At church on Sunday I roadtested the radical suggestion I made in last month’s sydneyanglicans.net article entitled ‘The word of God, loud and clear’. In this article, I suggested the following:
“In normal situations, we listen to the Bible read before the preacher explains and expands the text. Wouldn’t it be better to hear the Bible expounded, and then hear it read? The text would gain even greater clarity, and the meaning would be amplified by the exposition just presented by the preacher.”
Well, it might shock you to know that before I had written the article, I had never seen this done in real life. It was simply an exercise in kite-flying, so to speak.
Anyway, when I put together the runsheet on Sunday for the gathering I was leading, I gave it a try, and it worked a treat. Not only did the Bible reader read with more clarity (since she had just been given a twenty-minute preparation for her task), but the whole congregation also benefited from hearing the word of God, after it was explained.
What’s more, it made the reading of the Word appear to have a centrality in the gathering that I’ve not experienced before. It was as if the reading of the sermon passage was the peak of the word ministry.
Have you ever tried this retrospective reading? Have you ever witnessed it first-hand?
I havent seen it in action before but it sounds like a good idea. Keep pushin the boundariews because
its working a treat.
Are there any situations where you think retrospective reading might not be effective or helpful?
I’m not sure. It depends a bit on how it is packaged. If the congregation expects the reading early, and the preacher tries to explain the word already read, then it might be a bit weird. But, if the preacher says “Today’s passage is from John 3, and I’m going to tell you about it. Then after the talk, we’ll get it read to us” then it might work.
It’s certainly going against standard practice, but if it’s an idea that works, then it might be worthwhile changing culture?
Hey Jodes,
Sounds good to mix it up a bit. What about the idea of having the same passage read before the sermon as well as after?
However the other thing I wonder about much of our current practice is if it is too sermonocentric. For the last several months we have been reading through Genesis at 5.00 church, and there’s no deliberate connection with the sermon. (There’s the reading for the sermon as well). Working well, and all thoroughly Anglican, although I think a few people got a bit confused about why we were doing it. I gave them Glenn Davies’ answer and said we were obeying the Bible! (1 Tim 4:13)
Thanks Gordo.
Yes, the idea of the double reading (before and after) is probably an excellent alternative to those who are used to the pre-sermon reading (i.e. nearly all of us!)
I love the idea of a Bible reading that has no relation to the sermon. In fact, I think I got that (not so original) idea from Glenn himself… who (you rightly note) got it from the Holy Spirit.
Hmm….
I would have to say I am quite opposed to such a form of bible reading. (at current)
First and foremost because it reminds me of the pentecostal church where the preacher will outline what he wants to say, then find some obscure out of context bible passage to back it up, resulting in the congregation reading into the passage a meaning that it never had.
Not that you (Jodie) would ever preach like that, nor is that what you are suggesting, nevertheless if there is one thing you can trust humans to do, its to get it wrong, to sin, to fail. I fear a sermon before bible reading could also result in the congregation reading into a bible passage the incorrect exegesis of the preacher, and in all honesty everyone gets it wrong from time to time, even the most gifted minister.
I think (and could be totally wrong) that reading the bible passage before hand is a far better way to operate, While you may have to encourage your congregation to pay attention to the passage being read, it has one particular distinct advantage.
If you read me a passage of the bible, generally speaking whether the passage is difficult or not I will immediately form an opinion in my head as to what the passage means and what it is saying, this early interpretation could easily be wrong, (and often is) BUT the preacher must then offer a persuasive sermon that will alter that opinion, this encourages me to be discerning and to weigh what is said whenever my opinion clashes with the exegesis of the preacher, leading me to ask the question:
Is his understanding a better and more correct interpretation of the text then my own?
If so…Then I am glad and thankful for his teaching as it points me to the truth of God.
If not…Then after the sermon I can challenge the preacher, where he could either elaborate further, perhaps convincing me, or be challenged to reflect again on what the passage is saying. (Providing that my opinion itself is persuasive.)
But if I were to hear the sermon first then my guard is taken away, my opinion is formed by the preacher and when the passage is read I think there would be a good chance I may be reading the passage through eyes coloured by an incorrect interpretation. Leading to a lack of discernment when dealing with false doctrine.
Well that’s my ramble, I certainly do not write this because I think you are a poor writer of sermons, on the contrary I have God to thank for using you to bring me out of the pentecostal church, and as is often the case I could be dreadfully wrong (and I’ve of course never tried what you are talking about) and while I applaud the removal of stoic and un-biblical church tradition that serves no purpose but to make everything more dreary I can’t help but have reservations about this idea.
I of course could certainly be wrong.
I hope Year 13 is going well!
God Bless
Hey Fellas,
Bravo Mica A, i can see the viewpoint that you are coming from. I have been
naively lead astray in the past by one particular teaching in a particular church
in my hometown but in God’s great mercy Peter Jensen settled the issue for me
in a Rascally Sydney Anglicans Podcast. Amen.
So to give my view on distorting the truth some juice i bible gatewayed distort
in the biblegateway search engine. Of the three NEw Testament passages one
was from Acts (luke), another was from 2 Corinthians (Paul) and of course
golden olde Apostle Peter had something to say as well.
In Pauls farewell to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:30 (NIV) luke records “Even from
your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away
disciples after them”. Men desire to have people follow them rather than God
the Christ who is forever praised.
And in 2 Peter 3:16 (NIV) he writes about Apostle Pauls letters commenting that
“He writes the same way in all his letters speaking in them of these matters.
His letters contain some things which are hard to understand, which ignorant
and unstable people distort, as they do other scriptures, to their own
destruction”. Men desire to distort the truth and it brings about their own
destruction.
Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:2b (NIV) “we do not use deception, nor do we
distort the word of God”. Some Men distort the truth but Paul does not, who is
the ‘we’ he is talking about?
Cheers and God bless,
Nick Ryan
Hey MickA,
I think you’ve convinced me of the error of my ways. Yes, reading the reading first sets the agenda, and makes it clear that the sermon is now going to illuminate the reading, not the other way around. Regardless of pragmatics, it is actually a theological reason that we read first, preach next. Keep thinking theologically–that’s what we trained you for, mate!
All that said, perhaps Gordo’s earlier comment might be a good thing to consider–perhaps we read before AND after?
Year 13 is going great, with lots of interest for 2008. And the current gang had an awesome time in Africa–and are all back alive!!
Jodes.
Thanks Nick for your comments. It is vitally true we do all we can to minimise the harm of people who distort the word of truth. Having a public Bible reading in our churches will do a lot to help show people the context of the verses, something that many modern sermons fail to adhere to.
Hope all is well in sunny Moree!
Jodes.