Knowledge of CoC preachers?

[longdistancerunner]

As I research the historical Jesus I find a lot of interesting things just from the gospels that I never remember hearing in any sermon or bible school class. Regardless of belief it seems to me now that CoC preachers really know very little about the synoptic gospels. They just never get into detail about things that happened after the resurrection for example (Christ eating, zombies, etc, how saw Jesus after resurrection). And I have never heard a good description in the difference in John vs the other three gospels. I wonder if in preacher schools and CoC universities they are taught a sanitized version of the gospels and Jesus's life to avoid the obvious contradictions (of course there is a whole subject of apologetics that attempts to explain contradictions). Or do they know the details and just don't think your average CoC member could understand the more complex stories? My observation is CoC preachers seem to be much more comfortable with the Old Testament and preach a lot about it despite it not being their holy book (just for history).

[agricola]

It seems to me that the better quality CoC preachers - the ones with college and seminary - know quite a lot, but also know that their congregations do NOT know much background at all, and the CoC as a whole is not into 'let's educate everybody to a higher level' but instead is more focused on pastoral care, so to speak.
So I think they - or some of them - are well aware of all that, and also do not believe it is useful or necessary to preach about any of it.

Just my impression!

[zeek]

The sad reality is that in the coC the gospels aren't of much importance not even the crucifixion and resurrection. The total emphasis was always on Paul's letters. EVERYTHING else took a back seat to the writings of Paul. Honestly, if they thought they could get away with it they would rename the denomination "the church of Paul".

[Shane R]

How many others heard the Gospel described as: facts to be believed, commands to be obeyed, and promises to be received? Working within that framework, the Gospels become facts to be believed. They are taken at face value and the preaching quickly passes on to other talking points. I don't think most CoC preachers are very good at drawing out a secondary meaning or any sort of application from the Gospel pericopaes. Their obsession with individual verses rather than paragraphs or pericopaes does not help them get the big picture either.

[longdistancerunner]

How many others heard the Gospel described as: facts to be believed, commands to be obeyed, and promises to be received? Working within that framework, the Gospels become facts to be believed. They are taken at face value and the preaching quickly passes on to other talking points. I don't think most CoC preachers are very good at drawing out a secondary meaning or any sort of application from the Gospel pericopaes. Their obsession with individual verses rather than paragraphs or pericopaes does not help them get the big picture either.

They always seemed to me more comfortable with material in the Old Testament. There they don't encounter contradictions or if they are there they are readily explainable. But with the CoC beliefs why even bother with the OT?

[zeek]

How many others heard the Gospel described as: facts to be believed, commands to be obeyed, and promises to be received? Working within that framework, the Gospels become facts to be believed. They are taken at face value and the preaching quickly passes on to other talking points. I don't think most CoC preachers are very good at drawing out a secondary meaning or any sort of application from the Gospel pericopaes. Their obsession with individual verses rather than paragraphs or pericopaes does not help them get the big picture either.

They always seemed to me more comfortable with material in the Old Testament. There they don't encounter contradictions or if they are there they are readily explainable. But with the CoC beliefs why even bother with the OT?

Because Paul said some place that "they were written for our learning..."

[Moogy]

I have found that many preachers/pastors in other Christian denominations don’t preach everything they learned in seminary. In all my years in the United Methodist church, I heard only one pastor say in a service that God didn’t tell the Bible writers exactly what words to write down. She said that the writers had an experience with God, and they wrote about it. She said this in a children's sermon. Perhaps the kids will remember this.

Most of the people in the pews believe in literal word-for-word, infallible inspiration, even though that is not the official doctrine of the United Methodist Church. This explains why it was so easy for negative influencers to split that church recently.

[longdistancerunner]

Most of the people in the pews believe in literal word-for-word, infallible inspiration, even though that is not the official doctrine of the United Methodist Church. This explains why it was so easy for negative influencers to split that church recently.
[/quote]

A preacher I knew in his lessons used to say the Bible was literal word-for-word infallible. That you could not explain away passages as allegorical. Then 15 minutes later he would be discussing a piece of scripture and say "this is allegorical".

[Gauronaolo]

Yeah, I’ve noticed the same thing. A lot of those post-resurrection moments, like Jesus eating or the "zombie" thing, aren't really discussed much in church, which is odd considering how interesting they are. It makes me wonder if preachers avoid certain details because they don’t want to get into the more complex or potentially contradictory parts of the gospels. I’ve always found the difference between John and the synoptics interesting too, but I don’t think I've ever heard anyone really explain it well, even in Bible school. I think maybe it's just easier for preachers to focus on the Old Testament since it’s more straightforward for most people.