RE: The Problem
I think you guys have hit the nail on the head: Many evangelicals seem to have lost confidence that there's really anything of value to be learned from the Bible.
As for how to fix the problem, let me add just a couple of things to Mike's post below. One is that if you want to teach your people that the Bible is more than just a compendium of pithy sayings--as if the whole thing was meant to function like Proverbs--you have to preach longer sections of text than just one verse. And you certainly have to do something other than skipping around the Bible from week to week. Part of teaching your people about the beauty and power of God's Word is to show them its shape and structure, to tell them how a book flows, what its emphases are, and how it functions as a whole.
I preached a sermon series through Isaiah some time ago. Before I started, I'd never really understood before how Isaiah fit together, or where it was going. To me, the book always seemed absolutely enormous and entirely unwieldy. Sure there were parts of it that I'd camped on before--birth to a virgin, death of the Servant, etc.--but that meant I gave short shrift to the parts didn't consider so important.
So I decided this time that I'd approach the book differently. I treated the book like a sword---picked it up, felt its weight, learned how it balances and how each of its parts contributes to the whole, realized how through all those scores of chapters the whole thing is really coming down to one razor sharp point. In short (and perhaps to push a metaphor too far), I learned how to wield the book (I hope) as the Holy Spirit meant it to be wielded when He forged it. My goal then in preaching was to hand that sword to my people and teach them how to wield it, too, to feel its weight, trace and understand its contours, and feel its balance. I didn't want just to stare myopically at the hilt, or just point out an inch or two of the blade and then skip back to the handle. I wanted them to know and become familiar with the whole sword, and equip them to use it in their lives.
That's just one thought on this whole topic. Whatever you do, and however you preach, your goal needs to be to show your people the beauty and power of God's Word. And you're not going to be able to do that if you act like you're embarrassed by it, or if your service communicates in whatever way that Scripture is boring. So read Scripture in your services---more than one or two verses, and without music. Preach more than one verse at a time. Don't preach sermons where your people can read along with you at the beginning and then close their Bibles. Preach the kind of sermon where they constantly have to look back at the text. After all, we want our people to know the Bible's power, right?, not just confess it.



I think you're exactly right on several fronts. It reminds me of John MacArthur's first T4G sermon and how he said several different ways, "My job to to teach people the Bible."
How long did it take you to go through Isaiah, by the way?
Posted by: Brent Hobbs | May 16, 2008 8:40:03 AM
Um, three weeks. I did it according to Motyer's outline: Book of the King (1-38), Book of the Servant (3-54), Book of the Conqueror (55-66).
The first one was a disaster. Too long, too detailed. I was learning how to do it. To push my metaphor further, I think I cut my foot off.
The second two were better.
Posted by: Greg G | May 16, 2008 9:43:07 AM
The outline chapters are a bit garbled, but it sounds almost as though it is following what critical scholars have opined for years -- that what we know as Isaiah comes from three different time periods and three different, but connected, authors. A few years back, preaching from Isaiah 58, I saw just how pertinent it could be if a post-exilic context is understood.
When I was a pastor, at least twice a year I would preach through a Biblical book, and would teach it during midweek meetings as well as provide a daily commentary on the church's prayer telephone. Those who paid attention through all these means got a good flavor for the entire book.
I used to joke that if I could stay at the church 33 years I would get the whole Bible done that way.
Fell short by 13 years!
Posted by: Joseph M. Smith | May 16, 2008 5:13:50 PM
Hi Joseph. I certainly didn't mean to imply any of that. I think one author, writing the whole book about 700 years before Christ, is perfectly capable of writing it with three different sections.
As for it being post-exilic, what would be so great about naming the Persian king who would release Israel if it had already happened? "A president named Abraham shall preserve the Union." There--does that make me a prophet?
(BTW, Motyer's divisions are 1-37, 38-55, 56-66.)
Posted by: Greg G | May 17, 2008 9:25:24 AM