in Pennsylvania. And they're not really interested in the people at the bottom of the hill making their way up. This is articulated, right? There are the folks that I mean, sounds like an old '60s protest song, doesn't it? Go ahead and hate your neighbor. Go ahead and cheat a friend, you know, with this treasure that's up on a hill, right? So the challenge to rethink what it means to do mission in the life of
the church. Children came to the door for the spaghetti dinner, but they didn't have a ticket and they didn't have any money. And they're turned away. Because if you let them in, you know what will happen? They'll all come. All the children will come. Oh, no. OK, so. So expository preaching also requires the so what? That therefore, right, it moves to ethical action, as I think all preaching needs to do. So one of the challenges is
preparation and and not just Thursday morning, but ongoing, you know, in your life. Another challenge is is always making sure that you have that you move to a so what? And it's not just wow, that was interesting. That was pretty cool. I didn't know that about catastrophe. I mean, that changed my life. You know, people usually don't go home with that, right? They're they're going home with the cost of the gospel. Or for Paul, one of
the things that I pick up on and you may have done this in your earlier presentations is on that day, on that day, this apocalyptic, you know, sense this this this energy in which he lived that on that day we will be found blameless and that this is what will happen on that day. That's the day of Christ's return. So right there, we know that Christ has not already returned, as some argued, we find in first
Thessalonians, but on on that day. So it matters what we do so that we may be prepared on that day, even though it hasn't come for two thousand years. And for all we know, it might not come for another two thousand years. But that's not our job to know that our job is to work and to be prepared. So the so what I think is important. And then a next thing about expository preaching, I want to
lift up and then also sort of lift up what a danger might be. And that is that if we simply fall into explaining what Paul said and I'm talking about Paul right now. He and I share this. Paul's my my guy in preaching. I grew up listening to preaching from Paul at Burnley game. So that's how I heard the gospel. Paul said things that we really like and that we just cling to and they don't take
much explanation for us. By grace, you have been saved through faith. And this is not the result of your own words. It is the gift of God. Right. Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God. Yeah. Love that. Right. Therefore, nothing can separate us from the love of God. It doesn't be a hardship, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, sword. Those are not exhaustive, exhaustive lists. People, those are suggestive. So you don't list them
like it's the list you gave your spouse to go to the grocery store. You know, when you read that, it's not, you know, a famine, persecution, nakedness, peril and and sort and get the apples and oranges, too. Right. It's you. You move that when you read it. We're going to get to the oral rendering of the word in a moment. But then there are things Paul says we don't like at all. You know, therefore, you know,
by the mercies of God, present yourself as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God. Therefore, lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of us all who is above all and through all and in all. Can I get an amen? Right. Yeah. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. Slaves, obey your masters. We don't like what Paul said there.
So it's hard to move if we're not also engaging in the question of what was Paul doing? This is where I want to get to right now. Not just what was Paul saying, but what was he doing when he said that? What was he about? What was the what was the function? Why was he saying that? Why in the world would Paul say slaves obey your masters? When the earlier letter, we know Galatians is earlier, he
says there's neither slave nor free, Jew nor Greek, male nor female. For we are all one in Christ Jesus. Why in the world would he say slaves obey your masters? So, you know, the exposition of the text needs to include not only an explanation of what Paul said, but to get at what was Paul doing when he said this? What was the function? What was it about? Because we all remember wives submit to your husbands as
to the Lord. But no one ever thinks to say, Lord, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave him up for her. When, in fact, that was the scandalous thing in Paul's time. How ho hum was, you know, love your wives? I mean, so wives submit to your husbands. That was, of course. But husbands love your wives, you know, in a Greco-Roman kind of culture. Husbands love your wives sacrificially. Nobody told husbands to
do that. Slaves obey your masters, of course. But masters do the same to them. Slaves obey your masters. That's just, those are just the rules. So what was he doing when he said these things? In the same way, in a sense, what was he doing when he quoted that, that saying, the saying is sure, that we use in part for our assurances of pardon, right? I mean, that's one of the, we go to that. What was
he doing when he said that? And so that expository preaching isn't just explaining that saying, but it's also talking about how it functioned in what Paul was doing. Okay, so yes, now there is a lack of information. We are biblically illiterate. We don't know what the Bible says. And we don't know what Paul said when we get there. We speaking largely of people who may be coming into our churches. Still in all the need for preparation
in the so what in this sermon. And to ask the question, what was Paul doing when he said these things? Now, if I could just have a couple more minutes. Are we out of time? Okay, so there are a couple things I just wanted to respond to and lift up out of the actual Second Timothy this morning. One is guard, and I don't know if some of these words, you know, Earl may have already worked on
because I didn't hear the earlier presentations. Fourteen, guard the good treasure entrusted to you with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us. Now, I'm sorry, this is going to be sexist. I apologize. Just think of it as sort of a cliche or a caricature. How many women have had offers of help from their spouses? You know, help with the grocery shopping or help. How many have offered help? Right? Yeah. Yeah, help. If you've been
offered help in something, the implication is that it's still your job. Right? Oh, yeah. I'll help you shovel. You know, the kids might say, I'll help you shovel the snow. Oh, I'll help you today with the house cleaning. No, I help with the kids. I do. I help with the kids. But the implication is it's still your job. And I don't think that's what's going on here with the help of the Holy Spirit living through us.
So Earl was making the case for the simpler dia through, instead of the prepositional phrase, with the help. Not only is the lean rather than the luxurious better, and I would say go for crisp language. Right? Go for shorter sentences, literally. Images that you describe without a lot of personal pronouns. Well, you know, a couple weeks ago, I was really tired and I didn't want to get out of bed. But I thought, well, I'm an adult
and I really should get out of bed. And the dogs needed to be fed. And I was worried about getting ready for school. So I finally got out of bed and I went outside and there was this really cool sunset or sunrise. Well, just start by the sky. The sky was golden at the horizon and above it were colors of pink and red. Just start. We don't care about getting out of bed and the dogs and
the tired and the right. And no personal pronouns. So just this business of the lean, crisp language. I love that idea. Expository preaching leads itself to blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Lots of words. And not everybody is a professional listener. Right? So they can get lost in those things. Firstly, secondly, thirdly, fourthly. And if you're not a professional listener, you're just worried that you forgot number one. You're worried about keeping track. Right? So not
only is the crisp language better through the Holy Spirit living in us, but it's even theologically more accurate. The Holy Spirit doesn't help us. The Holy Spirit is doing it through us. Does the Holy Spirit help you in your prayer life? Or does the Holy Spirit pray for you with sighs too deep for words? So this business about the Holy Spirit is just going to help us do what's our job anyway is really kind of nonsense.
So not only is through better, but help is just wrong. I already said something about until that day, which comes up a couple of times and I think is really important in Paul. Let's see what's my next page on that day. It's interesting that where we just went through, I don't know, some 20 verses with Earl explaining in such depth, historically and linguistically and everything else what's going on, he says in the same presentation, isn't this
great, that Paul says, think over what I've said. I'm not going to tell it all to you. I'm not going to explain it all to you. Think it over. Talk to each other. Figure it out. That's inductive, my friends. I am not going to give you all the answers. So Paul doesn't, and Earl is modeling for us how as preachers we don't have to. You can actually leave some things open-ended. You can actually leave things
up in the air. You can actually, we're shaping and forming people theologically as we do this, so let's trust them a little bit now to get together or to think, what is this about? I am going to think this over. Now coming out of the older model, the deductive preaching where things are pretty well set out and explained, that's why you have three points in a poem. My brother once told me that my dad always said
he wished I would preach five minutes longer. This is early in my ministry, and I was so flattered. My own father, it's terrifying to preach before your parents, the beginning. And wow, dad just wants me to keep going. That's so cool. He loves what I'm saying. He really likes watching me. I never got a lot of affirmation from my dad, so woo-hoo. It was years later, maybe 10, maybe 12 years later, that I brought that
up to my brother, and he said, oh, no, no, no, no, no. It wasn't that. He wanted you to wrap it up. He wanted you to tie it up in a bow. He wanted you to tell him what it was all about. He wanted you to get deducted, and I was just letting the congregation be the co-creators of meaning, right? He goes, no, no, no, no, no, create it for me. So this idea of leave
some things open-ended is still, I think, going after a balance of working this through, talking about what the gospel involves, what Paul was doing, what he was saying, what that means for our lives today. But you know what? Don't shut it down. This is coming into the larger house where Christ will not deny himself and, in fact, I don't think will be denied. OK, we cannot control it by explaining it. So this is the word
of God is not chained. You can't control it by explaining it. And you can't even control it by distorting it. So in my own hermeneutic, I'm willing to leave things a little bit open because I trust God. I actually, I don't think that the survival of the church depends on my good preaching. Now, I used to think that I could really transform the church by my good preaching. And maybe some of you thought when you went
into ministry that your passion and that your heart and that your love was so great that this, you know, hearts and heads are really going to turn. And it wasn't that I thought so highly of myself. It's just that I was so impassioned. And then you find out that everything moves a little more slowly than your passionate heart would desire. But the word of God is not chained. We cannot control it by explaining it. The unity
of the body has already been established through the Holy Spirit. We read in Ephesians. There's nothing we can do to effect greater unity. The Holy Spirit has already done this. We can't even really destroy it. We can just seek to live into it or we can hamper it. And then one more thing, and I'll stop. At the end of this saying that is sure, if we have died with him, we will also live. If we endure,
we will also reign. Then there's a line that Paul adds, for he cannot deny himself. Exactly the same thing happens in our communion liturgy. 1 Corinthians 11:23 and forward. For as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup, we do proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. And time and again I hear preachers say these lines as though it's a part of the tradition that Paul had received and now passes on. Traditional tradition
transmission language. For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you. Same thing in 1 Corinthians 15, where he receives the tradition of Christ dying, being raised on the third day, and appearing first to Peter, Paul, and then the women in the twelve. I think he gets that reverse. Didn't he appear to the women first? And then he argues for the resurrection of the dead. So it's a pattern with Paul to go
ahead and lift that out and then have something to say about it afterwards. Usually what we hear is the same way also. After supper, he took the cup and having given thanks, said this cup is the new covenant in my blood. As often as you drink of it, drink as often as you drink of it. Yes, for as often as we eat, just flowing right into it. For there needs to be a vocal or physical transition,
right? Or, you know, do it in remembrance of me, boom, something. For as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup, we do proclaim the Lord's death. So it's just another place in Paul where he's done the same kind of thing. He's picked up a tradition, he's using it, but then he also adds his own line. So it's just a reflection on that. And then I think it's time to stop. There's so much to
say. Thank you.