The Danger of Atomistic Preaching
The pattern of emphasis dictated by the text keeps verbal meaning in its rightful and prominent position in the interpretive process. All of this is not to say that implications ought not be expounded; indeed, they should. However, implications must remain submissive to the author’s intent—and to the degree that the original author wills them. Otherwise, we comprise the sufficiency of Scripture since the biblical author’s emphases are, in fact, God’s emphases.
My previous article suggested the greatest danger in preaching, even among expositors, is not honoring the relative emphases of the biblical author. Most often, this occurs when a preacher extracts a “part” of a text and gives it more weight than did the biblical author. Sidney Greidanus calls that “part” an “atom.”
Atomistic Tendencies
Atomistic tendencies extract an implication (or sub-meaning or sub-point) of the author and cause it to dominate the author’s single verbal meaning. The result becomes an alteration of the author’s original meaning. Greidanus calls this the “isolation of certain ‘atoms’ within the text from the inner coherence, the central thrust of the text.”[1]
An “atom” might be a Bible personality’s attribute, experience, or behavior which the preacher extracts and expounds as the main emphasis of the message. The problem with this practice is the main thought of the passage is either ignored or reduced to secondary importance. In either case, the verbal meaning becomes different (or other) than that of the biblical author.
Greidanus explains:
Should any of these “atoms” be treated independently in the sermon, the result would be atomism—making absolute that which is a dependent part—and a loss of the central thrust of the text. Should one, for the sake of a unified sermon, place one “atom” central, the central thrust is displaced by that which is not central. In either case the meaning of the text will be distorted.[2]
Sidney Greidanus, Sola Scriptura
Greidanus claims this tendency produces sermons that become monotonous because they lose the uniqueness of the text.[3] For example, one can preach essentially the same sermon from the “doubt” of John the Baptist (Matt. 11:1-6) and the “doubt” of Thomas (John 20:24-29); or, one could apply the “testing” of the faith of Abraham (Gen. 22) in the same way as the “testing” of the faith of the Canaanite woman (Matt. 15:21ff.).[4] He rightly asserts: “[T]he ‘atom’ (doubt, testing) is lifted out of its textual (historic) environment into another realm where, though still called ‘doubt’ or ‘testing,’ it has lost its unique connections and therefore its special meaning.”[5]
The Danger of Atomistic Tendencies
We can reduce the problem of atomistic tendencies to one basic issue: The degree of relative emphasis an implication (or sub-meaning) should receive within the sense of the larger whole. The chief concern occurs when the preacher presents an emphasis (or set of emphases) which is different than the biblical author’s, and the interpretation spawns a different meaning. Therefore, we agree with Greidanus’ argument. Further, we see no reason why we should limit it to exemplary or biographical tendencies. The argument equally is valid for those sermons which take a sub-point within the verbal meaning and cause it to dominate the central thrust of the sermon. We must never stop asking, “Who gives the preacher the authority to change the King’s emphasis? Certainly, not the King; and if not He, then who?”
-
On Dealing with Evil
So often we want to look down on others and think they are so reprehensible and deplorable while we are not. But we ALL are deplorables. We all are dirty rotten scoundrels (to mention another film). We all deserve eternal punishment for our sin. It is only God’s mercy and grace that makes it possible for us to avoid that.
As is usually the case, articles I write are often triggered by something I have just recently read or watched. In this case, a few days ago I had viewed part of some American true crime program on TV. The gist of it was this: a woman with four young children conspired with her lover to kill her husband and get his insurance money. They succeeded.
However, she was soon caught, tried, convicted, and sent to prison for life. Good! What a monstrous woman this was! Hating her own children and husband and happy to murder him! That of course was my immediate thought. But as a Christian I really had to quickly readjust and/or supplement my initial reaction with a few other truths. Two main biblical responses that also came directly to mind were these:
One. Yes satanic evil is alive and well. There most certainly is such a thing as evil – and evil people. We must never dismiss nor play down the reality of diabolical wickedness. It should always offend us and disgust us. We should never grow used to it nor become calloused by it. Evil is real – and it is horrible.
Two. ‘There, but for the grace of God go I.’ Are we really any different? As Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, if I hate someone, it really is the same as murdering someone (Matthew 5:21-22). Our outward actions flow from our inner attitudes and dispositions. Thus it immediately sprang to my mind that given the right circumstances I could just as easily have done something like this.
‘But,’ you might say, ‘you would not kill your spouse and be so cavalier about your own children, would you?’ Well, the fact that I am still so often so self-centred and selfish and sinful – even as a long-standing Christian – means that I have hated them at the very least. When I fully put myself first, I am putting others last. I am not loving them as I should but hating them. And that, Jesus said, is just like murdering them.
I shared some of this on the social media recently, and then said this: “In sum, we are to hate evil with a holy passion, but we are also to look into our own hearts. And we must pray for women like this.” All these points can be expanded on at length. So let me add a bit more to each one.
First, one Christian gal asked me a somewhat surprising question. She wanted to know how I would pray for this woman. I would have thought that was rather obvious. I replied: “That she repents and gets saved.” She does not deserve this, but that is what grace is all about.
Is she an evil monster who deserves to be locked up for life? Yes. But as I just said, so are all of us. We are all capable of great evil. And usually it is just social disapproval, fear of what others might think, and so on, that keeps us from committing really gross and horrid evils.
In that sense, I have often referred to the 1993 film Falling Down starring Michael Douglas to make my point about all this. If you don’t mind, I actually like what I wrote 13 years ago about this, so let me share part of that article here:
It tells the sad story of a man who slowly lost the plot. Everything was going against him, and it took its toll.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Maintaining Confidence in the Process
Through hundreds and then thousands of these sermons, we realize that our minds have been renewed in a substantial way, our hearts have been transformed in an encouraging way. God works through his Word, as long as we conform ourselves to the process and don’t give up too soon.
We are people in a hurry. We live fast-paced lives in a fast-paced culture. We can never go quick enough to keep up, never do enough to complete every task, never accomplish enough to satisfy ourselves or others. But still we try, still we hurry on.
Yet the Christian life has a way of challenging us, of cutting against our haste. It challenges us that the ordinary state of affairs when it comes to spiritual growth is slower than we’d like it to be and slower than we thought it would be. It challenges us not to expect shortcuts, but to accept slow gains. It challenges us to have confidence in the process.
As individuals, we grow in our understanding of the ways and works of God not by reading the Bible once, but by reading it a hundred times. We read it, and little by little, day by day, we come to understand and apply its truths. We don’t give up after reading it once through or after reading it for only one year. Rather, we maintain our confidence in the long process, and over the course of years and decades we come to know it and to be be changed by it.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Discerning in Doctrine But Not Discerning in Character
Press on in spiritual discernment—to be deliberate in separating truth from error and right from wrong. There is never a time to relax your guard when it comes to this critical discipline.
I believe that discernment matters. I believe that spiritual discernment is a necessary mark of spiritual maturity while a lack of spiritual discernment is a concerning mark of spiritual immaturity. As the book of Hebrews tells us, “solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil” (Hebrews 5:14). There it is, the connection between maturity and discernment.
There are many reasons I find myself at home among those who hold to Reformed theology, but one key reason is that the tradition places high value on discernment. Many of those who come to appreciate Reformed doctrine do so after finding a critical lack of judgment in their previous traditions. Disturbed by a blend of good teaching and bad, sound doctrine and unsound, they look for churches that care about diligently separating truth from error and right from wrong. They soon find themselves in a Reformed church.
Yet as I have reflected on discernment over the past 20 years, I continue to find myself perplexed by a strange conundrum: Sometimes the people who most value discernment in doctrine are the people most prone to neglect discernment in character. They can display a kind of credulity that makes them especially susceptible to listening to and believing untrustworthy sources. Ironically, their emphasis on discernment leaves them vulnerable to lies.
We all need to understand a hard truth: there are people out there who make stuff up. It may seem hard to believe, but it’s reality. There are people who fabricate facts, who create accounts of events that did not happen, and who write up conversations that never took place. There are people who act as if they have exhaustive knowledge of other people’s inner motives and desires when they do not and cannot. And even if some do not go that far, they may deliberately exaggerate matters and spread as truth what is no more than rumor or hearsay.
Read More
Related Posts:
