Last night I led a Bible study in the Psalms. This study series is deliberately designed to include some more challenging “academic” content, making participants aware of the possibilities in terms of formal study of the Psalms, hermeneutical principles, etc. But the bulk of the time is spent not talking about the Psalms, but looking at a Psalm or two. Actually, last night we looked at three.
Most people found the reading ahead of the study a little overwhelming. It was. A relatively lengthy explanation of how the book was formed and how the shape evolved during that process. Then we looked at a section of Psalms to see the evidence of deliberate shaping . Then we spent the bulk of the time observing, interpreting, reflecting on, applying, enjoying, responding to the three Psalms.
That was a Bible study, and not a normal Bible study. It was not a sermon. When I preach I have to avoid the temptation to prove my study efforts, to demonstrate my level of exegtical ability, to convince listeners of some academic point or to present material at a level above the heads of the listeners. When I preach I want the message of the text itself to be clear and to be clearly applied. Simple is better than complicated. Clear is better than opaque.
I would rather hear “I understood that” over “that was so deep” (i.e. I didn’t understand it). Let’s be profound in preparation, profound in impact, but simple in clear content, vocabulary and presentation.
Good post. I think keeping it simple has much appeal to any audience.
I have found that to much academic material can actually be a disadvantage to drawing in the listener. That isn’t saying to “dumb-it-down”, but the original authors were able to communicate their message in a relevant way.