Choosing to Preach Discussion

re: #25 - Legalism and Application

Posted by Kallie Hutton on Aug. 26, 2010 at 01:12

I like what Keith had to say about placing the emphasis of the application on the reasons behind the actions. People don’t like to be given rules just for the sake of having rules. Rules and boundaries are important, but they are only valuable if they have a purpose. When people understand the motive and the reasoning behind an application they will be more open to accepting it. A preacher can do a sermon on purity and end with the application of "don’t have sex before you get married". This is a rather legalistic application. However, if the preacher explains why the "rule" is there (spiritual significance of becoming one with your spouse, less emotional and physical baggage, the significance of the marriage commitment, the list goes on) then people will follow the application not because it is a rule but because they understand the purpose of the rule.

re: #25 - Legalism and Application

Posted by Kapil Sharma on Nov. 30, 2009 at 13:33

I think Kent gave a real strong example in class of an effective way to do suggest an application without creating a legalistic requirement. Instead of saying something like "Don’t Steal it is wrong" we should give the reason why it is wrong, we should explain that God is holy and Just and desires us to be honest and live lives of integrity. Instead of do and dont’s we must focus on the motives behind why we want to live in a way that glorifies Christ, and also focus on the character of God. Preaching does have to have prescriptive elements in it that can not and should not be avoided, and such elements will always bring offense to some people. But again the fact that God calls everyone to have allegiance to him, to love him, to obery him, to repent and worship him, may always be the aroma to death to some, but the aroma of life to others. The negative response of the audience to preaching that involves the the articulation of these hard truths in a humble way can not dictate the way we preach. Some of the precriptions to call people to action will cuase sorrow, but we should rejoice since it may be godly sorrow that leads to repentance.

re: #25 - Legalism and Application

Posted by Shiya Janzen on Nov. 05, 2009 at 17:14

There are some things that are prescriptive in Scripture: love your neighbour; forgive others; pray for your enemies; etc. The preacher should proclaim this unflinchingly. However, these things are not necessarily easy, and so options and suggestions for application will likely be welcome. There can be a big gap between knowing something is right and good to do and a way to go about doing it. I mention “a” way, because there are many different ways to enact these things. Forgiveness, for example, may happen nearly instantaneously, or it may be a lifelong process – the key is to do it, to forgive and to be in the process of forgiveness. Being prescriptive about the need for forgiveness is one thing – being prescriptive about the way one is to forgive is an entirely different matter. If one offers suggestions, encouragement, understanding and support for those going the challenges of following the “prescriptives” of Scripture, then any accusations of legalism fall not on the preacher but on the reception of the hearer.

re: #25 - Legalism and Application

Posted by Hyung Kim on Sep. 29, 2009 at 20:00

I will answer the second question. The answer is “optionally prescriptive” but “crucially practical.“

It happened last week on Sunday.

After the Sunday’s sermon, my wife told me that the preaching that day was so horrible that she could not stay awake, but sleep. Of course she was not sleeping during the entire preaching; otherwise, how could she know whether or not the preaching had such a devastating effect on her insomniac nerve? (I put some exaggeration here, but no offence to the preacher.) I realized and understood her frustration on the sermon after I heard that the preacher had not presented any practical applications at all.

He proclaimed the Words of God. I did not have a chance to listen to his preaching yet which is usually recorded, but I can imagine how the preaching ended. Without applications, preaching still can move the audience and transform them. Though, this requires the miracle work of God. However, it is really frustrating for the listeners not to receive any practical application for “today” in accordance to the message preached “today.”

I just imagined this: I invested for 45 minutes sitting down on a not-so-comfy-for-a-nap-chair and listened to preaching hoping that the preacher might deliver some real-life applications so that I may glorify God through my life. But, at the end of the preaching, what I got was just “Be Joyful, and glorify God!” I would definitely ask the preacher “how?”

Prescriptions differ from applications. In fact, prescription is only one sub-set of application. It is alright not to be prescriptive when preachers preach, but it is an almost sinful act of preaching if the preaching does not contain any practical direction for “today.” Thus, prescriptive preaching is optional, but lack of applications in preaching is crucial.

re: #25 - Legalism and Application

Posted by Jeffery Chan on Mar. 10, 2009 at 18:15

I echo some of the earlier posts regarding delivering the underlying motivation for why there may be legalistic requirements. I am reminded of Matthew 5 – 9 when Jesus repeatedly says, "You have heard it said… but I tell you the truth." He also makes clear that he didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Jesus calls people to continue to uphold the law, but brings it deeper and gives the motivation behind the law itself. In essence, Jesus is calling to an even higher code of living, an even higher ‘legalism’. The law says that one should not murder, but Christ says that to even have anger toward another person is to commit murder. The law says not to commit adultery, but Christ says to even look upon a person with lust is committing adultery. Near the end (8:18-22) he gives the true motivation behind this type of living, and that is to put Christ above all else, above all other duties. The law calls a person to honor their father and mother, but Christ says to follow Him because if they don’t then in the eyes of the kingdom, they are dead, and Jesus says, "let the dead bury their own dead."

Anytime a preacher is faithful to the text and calls people to action, no matter how sensitive s/he is to the listener’s feelings toward legalism, some will always protest and reject any type of prescriptive requirement. However, it is clear that we are not to commit murder, and more than that, Christ calls us not to harbour anger in our hearts toward others. That is very clearly prescriptive.

A preacher must be faithful to the text and avoid moralistic, legalistic teachings, yes. But, the preacher must also be faithful to the text and call people to the prescriptive actions that God’s word does call us to: to heal the sick, to stop injustice, to cloth the naked, to feed the hungry…basically, to love the Lord with all our heart, all our mind, and all our soul and all our strength, and to love others as ourselves.

re: #25 - Legalism and Application

Posted by Sydney Bergsma on Mar. 09, 2009 at 22:10

If application is not applied in the preachers life then he isn’t going to get a hearing from anyone, especially one who is skeptical. Having grown up in a very legalistic faith I learned all the do nots but was always looking for the does. If people have a chance to see the preachers life up close and it reflexes what he is saying in a gracious and loving way he will have a much better chance of not sounding like a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

re: #25 - Legalism and Application

Posted by Yong Wang on Feb. 20, 2009 at 18:17

I think legalistic requirement still has its room to some extent. if the sermon is well done, people’s heart are changed, they will have those ‘legalistic requirement" for themselves. Painting these kinds of concrete examples may speak to their hearts very well. This kind of guilt is the work of the holy spirit, people are convinced that they need change, they have fallen short of God’s glory. Sometimes this kind of legalistic requirement may not be necessary.

On the other hand, if the sermon is not well delivered, putting these requirement may irritate people. I am not sure whether it will bring the guilt. Not all post-moderners have guilt. it really depends. We should not avoid the legalistic requirement all the time.

re: #25 - Legalism and Application

Posted by Sally Peng on Oct. 23, 2007 at 00:10

I think before the preacher suggests an application to the listeners, they should first ask themselves how the message could be applied in their own lives. So the very first thing we can do to avoid legalistic suggestions is to put ourselves in the audience members’ shoes and see what they see; feel what they feel. The second thing we could do is to discern the need of the audience. For example, prescriptive sermons would not work well with teens but it might work with other people; they might not work with a western audience made up of critical thinkers, but they may work for Asian listeners who respect the preacher’s authority, and expect some “prescriptions” from them. The most important thing is to humbly and faithfully seek wisdom from God on how we should give suggestions to our listeners.

re: #25 - Legalism and Application

Posted by Keith Whitaker on Oct. 12, 2007 at 11:15

I think it comes down to how the preacher presents his or her particular application. We can be descriptive, in a sense, without being legalistic. In my mind the way to do this is to place the emphasis of the application on the reason behind the actions. We must present the act of application as an act in service of the “big idea.” It seems to me that this is what Jesus was constantly doing with the hypocritical religious leaders of his day who failed to see past the act and behold the God who stood behind it. As preachers we must present the application of the sermon in a way where it serves to highlight the main idea that God wishes to speak in the hearts and minds of his people. When we loose sight of this, and present the specific actions of our big idea then we are guilty of feeding and fostering “empty religion.”

re: #25 - Legalism and Application

Posted by Andre VanWoerden on Feb. 22, 2007 at 12:46

This discussion question is in the chapter describing the visionary sermon. Although there has to be room for specific direct applications, an alternative approach might be to cast "a powerful vision of an altered future under God" that will inspire/motivate people to respond. I just listened to one of Rob Bell’s sermons and the way that he helped his listeners imagine a certain kind of Christian and then shared the story of someone who was already living it by means of an interview provided a very powerful and motivational application without being legalistic at all.

re: #25 - Legalism and Application

Posted by Melissa Lane on Jan. 30, 2007 at 23:27

Sometimes preachers will need to give specific, direct and concrete directives is sometimes necessary. There are certain things which are absolutes. But to soften the edge, the use of stories, "case study" senarios or leading questions can be useful.

(By leading questions I mean that the preacher could say, "what would happen if…." and then suggest a line of action. It gives the listener the chance to hear the options, weigh them and deal with them. At the end of the questions, the preacher could say something along the lines of "i don’ t know which of these may apply to you, but the reality is we are called to respond to XYZ." Something like that would limit the ability for someone to wiggle out of concretely responding to the message.)