If I may venture an opinion, all is not as it appears Mackenzie's Biblical interpretative method is not as highly subjective as he would
2 work both directly and indirectly on several different occasions.
In fact, he quotes Barth more times than any other theologian or Biblical scholar. In addition, McWilliam refers to C. H. Dodd’s division between kerygma and didache,"^ and to Bultmann’s construct of the three tiered
5
universe. Even so, there is not enough material in his lectures to give a clear indication of his particular theological slant.
As regards the more subjective aspects of interpretation, McWilliam believes that a preacher’s personality is of great consequence. Its impor tance is not so much related to discovering the original meaning of the text as it is to translating that discovered meaning into terms his/her
As best as I was able to discover, McWilliam’s only other publications were short sermon summaries in The Expository Times. Even with these, it was not enough information.
2
For example, he refers to Barth directly on p. 9, 27, and 76; and indirectly in his understanding of the Word. As he notes, the Word in Scripture is revealed but hidden (p. 6). This echoes the thought of Barth.
3
Moreover, when he refers to him directly, it is as if he is an established authority. See Ibid., p. 76.
"^Ibid., p. 12. ^Ibid., pp. 20-21.
people can understand. He believes that for a preacher to view himself/ herself as "a passive vehicle for the divine revelation" is both dangerous and psychologically impossible.^ As he notes :
"The preacher’s person, his character, personality, emotional drives, prejudices and hidden preconceptions, are important elements in shaping his preaching."2
Therefore, a "preacher should be aware of himself, of the kind of person o
he is, of his own motivation." In this way, the preacher will be more able to authentically proclaim the Word found in the Bible instead of speaking his/her own word.
Although McWilliam covers a lot of ground lightly in his lectures, he does raise some issues about Biblical interpretation which are further dealt with in the lectures of Pitt-Watson. His perception of the necessity for the preacher not only to discover the original meaning of the text but also to be able to interpret and translate that meaning appears again in Pitt-Watson’s lectures. Moreover, McWilliam’s recognition of a preacher’s dual obligation to the Word and to the people also reappears in Pitt- Watson’ s lectures. Even though these issues are not dealt with in much detail, McWilliam does raise some concerns which are more closely examined in the next Lectureship.
^Ibid., p. 72. ^Ibid., pp. 72-73. ^Ibid., p. 73.
Ian Pitt-Watson
The final Lectureship to be discussed in this chapter is that of Ian Pitt-Watson, and his is also the concluding one in this chapter. His
lectures represent a kind of peak in the examination of Biblical interpre tation for preaching within the Warrack Lectures. As he sees it, the hermeneutical process by which Biblical material is translated into the
language and experience of contemporary people is the central problem facing every preacher today. This task and how to accomplish it makes up the major part of his Lectureship.
Like the other lecturers of this period, Pitt-Watson bases both his understanding of the nature of the Bible and preaching upon a doctrine of the Word of God. As he writes:
"He (the preacher) must live and preach in the faith that the closer he comes to an understanding of the original meaning of the text of the Bible the closer he comes to the Word of God.... But if we accept (as I do) that the Word of God is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, then we must accept this also. Unless
the primary authority for what we are saying is Biblical, and therefore ultimately dependent on the original meaning of the text, we are not preaching, we are simply expressing an opinion. "1
It is then part of the preacher’s task to discover the Word of God as it is found within the Scriptures.
To accomplish this task, Pitt-Watson subscribes to the use of scholarly and technical exegetical methods and insists that "honest exegesis is
9
essential." Quoting from William Nicholls, he argues :
^Pitt-Watson, Warrack, 1972/74, p. 56. ^Ibid., p. 69.
"Every reader of the New Testament engages in interpre tation. ... He must decide first of all what the words meant for the first-century men who wrote and first read
them. Only when he has thus discovered, so far as possi ble, the original meaning of the text can he go on to the second part of the task...."^
According to his view, without the use of scholarship, this task will not be properly accomplished since it "depends on a knowledge of the
literature, social customs and philosophical outlook of the ancient world, which together provide the context for the thought of the New
o
Testament writers." Pitt-Watson insists: "That is why the technical academic training he (the preacher) has received in Biblical Criticism
3
must never be allowed to become irrelevant to his homiletical task."In his example of a sermon which begins with the text, he describes the exegetical part of his homiletical method as follows.
1. After the particular passage is chosen (Mark 1:40-45), he suggests that one should consult a reliable commen
tary to establish the proper reading of the text. (Textual Criticism)
2. Then he talks of allowing one’s mind to be "free to range over the passage until a theme emerges."
3. In this more or less brainstorming exercise, he allows historical and cultural background information to help him understand the text, i.e. the kosher laws regarding contact with a leper. (Historical Criticism)
4. He also allows literary criticism to help him to further understand the meaning of the passage, i.e. the
"Messianic Secret" in the whole of Mark’s Gospel. (Literary Criticism)
^Ibid., p. 54. ^Ibid.
3
Ibid., p. 55. For more particulars on his views regarding exeget ical method, see Ibid., pp. 68-69.
5. He also permits theological insights to aid in the focusing of the text’s meaning, i.e. the relation ship of Christ to the Law.^
From these various insights into the meaning of the text, he describes six different themes which emerge. He chooses only one based upon the phrase ’’Jesus touched him.’’
Even though understanding the text within its context is essential, it is not enough so that the Word of God can be heard through preaching. As he argues;
’’a true exposition of the original meaning of the text offers no guarantee that the Word of God has been
preached. The kerygra is not heard unless ’the meanings which are possible within our present culture’ are also realized: this is what demonstrates the text of the Bible to be the Word of God - its capacity to speak to men and women in our present culture. And by ’present culture’ I mean simply how people thinlc, act and feel now. Until the text of the Bible has been shown to be rele vant and potent in the immediate social and personal concerns of contemporary life, it has not became the Word of God, however faithful the textual exegesis--- Yet ’the original meaning of the text’ must remain the controlling factor. Hence the tension.’’2
’’Every sermon,’’ Pitt-Watson claims, ’’is stretched like a bowstring between the text of the Bible on the one hand and the problems of contemporary human life on the other. If the string is insecurely