Prooftexting

Online Conversations About...

Prooftexting

SERMON ALERT: I'M ABOUT TO PREACH A SERMON ON SERMONS. (Actually, I'm not preaching since I'm a woman...I'm just soliliquizing...or whatever the word is...)

What do they all have in common? Gothard, Ezzo, and J. (who is using Pv. 23:14 to argue on an email list that Christian parents who are concerned for the eternal destiny of their children will spank them, as an act of faith, in order to deliver their souls from hell) all base many of their concepts and "principles" on Scripture. They're so Biblical! Except that, in many cases, they are ignoring the whole counsel of Scripture and are jerking verses out of context and investing them with meaning beyond that intended by God...at least in my opinion!

One of the things that has become far more important to us over the past few years is expository preaching/teaching. It's our opinion that a pastor is called to proclaim the Word of God and that this is best done, in most cases, in an expository rather than a topical manner. Topical sermons do have their place, but we don't think--and again, this is just our opinion--that it should be the norm.

Maybe I think this just because I grew up under expository preaching. Maybe my husband thinks this just because his first pastor preached and taught in this style. However, I have to admit that--in my late teens/early twenties--I became very resistant to my father's preaching philosophy and had more than one heated debate with him, trying to set him straight on the matter. ("But, Daddy, I bet that if you would pick some really interesting topics, more people would come and the people who are there would be more interested. Really, do you have to just plod through verse after verse after verse?")

My father explained to me what he believed to be the pitfalls of topical preaching. These pitfalls, however, didn't come home to me until I read "Prep" [3rd edition] for the very first time. I simply couldn't believe that people were falling for this nonsense. A pastor had a long talk with me about prooftexting; I remember him saying that this is one of the things that bothered him about Gothard and others. So, if it's so obvious to me, why isn't it obvious to everybody else? ("Well, look--he's just jerking that verse out of context. It doesn't mean that at all.")

Daddy has an interesting theory about this. He thinks the blame for this rests on the pastors. The common trend in preaching today is to present ideas, concepts, principles, etc. and then to back them up with a passage or two. Thus, a typical sermon might go like this:

1. Intro with amusing story to capture everyone's interest

2. First point of sermon

3. Story to illustrate first point of sermon

4. A few verses from various books of the Bible to back up first point of sermon

5. Second point of sermon

6. Illustration

7. A few more scattered verses

8. Third point (pastors are duty-bound to make sure their sermons always have three points. It has something to do with the Trinity and it's an oath they take during seminary. Just kidding...)

9. Illustration

10. A few more scattered verses

11. Conclusion

12. Then, depending on the denomination, there may or may not be an altar call.

So, the typical Joe or Jane Churchgoer gets used to hearing verses jerked out of context. If the pastor is especially "creative", Joe/Jane gets used to thinking, "Hhmmmm...I never thought that verse meant *that* but it must be true because the pastor says so and he knows a lot more about the Bible than I do." Joe/Jane might even judge the "soundness" of a sermon based on how many different verses were quoted, mentioned, or listed in the sermon outline in the bulletin.

Then Joe and Jane go through "Prep" or GKGW. They are impressed by how Biblical it is. Why, Gary Ezzo has verse after verse to back things up. Besides, he uses the word "Biblical" in every other sentence.

What rarely dawns on the typical Joe/Jane:

1. "Let's look up these verses in context to see what they really say."

2. "This seems a peculiar way of teaching. I don't understand why he doesn't take us to the Scripture first, rather than try to make his principles fit a few isolated verses."

3. "He's ignoring all these other verses over here. This doesn't fit in with the whole counsel of God."

4. "When our pastor preaches on the crucifixion passage, he certainly doesn't come to this sort of conclusion."

5. "This guy is just prooftexting."

Instead, Joe's and Jane's pastor has inadvertently set the stage for Gothardism, Ezzoism, and faulty arguments by teaching his flock that the Bible is best proclaimed by using isolated verses to back up various points. Joe and Jane simply don't know how to study the Bible any other way. Gary Ezzo sounds good to them; in fact, he sounds familiar and almost comfortable.

So, I had to admit to Daddy, "You know what? I guess you were right not to listen to my advice on preaching." For most of my adult life, with the exception of the past three years, I've sat under topical preaching. I've seen the most well-meaning of pastors over-emphasize their pet topics to the exclusion of much other truth. I've seen many churchgoers unable to grasp why it is important to consider the context of various passages--and I've seen them fall prey to every wind of doctrine that comes along. And I've seen two churches that I know well fall into what I would consider some serious error...and, in both cases, the pastors were able to pull out a verse here and there as "proof" of their aberrant teaching.

Return to the Online Conversations Page

You are the visitor to this page.

All articles authored by any member of the Prewett family are copyrighted. They may not be reproduced online or elsewhere without our expressed, written permission. Articles written by other authors contain copyright notices where appropriate.