Application, Application, Application!

[Koey]

Haddon Robinson has been called one of the greatest preachers of the 20th century by some. What little I heard of his sermons certainly fits the description. He once said that more heresy is preached in application than in Bible exegesis.

So, I was taught in the several preaching classes that I have taken, that I must use application or my preaching is a failure. Yet, upon reflection, I notice three things:

1. that spoon feeding application stops people from thinking
2. that Jesus did not give a list of applications, but rather made people think
3. that an awful lot of wowserism and legalism is generated in the application step of sermons

What do you think?

 

[sinfulman]

could I ask you what wowserism is? I've never heard that before.

 

[Koey]

could I ask you what wowserism is? I've never heard that before.

Wowserism came from that 19th century variety of legalism that turned many Australians and New Zealanders off of Christianity. It has to do with those churches which emphasize a morality based upon not drinking, dancing, card playing and other similar man-made rules which were not imposed upon the Church by either Christ or the apostles, but by Victorianism, the women's temperance movement and other such do-gooders. It is a variety of legalism that does not come from the OT law, but rules from outside the Bible.

 

[sinfulman]

have you asked yourself the question: why do you preach?

I thinkt he answer to that would provide you with an insight. I'm not sure you can generalise this to "why does one preach" because I think there has to be room for different contexts. Paul, for example states that his aim in preaching was "Christ crucified"

However, if I was to preach, my own aim would be to leave an indelible impression in the mind/spirit of the listener that Christ is glorious above all things. John Piper has a similar approach.

In both these examples, I'm not sure that an application would be part of the message. If the Spirit is moving in the message, the application is His by grace via faith in the believer -non?

 

[Koey]

Yes, John Piper has made some interesting comments on preaching. In his book called The Supremacy of God in Preaching, (1990, Baker Books) John Piper states that people are “starving for the greatness of God.” (p. 9) He writes that “God himself is the necessary subject matter of our preaching, in his majesty and truth and holiness and righteousness and wisdom and faithfulness and sovereignty and grace…most of our people have no one in the world to tell them, week in and week out, about the supreme beauty and majesty of God” (p. 12) Our churches need to enter “an atmosphere of the holiness of God which leaves its aroma on their lives all week long” (p. 22).

 

[Macrina]

Haddon Robinson has been called one of the greatest preachers of the 20th century by some. What little I heard of his sermons certainly fits the description. He once said that more heresy is preached in application than in Bible exegesis.

So, I was taught in the several preaching classes that I have taken, that I must use application or my preaching is a failure. Yet, upon reflection, I notice three things:

1. that spoon feeding application stops people from thinking
2. that Jesus did not give a list of applications, but rather made people think
3. that an awful lot of wowserism and legalism is generated in the application step of sermons

What do you think?

Interesting topic. Several thoughts come to mind at once:

"Spoon-feeding" application -- does it necessarily have to be that delineated and obvious? Or could application merely be the preacher's conscious yet subtle guidance towards modern-day use of 2000-year-old texts? I'm not a big fan of spoon-feeding, either; I'd much rather give a "nudge" which leads people to their own conclusions, which I think results in greater conviction. IMHO. But I would still call it "application," even if I'm not giving the people a five-step surefire plan to enact a specific biblical principle in a specific life situation.

Sometimes the application question is tied up with the pastoral concern of, "what are these folks ready to hear?" There are times to come crashing down with a sledgehammer, but I'm more likely to be more gentle, leading people to difficult conclusions step by step so I don't lose them along the way. And sometimes I know that my congregation would "shut down" and not hear anything if I were to give them the full implications that I see. So instead of stating it explicitly, I edge toward it strongly, but let them fill in the last blank themselves. I hope that gets them a bit more engaged in the application process than otherwise.

I know there are a lot of different preaching styles. And so much of this discussion comes down to what we mean by "application." My style is more of an exegetical teaching style than it is a "here's what you need to do" style. My first goal is to help people understand scripture, its meaning, and its implications. I'm not one of those preachers who jumps around with lots of jokes and funny stories, and I'm not one of those preachers that gives a step-by-step plan for putting every biblical principle to work.

Don't get me wrong: I'll offer concrete application when it's there and seems appropriate. But often it's a situation where I choose to go in-depth in the scripture, pose a few thought-provoking questions, and hopefully leave people thinking, praying, and reflecting. I hope.

 

[Koey]

Excellent! I particularly liked the idea of not feeding meat to those who can only swallow milk. I find that a LOT with the various churches that I preach to. In the past few years I have preached to groups from Pentecostal to Presbyterian, and Churches of Christ. They all love the milk of the word, and are very unwilling to discuss or even hear meat preached to them.

 

[Macrina]

Excellent! I particularly liked the idea of not feeding meat to those who can only swallow milk. I find that a LOT with the various churches that I preach to. In the past few years I have preached to groups from Pentecostal to Presbyterian, and Churches of Christ. They all love the milk of the word, and are very unwilling to discuss or even hear meat preached to them.

I should add that what I said doesn't mean I don't want to STRETCH the folks through my preaching. What would the analogy be -- pureed meat?

 

[Macrina]

Oh, one other thing, Koey -- and I hope I'm not derailing your thread too much. There would be variation, I think, according to the context and type of ministry. From what you said, it sounds like you often preach to groups of people you don't know? I think that might put you in a position to make some more pointed comments than someone like me, who is with the same group week after week, with an ongoing relationship. Both are important.

 

[Koey]

True, true...

 

[sinfulman]

Macrina, what do you think about Koey's quote from Piper?

 

[Macrina]

Macrina, what do you think about Koey's quote from Piper?

It's a good quote. There are a lot of different aspects of preaching, but I think Piper touched on one of the biggest needs in the modern church (at least as I have experienced it). Although it does vary, I think more congregations focus on God's immanence than his transcendence -- but the latter needs to be a part of worship. Both do.

 

[CalmInTheStorm]

I think an understanding has been reached on when, where and how to use application lessons, but I find with children it's always about application. Like they won't get it, or care about it if it doesn't apply to them in the here and now. A part of that has to do with spiritual maturity, and unfortunately at my church we teach by age groups and not by an individuals and spiritual maturity level. So how do we get our church and the youth we are raising out of this desire for life application learning and into a deeper desire to crave truths? (Which I think are always applicable in one way or another, though they may not be overwhelmingly relevant at the moment you are learning it)
I know I grew up in an application based church (The same church I lead at now) and it did make me weaker, because I was spoon-fed. Ofcoarse as a youth I never knew any better. So where do we as teachers, with a full understanding, draw the line and say "Okay youth, church, congregation! today we stop drinking the milk and start chewing the meat." I am looking to change the way my church does business with God, because I think in some areas we have missed the boat, and I don't want to see this repeated in the lives of those I now teach. But I have to be careful, because for some reason biblical truths (Which can differ from many spoon-fed applicable ideals the church has bought into over the years) scare the members of my church... it makes me sad, and if I am sad and frustrated, then I can't even imagine how God must feel about these types of situations and the current state of the church.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Blessings -Chris

 

[sinfulman]

is the pulpit the place to train people ot apply scripture they hear exposited for themselves? If not, where is?

 

[Koey]

is the pulpit the place to train people ot apply scripture they hear exposited for themselves? If not, where is?

Good question! I think that if people do not take the "other" opportunities offered by a church, then the place where most people are likely to assemble is the appropriate place to follow Jesus' command, to teach what he commanded.

That is not an option for me. It is a command from the founder of Christianity, Christ, to the apostles and all those that they would disciples. In other words, to all who would preach the Gospel.

In most churches that most attended assembly is a Sunday morning or Saturday night service. In cell churches, the focus is more on the small group meeting than the celebration. In such churches, that opportunity is reversed, by being in the home groups.

However, I think we need to ask ourselves where the most people to reach with Christ's commands would be.