I heard the most interesting idea the other day. ('most interesting' meaning 'i've never heard this before in my life.') An anonymous, but much more educated than I, someone suggested that cross-referencing is actually a blight on expository preaching. His reasoning stemmed from the fact that each passage of the Bible can stand on its own and is clear as it was written. (a sort of perspicuity of each text, if you will) He said, "You wouldn't want to convey the idea to your people that any passage can't stand on its own as its written." He did allow for the value of contextual cross-referencing, but very strictly limited its use. He said we needn't heap reference after reference on top of each other, as if it wasn't enough that God said it once.
Instead of rejecting the idea outright (as i was tempted to do), I decided to think about it for a while. It seems to me that perhaps there's some merit to what he said. I mean, some people cross-reference you to death. It's especially annoying when the passage was pretty clear, and the attending references only reiterate what was plain the first time around. And in the mass of references, it becomes easy to lose the flow of the original passage. Or when the cross-reference is actually part of an entirely different context and just happens to share a few English words with the text at hand.
On the other hand, will pastors ever teach their people about the analogy of the faith if the Bible is viewed in such a compartmentalized way? There is a beauty and an emphasis in the repitition of Scripture, and sometimes it's an amazing testimony to inspiration to see diverse authors separated by time and space make similarly compelling and striking arguments.
So what do you think? Do we need cross-references in preaching to clear up the point of some texts? If it's a valid method, can it be overused, and how can you tell?
Perspectives welcome.
Posted by apelles at October 6, 2003 05:22 PM1) Let's be careful not to make categorical imperatives about what preaching should or should not do, particularly in methods, style, and so forth. To demand that all preaching fit a model--say, to be propositional and to include an illustration with a climax--strikes me as provincial. God is pleased to use all sorts of preaching methods. We must demand only that the content and methods exalt the sufficiency of Scripture and the glory of Christ.
2) It is possible that piling up cross-references obscures the unity and power of individual texts, so cross-referencing should be done only with care (see following).
3) Cross-referencing should restrict itself to passages making the same argument (not just the same point). If the preaching cross-references a passage with a completely different argument, he ought to lay out the new context and its argument. (There I go giving an imperative. Think of these as proverbs--general principles!)
4) All cross-referencing should be done in a way that exalts the unity of Scripture. ("See how Paul uses this same argument with a different problem." "See that this imperative is grounded in God's saving purposes in Isaiah." "See how this completes our understanding of the Genesis 3 curse.")
5) Cross-referencing can and should be done without citing chapters and verses. Merely note the text, the author, the situation, and the argument (see 3).
6) Cross-referencing should almost never control the presentation of a particular text. ("Even though it sounds like the author is saying thus, that can't be so because John said thus.") The preacher's interpretation should stand or fall within the argument of the text he's handling. Of course, a few texts make the application of this principle almost impossible.
7) Some preachers will cross-reference frequently. Some won't. In all things, exalt the Word so as to exalt Christ.
Well, here are my quick (and no doubt erring) thoughts. I stand ready for correction and refinement.
Posted by: Josh Jensen at October 6, 2003 06:50 PMThanks, Josh. You provided me with more to think about than I could have possibly hoped for. In one comment, you made my whole purpose for this "perspectives" blog a success. i hope there will be more to come from some others...
i appreciated your well-thought through and clearly presented thoughts. (so no correction or refinement from me as of now. :-)
Anon's view perverts rather promotes perspicuity. (Not to mention that its apparent dogmatism is a deterrent to this reader's ability to give it a fair shake in the first place.)
There is an element of truth present in that line of thinking, but it is a tiny grain of sand on a vast coast. It should be treated as such. It sounds like a well-intended but ultimate-purpose-defeating "take" on exegesis.
What would Anon do with those Scriptures that refuse to stand alone? i.e., This view seems to contradict allusions to Scripture within Scripture and the expositional technique of men like Paul and Peter and Jesus. This may seem an elementary example, but I find it quite worthy of bringing up: It appears to undermine even Christ's commendation of those who would search the Scriptures (plural, pulling from the Entirety) to see if these things were true (in context of the Whole).
Posted by: joy mccarnan at October 7, 2003 01:30 PMI have wrestled with this quandry for several days now, and my mind keeps going back to the biblical examples of preaching. Consider the sermons in the Gospels and Acts. Did not Christ, Paul, Peter, and Steven (just to name a few) all use cross references? If we are simply talking about a difference in terms then I think Anon's view is viable. If we are talking about the same practice done in canonical sermons versus the elimination of the practice in modern day sermons, then I believe I will side with Scripture.
Posted by: Whitty at October 7, 2003 03:00 PMI spent several days thinking about this. I am probably days late, but I like the idea of this "perspectives" section of your blog very much. In fact, I wrote my own take on vantage a few weeks back.
I don't believe in excessive cross-referencing (anything should be done with careful attention--most notably, handling of the Word of God), but I don't think we should scrap it quite yet.
By cross-referencing no one suggests that a passage can't stand alone. "This is what the Lord says" is just that. But apart from preachers in the Bible quoting Scripture, God repeats Himself throughout the Bible. Think of how many times He implores us, "do not be afraid!" I can only trust that this repetition is for our benefit, not for His. Cross-referencing allows us to see His faithfulness and immutability across the ages. He is still saying the same things to us.
Furthermore, it is difficult for me to imagine that someone would come to the conclusion that cross-referencing harms the authority of a single passage. Human reasoning usually requires more than one piece of evidence to support a truth claim. If Anonymous is worried that we are applying our puny mental powers against God's Word, I think he's missing the point (with all due respect). How does comparing an additional passage invalidate the authority of the original if it says the same thing (this assumes the pastor is cross-referencing "correctly.")? If we claim to believe the Bible--every word of it--then comparing can only strengthen our resolve to trust what God says.
To answer your final questions and tie up loose ends:
Yes, cross-referencing can be beneficial to reinforce a passage (especially difficult passages); but also it shows the repetitive nature of God's revelation to humanity and His faithfulness. But as a valid method, it can be overused and misused (I think Josh clearly explains usage quite nicely.)
Your final question is the hardest. How can you tell [if cross-references are overused]? We have to be careful not to jump to conclusions. I write down each cross-reference. A lot of times I have a chance to turn there immediately, but if I don't, I will check them out later. We have to be diligent. We have to search the Scriptures, and that has to include the cross-references too!
Never too late, james micah. i appreciate your input very much, and i think you capsulated a conclusion very well.
Posted by: apelles at October 16, 2003 11:39 AMI've been following this for a while and thinking about it. Anon's view sounds good at first, but a little thought changes that reaction. I think we all probably feel that way.
I do not see how one cannot cross-reference. The OT's relation to the NT would falter, I think.
I always used to wonder what preachers meant when they'd proclaim that every verse in the Bible is important. I'd feel guilty that I wasn't being convicted or blessed when reading, say, the OT law sections or geneologies. But I've realized since then, that those are all there to further our understanding of Scripture and its context.
By cross-referencing some tedious passages, we learn the historical context of other books. In Dr. Shumate's class on Isaiah, we would not have been able to get the context of Isaiah without cross-referencing to Jeremiah and other parts of the Bible to understand Isaiah's historical importance.
And yes, the NT does quote the OT. Seems like cross-referencing to me. I think that by cross-referencing, the Bible's unified message becomes more clear.
What originally appealed to me about Anon's thought was that as I've read my Bible, I've often lost sight of the passage I was reading by following every single cross-reference listed. But that's more my fault than anything.
Posted by: JRC at October 17, 2003 11:29 AM"Novum Testamentum in vetere latet, Vetus in novo patet."
"Only in the New Covenant does the Old unfold, And hidden lies the New Testament in the Old."
St. Augustine
Posted by: james micah at October 19, 2003 04:39 AM