Sermons: Explanation and Application?⤒🔗

For centuries in reformed study of sermon preparation, the thinking has been that the sermon is characterized by the service of the Word of God to the congregation. This service implies that the minister explains and applies the Word. The Gereformeerde Homiletiek, published in 1926 and written by Professor T. Hoekstra of Kampen, has long been the textbook for the study of sermon preparation. Hoekstra taught many future ministers: "The service of the Word, in the assembly of believers, is the clarification and the application of God's Word".¹

In the publication Preken en Horen, the Depart­ment of Practical Theology of the Theological University in Kampen is strongly critical of the two fold position of explanation and applica­tion.²

J. R. Douma, in his dissertation, also has noth­ing positive to say about this approach.³ In this article I would like delve deeper into this criti­cism. This address will essentially be about the question: Does one indeed have to reject these two approaches? Does taking the listener seriously — as we strive to do at Kampen — imply that we bid a resolute farewell to this age-old approach?

Past Criticisms←⤒🔗

The objections that appeared in the above mentioned publications are not new. We have already heard these criticisms in the thirties in the previous century and found in B. Holwerda an animated spokesperson. Holwerda thought that the explanation-application scheme must be rejected because behind it lies the question objective-subjective ... and because thereby, un­intentionally, the character of God's Word and the preaching is overlooked.⁴

Holwerda strongly argues against the thinking that the explanation of the text is about the 'ob­jective' part of the sermon, while the application is about the 'subjective' (the listeners and their needs). He wants nothing to do with two 'types' of preaching: the objective sermon that excels in analysis and the subjective sermon that provides for heart and life. He wants even less to do with a sort of 'balanced construct': a sermon that mixes exegesis with words for the heart. He who honours the character of the Word must leave behind all that talk about 'objective' and 'subjec­tive'. God's Word is personally addressed. It is always addressed to the congregation.⁵

In connection with B. Holwerda, C. Trimp is also critical of the old "interpretation-application" scheme. This system leads to a two part sermon: the objective and the subjective part. 

Objective is the explanation in which the truth of God's Word is presented from the text. Subjective is the application of that truth in the situation of the listeners in addition to the proclamation of the obligation of the covenant in the everyday life of the Christian.⁶ Trimp refers here to the well-known textbook of T. Hoekstra.

In another publication Trimp reminds the reader of a previous generation. It was customary in that time,

to find the resolution between the two types of preaching in a balanced emphasis of both aspects. A good minister distinguished himself through his skill in allowing both the objective and the subjective aspects their rightful place. First came the explanation, then after the singing, the application.⁷

Holwerda and Trimp are both right when they say that the twofold approach of "interpretation and application" acted within the framework of the 'objective-subjective' scheme. Hoekstra says, after all: "So one arises at a pure conception of the service of the Word as long as the objective and the subjective element, the 'subject' and the 'object', receive their rightful place".⁸ Both point out correctly that the Word of God does not communicate 'objective' truths, but that the Lord in the written word speaks to His people of then and now. For this very reason the entire sermon must be addressed from that point. But to be fair one must at the same time notice that Hoekstra wants nothing to do with two 'types' of preaching or two 'parts' in the sermon! What Trimp mentions from past generations is not what Hoekstra has in mind.

I, therefore, point out the following: With ap­proval Hoekstra quotes what P. Biesterveld writes about the preaching of Calvin: "His exegesis in the sermons are always real homiletic exegesis. He does not explain on the pulpit. It is a service of the Word, explanation and application together. And then he does not keep the application until the end, but you felt it already with the explana­tion: the servant works for your understanding and faith".⁹

Hoekstra states:

In accordance with the service of the Word, being the explanation and applica­tion of the God's Word, the homiletic treatment of the text is distinguished in clarification and relevance. That difference between clarification and relevance is a concise difference. Or splitting the sermon in two parts, namely, clarification and relevance, is another question.¹⁰

Hoekstra does not find that clarification and relevance must follow each other. He also finds that having an application after each part of the sermon to be objectionable.

He reaches, then, this solution:

The best, but also the most difficult method, is to put the explanation immediately in the form of an application and to work it such that it becomes practical in nature.¹¹ The sermon then loses the all character of a treatise and becomes, as it should be, a speech which ad­dresses the congregation directly with ideas that are drawn from the text transposed to a sphere of relevance.¹²

It becomes clear that Hoekstra wants the preaching to be different then how ministers were doing it in previous generations. It is also clear that the twofold approach 'expla­nation-application' according to Hoekstra must not and may not lead to a sermon in two parts. He considers the two approaches to be only an academic distinction. Actually Hoekstra has in mind a way of preaching that, from the outset, takes the tone of a personal address.

Hoekstra was not alone in his thinking. Also A. Kuyper, who has contributed much to the development of reformed sermon preparation, goes out from the twofold approach of 'interpretation and application'. He doesn't want anything to do with two 'types' of preaching: the 'subjective' and the 'objective'. "Kuyper strongly disap­proved of both direction".¹³ He also doesn't want anything to do with a combination of the two. He who sees the truth of God as 'subjective', misreads the character of the Word of God. For Kuyper, that Word is a message of the King of the church.¹⁴ By going out from this character of the Word, Kuyper divested himself of the confusing problem of 'objective' and 'subjective'.

C. Veenhof summarizes the view of Kuyper this way: 

The application ... is indeed something entirely different from being a particular part of the preaching — preferably the last — in which, as a result of the preceding text, some practical remarks are made. The real application has as stipulation an entirely distinct view of the text: this application is seen as being already relevant for the congregation. It is established by the text as it relates to the situation in which the congregation finds herself, her needs, struggles or joys, to encourage and urge her on. If the Word is preached in this way then the result is that the sermon is, from beginning to end, ap­plication.¹⁵

When W.D. Jonker says: "It is well and good that there is a definition of sermon as explanation and application of the Word, but it assumes a static view of that Word of God",¹⁶ this certainly does not apply to A. Kuyper. Possibly Hoekstra, more than Kuyper, continues to hang on to the dilemma of 'objective' and 'subjective',¹⁷ but both want a sermon that does not fall apart in two, but that from the beginning speaks to the congregation.

C. Trimp writes: "There exists a long and re­spectable reformed tradition with regard to the preaching that tells us of two parts (or aspects) of every sermon: the objective and the subjective divide", where objective is the explanation of the truth of God and subjective is the applica­tion of the truth to the situation of the listeners (with reference to T. Hoekstra).¹⁸ In my opinion Trimp short changes Hoekstra here, not to speak of Kuyper. Neither wants what Trimp outlines here: two "parts" in the sermon!

Also the statements of B. Holwerda are question­able: the explanation-application scheme must be rejected because behind it lies the question of objective-subjective and because this has the unintentional result that the character of the word of God and the preaching is overlooked. I refer to Kuyper, who does not recognize the distinction between 'subjective' and 'objective', and who fully takes into account the character of the Word, but yet still employs the twofold 'explanation and application' approach. One can hardly claim the twofold approach, which we encounter in the oldest reformed homiletics (eg. Joh. Hoornbeek), is dominated by the 'objec­tive-subjective' scheme.

Newer Criticism←⤒🔗

In the publication Preken en Horen and in the dis­sertation of J. R. Douma the criticism of Trimp is taken over and is "expanded" further.¹⁹ Thereby the matter is seen from three perspectives. First of all from the dogmatic perspective. The Word of God does not come with timeless truths, but is the living and speaking Word of God that is addressed to his covenant people. The scheme explanation-application does not do justice to this character of the Word.

Then there are objections from the perspective of hermeneutics²⁰ Especially modern hermeneutics taught us correctly that you cannot just speak about an 'objective' explanation. You never read a text impartially. You bring your own biases; you know a certain explanation; in short, you bring a lot with you when you approach a text. It is then also 'naive' to think that you can estab­lish the meaning of a bible text in an objective manner. When a sermon is described as (firstly) objective and (afterwards) application of a bible text, one does not do justice to the involvement that minister and listener already have when reading a text.

Finally, critical questions can be asked from a homiletic perspective. That first of all applies to the sermon preparation process. Explana­tion and application leads to a process whereby first — without the listener coming into view (insofar at least is possible) — the meaning of the text is established and after that the application is considered. Thus the listener comes too late into the picture. This also applies to the sermon itself. The sermon gets the structure of two distinct components: those that explain and those that apply. But it must be about the address directed to the listener.

The conclusion is:

There thus are considerable objections against the definition of sermons as the explaining and application of a biblical text. Such a definition cannot do justice to the starting point that sermons must always speak directly, that the sermon always must be directed preaching.²¹ 

In short:

the explanation-application scheme is theologically dangerous, hermeneutically incor­rect and homiletically unproductive.²²

Assessment of the Criticism←⤒🔗

Especially the newer criticisms appear to be groundless. Strong language is used. Are these criticisms justified and must we indeed take a resolute parting of the old twofold explanation-application scheme?

We saw that there is first an objection from a dogmatic perspective. The 'explanation- applica­tion' scheme does not do justice to the character of the written Word as an address of God to His people. It can easily lead to an objective dealing with the Scriptures. K. de Vries has pointed out that the scheme can be best dealt with in another way.²³ I agree with him on this point. And I remember what I passed on from A. Kuyper. When the scheme has as background the 'objective-subjective' approach and the explanation of the text seen as the 'objective' part, whereby in the application the subjective takes its turn, then the critics are correct. But when one considers the written Word fully as the living Word that God speaks to His people, then I do understand why people cannot speak about explanation and ap­plication. After all sermons are about more than just reading and explaining what is in the text. It is the Word of God being served to the con­gregation. This implies that the ministers must also see what the Scriptures have to say to the contemporary congregation.

J. Douma remarks:

If we say that the listener is the addressee of the sermon, we must also say that the carrier must deliver the message to the correct address. We say at the same time that that sermon must be directly to him or her and must be delivered in the context of his or her life. A sermon is not a leaflet that can be spread randomly in the whole country, but is a personal message that is tailored to the people it is meant for.²⁴

C. Trimp wants to supercede the 'objective-subjective' scheme by dealing with the sermon in its entirety as 'application'.²⁵ But also still with him the twofold approach remains. It is no longer the twofold 'explanation-application', but 'explanation-adaptation'.²⁶ Terminologically, Trimp distances himself from T. Hoekstra and A. Kuyper, but they are unmistakably connected in regards to what the ministers must do in sermon preparation.²⁷

The newer criticism also has objections from the hermeneutical perspective. It is naive to think that you can just 'objectively' establish the meaning of a biblical text. You already approach a text with a certain bias. The 'explanation-applica­tion' scheme assumes that you can explain a text 'objectively'. I don't see how this assumption is simply a given with this scheme. But even if it was a given, what is wrong with it? I am con­vinced that the minister indeed can explain the text 'objectively', in the sense that he makes clear to the congregation what the text says. If that is not possible, then preaching does not make sense anymore. We indeed come with baggage, and for this reason the minister must "take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5). The bias must be put aside. And it can also be put aside. Paul most wisely indicates how one does this, "My sheep hear my voice", says Christ (John 10:27). This also applies to the minister when he writes his sermon. When he indeed 'hears', he can establish what the Lord says in a particular text. This hearing will come through prayer for illumination by the Holy Spirit (cf. Luke1:17), for the 'opening' of the 'mind' (cf. Luke 24:45). We do not start out "objectively", but we can, led by God's Spirit, end "objectively", in the sense that we are in a position to say to the congregation: "so says the Lord".²⁸

Critical remarks have finally also been made from a homiletic perspective. B. Holwerda and C. Trimp point to the structure of the sermon. The 'explanation-application' scheme leads to a bipartition in the sermon. The application follows the explanation, while the entire sermon should be relevant. The newer criticism demands that attention be paid to the process of sermon mak­ing. Explaining and applying brings the listener too late into the picture. First the meaning of the text is established and only after that is attention given to the application.

Concerning the first point, I have already indi­cated what Hoekstra and Kuyper say about the wholeness of the sermon. They do not want a bi-partition. The explanation may not be an exegetical dissertation. During the explanation of the text, the listener must already sense that this is for his or her comfort. Actually, in their posi­tion, they replace the 'explanation-application' scheme with another two-fold approach. The so-called newer critics go further: the two-fold 'explanation-application' is also rejected because in this way the sermon gets the structure of two components: explaining and applying. But it must be only about the direct address to the listener. That last point I wholeheartedly grant them. This does not take away from the fact that explanations can be in the sermon. They must even be there. Precisely in that explanation it can be seen that the minister has listened.

Only what one has received as the message of the text, can one pass on in the application. He who lets explanation and application flow together will almost unavoidably confuse what the text says and what he himself finds there.²⁹

The words which the minister speaks "must remain transparent as words that make visible the content and the power of the text. This is what the congregation's needs and what she deserves".³⁰ This is why the explanatory element in the ser­mon must not be missing. If the sermon, indeed, is to be the service of the Word, then the text must be explained and then the sermon must include explanatory components.

In my opinion the determining factor is how these explanatory components receive their place in the sermon. C. Trimp has made clarifying remarks about this. He points to the nature of Scriptures and of preaching. In both God addresses His people. Therefore he reasons the entire sermon must take on the character of an address.

This means, among other things, that also in the explanation element, which is unique to every sermon, this theme must come through. In the explanation an expert is not there to demonstrate to his captive audience his knowledge of the ancient text. Also in the explanation from the pulpit — explanation within the framework of the service of the Word — the congregation is addressed with the words of the covenant.³¹

Trimp has indicated in this connection that the preaching is the service of the Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit who carries the entire activity 'and also seeks, in the explanatory part of the sermon, to speak with the word of faith. Thus He bears the salvation of Christ to the congregation. Even the explanation is supported by the applicative work of the Spirit'.³²

I think that Trimp is showing us the way. Also in the explanation of the text, the minister is totally involved as servant of the Word. Also the expla­nation is proclamation. The minister proclaims to the congregation what the text says and how this should be understood within the framework in which he lives and in the totality of God's rev­elation. In this, the minister is involved in the service of the Word to the congregation. He, as a servant of the Holy Spirit, places this written word on and in the heart of the congregation.

When ministers realize all of this, the explain­ing passages in the sermon do not become small exegetical essays, but they speak in such a way that the congregation experiences: here the Scriptures are opened for us, and here the Word is served.

I indicated already that the newer criticism de­mands attention for the sermon preparation process.

...Explanation and application leads to a process by which first, without having the listener in view (insofar as that is possible), the meaning of the text is determined and afterwards the applica­tion is considered ... The twofold approach of explanation and application create a separation by which the listener comes too late into the picture.³³ The explanation-application model implies a sermon making process, 'in which first, independent of the listeners, the meaning of the text is determined, and after that (possibly too late) the listeners are considered'.³⁴

I cannot see it otherwise that this is a description of what I myself, and many other ministers, have done with sermon preparation. In this context I have never approached a text without having the congregation in mind from the outset. In fact the congregation often steers me to particular texts. I saw the need to speak to questions, troubles or temptations from God's Word. And also when I was exegetically busy in the study, I did not lose sight of the fact that I do work to hear what the Spirit says to the congregation. In this context, the twofold 'explanation and application' scheme worked beneficially. It reminded me that first I must understand the text well before I can say something on behalf of God to the congregation. It forced me into receptive humility, an attitude that is characterized by making use of all avail­able (also scientific) resources in order to hear the text as the Spirit has intended it. Therefore I maintain that, also in his exegetical preparation, a minister is already fully involved as servant of the Word to the congregation. He does that work particularly with the listeners in mind. They are there from the beginning, although they will through the 'meditation' or 'homiletic exegesis'³⁵ become more clearly defined when the minister examines the question what the concrete message of the text is for the contem­porary congregation.

In Closing←⤒🔗

It will be clear to the reader that I want lay aside the scheme, but not the twofold 'interpretation-application' approach. What the critics bring to the fore is, in my opinion, questionable. There are important reasons to maintain this age-old twofold approach for today's Reformed.³⁶ In a time in which ministers sometimes try to make their sermon more appealing, we must not forget the words of A. Kuyper:

The explanation is the first part of the preaching which the Reformed people have always regarded highly, and it is in the purposeful explanation that you still can immediately recognize a minister of Reformed persuasion.³⁷