I get a little cynical sometimes, and I think that application-based preaching is just sort of value-added preaching. Like “Well, here’s another good thing to add to your life” and there will be two or three ways this could apply to you, you know, if you’re having issues with this in your life or if this happens to present itself. Rather than saying, “Look we’re these people and this is our story and this is what we’re in the midst of and this is what we’re called to, so what does this mean for us? That’s a different conclusion to draw. It’s a different set of hermeneutical questions to ask as well.
Advertisement
I was trained in asking the hermeneutical questions: what was the original context, who is my audience, and how can I connect my audience to this original context of meaning? It’s something different to suggest that we begin with saying: “If what’s true in this passage, this story, this reality, that we’re preaching, what does that do to us, what’s that mean for us, what are the implications of that?”
Preaching: That kind of preaching almost necessitates a pastor who spends a long time with a congregation as opposed to a short-term kind of a pastoral ministry.
Pagitt: In situations where it’s normative for the person to come in and out and basically function like a stranger in the lives of people -- a familiar person, but very deep down not knowing these people who they are, what’s going on, where they’re going, understanding the common issues -- I don’t know how someone would do it. And so I wonder if that’s one of the reasons why forms of preaching that allow for appropriate stranger-to-stranger communication is more common in preaching. It’s because most people’s experience is, “I am a stranger to these people, they’re a stranger to me; what am I supposed to do about that?”
I was talking with a couple of the folks at our church that are in seminary and we were talking about what pastors spend their time doing. A number of people at different seminaries all said -- and I was surprised this was the case actually, in this day in age -- they were still encouraged to consider spending half of their work week time, so 20 hours a week, in preparation for their sermon on Sunday. That’s just shocking to me. I mean if part of that preparation was being involved in the lives of these people for whom this message you’re going to deliver is so important, then boy, yeah, that would make all the sense in the world. But if it’s crafting the introduction of the text for the people or refining your understanding of the nuance of it, it just seems like we’re fed an equation that doesn’t make much sense to me.