To avoid legalism in sermon application, try to give three possible alternatives. That's from Luke Tattersall who is trying to make me a better preacher.
I'm not following you here Izaac. Kutz's question is mine.
David Cook speaks of the necessary application (where the application is the same for everyone), the possible application (where it is for some)and the impossible application (what the text says you can't do).
I wouldn't presume to speak on behalf of Luke, but here's my understanding.
Firstly, we all tend towards a legalistic view of relationship with God so it's a hard beast to tame.
Secondly let me clarify in what I'm about to say that I'm making a distinction between a theological application and what I'm calling a "practical application". This is really misleading as theology is inherently practical, but I'll use these categories regardless.
With David Cook, the necessary application is often a theological one e.g. We can no longer think this way/have this understanding, whereas the possible application is more at a practical level e.g this makes me act this way as an employee, or as a father etc.
So when the application we're talking about is at this practical level, if you only give one option people take that one thing they now 'have to do' and run with it. If every sermon ends with a single application, each week people know they'll leave with their 'thing to do'. But giving three options or three examples still has the benefit of anchoring the theology in the everyday, but decreases the temptation for the hearer to be looking for their individual action they must do.
With David Cook, the necessary application is often a theological one e.g. We can no longer think this way/have this understanding, whereas the possible application is more at a practical level e.g this makes me act this way as an employee, or as a father etc.
I don't think this is what David says.
All 3 types of applications are "practical", to use your word.
To use his words, "the 'necessary application' shows how the passage must apply without exception, to everyone at all times."
To use one of his examples from Eph 5:15-21
Necessary Application: Be filled with the spirit by involvement in active encouragement, expressing joy and thanksgiving and submission to one another.
Possible Application: I will seek ways of expressing encouragement, reasons for thanksgiving, and to be creative in submission within Christ's body today.
Impossible Application: To be filled with the holy spirit is an experience that occurs apart from active encouragement, thankful, joyous, submissive service. The filling of the Spirit is an ethereal and abstract experience without practical implications with how I relate top others.
(I've taken this from his chapter "A method of preparation" in the Christian Focus publication How to Speak at Special Events
Point taken. The language of 'practical application' is unhelpful (which unfortunately I knew before typing it, but went ahead anyway). Also I just went from memory rather than going to the book from which you quote. Which funnily enough I own two copies of.
However, doesn't the example you quote kind of prove my point regarding Cook's applications? That is, as soon as you give a real life example of what it means to express encouragement (thank the church bulletin organiser) or give reasons for thanksgiving (for the rain) you are no longer in the neccessary application but the possible. in other words, though "practical", the general nature of the necessary application means it leans towards the understanding/principle side of practical application.
Now I'm beginning to forget what the original post was on, but if I can try and put it all together... The idea from my post of multiple application examples fits in with David Cook's helpful method at the "possible application" level. There are a number of way to communicate that this is a possible application; You could say "One possible application is...". Another method is to give multiple application examples, which communicates there is more than one way to change as a result of this teaching.
To only give one application could possibly have the affect of encouraging individuals towards a legalistic sense of Christianity because they are looking for the "one thing to do different each week" rather than thinking hard on the broader implications of Christian truth. Or to use David Cook's method, to only give one application, people might take away a possible application as a necessary one.
Though maybe I'm confusing things further.
Is this a fair assessment of Cook's application method or have I misunderstood?
But any application (whether it be a 1 point applic. or many points) will sound like legalism unless it is clear that the indicative (i.e. what God has done) has come before the imperative (i.e. what we can now do because of what God has done).
I've heard Luke preach and think he is an excellent applier of scripture so you'll be blessed with his input.
Hey Zac, I'm slow and don't get it, so here's an example and you can tell me what you think of it.
Necessary application: Don't lie.
From my perspective, this is (a) practical and (b) whether it is legalistically applied or not has nothing to do with whether you give multiple other applications at the same time.
I'm more with Al in saying that if the theological indicatives have been rightly connected to the imperatives then you're on the right track.
I sometimes suspect that legalism is the result as much of how we do the 'theology' bit of the sermon just as much as how we do the application bit.
Hey Zac,
ReplyDeleteDo you know why Luke thinks that avoids legalism?
I'm not following you here Izaac. Kutz's question is mine.
ReplyDeleteDavid Cook speaks of the necessary application (where the application is the same for everyone), the possible application (where it is for some)and the impossible application (what the text says you can't do).
I think that's helpful.
I wouldn't presume to speak on behalf of Luke, but here's my understanding.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, we all tend towards a legalistic view of relationship with God so it's a hard beast to tame.
Secondly let me clarify in what I'm about to say that I'm making a distinction between a theological application and what I'm calling a "practical application". This is really misleading as theology is inherently practical, but I'll use these categories regardless.
With David Cook, the necessary application is often a theological one e.g. We can no longer think this way/have this understanding, whereas the possible application is more at a practical level e.g this makes me act this way as an employee, or as a father etc.
So when the application we're talking about is at this practical level, if you only give one option people take that one thing they now 'have to do' and run with it. If every sermon ends with a single application, each week people know they'll leave with their 'thing to do'. But giving three options or three examples still has the benefit of anchoring the theology in the everyday, but decreases the temptation for the hearer to be looking for their individual action they must do.
Does this make sense? Do you disagree?
With David Cook, the necessary application is often a theological one e.g. We can no longer think this way/have this understanding, whereas the possible application is more at a practical level e.g this makes me act this way as an employee, or as a father etc.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is what David says.
All 3 types of applications are "practical", to use your word.
To use his words, "the 'necessary application' shows how the passage must apply without exception, to everyone at all times."
To use one of his examples from Eph 5:15-21
Necessary Application: Be filled with the spirit by involvement in active encouragement, expressing joy and thanksgiving and submission to one another.
Possible Application: I will seek ways of expressing encouragement, reasons for thanksgiving, and to be creative in submission within Christ's body today.
Impossible Application: To be filled with the holy spirit is an experience that occurs apart from active encouragement, thankful, joyous, submissive service. The filling of the Spirit is an ethereal and abstract experience without practical implications with how I relate top others.
(I've taken this from his chapter "A method of preparation" in the Christian Focus publication How to Speak at Special Events
Thanks Al,
ReplyDeletePoint taken. The language of 'practical application' is unhelpful (which unfortunately I knew before typing it, but went ahead anyway). Also I just went from memory rather than going to the book from which you quote. Which funnily enough I own two copies of.
However, doesn't the example you quote kind of prove my point regarding Cook's applications? That is, as soon as you give a real life example of what it means to express encouragement (thank the church bulletin organiser) or give reasons for thanksgiving (for the rain) you are no longer in the neccessary application but the possible. in other words, though "practical", the general nature of the necessary application means it leans towards the understanding/principle side of practical application.
Now I'm beginning to forget what the original post was on, but if I can try and put it all together...
The idea from my post of multiple application examples fits in with David Cook's helpful method at the "possible application" level. There are a number of way to communicate that this is a possible application;
You could say "One possible application is...". Another method is to give multiple application examples, which communicates there is more than one way to change as a result of this teaching.
To only give one application could possibly have the affect of encouraging individuals towards a legalistic sense of Christianity because they are looking for the "one thing to do different each week" rather than thinking hard on the broader implications of Christian truth. Or to use David Cook's method, to only give one application, people might take away a possible application as a necessary one.
Though maybe I'm confusing things further.
Is this a fair assessment of Cook's application method or have I misunderstood?
I think we're on the same page here Izaac.
ReplyDeleteBut any application (whether it be a 1 point applic. or many points) will sound like legalism unless it is clear that the indicative (i.e. what God has done) has come before the imperative (i.e. what we can now do because of what God has done).
I've heard Luke preach and think he is an excellent applier of scripture so you'll be blessed with his input.
Hmmm...
ReplyDeleteHey Zac, I'm slow and don't get it, so here's an example and you can tell me what you think of it.
Necessary application: Don't lie.
From my perspective, this is (a) practical and (b) whether it is legalistically applied or not has nothing to do with whether you give multiple other applications at the same time.
I'm more with Al in saying that if the theological indicatives have been rightly connected to the imperatives then you're on the right track.
I sometimes suspect that legalism is the result as much of how we do the 'theology' bit of the sermon just as much as how we do the application bit.
I can't argue with your logic.
ReplyDeleteSome immediate responses come to mind, but I don't want to argue for a position that in probability we're all in agreement on.