The bible is full of thorny issues that Christians disagree over. Many of us are familiar with various understandings of the opening chapters of Genesis, the mode and candidates for baptism, the scope of the atonement, the existence and use of spiritual gifts and dozens of other questions. We all know that Christians do not share a single view on these things, we recognise that whole churches have sprung up as a result of different views on some of these questions.

There is, of course, a time and place for having conversations about them all. It is absolutely right and helpful that we have books written laying out the case for the various views. It is certainly appropriate in a bible college lecture for the different positions to be discussed and explored. It is appropriate for Christians brothers and sisters to simply sit and chat about their various views on these things. There may be a few other places where it is appropriate. However, there is a place I am not convinced we ought to be laying out all the options; namely, the pulpit.

Some folks get worked up when a preacher presents a view in a sermon and doesn’t seem to give a nod to all the various other views. I have had people come up to me after a sermon miffed that I didn’t explain that there are other views nor did I spent any time outlining them. Am I not just riding roughshod over the other believers who hold a different view when I do that? There are several reasons – some of them more important than others – why I don’t think the pulpit is the place for doing that.

First, I think this is a misunderstanding of what preaching is and exists to do. Those who want you to lay out the options and explain that Christians may have a range of different views seem to be mistaking the pulpit for the lecture hall. I am not seeking to introduce you to all the different possible interpretations when I preach. I am not aiming to magnanimously insinuate our ultimate agreement with brothers and sisters elsewhere despite our disagreement on this particular issue (even though this remains true). When I preach, I am seeking to preach what I think the text and the author is saying. Unless the writer is laying out multiple options in the text, my goal is to preach what I believe the text is saying, not laying out all the options I do not believe it is saying.

Second, it misunderstands that preaching is not aiming at information impartation but is seeking heart change. It is the lecture hall that want to impart information, lay out the options and encourage engagement with them all. It is the sermon that aims at taking the main point of a text, delivering as best we understand it and calling people to change in line with God’s word. Laying out all the potential options rather than preaching what we understand the text to be saying blunts what we are aiming to do.

Third, whilst many think it is magnanimous and humble to say things like ‘I could be wrong and others disagree’, it is ultimately false humility and creates confusion. It is, of course, always the case that you could be wrong and that others disagree. But you presumably don’t think you are wrong because you are about to present a view you think is correct. If you think you are wrong, you have no business presenting your position as God’s Word. If you think your interpretation is right, you don’t have much business presenting a whole set of alternative views as though they might well be correct. Your task is to present the word as you understand the word. You may be wrong, of course, but you don’t think you are and you therefore think the church needs to understand the word as you do. If you are right (as you presumably believe you are) but you water down what you are going to say and you add confusion by laying out several other credible options, you blunt the word of God.

Fourth, your time is limited. In most evangelical churches in the UK, you get 30-40 minutes to say the most important stuff you think the word is saying. You can hardly sit through any preaching class without hearing that you need to seriously edit. There are lots of potentially true, maybe interesting things you could include in your sermon from the text but you have only half and hour and not all of it is as important or necessary as other bits and therefore you need to edit this stuff out. If that is true of all the stuff that is true and interesting, how much more is it true of the other options you do not think are actually biblical!

Fifth, it is boring. It is tedious to sit through 30 mins of someone carefully laying out various options or views that you know they do not believe and do not think the passage teaches. It doesn’t help us understand the text, it is just boring and it eats into the limited time you have to say something useful and vital for the congregation.

Sixth, it isn’t why anybody listens to sermons. Nobody comes to church to hear all the different views they don’t think the bible teaches. People listen to sermons for essentially two reasons: (1) to hear what God’s word says and (2) to understand what it is saying to them specifically. Hearing somebody tell you all about what God’s word doesn’t say or mean, hearing the views of people the preacher rejects (even if ‘I could be wrong’), is not why anybody is listening.

Seventh, it is little more than man-pleasing. The reason many insist on laying out the different options is because they don’t want to offend people. The preacher has a view, they have an understanding that they think the passage teaches, but because they are concerned about offending people who may have a different view, they water down what they think this passage actually says. They lay out alternative options to not upset anyone. They claim ‘I could be wrong’ though they don’t think they are. Rather than preach the passage as they understand it and with the force that they think the passage speaks, they are fundamentally man-pleasing.