Well, you can take comfort that you were not alone in getting sidetracked by that… I actually started blanking out during most of the sermon because I couldn’t receive the message anymore.

I’m starting to have quite some trouble myself with this issue. And I think it comes down to a fundamental effect of Protestantism (as opposed to something like Catholicism or Judaism). In our willingness to free the texts from an elite system and place everyone on a level playing field, we’ve also undercut the benefits of those long-established, traditional systems such as their pedagogy and authority. This “every man for himself” Protestantism, I think, was a great idea, but it has just not cut it.

Plato spoke of nations being ruled by “Philosopher kings” and I’ve started thinking that since Protestantism is in such a unique position of being able to set up new systems, maybe that system should be churches and faith ruled by “Scholar shepherds.”

I think that anyone with a reasonable level of academic biblical knowledge will find themselves critiquing sermons without necessarily intending to. Most ministers who work as chaplains etc and find themselves sitting in pews on Sundays comment that this is difficult. I think the best way of dealing with an exegetical disagreement is either to talk to the preacher about it (but not as you leave the church) or to keep it to yourself, rather than sharing your disagreement with members of the congregation at large. The last will undermine the preacher and quite likely make you an enemy.

Many preachers really appreciate the opportunity to wrestle with Scripture with someone who is also theologically trained, as long as the approach is “I was interested with what you did with the text the other day. I don’t quite see it like that…” rather than “you know, your exegesis on Sunday really sucked!”

It’s also nice to cut the minister a bit of slack if her/his exegesis usually aligns pretty much with yours. There are weeks when the first time you get to look at Sunday’s sermon is on Saturday night and with that kind of preparation, a series of vaguely coherent comments on ideas brought up by the text is often the best you can hope for.

Thankfully, Judy, this is not someone I have to listen to every Sunday. It actually made me even more grateful for the regular preachers I listen to

Thanks for sharing, slaveofone. I like your idea of “scholar shepherds.”

I allow myself some margin of error on this one. Having been schooled in proper theological method and exegesis I often find myself doing the same thing … or being bored out of my mind.

I think it’s perfectly fine, if not healthy, to analyze a sermon the way you do. But I think you pointed out the possible pitfall: ruining it for others.

While I may sit quietly and contemplate (nit pick) a sermon I remind myself that the Spirit may be using it to really reach into a person’s heart … regardless of the poor exegesis. I really believe that Christ was right when He said (I forget the reference) that He will take the foolish things of this world and use them to shame the wise.

I think God specializes in using flawed vessels, if not flawed methods, to accomplish His goal. His goal being, at least in some way, to include us in His divine plan.

Thanks for your thoughts, Ben. By the way, it was Paul who said it: 1 Corinthians 1:27.

On the heels of what Ben said…

Let’s just make sure we understand that “foolish things” or “flawed methods” speaks about stuff like nonviolent self-sacrafice as opposed to violent miltaristic takeover, treating your enemy with love and dignity despite the fact that they deserve otherwise, or giving to others because of their need instead of hording to yourself because of your want.

Let us not go down the path of thought that sees “foolish things” or “flawed methods” as something entirely other like ignorance, poor scholarship, or bad art. Yeshua was a flawed vessel not because he messed up his prophecies, but because he gave them mostly to fishermen, tax collectors, and women instead of kings and aristrocracy. Peter was a flawed vessel because he supported the idea that the covenant and kingdom of YHWH could come to uncircumsized, unclean gentiles apart from Torah. But someone who stinks in what they’re doing isn’t going to be made a sweet perfume by YHWH to anyone–they’re just going to stink.

Also a good point, slaveofone. We should be careful not to equate the foolishness that Paul is speaking of with intellectual carelessness. It is rather the incomprehensibility of a crucified Messiah (verse 23) that reeks of foolishness to the nations (ἔθνεσιν) and is a scandal (σκάνδαλον) to the Jews (Ἰουδαίοις). The wisdom of God is an enigmatic power in weakness.

I thought a bit about that too … he didn’t do the “Miracle of Sharing” interpretation of that story, but he was kind of getting in that neighborhood. I have to admit though, there was something about the whole setup that bothered me that I couldn’t quite put my finger on. I mean having him come in the middle of our study of Moses (and after Jeremy struggled through that Numbers passage!) and deliver a sermon about his own project picking a Bible passage to suit it. It seemed more appropriate for a Salt & Light type of thing. If I wanted to be scholarly about it maybe it has something to do with the proper relationship between teaching the Word and doing good works. But, I don’t know, maybe I’d feel differently if I knew him when he was attending PMC, and so felt like less of an intrusion.

Overall though, like you I don’t really want to make a fuss about it.