Posted on 05/15/2014 9:40:21 PM PDT by ReformationFan
Actually, they are educated, but in the techniques of managment, rather than theology. As David Wells wrote, 20 years ago:
The new quest for contemporary practicality has transformed the nature of the Christian ministry, the work of the seminaries, and the inner workings in denominational headquarters, and in each case the transformation has sounded the death knell of theology. The Christian ministry has become a profession. In today's seminaries, Edward Farley observed, the "theological student neither studies divinity nor obtains scholarly expertise in theological sciences, but trains for professional activities." In other words, the old divinity has largely died, as has its importance for the Church, and so seminary training increasingly is about inculcating a kind of public demeanor and etiquette, along with know-how in the soul-caring business, to lay paths to successful careers for students. Seminary students are not blind to the fact that the big churches and the big salaries often go to those who are untheologica or even anti-theological. They know what kind of training they need to become managers who have the status of professionals, not scholars, thinkers, or theologians. (David F. Wells, No Place for Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 112-13.)
I'd dispute Wells' use of the word "professional," as if it was a bad word: historically, the clergy was one of the learned professions in the traditional sense of an occupation that is also a calling: law, medicine, and divinity. Of course Wells means "professional" in the sense of pursuing an occupation as a livelihood, and I don't necessarily disagree with him there.
One of the reasons they don't teach/preach the Bible is that they have no idea of context because they have no understanding of history. They apply everything directly to today which is not only shallow, it's arrogant and discounts the millions of believers who lived before us.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Key to understanding the Bible is understanding its meaning in its original literary, social, and historical context: what it meant to its original audience. Which is why a learned clergy skilled in the art and science of hermeneutics is so crucial.
But it can't just be left in the past, otherwise it's just a Bible story. The art of preaching also requires that he bridge the gap between the original audience and the contemporary one, and tell me what its significance is today: how it is applicable to 21st-century life.
How do you tell the difference?
If that’s the definition, there is no difference. That was my question: “What does ‘preaching the Bible’ mean to the author?”
When Al Mohler says "preaching the Bible," he means explaining the original meaning of the Bible in its own historical context, then drawing a contemporary application for his present listeners.
However, you're the one making a distinction between "preaching the Bible" and "telling the congregation what I think about something in the Bible." So please tell us, if you hear a bit of preaching, how you tell one from the other. Otherwise, it's merely a distinction without a difference.
Peter, James and John were simple fishermen, but when they were filled with the Holy Spirit, they amazed the religious leaders with God's wisdom.
Paul was one of the most educated men alive in his time. He had a zeal for God that led him to kill Believers. When he was saved, anointed by God, wisdom transformed him into one of the greatest evangelists of all time.
Knowledge is good. However, knowledge without wisdom is very dangerous. I would prefer an anointed man of God as a shepherd, before a theologian who is a spiritual babe. The latter usually places all confidence in the flesh - his knowledge and achievement. The Spirit-filled Believer leans heavily on God's Wisdom and Word, knowing that he is nothing without God's Truth and guidance. I have experienced examples of both types over the years, and seen the successes and rather dramatic failures of both.
I believe the revival is here, happening as we speak all over the world. People are so tired of religion. They want to really KNOW God, and worship Him the way He wants - in Spirit and Truth. I hear the same story often from folks that have sat in the same pews, heard the same sermons, watched the same ceremonies, and sang the same old songs. They are spiritually hungry and want more of God. Praise God there is so much more - you can have fresh revelation every day from Him. And He is raising up ministers, ministries, and churches to feed His Body His Pure Word. And if they can't get it from their local church, they will turn to their own Bible study, house churches, radio, TV, books, or even the Internet. I am amazed by the number of Internet visits I get from nations that are openly hostile to Christianity. God's Word is being preached all over the globe. Its the Truth that makes people free. And even if God has to use a talking donkey, He will water thirsty ground.
So are you telling me what I said, or just your opinion of what you think I meant?
the concerns, real or perceived, of the listeners.
Seeker sensitivity bowing down to itching ears. You wind up moving from expositional preaching to topical preaching to the "needs" of the attendees. But they don't know what they need. God had tolds us what we need. Jesus preached in all of Scripture.
It seems to me that your answer is, "Yes, that is what it means."
Where in my post did I use language that suggested when Mohler said "preach the Bible," or that when he advocates understanding the Bible in its own context and explaining it to a contemporary reader, this was the equivalent of offering his personal opinion of what he thought it meant?
It is not me or him, apparently, but you that has a problem with confusing truth claims and opinions. Otherwise, if you have a specific beef with the way Mohler preachers or teaches his students to preach, just come out with it.
When you teach that Jesus walked on the water is that only your interpretation or is that based on the word of God. There are plenty of things that are not a matter of individual interpretation but are clear. These need to be proclaimed in the churches.
Yes application is essential. But you must often clarify the original intent before making it understandable and therefore applicable for today.
My SB minister teaches directly from the Bible-verse by verse.
Yes, that's why I called it "key."
My minister teaches from the Bible—verse by verse every time. Every church I have been to does/did the same. I do not know where you went but that is not common in all the churches I have been to over the past 7 decades.
I agree that God uses simple men often to spread the love of Christ.
but he also uses people who know the word of God in depth. The reformation leaders for example were deeply learned men who were able to keep false teaching at bay because they were so learned in scripture as well as heresy that had occurred throughout history.
I believe there is so much lousy teaching around today because there are not enough people educated in the word of God preaching from the pulpits.
On a Sad note I went to St Peter Chanel here in Georgia for Noon Mass. The priest told us something. Today is graduation day for High school. Well one of the students died last nite before she would have graduate. So sad. Please pray for family.
I don’t have any problems with Rev. Mohler. I often read his articles and find them edifying. I’m just trying to understand.
Having considered it further, I agree that there’s a difference between what I was saying and what you’ve been saying.
Well, my Protestant friends, they say, ARE allowed to interpret the Bible the way they want to. We Catholic are not.
I certainly don't mean to impugn ANYONE's belief.
Well, my parish priest tells us what he thinks the Bible means, too, many times. There’s not a single, authoritative way that a parable applies to daily life, for example.
Other comments above have said “preaching the Bible” includes giving historical information and so on, as well as discussing the meaning.
Is daily life SO very different today than it was 5000 years ago? Abraham Lincoln said that human behavior can be modified to some extent but human nature cannot be changed.
If your priest can, IN NO WAY, relate ANY parable to our daily life then either he is mumbling in his beard or no one is paying attention.
EVERY parable has a lesson on ONE or more of those seven deadly sins: pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy and sloth.
NOTE the first one, PRIDE. It's probably the worst. That was Lucifer's sin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.