Little Respect for God's Word

What Not to Say: Avoiding the Common Mistakes That Can Sink Your Sermon, by John C. Holbert and Alyce M. McKenzie (Westminster John Knox Press, 2011) is a book for beginning preachers. It covers topics such as what not to say at the beginning and end of sermons and what not to say about God and the Bible. Although they approach the topic from an unusual angle and offer some good suggestions, I cannot recommend the book. There are many other books on preaching, and most that I have read are better than this one. Chapter two on what not to say about the Bible illustrates why I do not recommend the book.

Holbert and McKenzie admit that sometimes they envy their Unitarian students who may prefer to preach from "Emerson of Thoreau," but affirm their conviction that the Bible is "somehow more than merely literature, more than merely just another book" (p. 21). They affirm that it is more than literature because it birthed and sustained the synagogue and church and formed the bedrock of western civilization (p. 21). However, their "somehow more than merely literature" does not include the position I affirm, which is that the Bible is ultimately authored by an all-wise and all-knowing God.

The consequences of their view become evident in their second example of how not to use the Bible in preaching. They denounce an unnamed preacher for using a pronouncement of Paul concerning those who "exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural." Three reasons are given for denouncing this preacher. First, they affirm that Paul, who wrote nearly two thousand years ago, had a "limited" understanding of human sexual behavior. They suggest that Paul's view of what was "natural" or "unnatural" does not conform to their modern view. Contrary to the authors, I affirm that by God's design, males and females are complementary. The two together do what one cannot do alone. For example, bolts and nuts are complementary parts; they can form a firm bond when used together according to their natural function. That bond cannot be formed by bolts alone or nuts alone. To try to use them in a different way is unnatural. Similarly, neither males alone nor females alone can fulfill their natural function as sexual beings. To try to use them differently is just as unnatural today as it was two thousand years ago. The more "enlightened" view of the authors is that any relationship based on love and mutuality must be noble. I humbly disagree with their assertion. Love and mutuality are important, but they do not justify a homosexual relationship any more than they justify an adulterous relationship.

The second reason the authors denounced the preacher who cited Paul on natural and unnatural sexual behavior is that Paul lists many other sins after this one. They ask rhetorically, "If I am to conclude that same-sex relationships are somehow disallowed by God, then why am I not as intent on rooting out these other, apparently equally dangerous human traits?" While I cannot speak for the man they are denouncing, I can speak for myself. In my forty years of preaching, I have preached many more sermons on gossip, lying, stealing, and disobeying parents than I have on same-sex relationships. In my sixty years of life, I have heard many more sermons on sins later in Paul's list than on homosexuality. The authors assume that if we preach on a sin, we will automatically exclude all who have ever committed those sins from our assemblies and that our churches will be empty. On the contrary, the reason for preaching about sin and its remedy is to fill our churches with sinners transformed by the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Finally, the authors say that the primary emphasis of the Bible is on justice among the nations, proper use of money, and proper love of neighbor rather than proper sexual relationships. Certainly I agree that the Bible has more concerns than proper sexual relationships, but that is not the same as saying that it has no concern with proper sexual relationships. Furthermore, I am not certain that one sermon is evidence that a preacher has misplaced the emphasis in God's word. My responsibility as a preacher is to preach the whole counsel of God, not just part of it.

I received an electronic version of this book from Westminster John Knox Press for review purposes. I give the book a rating of one out of five.

Reading and Listening

Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.
-- Rev 1:3 NIV

The first of seven blessings in Revelation is directed to two sets of people. First, the blessing is for the person who reads the words of this prophecy aloud to others. Reading in ancient times was almost always done aloud. Manuscripts were rare, and there were almost always those who would like to hear what was written. Today, Bibles are common, but still many don’t know what is written between the covers. It would still be good today if those who read the Scriptures always did so with the intent of sharing what they read with others. The one who reads and shares the message of Revelation is blessed in his deed.

Second, the blessing is for those who hear and “take to heart” what is written. While certainly taking the message to heart is important, this translation does not capture fully the response required for blessing. The ones who are fully blessed hold on to what they hear; that is, they remember it. They do even more. They are also moved to obey its exhortations, commands, and warnings. The blessed one who hears Revelation says with the Psalmist,

I have hidden your word in my heart
that I might not sin against you.
-- Psalm 119:11 NIV

Do you read Revelation with intent to share? Do you listen to its words intending to remember and obey them? If so, you will be blessed.