Comments on: Preaching as Theological Interpretation of Scripture

By: Kent Eilers

Kent Eilers — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 13:33:40 +0000

Jason, I think you’re on the mark. Glad to have you around.

By: Kent Eilers

Kent Eilers — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 13:32:25 +0000

Bacho, I tend toward seeing the historical critical method as an ad hoc contribution to studying the Scriptures as text but not as controlling - as the end of the story you might say - the process of interpreting and proclaiming the message(s) of the text. This sounds like number 2 in your list. Getting there is the tricky bit, and I am increasingly thinking that interpreting Scripture according to a "rule of faith" would facilitate such a move. Doing so ensures that interpreters of Holy Scripture read them not only as text but as the text set apart (sanctified) for the work of the triune God in redeeming and restoring broken creation.

By: Roy Howard

Roy Howard — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 03:36:54 +0000

I do think that preachers can profit from reading the sermons of Augustine, Calvin and others including the recently published books of sermons of contemporary theologians, Stanley Hauerwas, Oliver Donovan, Rowan Williams and Fleming Rutledge. I also think Willomon’s recent book on preaching and Barth is an excellent guide to the how of preaching.

Most of all I think preachers who read serious theology on a regular basis alongside careful reading of scripture can’t help but preach sermons that are theological interpretation of scripture.

By: Jason Brubaker

Jason Brubaker — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:00:52 +0000

Hi Kent,

I read your blog periodically and find your writing and references to other writers stimulating. In response to your question, yes Patrick Wilson’s comments resonate with me.

The historical-critical method seeks to read the Scriptures as an objective outside observer rather than reading the Scriptures as one who is a participant in the story of the Scriptures. And if I am reading story of the Scriptures as an outside observer, the story is someone’s other than our own.
Any thoughts?

Thanks for the references to great theologians/preachers through the last two millennia. I am slowing seeing look back will provide great insight for reflecting upon the many theological and preaching questions which I have.

As a recent M. Div. grad I enjoy reading your blog as one who is a fellow-participant in God’s wonderful story.
Jason

By: Kent Eilers

Kent Eilers — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:52:03 +0000

Bacho, I’ll get back to you when I’m back in town. Cheers.

By: Bacho

Bacho — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:37:02 +0000

Kent,

thoughtful topic for conversation, as always.

You state, “when I say “theologically” I mean preaching that is drawing upon and intentionally in conversation with Christian doctrine (something nowadays found antithetical to preaching funded by the historical-critical method).” Does this statement imply a mode of preaching that:
1.Sets aside the historical-critical method [Origen]
2.Subordinates the historical-critical method to broader theological focus [Calvin]
3.Facilitates a dialogs between history and theology [Childs]

I am sure attaching names to each of these will draw some fire. Origen, Calvin and Childs might not fit exactly, but their works point towards categories that I set up for you here.