There are many ways to preach—exegetically, “expositorally,” or topically. Today I want to introduce you men—and you, too, Ms. Simms—to another effective method. One of my former students, who has used this approach with great success, affectionately calls it the Professor Roberts Ramble Through the Bible. I like to call it the onion peel approach in reverse.
Here’s how it works. Pick a subject. Maybe it will be Elijah or part of a series of sermons on a minor prophet or on the judges of Israel. Then choose the text. Let’s assume you are preaching a series of sermons on Elijah and this particular Sunday you are going to deal with the section about the widow and her son.
Now draw a circle. That is where you place the text—the inner circle of your sermon. Read it. Then draw another circle. In that one, jot down all the Bible passages that might relate to the first circle. At this point, you must pay particular attention to the transitions. Once you get past the first few circles—and as you plan, continue to diagram—logical transitions will become unnecessary.
Use your voice to connect the passages. Or, tell your parishioners (who are busy taking notes per your instructions) to mark the original text and turn to passages in Genesis or Matthew or Ephesians. They will be so busy looking up Bible passages and writing down references that any logical slip-ups will be overlooked. Your congregation will probably think the better of you for it, anyway. What a command of Scripture it will show to keep them hopping from book to book, from cover to cover.
Try to sum up the sermon with a passage like John 3:16. But don’t put any schmaltz in your voice. By this time, a quiet, straightforward tone will serve to contrast with bombast that you should have used before. Then, if you think it necessary—and after a suitable pause—return to the original text.
What you have, then (to mix my metaphors) is a picture frame sermon. Or, think of the text as the yard and the cross-references as its fence.
When you have finished you will have given a good lesson in the use of a concordance and made sure that any fences sitters know that they should make a positive decision.
Any questions? Good. Tomorrow we’ll cover the vocal control needed in preaching. I will give you some exercises to perfect your pear-shaped tones. I expect diligent practice. See you then. Class dismissed.
EUTYCHUS IX
God and Mammon
As a political scientist, a student of political economy, and a Christian, I found Ronald H. Nash’s article “The Economics of Justice: A Conservative’s View” (March 23) to be most thought-provoking. Unfortunately, Dr. Nash’s blind faith in the virtues of the market would seem to reflect upon his own “poor grasp of economics.”
In its ideal form the market might indeed be an “amoral” system of resource allocation. However, the ideal or perfect market has never existed. Instead, the market is beset by a host of defects, not the least of which are “externalities” which threaten the common good. Individuals seeking to enrich themselves frequently, though unintentionally, harm others. Pollution is but one specific externality that results from the operation of a supposedly amoral market. Certainly this is a subtle yet very real form of injustice.
While the market does provide a valuable mechanism for performing certain essential economic tasks, it also has profound limitations which threaten the common good. The resulting injustices can only be remedied by the intervention into the market of a strong and forward-looking state. It is the Christian’s responsibility to encourage and assist the state to fulfill its God-given mandate as “an agent of justice” (Romans 13:4).
DEAN C. CURRY
Claremont, Calif.
Dr. Nash’s article on “The Economics of Justice” was superbly written. I wish I could have said it as well as he did. It should be reprinted and made available as widely as possible. J. D. Douglas’s piece on F. B. Meyer reminded me that the finest evangelicals have also been the exponents advocating concern and service to orphans, streetwalkers, and unmarried mothers.
HAROLD LINDSELL
Wheaton, Ill.
Ronald Nash’s article is much more than just a conservative’s view. It is in fact the correct view—biblically, economically, politically, socially, and judicially. Any other view, while perhaps superficially beneficial, contributes to the deterioration of the foundations of the basic institutions and even humanity itself.
JOHN L. SCHWAB
Cook, Wash.
Nash’s statement that “economics is a value-free discipline” must be examined, as it is at present being questioned in many philosophical circles. Is there such a thing as a value-free, neutral discipline?
BILL ZIMMERMAN
Berkeley, Calif.
At long last, I have seen a clear-cut statement supporting the spiritual and national heritage of the U.S. Why must we be subjected to an almost unbroken barrage of advice from “evangelicals” who think that the theological liberals have all the social and economic answers? Don’t they know it’s impossible to draw a true conclusion from false premises?
LLOYD F. DEAN
Professor of Philosophy
Rhode Island Junior College
Warwick, R.I.
I would like to mention one major error in Nash’s logic: his belief that man would take care of his suffering brother. This is without foundation and contrary to all we hear and see about fallen mankind. Nash presupposes that man is good and charitable. This presupposition is no more than a pipe dream of conservative idealism.
ROBERT W. GRAVES
Roswell Assembly
Roswell, Ga.
While hoping to get a truly thought-provoking and original treatment of a politically conservative Christian’s approach to the faith, what I read was a rehash of every conservative cliché about liberals I have ever encountered. Nash’s arguments are so full of unquestioned assumptions and unproved statements of fact that no critical person could possibly take his conclusions seriously.
I would welcome a sensitive, thought-provoking article from the conservative point of view, but sadly, I am still waiting.
CHRIS GRAPENTINE
Benton Harbor, Mich.
Mr. Nash’s apology is devoid of value. He offers no method for “distributive justice,” and apparently feels the Good Samaritan was “counterproductive.” In church, I have to fight Nash’s arguments in order to defend simple communion offerings and food baskets for the needy.
WILLIAM A. COONFIELD
Northridge, Calif.
A typographic error in my article is bound to confuse many readers. It occurs on page 28, right column, three lines from the top, where the words “confusion of” are omitted. The correct sentence should read: “The socialist attempt to apply moral principles to economic activities leads to a confusion of moral and economic desert.”
RONALD NASH
Western Kentucky University
Bowling Green, Ky.
Still Necessary
Thank you for the articles on Francis Schaeffer (March 23 and April 6). Whatever may be the criticisms of his argumentation, use of sources, and apologetic position, we should be grateful for his attempt to analyze, from a biblical perspective, so many areas of culture over so many centuries.
The difficulty and the hazards of such a task and the limitations of his efforts should not blind us to the need to do this kind of work. Certainly there can be a mutually supportive relationship between the scholar who is meticulous in details and the prophet whose vision grasps the sweep of broad movements.
JOHN E. BRUECKMANN
Wayne, Pa.
Rediscovering Our Roots
Thanks ever so much for John R. W. Stott’s article “Transcendence: Now a Secular Quest” (Cornerstone, March 23). I especially appreciate his insistence upon a reverent celebration of the Eucharist as a necessary factor in restoring transcendent reality to public worship.
Unfortunately, the desire to reach the unchurched has often resulted in well-intentioned but mistaken “overkill” in relieving the church’s liturgy of past accretions and embellishments, with both Christian and nonbeliever seeking encounter with mystery through mediums other than worship.
As an Anglo-Catholic, I would opt for a still more “objective” explanation of the Real Presence, but I am tickled to see the centrality of the Eucharist proclaimed in a basically Protestant evangelical journal. Keep up the work in your corner of the vineyard—it’s nice to see that evangelicals are rediscovering their roots prior to 1517!
HENRY B. SHIRLEY
Touched a Nerve
I was just reading “Purging the Poisoned Well Within,” by Nathan Hatch, in the March 2 issue. It was tremendous.
The author has touched the nerve of desperate need in our land. We need the kind of preaching about sin, the holiness of God that will in turn bring people to a genuine, adoring, humble faith, not a pseudo, counterfeit faith that will not stand up under stress.
WILLIAM E. ALLEN
First Alliance Church
Mansfield, Ohio
Yellow Journalism
I am writing about your recent article, “West Coast Bible Smugglers: Less Cloak and More Dagger” (News, March 2). I must say that I was appalled at such yellow journalism. If, as you say, leaders of other Christian organizations think the conflict might be harmful to all Christian work, why have you made such a major contribution to spreading the poison?
REV. E. W. KARGER, JR.
Waco, Tex.
I am amazed that you have allowed your magazine to stoop to publish accusations, innuendoes, and hearsay gossip. It is apparent that you were not aware of the great spiritual issues that were involved. If you were, then you are an accessory to the fact.
D. M. KIMPTON
Bankstown, New South Wales
Australia
You have done the church a service by publishing “West Coast Bible Smugglers: Less Cloak and More Dagger.” Where did the $250,000 litigation money come from, if not from Christians who in simple faith believed they were helping to print Bibles for delivery to communist countries?
But there are reliable agencies and channels for serving Christians in the Soviet Union and the socialist world. Some are denominational. Keston College (formerly Centre for the Study of Religion and Communism), Heathfield Road, Keston, Kent, England BR2 6BA, is one place to obtain unbiased and up-to-date information.
PETER J. DYCK
Mennonite Central Committee
Akron, Pa.
I read your article on “West Coast Bible Smugglers,” and although I find it very enlightening, I have had more than my share of problems because of it. Ever since it was published, I have had to restate the position of our mission in detail to each pastor I meet with.… Only after an hour or so of conversation am I able to begin to explain that there are many good, upstanding organizations doing this work and not going to court against each other. I hope people will understand that these are only two parts of a much larger ministry for the brothers and sisters in Christ behind the Iron Curtain.
EDDIE R. LOFTON
Evangelism to Communist Lands
Glendale, Calif.
