A gospel question
October 3, 2005
I was in my preaching class the other day and we were talking about different models of preaching. We mentioned the container method, which basically assumes that there is one little golden “nugget” of truth in the Scripture that one is attempting to find and get from the “container” of the Word of God. We also briefly talked about the conversational method of preaching, and letting the text speak to us, engaging the congregation in an exploration of the text, etc [something I find much more appealing and engaging, whether as a preacher or as a congregant].
We’re reading from Tom Long’s book, Witness of Preaching, and are going through Long’s exegetical method. The last step says “State the claims of the text upon the listener.” And this got me thinking about the purpose of “the sermon” - our ability to really state a claim, to say what a certain text is speaking and saying to a community of believers. We got into a discussion about what a “claim” really means, and perhaps it’s just an invitation, or a reflection and not really declarative statements, perhaps. And then our professor asked this question: “Can the Gospel claim us without must, ought or should language?”
What do you think?
Tags: Gospel, Preaching, Truth
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
October 3rd, 2005 at 8:16 am
When Scripture compels us to adopt a different perspective on the nature of reality, when we begin looking at ourselves and the world around us in the new perspective of the reality of our sin and Christ’s death/resurrection, then we have been “claimed” by Scripture. Christ’s death on the cross is at the heart of the gospel, and it is an event made without a “must” claim. Christ’s love compels us, not the “must” claims.
I remember this moment of “claim” in my own life when as an 8th grader I was brought to conviction, change, and lifelong devotion by reading Scripture in my own room one night. I was overwhelmed with the reality it proclaimed, not at the urging of any “must” or “should” or “ought.”
October 3rd, 2005 at 8:49 am
i think we can, although we dont have to use that can of language..as long we understand that it is pentultimate and always open to criticism from the community. There are versions of conversational preaching (Rose) that I think really silence the preacher’s ability to make claims upon the community. However, I think that a model of preaching as testimony (Carter-Florence, Lose) allows the preacher to make strong claims upon their community.
These claims do not try to convince or persuade as much as invite the community to encounter Christ through the text. The community can always choose to reject these claims and thus this invitation.
mark
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:17 am
I was struck by that question in class too, Adam. I wonder sometimes whether we are able to claim a Gospel that does not contain must, ought, or should language?
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:25 am
i would suppose that the reason why scripture has remained relevant for nearly 2000 years is the multiplicity of applications. when its carefully and thoughtfully discerned by the Holy Spirit in the context of the church universal.
that being said, i dont want to water the Scriptures down, as if there were no steadfast claims Christ makes on his disciples. they must simply be contextualized and understood in light of the fact they were written w/very specific purposes to people many years ago.
October 4th, 2005 at 7:56 am
I guess I don’t understand the question. Why would we try to make claims without ‘must, ought, or should language’ unless there’s at least some sense that we must, ought, or should avoid it? In short, I don’t see how we can avoid some sense of obligation. I think the difference between legalism and grace is not obligation or no obligation but the motivation for it.
October 4th, 2005 at 10:11 am
i think Christian preaching is best when the “ought” is the subtext. i.e., when a message points out that God is so amazing and great and big and powerful…the listener is compelled to worship.
October 4th, 2005 at 6:45 pm
i believe we may, but the gospel isn’t without them, nor was jesus, the living gospel, without them…yet i hear them a bit differently. i do believe jesus to be a savior with expectations, but instead of should, must, and ought, i hear jesus saying, if and when.
if you follow, when you follow…in the case of these, the ought, must, and shoulds seem to become “i get to”
there was a time when i was in high school when i worked at a home for the elderly, and one particular day i didn’t really want to go to work, so as i was walking through the kitchen i blurted to my dad that i “had to go” to work…he responded, “son, you ‘get to go’ to work”
following closely to jesus transforms the must and have to ‘get to’
October 5th, 2005 at 2:23 am
Can a man look at the woman his heart is engaged to and not respond?
Can a Christ-follower encounter the Living Words of the Text and not respond?