In the comments of a recent post, a question was raised about the advisability and expediency of having people turn to different passages during a message. I generally do not ask people to flip around too much during a message.
There are exceptions: if the message is topical, or if the cross-reference is a "you just have to see this for yourself" type of point. Of course, the analogy of Scripture is based on the fact that the Bible is inerrant and does not contradict itself. I also like to illustrate using biblical examples. That gives a double benefit: it improves our people's biblical literacy while illustrating the point.
Expediency plays a big part in how much turning from passage to passage you do in a message. If you have an hour and a half to preach and a biblically literate congregation, then it's a great way to show where you are getting these things. Also, if you are teaching in a Sunday School or even more formal educational setting, this kind of cross-referencing should be expected.
However, the biggest reason in my mind that keeps me from doing too much cross-referencing is theological: it can lead to an implicit denial that each book of Scripture can stand on its own. If we believe that the Bible is both a human and a divine book (inspiration), then we must take very seriously the intention of the human author. We should interpret Scripture in grammatical and historical way. We know what the author means by what the author says.
Perhaps nowhere is this more patently demonstrated than in the Gospels. Matthew did not write his gospel to be read in conjunction with, or as a commentary on, Luke's gospel. Mark was not penning a "CliffsNotes" version of Matthew's gospel. John was not trying to "fill in" the missing information from the synoptics. But when we study the gospels, how quickly do we run to the parallel passages? Matthew wrote his gospel to a specific group of people with the understanding that they could understand his message from the words that he wrote.
Cross references are helpful. They can give us a background on how the author uses words, they can eliminate interpretive possibilities based on the clear teaching of other passages, and they can illuminate allusions the author has made. However, I would submit that we ought to preach what the text means from the text itself.
There are exceptions: if the message is topical, or if the cross-reference is a "you just have to see this for yourself" type of point. Of course, the analogy of Scripture is based on the fact that the Bible is inerrant and does not contradict itself. I also like to illustrate using biblical examples. That gives a double benefit: it improves our people's biblical literacy while illustrating the point.
Expediency plays a big part in how much turning from passage to passage you do in a message. If you have an hour and a half to preach and a biblically literate congregation, then it's a great way to show where you are getting these things. Also, if you are teaching in a Sunday School or even more formal educational setting, this kind of cross-referencing should be expected.
However, the biggest reason in my mind that keeps me from doing too much cross-referencing is theological: it can lead to an implicit denial that each book of Scripture can stand on its own. If we believe that the Bible is both a human and a divine book (inspiration), then we must take very seriously the intention of the human author. We should interpret Scripture in grammatical and historical way. We know what the author means by what the author says.
Perhaps nowhere is this more patently demonstrated than in the Gospels. Matthew did not write his gospel to be read in conjunction with, or as a commentary on, Luke's gospel. Mark was not penning a "CliffsNotes" version of Matthew's gospel. John was not trying to "fill in" the missing information from the synoptics. But when we study the gospels, how quickly do we run to the parallel passages? Matthew wrote his gospel to a specific group of people with the understanding that they could understand his message from the words that he wrote.
Cross references are helpful. They can give us a background on how the author uses words, they can eliminate interpretive possibilities based on the clear teaching of other passages, and they can illuminate allusions the author has made. However, I would submit that we ought to preach what the text means from the text itself.
Comments
Incidentally, I recently posted on inerrancy and quoted part of your post in my preface.
None-the-less, your point is well taken, and something to which I had given little thought.
However, the biggest reason in my mind that keeps me from doing too much cross-referencing is theological: it can lead to an implicit denial that each book of Scripture can stand on its own.
That explains it well, Mark. I was told by a fellow student that I needed to use more cross referencing in my preaching and wondered why. Perhaps it comes from the proof-texting style of preaching. I'm not sure. Allowing the passage to speak for itself is my choice when doing an expository message.