Theology Is for Preaching: Biblical Foundations, Method, and Practice

By Lexham Press

Is it right to "just preach the text"?

Why do we preach and do theology? How do we relate them? And how do they relate to God's word?

Theology Is for Preaching helps preachers with theology and theologians with preaching. Though diverse in contexts and disciplines, the contributors share a commitment to equipping the saints to "rightly handle the word of truth." Through essays on foundations, methods, employing theology for preaching, and preaching for theology, this volume will equip preachers and theologians to engage deeply with the text of the Bible and communicate its meaning with clarity.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lexham Press
• Release date: Mar 10, 2021
• ISBN: 9781683594604

Book preview

Cover.png

THEOLOGY IS for PREACHING

Biblical Foundations, Method, and Practice

CHASE R. KUHN & PAUL GRIMMOND, EDITORS

STUDIES IN HISTORICAL AND SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

Copyright

Theology Is for Preaching: Biblical Foundations, Method, and Practice

Studies in Historical and Systematic Theology

Copyright 2021 Chase R. Kuhn & Paul Grimmond

Lexham Press, 1313 Commercial St., Bellingham, WA 98225

LexhamPress.com

You may use brief quotations from this resource in presentations, articles, and books. For all other uses, please write Lexham Press for permission. Email us at [e-mail].

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are the author’s own translation or are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Print ISBN 9781683594598

Digital ISBN 978-1683594604

Library of Congress Control Number 2020951822

Lexham Editorial: Todd Hains, Jake Raabe, Erin Mangum, Jessi Strong

Cover Design: Brittany Schrock

PVI

For our students

past, present, & future

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved,

a worker who has no need to be ashamed,

rightly handling the word of truth."

2 Timothy 2:15 ESV

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

Preface

Chase R. Kuhn and Paul Grimmond

Abbreviations

Part 1: Foundations

1.Theology for Preaching, Preaching for Theology

Chase R. Kuhn

2.The Declarative God: Toward a Theological Description of Preaching

Mark D. Thompson

3.Preaching: Toward Lexical Clarity for Better Practice

Claire S. Smith

4.Preaching and Revelation: Is the Sermon the Word of God?

Timothy Ward

5.Who Can Tell? Preaching, Giftedness, and Commissioning

Christopher Ash

Part 2: Methodology

6.Hermeneutics and Preaching: Theological Interpretation and the Preaching Task

David I. Starling

7.To Them, for Us: The Bible’s Continuing Relevance

Paul R. House

8.Old Testament Challenges: Christocentric or Christotelic Sermons?

Daniel Y. Wu

9.New Testament Clarity: The Presence of Christ in the Proclamation of the Word

Peter Orr

10.The Centrality of the Cross in Proclamation

Will N. Timmins

11.Expository Preaching in Historical Context: A Rich and Inspiring Resource

Peter Adam

12.The Preacher as Person: Personality and Relationships in the Pulpit

Graham Beynon

Part 3: Theology for Preaching

13.Salvation by Preaching Alone? The Sermon in Soteriology

Edward Loane

14.Sanctified by Word & Spirit: A Theology of Application

Andrew M. Leslie

15.Now is the Time to Preach: Preaching in Eschatological Context

Peter F. Jensen

16.The Priority of Proclamation: Preaching in a Liturgical Context

David G. Peterson

Part 4: Preaching for Theology

17.Theological Formation Through the Preached Word: A Biblical-Theological Account

Simon Gillham

18.The People Who Listen: The Corporate Task of Hearing God’s Word

Jane Tooher

19.Letting the Word Do the Work: A Constructive Account of Expositional Preaching

Paul Grimmond

Part 5: Theology Preached

20.Listening Before Speaking—Jeremiah 23:16–32

Simon Manchester

21.Meeting Jesus: Luke 5:1–11

Phillip D. Jensen

Contributors

Subject Index

Scripture Index

What is the relationship between preaching and theology? I would put it like this, that the preacher must have a grasp, and a good grasp, of the whole biblical message, which is of course a unity. In other words the preacher should be well versed in biblical theology which in turn leads on to a systematic theology. To me there is nothing more important in a preacher than that he should have a systematic theology, that he should know it and be well grounded in it. This systematic theology, this body of truth which is derived from the Scripture, should always be present as a background and as a controlling influence in his preaching. Each message, which arises out of a particular text or statement of the Scripture, must always be a part or an aspect of this total body of truth. It is never something in isolation, never something separate or apart. The doctrine in a particular text, we must always remember, is a part of this greater whole—the Truth or the Faith.

D. MARTYN LLOYD-JONES

Preaching & Preachers

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), 66.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to our colleagues at Moore College for the stimulating conversations we have enjoyed about the nature of preaching. We are also grateful to the Principal, Dr. Mark Thompson, for his support of a theologically-rich environment at the College committed to preaching and teaching God’s word. Furthermore, we wish to thank the authors of the volume: friends in Australia and elsewhere in the world who share a deep concern for the word of God being preached for the edification of the church and the salvation of sinners.

We also wish to thank the team at Lexham Press who have been very helpful to us as editors. In particular, Todd Hains has been a careful guide in bringing the work to completion. We appreciate their support for the book and their ongoing commitment to publishing theologically-rich resources. In addition to the team at Lexham, we are grateful to Susanna Baldwin for providing the indexes.

Our wives and children have been a great support to us during this project. They have demonstrated wonderful patience with us. But they have contributed more to this project than would immediately be recognizable, for they are our most honest critics and loving supporters.

Finally, we appreciate our students—both past and present—who continue to model a deep desire to grasp sound doctrine and teach it skillfully in preaching. They are an ongoing encouragement to us, and it is to them that this volume is dedicated.

PREFACE

Chase R. Kuhn and Paul Grimmond

What is the gospel? This question is as important as any other for preachers, particularly preachers who consider themselves evangelical. For good or ill, Evangelicals know that their job is to preach the gospel and adherence to the gospel is our most fundamental test of orthodoxy. The gospel is a theological grid that controls everything from our preparation to our assessment of good preaching. But when we speak of the gospel, we are not speaking just of one passage. There are a number of clear summaries of the gospel (e.g., Titus 2:11–14; John 3:16; Gal 2:20; 1 Cor 15:3–8) but none of these are comprehensive. Turning only to one place to define the gospel leaves one’s understanding overinflated in one area and significantly underdeveloped in others. This is seen not least in the ways that in some contexts every sermon, whether from the Old Testament or the New Testament, must be about penal substitution. Penal substitution is a wonderful part of the good news of the gospel, but it does not comprise the whole truth. Our understanding of the gospel is a compilation of ideas held together as a theology that comes from across the Bible. When we preach, we come to every text with a theology, and each text refines our theology as we carefully listen to the word.

This volume was prompted by our engagement with a number of pastors about the significance that theology has for their preaching. Many, though not all, agree that theology is important, but less seem clear about why it is important and how it actually impacts the preaching task. This uncertainty was accompanied by an underdeveloped theology of preaching. We scoured the library shelves and book markets to discover better resources for a theology of preaching but found little that served a reformed evangelical constituency. So, we made plans to engage the issue first within our own network as the theme of the Moore College School of Biblical Theology in 2019. But, there were other voices that we wanted to include, likeminded men and women from around Australia, the UK, and the US, many of whom are involved with the John Chapman Preaching Initiative, the Proclamation Trust, and the Simeon Trust (respectively) to help with the project. The intention of this volume is to provide a resource to pastors and students that sets out the theological foundations of preaching, so that we might be more faithful practitioners.

It is this interaction of theology and preaching that is the focus of this volume. In fact, in one sense this volume could be considered a theology of preaching. But it is more than simply telling about preaching. It also shows how doctrine requires and shapes up proclamation, demonstrating that preaching without theology is irresponsible. Of course, it is also incomplete; the intention of preaching is a clearer and more faithful theology.¹ So, the overarching thesis of the book is that preaching and theology are mutually informed. This thesis is supported by a few recurring themes.

First, faithful preaching requires both biblical and systematic theology. In fact, it is demonstrated that these two disciplines are not competing, but complementary modes of understanding truth. Both must be engaged in order to rightly handle the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15). That is to say that understanding a passage requires placing a text in its canonical context (biblical theology), as well as understanding the teaching of a passage in the broader doctrinal context of the canon (systematic theology).

Second, preaching is located within the plans and purposes of God for his world. God himself is a God who declares truth, and we do so after him. This exercise is not vacuous, nor merely tentative, but it is effectual according to the purposes that God has ordained (Isa 55:10–11). So, preaching is seen as an instrument of salvation (Rom 10:14–17). It is also recognized as a crucial agent for the edification of God’s people, both for sanctification and maturation. As preaching is located theologically, the task is seen to be indispensable to God’s people.

Third, because God’s word is the substance of what is preached, there is an appropriate mode of delivery in proclamation. As the text is seen in its biblical and theological context, constraints are appropriately identified for practice. Method matters because this word is unlike any other, it is holy. So, who can preach and how the word is communicated are not insignificant matters. While this volume is not intended in the first instance to be a how to manual, there will be some clear implications for preaching method. In fact, one section of the volume is dedicated to various methodological considerations, even if in theoretical form. The aim is that methodology will flow from theology.

Finally, it is the evangel that we preach, and so there is an appropriately Christological focus to proclamation. This is a theological conviction that emerges through the identification of Christ as the fulfillment of all of God’s promises. But how sermons are to be appropriately evangelical is not always simple. In fact, predictability in sermons—traveling well-worn paths to Jesus—is often the result of theology done poorly. But theology itself is not the enemy. In fact, we hope that readers discover that theology done properly—that is, theologically careful reading of Scripture—is the answer. The more aware we are of our theological commitments—even our commitments to the text of Scripture as God’s word—the richer our reading of Scripture will be. The fruit of this theology we hope will be evermore faithful and engaging proclamation of the gospel through the very words of God delivered in Scripture.

ABBREVIATIONS

Part 1

FOUNDATIONS

1

THEOLOGY FOR PREACHING, PREACHING FOR THEOLOGY

Chase R. Kuhn

There appears to be a growing hesitancy towards the discipline of systematic theology amongst some evangelical leaders.¹ There is a concern that theological systems pollute a pure reading of the Bible, so there is no place for theology in the pulpit. Instead it is the exposition of the text in its context that drives the sermon, not how the truth of that text might agree or disagree with other texts. This sentiment wishes to guard the reading and preaching of the word from theological imposition, thus maintaining the integrity of the biblical witness. As well-intentioned as this desire to protect the purity of scriptural reading may be, it is misguided as it fails to recognize the inherently theological character of Scripture and the theological nature of preaching.

In this chapter, it will be argued that preaching in its most biblically faithful form is deliberately theological.² In order to support this thesis, we will consider a number of facets of the nexus of theology and preaching. First, we will explore some preliminary matters regarding the nature of the church, authority, and epistemology. Second, we will articulate the validity of systematic theology as a discipline. Third, we will consider the relationship of theology and the Bible, in particular taking notice of the complementary natures of biblical and systematic theology. Fourth, we will see Paul’s model for Timothy’s ministry as exemplary of the theology-preaching nexus. Finally, we will conclude with a reflection on the ways that theology and preaching are mutually informed.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS: PREACHING, READING, AND AUTHORITY

Preaching is not exclusively a church activity, but it is central to the church’s life together. The activities of the church are grounded in theological convictions and each activity declares those convictions about the God who has acted to gather the church.³ The declaration of truth—whether explicitly in word or implicitly in form—is grounded in an a priori commitment to doctrine, and will be a demonstration of that theology in both its message and its mode.

Preaching is a task founded upon a deep commitment to the belief that God has spoken and continues to speak to his people through the Scriptures. This commitment recognizes the necessity of the word for the church’s ontology and ongoing life together. Thus, the word has the place of primacy in the church as its supreme authority. Yet, even where the authority of the word is recognized in the church, there is not consensus concerning the nature of authority and epistemology with relation to the preaching task. There are many detailed accounts of the history of these challenges, so what follows will only be a brief telling of several positions affecting churches today.⁴

The Protestant reading and proclamation of Scripture, according to the principle sola Scriptura, is one that recognizes the supreme, but not exclusive, authority of Scripture.⁵ The Reformers, with the early church fathers, appreciated the value of theological tradition, as the Scriptures themselves are intrinsically traditional. This esteem of tradition did not displace the primacy of Scripture, but rather esteemed tradition because of the highest regard for Scripture. The Roman Catholic church has overstated the value of tradition (non-written), taking it to be of equal authority with Scripture, rather than a part of the recursive interpretive process of engaging with Scripture.⁶

Since the Reformation there have been some that wished to reject tradition all together.⁷ In the sixteenth century it was the Anabaptists. After the Enlightenment, however, the rejection grew as reason became the ultimate arbiter of truth. This left interpretation of the text to the individual, and freedom from tradition became a virtue. Webster attributed this anti-intellectualism to Cartesian philosophy, describing such thinking as traditionless, unshaped awareness, encountering ‘no existing spiritual world’, and always beginning afresh.⁸

Much of the rejection of tradition from within evangelicalism has derived from a misconception of the reformed principle of sola Scriptura, believing this principle to mean nothing but the Bible. However, this was never what the Reformers intended in their concept and methodology.⁹ Nonetheless, we can see evidence of at least two approaches to the Bible that have come from misconceptions of the Reformers’ teaching. First, the solo Scriptura approach that seeks to read the Bible as if it had never been read by any other before. This autonomous reading is more akin to nuda Scriptura. Christopher Hall has astutely noted: The ideal of the autonomous interpreter can more easily be laid at the steps of the Enlightenment than the Reformation.¹⁰ He continues, Have Christians at any time and in any place ever read the Scripture in a vacuum, hermetically sealed from all historical, linguistic and cultural influences that potentially blur or skew the Bible’s message?… One wonders. And yet many modern people seem instinctively to assume that an objective, highly individualistic interpretive stance and methodology are laudable goals and realistic possibilities.¹¹

There certainly is a cultural shaping that drives the desire for autonomous reading. But along with this cultural heritage, there is also a pious justification to accommodate the method: Why would we want to corrupt the pure word of God by importing any information into our reading? Therefore the neutral reading is the best reading. Lewis Sperry Chafer, the father of dispensationalism, rejoiced that he did not have any formal theological training because this allowed him to approach the subject with an unprejudiced mind and to be concerned only with what the Bible actually teaches.¹² Of course, this pure reading is never truly pure as no one reads a text neutrally. All people are culturally informed and have some preconceptions about truth, no matter what degree of ignorance may be claimed. There is no unconditioned mind, and there is no way to read objectively in an unbiased manner.

The second approach is the modernist hermeneutic championed by theological liberalism. Within this hermeneutic, the arbiter of truth was not just the informed self, as in the neutral reading, but the individual’s experience. Friedrich Schleiermacher, the father of modern liberalism, encouraged meaning from within one’s experience. This left the possiblity for the removal of supernatural occurrences in the text, and revisions that apply such episodes to the individual’s experience.

Both of the trajectories mentioned demand a better way for preachers to rightly handle the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15). Wolfhart Pannenberg argued that in light of the current climate, The weight of the question as to the truth of talk about God has shifted over entirely to dogmatics … It has to establish the specifically theological character of all the theological disciplines.¹³ Webster argued that, philosophically speaking, we should follow Hegel rather than Descartes: Tradition is the medium of our living, not merely a deposit passively absorbed.¹⁴ He continued, "In theology, as in other kinds of thinking, we do not begin de novo, because in one real sense we do not begin. We appropriate and transform, we preserve and enrich by entering upon the use of ‘an existing spiritual world.’ "¹⁵

In Scripture, Paul and James both employ the metaphor of a mirror (1 Cor 13:12; James 1:23 respectively). This metaphor has been taken up by others to describe the relationship of theology to the Bible. For instance, Barth believed "[theology’s] relationship to God’s word cannot be compared to the position of biblical witnesses because it can know the word of God only at second hand, only in the mirror and echo of the biblical witness. The place of theology is not to be located on the same or a similar plane as those first witnesses."¹⁶ Building further on this metaphor, Vanhoozer and Treier write: Theology is a rather special kind of mirroring, a secondary mirroring, that both reflects and magnifies what it sees in the text—a conceptual mimesis or imitation, nonidentical though faithful human repetition of the divine.¹⁷ So then the Bible is God’s self-revelation to humanity, and theology mirrors this truth. The doctrinal mirroring is meant to image clearly the truth seen. We turn now to explore this relationship further. We will begin by first looking at the validity of systematic theology as a discipline.

THEOLOGY AS A DISCIPLINE

Of the concerns with doctrine, language has been paramount. How can human beings put truth into words, especially truth about God himself? The words of the Bible can be accounted for because of the inspiration of the Spirit (2 Tim 3:16). But how can human beings articulate theological truths, especially when those truths are not stated verbatim in the Bible?

Historically this problem surfaced in the time of the church fathers, when the relationship of Jesus Christ to the Father was being considered. One of the great weapons the Arians sought to employ was the argument that homoousios was not a biblical term, but an import from Greek philosophy. The Arians believed they were being more biblical by containing their argument to exact words of the text of Scripture. However, those arguing at Nicaea, Constantinople, and later at Chalcedon chose their language because they believed it best depicted the truth that was in Scripture, even if their articulation was not the exact words used by Scripture. The word trinity was argued for in like fashion. But is extra-biblical language faithful?

The seventeenth-century divine Francis Turretin articulated a case for the appropriateness of employing extra-biblical language to depict truths seen in Scripture. He wrote: Although it is not lawful to form any doctrines not in Scripture, yet it is lawful sometimes to use words which are not found there if they are such as will enable us either to explain divine things or to avoid errors.¹⁸ Turretin employed the language of consequences to describe the truth of Scripture identifiable by reason.¹⁹ He argued that things may be said in Scripture in two ways, either explicitly (kata lexin) or implicitly (kata dianonian).²⁰ Outlining a justification for the use of consequences, Turretin offered arguments for the inherent design of Scripture to be read with theological conclusions. He argues that these conclusions are rightly deduced by human beings who are made by God as rational creatures. Furthermore, he believed that infinitely wise and foreseeing all that could be deduced from the word, God so spoke that whatever could be lawfully gathered from what he said should be considered as his word.²¹

But there remain further concerns regarding consequences. How can we trust human constructs? Are not consequences at least one step removed from text, if not more? Do human formulations necessarily introduce error? Turretin agreed that human beings can and do err. However, because one can err does not mean one will err. The difference is a matter of the material being engaged. The foundation upon which a thing rests is different from the instrument which we use for the knowledge of the thing itself. That which has a fallible foundation cannot be infallible because the effect cannot be greater in every respect than its cause. Reason here however is not the foundation, but the instrument.²² Furthermore, Turretin explained, Although the intellect which educes consequences is fallible, it does not follow that the consequences themselves are false and uncertain … The possibility of being deceived is different from being actually deceived; the being at fault sometimes from being so always.²³ Therefore, if the theologian reaches conclusions (consequences) from Scripture, these conclusions are not necessarily tainted. The purity of the foundation—the word of God—ensures the purity (or possibility of purity) of the product.

Considering matters further, how does reason in this instance relate to faith? Is it that believers are dependent upon their own wit to arrive at truth? Turretin was firm in his denial of this point.²⁴ He believed that though reason helped to discern the consequence, faith was required to apprehend the consequent. That is, reason acts as an instrument to identify truth in the text, not to introduce something into the text. Faith uses reason, but it is not built upon it.²⁵ Employing an analogy, Turretin argued, As hearing does not make the sound and sight does not make the light (which it perceives by looking), so neither does the intellect make its own object (nor the truth and the word of God which it understands by reasoning); but in like manner it must have these things presented to it. But as the intellect by reasoning makes the truth and the word of God conclusive, so sight and hearing (by their exercise) give us the knowledge of light and sound.²⁶

Taking account of Turretin’s argument, we turn to consider if consequences in any way compromise the doctrines of the sufficiency or perspicuity of Scripture. These issues are really two sides of the same coin.²⁷ Scripture contains that which is necessary for salvation; it is sufficient. But the sufficiency of Scripture recognizes both explicit and implicit doctrines. Regarding perspicuity, something need not be obvious to all for it to be adequately clear.²⁸ Thus, though something be presented implicitly, it is no less true than what is contained explicitly.

From Turretin we have seen that it is right for rational human beings to read God’s word and deduce truth from it. Theology does not spring from the mind of man, but instead works from the revealed word of God. Theology is not invention but referral.²⁹ Good theology is that which demonstrates a prompt eagerness to hearken to God’s voice.³⁰ The consequences of listening are of good use for identifying and applying the truth of Scripture. But what are we to do with these consequences? How are they to be arranged? We turn now to consider the interplay of theology and the Bible.

THEOLOGY AND THE BIBLE

The relationship of theology to the Bible has been challenging to articulate since the modern academy separated biblical studies and theology. Webster remarked: The fragmentation of theology into sub-disciplines, tends to make Scripture a constituent part of theology rather than the center of the operation.³¹ I have been attempting to show that this separation is inappropriate, as theology and Scripture go hand in hand. My aim in this section is to demonstrate a bit more of how this works.

We have been considering thus far theology generally, but I wish now to focus more specifically on what has been called systematic theology.³² Carl Henry wrote, Scripture is itself implicitly systematic. No one who contends that the Bible as a literary document is a canon of divinely inspired truths can hold otherwise without reflecting adversely on the mind of God.³³

Thus, the nature of the Scriptures gives way to the appropriateness of systematic theology as method. Indeed, because God is the subject of the Scriptures, the presentation of what we find in Scripture must be systematically ordered accordingly, stating how each subject relates to the subject.

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY VS. SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY?

Some have argued that the shape of theology ought only to be biblical theology, thus not moving beyond the dramatic unfolding of the redemptive narrative of the Bible. This may be perceived to be more faithful to the text, not needing to invent categories or a conceptual framework for theology, instead tracing the canonical developments of themes. But it must be made clear that biblical theology and systematic theology are not in competition. Indeed, they are complimentary, but systematic theology has pride of place over biblical theology.

Graeme Goldsworthy has argued for several reasons that dogmatic or systematic theology has primacy. First, he says that biblical theology has a dogmatic basis, and is therefore dogmatically dependent. This is evidenced in the fact that [t]he biblical theologian always proceeds on the basis of his answer to the question ‘what do you think of Christ?’ in order to understand the theology of the whole Bible.³⁴ This factor becomes apparent when the Christian reader opens the Old Testament and seeks to understand its relationship to the New Testament. Moreover, when biblical theology has been divorced from its dogmatic basis in the gospel it has assumed another basis drawn from non-Christian philosophy.³⁵ Second, there is a logical ordering to our engagement with the biblical text. Though the disciplines of theology have been separated academically, they are mutually dependent and complementary. Logically, then, we begin with exegesis, then understand the text in its biblical-theological context with hermeneutics, then we consider the dogmatic implications. In other words, we finish with what the text contributes to our understanding of the truth in concert with other consequences reached from other texts.³⁶ Goldsworthy notes, The dogmatic basis of biblical theology lies in the fact that no empirical datum of exegesis has independent meaning, and no datum of theology or interpretation has independent meaning. Facts, logic and method are not independent of revealed truth. To grant them such independence would be to set up a natural theology in opposition to revelation.³⁷

A NEXUS OF RECURSION

How then does systematic theology not displace the ultimate authority of Scripture? Systematic theology, when done properly, must manifest a modesty and transparency, a deferral to its object, which is the divine self-communication through Scripture.³⁸ We recognize a nexus of recursion between theology and exegesis.³⁹ Reading Scripture is not only that from which theology proceeds, but also that to which theology is directed. Christian theology is the repetition in the movement of thought of attentive reading of Scripture.⁴⁰ Here we begin to see the practical payload of what we have considered thus far: our theology informs our reading of Scripture, and our reading of Scripture continues to refine our theology. Some may get nervous when we begin to speak of informing our reading of Scripture, so we consider a few points. First, we have already seen that the Bible is inherently theological, as God is its subject and our reading of it presupposes that it is God’s word. Second, seeking understanding of biblical-theological development and coherence across the canon demands a Christology. Third, we never approach a text neutrally; we always have theological presuppositions. Even if we seek to read a single pericope in the context of a book, the language used in that pericope and its canonical placement both demonstrate theological dependence. So, when we read of God in James, there is a presupposition about the God to whom that passage refers. This presupposition can be identified by tracing the revelation of God in biblical theology. Ultimately, there are consequences that have been drawn from that revelation which amount to a theology. Even if James was the first and only book of the Bible ever read by a reader, the reading of God would betray some theological presuppositions, no matter how ignorant they may be. Thus, theology informs our reading, but our reading constantly shapes and refines our theology. Webster was correct: Theology is … most properly an invitation to read and reread Scripture, to hear and be caught up by Scripture’s challenge to a repentant, non-manipulative heeding of God’s word.⁴¹

In view of this nexus of recursion, we can say that theology is essential for the church. Systematic theology does not do away with exegesis or biblical theology but works with them to give voice and order to the truths they uncover. T. C. Hammond wisely noted, in practice the church has found it impossible to do without the secondary use of the findings and writings of her teachers in all ages. Those who object that there is no scriptural warrant for such use will invariably be discovered to be dependent, consciously or unconsciously, upon secondary theological material of some sort, even if only their favorite preacher or commentator.⁴² It is because it is impossible for the church to avoid theology that we turn now to consider briefly a few of the practical implications of theology’s necessary connection to the preaching task.

THEOLOGY AND PREACHING

In the past few decades, efforts have been made to retrieve theological interpretation of Scripture.⁴³ Within this movement, proponents have advocated reviving ruled reading—reading according to the Rule of Faith. This Rule was an early doctrinal formulation, similar to the baptismal confession that became what we now know as the Apostles’ Creed. Ruled reading seeks to guard the text of Scripture from the intrusion of error by reading according to the theology recognized from the canon of Scripture.⁴⁴ In this sense, theology guides reading. Webster remarked:

Its guidance is modest. Theology does not direct the church’s reading of Scripture in an imperious way, for then it would not only begin to play the part of an academic magisterium, but also arrogate to itself the work of the Holy Spirit. Nor does theology guide the church’s reading of Holy Scripture by demanding that that reading conform to whatever criteria for the reading of texts that are deemed normative in other reading communities—above all, the academic guild … Rather, theology guides the church by exemplifying submission to Holy Scripture as the viva vox Dei. It does not rule the church, or require the church to submit its judgements; all that it offers is an exemplary instance of attentiveness to and deference before the gospel. Theology is therefore an exercise of the church’s hearing of the gospel in Scripture, and only on that basis an exercise of teaching or guidance.⁴⁵

Ruled reading, or theological interpretation, is an exercise in guarding the gospel and in rightly handling the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15).⁴⁶

Theological interpretation is more than defensive, it also helps provide thicker reading.⁴⁷ Robust orthodoxy gives space to deeper and more wonderful nuance to be observed in the text. The more sophisticated our Christology is, the better we will recognize Christological themes and developments in a passage. This has a constructive effect, as these observations in the text contribute to a fuller and well-formed biblical Christology. Furthermore, this thicker reading is appropriately canonical, giving attention to the specific contribution of a passage—diachronically and synchronically—to the truth the Bible presents as a unit.

Of course, the most public demonstration of theological reading is the proclamation of the word. Preaching is central to the church gathering, as hearing the word is what edifies the church (Eph 4:11–16). Theology plays a crucial role in preaching, as preaching is the predominant teaching post within the fellowship. Theology does not hijack the sermon, but the sermon must be theologically informed. In other words, just as our reading must be guarded by doctrine, so must the sermon. Of course, proclamation does not have the same relation to the truth of Christian doctrine as systematic theology, wrote Pannenberg. Claiming that the content of Christian doctrine is true in detail, proclamation implicitly presupposes its inner coherence and its coherence with all that is true. In systematic theology, however, this coherence itself is the object of the investigation and presentation of the doctrinal content.⁴⁸ The sermon need not be a presentation of a systematic theology (in fact, in most cases it should not be such a presentation), but the sermon must have systematic sensibilities. The preacher has a responsibility to teach truth, and the text for exposition must not be taught in a way that so expounds one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.⁴⁹ Alan Stibbs clearly articulated the need for theology in the pulpit with