I appreciate how Eugene Peterson’s differentiates between hearing the message of Scripture, and hearing the concerns of the congregation, as two necessary elements to preparing for the preaching task. Thoughts?
__________
Also, don’t forget our contest where you can win Peterson’s forthcoming memoir (see here).
Advertisements
i think he is making a good point and that this something we all need to take into us and put into practice. there is certainly big differences between a sermon and an exegetical lecture. our goal is sermons not exegetical lectures. what he is saying then is real pastoral work take the message of scripture and helping people apply it to their lives to bring deep level transformation. 🙂
There is a train of thought that if you preach the Bible; it will automatically speak into the lives of those who hear it.. I think this is wrong. We need to know our congregations struggles and needs. We need to preach so that they are scratched where they itch… and yes sometimes we do need to scratch so hard it rips the scabs off…. but to do that… we first need to know what those itches and scabs are… and then know how to preach the Bible into those areas.
@Brian: When I was teaching at an inner city church in San Francisco it was a great lesson for a seminarian to realize no one cares about the Greek word and the possible translations. For some they couldn’t follow even if they wanted to do so. But they wanted to know what Scripture says to their lives and they were ready to obey. The second summer of teaching it finally made sense and I realized I wasn’t in a seminary classroom, but I was in the middle of these people’s lives. I am glad I caught on to that eventually!
@Craig: This is so true. We can’t just lecture and expect people to see the connection between the text and their lives. We need to know the others as much as possible in order to build that bridge.