Application

Theological food for the hungry vs. theological food for the connoisseur (Miroslav Volf)

Kirk E. Miller

o-MIROSLAV-VOLF-

Miroslav Volf uses the metaphor of food, chefs, and connoisseurs as he refers to the difference between theology applied for everyday life and mere theological speculation done by the highly trained theologians.

Are not these same issues surfacing everywhere in the world today? Am I not offering staple foods that can be found anywhere? My answer is yes, probably. But then as a theological chef I do not think this should bother me. My responsibility is not to tickle the palates of Wester theological connoisseurs dulled by abundance and variety, but to fill the empty stomachs of people engaged in a bloody conflict [reference to literal conflict]. I have to prepare the food they need. Opinions of connoisseurs might be interesting and instructive, but nutritious value for the hungry is what matters. This is what it means to do contextualized theology.

~ A Spacious Heart, 34-35.

Application and the Authority of Scripture

Kirk E. Miller

One of the areas of study that I find absolutely fascinating is what I call “hermeneutics of application.” Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation; it’s the discipline of study related to the methodology and principles of interpretation. So when I say, “hermeneutics of application” I mean the study of how one properly moves from interpretation of the text to application of the text.

Hence, when I read this quote many years ago, I’ve never been able to forget it:

Every time we derive an interpretation and application from a text that is not consistent with its contextual sense—no matter how biblical the truth itself may be–we rob that text of the meaning and application that God intended when He gave it. In the process, we rob ourselves and others of that text’s truth from God. … Worst of all, we rob God of His voice in that verse. – Layton Talbert, unknown source.

Continue reading →

“Okay, So What Does This Have to Do with My Life?

Kirk E. Miller 5 Comments

Hear me out. I full heartedly believe that practical application is important. And I also believe that every portion of Scripture has practical implications for our lives because every text has theological significance and all theology is practical; don’t misunderstand me. But, over the past few days I’ve been thinking…

Currently I am in the middle of writing a sermon on Acts 1:15-26 for a class. This passage was assigned to me; I don’t have choice. It’s not an easy passage on which to write a sermon (which is why they assigned it). It’s about the 11 apostles casting lots for the 12th apostle to replace Judas after his suicide. This passage does not provide any direct or explicit application for our lives today. It does not tell us to do something, to do anything! That’s not to say it lacks practical implications. Luke puts this section in his book for a reason. Therefore, through this literary purpose, it communicates theology at some level. And since all theology has practical implications, the text is practical.

But the passage isn’t directly about me. It’s not about you. It wasn’t written for this reason–to be about us. And I’m okay with that. “Devotional literature” is not the Bible’s overarching genre. Contrary to the common cliche, the Bible’s genre is not “love letter to Kirk Miller.”

Continue reading →

Submitting Your Beliefs to Scripture or Submitting Scripture to Your Beliefs?

Kirk E. Miller

The following is a fantastic excerpt from Daniel Doriani’s Putting the Truth to Work: The Theory and Practice of Biblical Application.

The submissive interpreter bows to the God who reveals himself in Scripture and accepts, in principle, whatever it says. If the Bible upsets a cherished conviction, we say, “I stand corrected,” not “I wonder.” Facing a difficult teaching, we may suspect that it has been misconstrued or otherwise hesitate. But if we confirm that it means what it seems to mean, then we bow–not to the text, but to the God who gave it. So conservatives claim the highest willingness to submit to Scripture.

The difficulty with this view [as presented above] is that confessing, “I submit to Scripture,” is one thing, while actually submitting is another. Further, this . . . view can be perverted by illogical thinking:

Continue reading →

Authority–Man’s Word < God’s Word

Kirk E. Miller 2 Comments

Preface

On Sunday, August 26th, my pastor preached an excellent sermon from Matthew 15:1-9 at Lake Drive. The question he posed was, “What hold’s authority for the Christian?”  The topic of the sermon was God’s word and man’s word—that is, God’s truth, His teaching, His commandments versus man’s teaching, man’s instruction, or man’s tradition. Allow me to share with you some thoughts I had or that pastor Curt Leonard brought out in his message.

Introduction

God’s word is authoritative. It is perfect, it is true, and it is binding. As such it is the believer’s ultimate authority of faith (what to believe) and practice (what to do; how to live). A parallel truth to this fact is that God’s word is sufficient to instruct us on how to live godly lives in our present age or generation, which implies the concept of making direct applications of its truth to our contemporary setting.

Continue reading →