Swindoll, Scripture, and Sufficiency

"I promise you I will do everything in my power to keep it from being boring, having sat through a lot of boring chapels in my life, I know the misery of that sort of thing.Every one of my three talks will start with a statement. It will then be followed by a story or an illustration that I hope drives that statement home. Then we'll glance at the Scriptures and see something in there that might tie in with the opening statement and the illustration and we'll close with another story, that's my plan."

So were Chuck Swindoll's first words in chapel at Wheaton College this fall. I want to say right up front, don't get me wrong: I have a lot of respect for Dr. Swindoll, and think that he preaches the Gospel.

But in this introductory paragraph to the three chapel talks he gave, I hear an approach toward preaching that betrays the text of Scripture as the normative, informative substance of teaching in the church. Swindoll is not teaching in the church when he speaks at Wheaton. He doesn't even neccessarily claim to be preaching. He's giving a talk. What I'm saying is that in Swindoll's introduction we hear an attitude not foreign to the churches of middle America over the last 20 years.

It's the "hip" churches of my parent's generation in which I grew up. Churches that weren't those churches that bored you when you were a kid. They weren't the fundamentalist churches that gave boring sermons about legalistic rules that didn't seem practical for today. At all costs, don't bore people. My personal irony is that I was always bored. I never quite saw why anything mattered.

What is revealed about Swindoll's doctrine of Scripture in this statement? Is it fair to say that, based on how he designs his talk, he believes that it will be the illustrations he gives that most powerfully drive home the statement he makes? I fear the message his outline gives is:

I. Thesis
II. Supporting Evidence
III. Related Ancient Text
IV. Final Supporting Evidence

What is being implicitly said about Scripture with such an approach as this? Scripture is not immediately applicable. It doesn't directly address our life. We have to bring it to bear by relating it to a pithy, non-biblical, easily applicable statement that is already twice illustrated by extra-biblical illustrations. It takes the Bible from being an organic narrative of God's faithfulness through the lives of countless saints to being no more than a book of proverbs, rules, and bland, removed theology.

I think the faults of this approach—which was all to common to my experiences with churches in the 90's—show why many people were ready for the Emergent movement (whatever it is). What parts of the emergent church realize is that stories do matter. Religion that is not organically and intricately tied into daily life does not captivate, transform—or matter. But rather than moving back to the biblical text to see these stories, the emergers took another step away, relying on their personal experiences rather than the normative force of God's word. They make the same mistake as Swindoll, only on a different level.

This is the point where I should have a perfect solution. Fail. But I do offer this: The Bible illustrates itself beautifully. The Bible is full of relatively pithy statements of profound truths, which are very helpful in teaching. Part of the duty of the teacher is to, by means of how he teaches, show that Scripture is what he says it is. That it carries sufficient knowledge for salvation. That it bears immediate weight and implications on our lives. That we can understand it. That it is worth working to learn, appreciate, and meditate upon.