Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 59:2 (Fall 1997)
Article: Reviews of Books
Author: Anonymous

WTJ 59:2 (Fall 97) p. 327

Reviews of Books

David C. Norrington: To Preach or Not to Preach. Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1996. 129 pages, no price listed.

In this short but packed volume, Mr. Norrington advances a thesis that will be questioned by many not only in the Reformed community but in the church at large: That preaching, as we understand it today in terms of the regular Sunday sermon, is not only unnecessary to the work of the church, but is in fact quite harmful. He argues that preaching in the modern concept cannot be supported by the biblical documents or the history of the early church, and that the institution of the regular sermon was primarily an extra-biblical later development, along the lines of a number of other ecclesiastical traditions whose origins are questionable. Let me begin with a few comments on some of the helpful features in Norrington’s work, and then offer some criticisms of the main thesis.

The book is well written, and Norrington shows quite a depth of interaction with secondary literature in this monograph, drawing on a variety of sources to support his arguments. In critiquing preaching in general, he does a great service in re minding the church that there were a variety of other methods for Christian disciple ship suggested and implied in the biblical writings. As one who believes that regular preaching is an ordained means of God’s work in the church, I still find it helpful to be reminded that preaching by itself cannot bear the full weight of teaching and growth that members of a congregation need, but that various other methods which involve mutual instruction and encouragement are essential components for the healthy church.

My first criticism of this book is that it is too short. This makes it difficult to read, and there are a number of arguments which need to be developed more fully to be convincing. Often Norrington will make a fairly major assertion which is then supported by a footnote. While this is not unusual, many of his assertions need more support in the text itself. In addition, not all the footnote support is clear or adequate. As an example to support both these criticisms Norrington claims, with passages cited in the text (Isa 5:3f and Amos 3:3–8) and footnote support from two commentaries (note 25) that “audience participation was common” (p. 3). Really? Perhaps it was, but a) the passages cited do not support the claim (at least, not without a great deal of exegetical support to show why they are cited) and b) I would like to see some clear support from several biblical texts without having to run to the commentaries which Norrington references. These commentaries do not themselves provide evidence for the claim (sa...