Hi Tony - thanks for your comments! Here are my brief thoughts.

I’m certainly not using the word “application” to only mean “things you should do”. I do believe that it is far more wide-ranging: to quote from my post, application can be summarised as asking the question: “How should I respond to this?”

I have been greatly helped by Murray Capill’s study of the Puritans and their efforts at “application” to the heart. That last point in my post:

Consider applications that relate to the understanding, the will, the affections and the conscience.

is a summary of the kinds of applications I have in mind. Sometimes (but not always), the application will address people’s understanding - e.g. their worldview needs to change. Sometimes (but not always), the application is to the will - this is where “things you should do” comes into play (and perhaps is the most common use of the word “application” w.r.t. Bible teaching). Sometimes it’s the affections - the “feelings”, the overall motivations, etc. And sometimes it’s the conscience - people need to realise that something they thought was right is actually wrong, or vice versa.

About specificity - it’s not always a bad thing. A well-placed, detailed and very specific application may not necessarily apply directly to the whole congregation (or Bible study group, etc.). However, its specificity helps the whole congregation to see that there are real connections between this teaching and real life, and it will help them make analagous connections with specific circumstances in their own life.

Hi Di - some very good and helpful points there. I particularly liked your last point. I absolutely abhor the phrase “making the Scriptures relevant”, because the Scriptures are already relevant. I do believe, however, that teachers are called upon to demonstrate their relevance in many and varied ways.

To answer your question, “application” (by which I mean an encouragement to have a specific response to the truth proclaimed) is found everywhere in Scripture (in the gospels and apostles) in many and varied forms. Sometimes it comes in large blocks, such as Matthew 23, Galatians 5-6, Ephesians 4-6, Romans 12, etc. At other times, it’s scattered throughout the exegetical teaching.

As Tony pointed out, the word “application” may be distracting because many people use it in a reductionistic or moralising way. If so, I’m happy to abandon the term, particularly if anyone can suggest a better one.

Do you think that the common use of the idea of application often leads to prescription and goes beyond the intent of scripture?

When I read the passages of ‘application’ in the New Testament that you mentioned Lionel, I see them more as explanations of the intent of the law in the context of the gospel. We are being given understanding. I see love of God and others (in response to the gospel) is to drive my decision-making and that my heart is the big problem. However, the Bible never seems to spell out generalised detailed behaviour such as what kind of horse or car, model of car for all Christians. It does tell me to be loving in all my decisions. The guilt is to be related to my attitude to God. My attitude to God will influence the car I drive but it will not lead to the same end result for each person.

Yet ‘sermon application’ easily heads in this direction eg don’t have the latest model whatever, don’t choose this style of education, rent, don’t mortgage, don’t go over seas for you holiday, but an Australian holiday is ok, …… The problem is usually far more difficult to determine for each person.  Eg one man may choose to buy a newer car out of love for the family because of less break downs, more safety for a household of learner, young drivers on country roads.  Another man may choose to drive a Kombi and use the good public transport available!! What is important is that we understand the intent (love). Sermon can lead to adoption of specific behaviours in response to the sermon ‘application’ and still leave my mind not renewed because I have not understood the mind of God on the matter.

It is very easy to remove the gospel from the driving seat and we drift back to rules and judging and sermon application can contribute to this.

How are the principles for avoiding this outcome?

Please feel free to criticise my comments.

Di

Sorry to enter the discussion a bit late, but I was really trying to understand my own feelings on the subject.

Dianne, I really like the way you see our response to what God has done for why we live the life we live as Christians - ‘We love because God first loved us” (1 JOhn 4:19).

I guess I see the problem being that too much is expected from the Bible. Please understand that I see the Bible as the written word of God and useful for teaching, rebuking etc. At the same time, I think the Bible’s ability to change who we are is limited, in fact this is something that only happens through the living Word made flesh - Jesus. So, once again, we love because God (in Jesus) first loved us. Personally, I think that when the Gospel impacts a persons life, then the application that is relevant to that person will flow out (1 John 4:7), especially if they are encouraged by their brothers and sisters within the context of relationship (Heb 10:24-25).

What makes me uncomfortable about your post Lionel, is that the expectation (from my understanding) is that the Bible is the answer. We just need to apply it correctly. I could have read you wrong, I certainly like some of the stuff Murray Capill says, so perhaps I have!

Dave

Hi Di,

Wow - I’ve never really experienced that kind of detailed prescriptive “application” in sermons (sometimes I’ve seen it work well in 1-1 situations, but that’s a different kettle of fish). I can see why you might react against it. I’m actually reacting against something quite different - the failure of teachers (especially myself) to come down into the day-to-day reality people’s lives at all!

Off the top of my head, there are various ways to avoid the kind of woodenly prescriptive “application” you mentioned, e.g. about holidays, here’s a way of doing it that might be better: “Of course, if this is the truth about (e.g. the new creation), then this will affect the way we spend our time and money, won’t it? Have you considered how it might affect your choice of holiday destination? We’ll have everlasting life to enjoy the new creation - so how much do you really need that overseas trip you’re planning?” Etc.

Lionel

PS this will be my last comment on this topic before we go into our Christmas recess. However - STOP PRESS - I’ve just seen this positive review of a book that I’ve been given but haven’t yet read - it looks like it may be a helpful read on this topic though!

Thanks for the post Lionel. A really important topic. In addition to what you’ve written, I like David Cook’s three levels of application:

Necessary - always necessary for all people.

Possible - sometimes possible for some people.

Impossible - how the passage cannot be applied.

Taken from ‘How to prepare a Bible talk’

These make the writing of application simple while avoiding the trap of legalism.

Thank you, Lionel!

You and the others may be glad to know your blog is read (and appreciated) by non-Australians too. Good expository teaching is uncommon in Singapore, but we are blessed to have it at our church, so it’s been perplexing that relatively few hearers seem to grow in maturity. Of course there *is* the hardness of heart issue, but we think you put your finger on a very important and helpful point (one that my husband Yuk Yee and I had been discussing but that you’ve articulated far better than we had)—that at the teaching level we’d do well to work at application. In the groups we know, expository teaching without adequate attention to application may have produced people who go away excited that they know so much more, but not really challenged to change inner attitudes or values.

I think the other extreme, the problem highlighted by Dianne, happens when people fail to understand the principle motivating the application—then, application is in danger of falling into legalism. This is also a problem in Singapore (where, perhaps much more so than in Australia!, people often love being told exactly what to do; it saves them the trouble of thinking for themselves—there, I said it).

So we really need to work harder at application while making sure the original principle is clearly taught and understood.

Anyway, this is just to say: we get what you mean, every last word down to “application”! It’s actually pretty incredible how you’ve summarised the problem facing evangelical churches in Singapore. Maybe you should come out here more often to teach us! And tag on to the trip a holiday!