A View from the Retail Market: The Promise of Theological Interpretation of Scripture for Preaching

“A View from the Retail Market: The Promise of Theological Interpretation of Scripture for Preaching” by Patrick J. Wilson, Pastor of Williamsburg Presbyterian Church, Williamsburg, Virginia. From: The Journal of Theological Interpretation volume 2.2 (2008) Available at EBSCOhost: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=10&sid=c1e8b7fb-d8e8-45a9-84c8-5effee9484a7%40sessionmgr12&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001822139 Accessed 07/18/2012

     Once again the title of the article intrigued me, which should say something about titling of sermons, but that would best be reserved for another article. Wilson, a pastor in Virginia, has written many articles on preaching and ministry. In “A View from the Retail Market: The Promise of Theological Interpretation of Scripture for Preaching” Wilson looks at preaching from an expository style that would readily relate to the so-called market place of Christianity, the Sunday morning pew sitters.

     Wilson’s premise is that the exegete can prepare creative and imaginative sermons and preach to live and intent audiences while faithfully preaching theologically sound messages. In Wilson’s mind, it is easy for the daily grind of ministry and the three-to-thrive mentality to entice preachers to run to easy-to-preach passages. Subsequently, this has caused a great vacuum in modern homiletics.  Also, the degradation of Biblically literate congregations also frustrates the homiletician that wishes to preach from Philemon or Obadiah. Nonetheless, he stated thatwe do not have to run away from these obscure passages.

     In a wonderful insight from the demands of the “market place,” Wilson encourages the preacher to view the art of preaching in a mirrored image of the contemporary concept of sermons and congregational expectations. He writes that we tend, as pastor-theologians, to reverse the order of authority in regards to Scripture and relevance.

     Imagine what would happen if the pastor believes “that a shift can imperceptibly occur so that the stress falls on the scripture's being rendered useable for preaching, as opposed to the sermon being crafted to be useful to God's message in Scripture." In other words, the pastor, in preparing a sermon, does not beat out of Scripture a nugget of golden truth, but instead allows the truth already present escape. In this way, the theological truth becomes the usable teaching point.

      

     Wilson is correct in his estimate that these nuggets of truth do not come in moments of sheer inspiration. Not even will they show up in the second, or for that matter, the tenth reading of the passage. They will appear through an abiding with, and as a part of, the Scripture, allowing the Holy Spirit to guide us. So called “rabbit-chasing” (the act of running all over Scripture to provide a point) stops the exegetical process from unveiling the true nugget. The homiletician that stays put in a pericope has the best chance of revealing the present nugget of truth, as opposed to hacking it out for himself.

     Wilson gives a final truism in how preachers can better theologically interpret Scripture. Wilson writes that, "No preacher can ever be astonishing (in a positive sense!) unless he has first been astonished. The astonishment that funds preaching seldom happens in the blinding moment of inspiration but rather occurs with amazing regularity for those who ‘abide’ deeply and quietly with a text.” In a more Southernesque colloquialism, “You cannot truly amaze the audience, until you have been amazed by the Word!”

     Wilson ends the article by asking the question, “What is the point of theological interpretation of Scripture?” The answer to that question could be cumbersome and verbose, to say the least. Notwithstanding, however, is the simplistic assertion that the purpose of the theological interpretation of Scripture is the grand purpose of all life--giving Glory to God. All proclamation of Scripture should have that as its end goal. As Wilson points out, even the angels proclaiming the Advent did so for God’s glory.

     Wilson’s article is light-hearted and humorous (my favorite type) with-out being flippant or coming across as arrogant. His look at the scholarly theme of the theological interpretation of Scripture is brought to life with and by a pastor/preacher's heart. He readily acknowledges that his article is a look at the market place from the market place and as such he presents an article about preaching from a preacher.

Is Application Necessary in the Expository Sermon?

“Is Application Necessary in the Expository Sermon?” by Hershel York, Professor of Preaching at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, Pastor of Ashland Avenue Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky and co-author of Preaching With Bold Assurance. From: The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. Volume 3, Summer, 1999. Available at http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/sbjt/sbjt_1999summer7.pdf Accessed 07/24/2012

     “To apply, or not to apply?” that is the question…at least the question Dr York asks in this article on expository sermons. Should the preacher simply exegete the Scriptures or should he attempt to make an application from the text that the audience can use as a “take away” from his sermon? The debate among scholars is real, although probably less practical in the real world of day-to-day ministry. Nevertheless, the article treats the issue and its impact in the expositors preparation. The detractors of application argue  that it lessens the authority of God’s Word, while protagonists counter that application is the best method of demonstrating that very authority.

     York contends that even the great theolog Karl Barth believed that application was a neigh impossibility for any human preacher to get right, and that being faithful to the truth of the text keeps us from properly bridging the gap from the original to the current audience. York presents the argument as inferential as opposed to direct. Or, stated another way, there is no direct application, only concepts that the modern hearer can infer from the text.

York; however, holds to the belief that the text deserves to be applied by the audience. He therefore implores the exegete to provide application when preaching expository sermons. York writes; “we are convinced that expository preaching which includes direct and explicit application to the lives of the hearers is the most effective. Those who are committed to an expository model must be determined to do more than merely explain the text in its original context.”

Leading the audience to application is no less important than leading them to understand the meaning. Ergo, sermons without application are simply the expositor regurgitating the facts of the text in Homiletical form. If York is correct, then is not preaching, but oral commentary. As Jerry Vines is quoted as saying, “much of the ineffective expository preaching of our day is due to the failure to relate Bible facts to the contemporary world.” This inadequacy in proper exposition leads Stephen Olford to write about application that, “So many people hear the what of our message but never hear the how of our message.”

With so many “homiletical experts” in today’s preaching world advocating application in expository sermons, it is wise to accept that today’s audience needs and desires the application of the Word as much as (if not more than) the facts of the Word. Nevertheless, the question remains “how does the exegete get from fact to application?” York sees the answer in the perspicuity doctrine of the Reformers. The clarity of Scriptural truth is not threatened by the clear application of that truth to modern hears. But in order to get there we must bridge the gap that exists between the original audience and modern hearers. York’s illustration of this point is 1 Corinthians 11 and a modern understanding of women’s veils. How does one reconcile the Scripture and the "modern" woman's lack of covering while praying? One could also argue from an illustration of money. How does the modern hearer understand the difference between a talent and ten thousand talents unless the exegete explains the concept of a day’s wage?

York’s conclusion then, is that “application is the vital link between God’s eternal Word given in antiquity and the concerns of men and women in the present. Preachers need not discuss the option of 'needs-based preaching,' because the biblical revelation is more than adequate to touch hearers across the spectrum of humanity. The role of the expository preacher is to make biblical truth plain enough for listeners to understand its meaning and to demonstrate its relevance.”

    

     York's article is well received by this reviewer. Application is not just a necessary evil; it is a necessary and critical part of the sermon. Preaching is to be the elevation of simple commentary of a portion of Scripture. It is to be the highlighting aspect of the Believer’s week, the opportunity to hear God’s Word proclaimed by God’s man so that the audience might be able to apply that Word in their everyday world. York does a masterful job of explaining the need for application, presenting valid arguments from both camps, and concluding that application I an interregnal part of expository sermons.

Joel Osteen’s Rhetoric of Hope

“Victor, not Victim”: Joel Osteen’s Rhetoric of Hope by Helje Kringlebotn Sodal. Available at EBSCOhost: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=24&sid=5d2a347b-8099-4d90-ac14-1c7fa123ab44%40sessionmgr12&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001774365

Accessed 07/12/2012

     I must admit the title of the article intrigued me, if nothing else did. Sodal’s examination of the preaching at rhetoric style of Joel Osteen seemed to be an opportunity to review Osteen himself. Especially because I find his theology suspect at best, and heretical at worst, reviewing an academic take of his preaching style seemed more challenging than that of a more conservative preacher such as John MacArthur.

     Sodal’s examination of Osteen’s faith and doctrine as well as that of his church (Lakewood Church) places an emphasis on the fact that Osteen shies away from the “Health and Wealth Movement.” While he does not refer to himself as a “prosperity preacher,” Sodal places a strong association between Osteen and other “Word of Faith” preachers such as Kenneth Hagen and Oral Roberts. Osteen; however, is also heavily influenced by liberal theology and the concept of freedom. This should not be confused; however, with freedom from sin, per se, but as a freedom from mediocrity. Osteen preachs the realization of the “American Dream” of a big car, fat bank account, two-and-half kids, and a nice home. All of this dream is yours for the taking...if you remain positive, your best life can be today.

     The bulk of the article is dedicated to showing Osteen’s rhetorical style, and how that style has helped him become a leading American orator. Sodal sees Osteen’s preaching as having two main paths. One is an intense repetition of his major themes. One of these is the theme of freedom or victory. Osteen constantly uses the image of the Statue of Liberty to reinforce his ideology of Victory or Freedom through Christ. He is also a master story teller, and uses illustrations and examples as a major part of his deliberative rhetorical style. Sodal writes that, “Osteen’s examples support his relational prosperous theology. They are closely linked to an American context which is optimistic, non-pietistic, and a mobile melting-pot. Most of the examples have a happy ending and relate to a great variety of human characters and situations.”

     The second is his profound sense of positivism. This, from his theological perspective, would be called “positive confession.” Osteen carefully crafts his messages, books, speeches, and lifestyle to omit anything remotely negative. Sodal points out that Osteen weaves in his sermons the message of hope and uses many illustrations and embellishments to his great advantage. His embellishment fits in with his low key and down to earth style of his preaching. In other words, Osteen uses ordinary vernacular, but with stylistic embellishments that elicit a favorable audience response. He is known for over alliterating and a sign-song rhythmic effect. Sodal gives examples as; “dye it or buy it,” and “to live to give.” Osteen also postulates that God will compensate ‘‘double for your trouble’’ and that his audience was “made to soar; you were made to more’’ He also tells his readers that “You’re gonna fake it [success] until you make it.” Tie this in with his deliberate mannerisms and exquisite dress, that award winning smile, and Osteen becomes a master at rhetoric, and subsequently growing his congregation.

     Unfortunately, that last line is all too true. It is his congregation, not His church. Osteen has simply mastered the craft of scratching itching ears and turning them aside to fables. Yet the Christian minister can abscond with a few of Osteen’s better points and use them for the proliferation of the true Gospel. All in all; however, it would seem evident that the true Gospel, true preaching and Christian Rhetoric remain foolishness to the world.

     Sodal’s takes Osteen to task for his shortcomings and gives him well deserved praise for his stylistic choices and audience connectivity. Having said that, any student of preaching and rhetoric could benefit from reading this article. If for no other reason than to understand what exposition, Christ honoring preaching is not.

Preaching the Old Testament

“Preaching the Old Testament from a Christian Pulpit” by

S. D. (Fanie) Snyman; Professor of Old Testament Studies at The University of the Free State; Bloemfontein, South Africa. The Calvin Theological Journal45 no 2 N 2010, p 304-316: from the EBSCO Luther Rice Library. Available at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=73c97684-3832-4103-aad8-f09f9338df46%40sessionmgr104&vid=1&hid=107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001821059

     The referenced article is written as support for using the Old Testament in New Testament preaching. The author, a professor of Old Testament Studies, argues that the Old Testament is and should be just as relevant to New Testament Believers as it would be to those following Judaism. While the article is not a treatise against Marcionism, it certainly has the feel of anti-Marcionite work. The fact that as early as the mid-First Century New Testament Christians were dismissing the Old Testament as non Scripture and non-authoritative to the church shows that the dismissal of the Old Testament is not a new problem. In fact, many congregations today hear relatively few sermons from the Old Testament.

    

     This problem is brought out by Dr. Snyman. He postulates that the reason may be a lack of understanding of the connection between the two Covenants. Perhaps in South Africa there is a lack of understanding that the God of the Old Testament was/is the “Father” that Jesus Christ prays to in the New Testament. That does not seem to be a problem in the Bible-Belt portion of the United States; nevertheless, it is still a manifestation of liberal theology. The so-called “Two Gods theory” of the Bible, which suggests a stern faced, cosmic killjoy God in the Old Testament who is ready with switch in hand to discipline His children, is juxtaposed with a gracious, doting grandfatherly type of God ready, willing, and able to look past all sin in the New Testament.

     Obviously, this dichotomy is false and its aspersions greatly exaggerated. While the God of the Old Testament is a just God ready to hand out harsh punishments for law breakers, so is the God represented in the New Testament. As gracious as the New Testament God seems, He is just enough to kill church members who lie to the Spirit, while we see the angry God of the Old Testament passing out grace by the bucket-full. So in this we see that the Old and New Testaments are equally important to understanding the whole of the redemptive story of mankind.

     With this in mind, Snyman wonders how does the New Testament preacher find a place for the Old Testament in his preaching schedule? Also, should it be treated the same as New Testament texts for teaching, reproof, and doctrine? The answer is a resounding "Yes."

     Snyman gives an understanding of the proper way to preach the Old Testament. By understanding the Old Testament as a work of the Holy Spirit that reveals God’s working in history, we can be freed from forcing Christological explanations into every Old Testament text. At times, the text is simply a revelation of God dealing with a particular preacher. We are not forced, as Luther said, “To find Christ behind every rock.” Sometimes the text is simply about Abram chasing after his nephew’s captors. We are then free from pulling Christological implications in from the text that are not placed there by the Holy Spirit.

     This becomes very freeing indeed, but we must also be cautioned not to go to the other extreme and never see the plain references to Christ when they are present. As an example, seeing Christ walking in the flames of King Nebuchadnezzar’s oven most likely stems from a horrific mistranslation of the Authorized Version. Whereas, not readily seeing Christ in Isaiah 53 as the Suffering Servant is to miss the Messianic connection completely.

     The article itself was wearisome and in all honesty, a bit boring. The connections; however, would be beneficial to share with those who are modern day Marcionites, whether by choice or simply practical Marcionites, de facto, by never preaching from the Old Testament. The article concluded with a very practical look at how preaching the Old Testament can help a ministry by aiding in pastoral care, doctrinal teaching, witnessing to the world, and liturgy. Snyman concludes his article with the admonishment that the church needs to preach the Old Testament as the whole counsel of the Word of God. To that I give a healthy “amen.”

The Fallen Condition Focus

“The Fallen Condition Focus And The Purpose Of The Sermon” by Bryan Chapell; Chancellor and Professor of Preaching at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. From Preaching.com; the online publication of Preaching magazine. Available at http://www.preaching.com/printerfriendly/11550666

     Dr Chapell’s article focuses on what he refers to as the Fallen Condition Focus (FCF) in preaching. In short; Chapell believes what the sermon is to focus on is what the text of Scripture is saying to the original recipients, and how that original context is now applicable to a modern hearer.

    

     Chapell begins by asking the questions of where, to whom, and why was the original manuscripts written. By answering these questions at the outset, one can exegete the passage in such a way as to help focus on the ramification to the original audience, and allow Holy Spirit guided direction to make a connection with his own flock in today’s culture.

     Until the preacher is aware of why the passage was written, he will fail to connect to the true content of the original author’s message. It is very interesting that Chapell chooses to use the word “guess” in his article. To borrow a phrase from Tony Guthrie, Professor of Preaching at Luther Rice Seminary, we do not have to use “guessegeses” in our study. God has made His purposes clear in the text, if we will use the Fallen Condition Focus as a methodology for determining that purpose. Chapell defines the concept of a Fallen Condition Focus as, “the mutual human condition that contemporary believers share with those for or by whom the text was written that requires the grace of the passage to manifest God's glory in his people.” In other words, no text of Scripture was written solely for the purposes of the past hearers, but for the needs and sanctification of any listener in any age. Or, put another way, the Fallen Condition Focus is the intention of the Holy Spirit to provide inspired and authoritative Scripture for each age of the church.

     Therefore, Chapell argues that if we do not find the Fallen Condition Focus of the passage, we will not have a true understanding of the passage, even if we can diagram the Greek, or parse the Hebrew, or know many interesting facts about the jewels on the High Priest’s breastplate. These linguistic skills and interesting facts will become secondary when we deliver the Holy Spirit's true intention for inspiring the autographs and His true intention for the modern audience to hear the message He intended.

     As Chapell puts it, a sermon on “prayerless patterns in society” is much less interesting than a sermon on "why we struggle to pray when family stresses make prayer most necessary”—a sermon that this reviewer would love to hear. The generic, bland message gives the audience little reason to tune in. However; specificity tends to breed interest in the subject matter. Chapell lists the following three questions as foundational in determining the Fallen Condition Focus:

1. What does the text say?

2. What concern(s) did the text address (in its context)?

3. What do listeners spiritually share in common with those for (or about) whom it was written or the one by whom it was written?

Answering these three questions will guide the preacher to answer the most important question of the Fallen Condition Focus: “So what?” If the audience sits with crossed arms and scowling faces asking at the end of the message, “So what?” then the preacher has failed to convey the message of the Scripture. They might be able to recite the treasures that Achan stole from Jericho; but “so what?” Does that knowledge affect their Monday reality of a doctor’s appointment? Most likely it does not.

     The article itself was well written in every way. As stated previously, it was very similar to the Homiletical Bridge concept. It was written with just a touch of humor that helped keep it attentive, and was very practice in both application and approach. While not as academic it certainly was helpful in gathering an understanding of preaching from the standpoint of a Christocentric rather than anthropocentric view. Chapell’s Fallen Condition Focus is a wonderful tool that should be readily added to myany pastoral toolbox.

Theological Interpretation of Scripture

Theological Interpretation of Scripture: An Introduction and

Preliminary Evaluation. By Gregg R. Allison; Professor of Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From The Southern Baptist Journal Of Theology, Volume 14.2 (2010)Available at http://www.sbts.edu/resources/files/2010/08/sbjt_v14_n2_allison_only.pdf

     Dr Allison’s article focuses on a new brand of theological interpretation and exegesis knows as Theological Interpretation of Scripture, also known as TIS. This relatively new thinking is propagated by the likes of Joel Green, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Stephen Fowler. The focus of TIS is a system of types of theological understandings of Scripture that are based primarily on the simple reading of the Bible without the subconscious, (or possibly the conscious) preconceived understanding brought in by the reader. In-other-words, the interpreter does not bring their own confessional, theological, and/or doctrinal baggage along for the exegetical ride.

     The number of “families” (as these systems are called by Allison) can range, but seem at present to be limited to three primary systems. The first of these would be “Textual-theological” interpretations of Scripture, or T-TIS. This system adheres to the belief that the text of Scripture is the driving force in interpretive work. As an example, T-TIS proponents believe that the inspired text (Holy Spirit originated, man authored) is enough to gain a full exegetical conclusion. Everything necessary for salvation, empowerment, doctrinal understanding, etc. can be derived from the text. The message of the text and the narrative, then become secondary to the text itself.

     Similarly, the second “family” is “Message-Theological” interpretations of Scripture, or M-TIS. This system focuses on the over-arching message of Scripture. Namely, that mankind can be redeemed through God’s grace and the penal substitutionary atoning sacrifice of the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. In more common vernacular, the Bible “is more about the man of salvation, than the plan of salvation.” The message is the driving force of exegetical work, finding (and perhaps inventing) a Jesus under every rock.

     Thirdly is “Interest-Theological” interpretation of Scripture, or I-TIS. As one could surmise from the name, here the interpreter focuses on the primary interest of doctrine and theological belief. As Fowler states, “Christians have generally read their scripture to guide, correct, and edify their faith, worship, and practice as part of their ongoing struggle to live faithfully” before their God.

     The family of systems certainly bring strong points as well as a fair share of weaknesses to the table. A few of the benefits that can be seen in the system are the faithfulness to the text and the desire (if not always success) to remove preconceived notions and influence outside sources from the interpretive task. The historical point of allowing “Scripture to interpret Scripture” is validated in TIS. By not allowing commentaries, past theological teachings (even from our favorite preachers) and our own first, logical attempt at seeing the meaning we do service to the original authors intent. And is that not the point? In tangent with that idea, the focus is on finding the true exegesis and not (if I am allowed to borrow the phrase)guessegesis of the text. (From "The Homiletical Bridge" by Tony Guthrie, Preaching Professor at Luther Rice Seminary

     A few of the limitations of TIS are spelled out in the article, and include the sheer “newness” of the system. As with any new proposition, critiques and fine tuning will be needed. For all of the focus on the validity of the text, it would seem that some of the proponents of TIS still advocate bringing their pre-TIS beliefs to the text. While I would readily admit that I did not fully comprehend the article's point on I-TIS, it still read as though the thought process is/was “I look to MY interests and bring that out of the text.” As if the theolog involved in the interpretive work would bring his particular fetish for eschatology out of every Danielian nook and Revelatory cranny. This is no better than many/most homiletical systems of sermon building now in use.

     The article itself was well written and thought provoking. I have enjoyed reading Dr Allison’s previous works, including his latest book of Historical Theology. He brings out a sound and scholarly look at this new theological interpretive system and gives a fair and balanced view that most any theologian could appreciate. He unashamedly brings a conservative and evangelical take on the system, warning how it could veer off course in a non-conservative venue. This is to be expected with the source being the SBJT.

Luther’s Understanding of Imputatio

Luther’s Understanding of Imputatio in the Context of his Doctrine of Justification and Its Consequences for the Preaching of the Gospel. By Sibylle Rolf; Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Wissenschaftlich Theological Seminary. From International Journal of Systematic Theology Volume 12 Number 4 October 2010. Available at EBSCO Luther Rice Theological Seminary Library: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=13&sid=065ddfd5-e134-4461-86ee-0c53f92855d8%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=rlh&AN=53418801

     Dr Rolf’s article focuses on the idea of imputation as written about and taught by Martin Luther. The article is summarized by viewing how the concept of imputation, in Luther’s teaching, affect the sermon delivery and reception in the hearts of the hearers. The vast majority (two-thirds) of the article focuses on the doctrine and theology that Luther espoused concerning the idea of imputation and justification, with the minority (last one-third) of the article considering the aspect of this theology on the preaching event.

     The article is very academic in its treatment of Luther’s theology, and considering that the take-away is that the article’s author does not share Luther’s reformed view of theology, she gives a fair and well written treatment of his concepts. The article was presented in the International Journal of Systematic Theology in 2010 and was gathered from the Luther Rice Theological Seminary’s EBSCO database.

     While the majority of the article was dedicated to the theology of Luther, the main purpose was the dissemination of that theological concept through the preaching event. If the teachings of the imputation are correct, as this student fully agrees, then how does that concept pass from God to the sinner? According to the author’s understanding of Luther; he would espouse that the hearer “is affected in her heart by listening, is imputed as righteous because whilst listening and being affected by the message, her affections are drawn to God.” (449) In other words, the listening of the Gospel, manifests that individuals desire, as an elect individual, to accept the message of that self same Gospel. The basis of Romans 10:14: “How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?”

     Nevertheless; how does this have an effect of transformation? The author writes that it was Luther’s belief in verbum effixac that holds the key. The effectiveness of the preaching lies in the fact that God the Holy Spirit literally presents Himself in the preaching event. When the Gospel preacher preaches the Gospel it becomes a transformative event. In other words, the preaching is not just biographical in nature, which would lead simply to a historical faith, a concept Luther vehemently rejected, by the way. We study biographies to show us that God can transform anyone, an Egyptian murderer, an adulterous king, and a radically zealous Pharisee, just as easily as he can transform us.   

     Luther believed that there were/are two necessities in the preaching event that opens up this transformative state. Number one, the Holy Spirit must open the “ears” of the hearer. The Spirit must ready the heart to hear and receive the Good News. Number two the hearer must receive the words spoken when the Holy Spirit has readied the heart. Thus a balance is struck between the Sovereignty of God’s electing purposes and the human responsibility so necessary in Luther’s soteriology.

     In this Luther understood the importance of preaching and not simply homilitizing a few points. His sermons were rich with detail and illustrations that attempted to connect with the hearer’s minds and hearts in a way to draw them into the message—and all of this because he understood the importance of the imputation in justification and sanctification.   

     The article itself was well written and thought provoking. I will admit that I was skeptical of its value for about the first half of the article. The writing style was very academic and the use of Latin and reference of the sinner in the female gender threw me. (That is not a complementarian complaint, just a note of writing and reading style and preferences.) In fact for the first two pages I thought Dr. Rolf was referring to God in the female gender. Nonetheless, the article ended on a high note and I learned much about Luther’s view of preaching.