A Famine of Preaching?

The prophet Amos prophesied of a day when God would “send a famine on the land, Not a famine for bread or a thirst for water, But rather for hearing the words of the LORD. God said at that time, “People will stagger from sea to sea And from the north even to the east; They will go to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, But they will not find it. ¹³ "In that day the beautiful virgins And the young men will faint from thirst.” (Amos 8:11-13).

Martin Luther referenced this passage when he said, “There is no crueler blow of the wrath of God than when he sends a famine of hearing his words (Amos 8:11). Likewise, there is no greater favor from him than the sending forth of his Word, as it is said, ‘He sent out his word and healed them, and delivered them from their destruction’ (Ps. 107:20)” (Martin Luther in His Own Words, Kilcrease and Lutzer, p. 17).

It strikes me that perhaps some, maybe even much, of modern evangelical preaching is not the blessing of God but the judgment of God. I fear that for many preaching of the Word has been turned into a self-help session, a coping mechanism with no underlying foundation of a biblical worldview, no coherent explanation of God and his character and work in the world, no explanation of the brokenness sin has brought, no explanation of what it means to repent. It is therapy rather than formation. It is self-help rather than self-denial.

Michael Lawrence asks and answers it this way: “Do non-Christians want a purpose-filled life? Of course they do. The problem is that, as idolaters, they want that purpose to center on themselves. And they’ll be happy to even employ God and Jesus for filling that self-centered purpose.”^[1]

There are many good preaching pastors who open the Word weekly and preach it as the voice of God that satisfies a deep spiritual hunger with spiritual food. Let us be one of those. Let us be those who listen to those. Let us refuse to be satisfied with less.

Just because people don't like it is no reason to abandon it. At the end, preachers will be held to a higher standard than "How many showed up?" or "How quickly did your church grow?" Preachers will be judged by these verses:

Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. (2 Timothy 4:2-5)

---

^[1] Lawrence, Michael. Biblical Theology in the Life of the Church: A Guide for Ministry. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010. Print. 9Marks.

Ryle on the Importance of a Church That Teaches Hell and Judgment

“If you would ever be a healthy and Scriptural Christian, I entreat you to beware of any ministry which does not plainly teach the reality and eternity of hell. Such a ministry may be soothing and pleasant, but it is far more likely to lull you to sleep than to lead you to Christ, or build you up in the faith. It is impossible to leave out any portion of God’s truth without spoiling the whole. That preaching is sadly defective which dwells exclusively on the mercies of God and the joys of heaven, and never sets forth the terrors of the Lord and the miseries of hell. It may be popular, but it is not Scriptural: it may amuse and gratify, but it will not save. Give me the preaching which keeps back nothing that God has revealed. You may call it stern and harsh; you may tell us that to frighten people is not the way to do them good. But you are forgetting that the grand object of the Gospel is to persuade men to “flee from the wrath to come,” and that it is vain to expect men to flee unless they are afraid. Well would it be for many professing Christians if they were more afraid about their souls than they now are!”

J. C. Ryle, Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties and Roots (London: William Hunt and Company, 1889), 252–253.

Monday Morning Reminders for Pastors

Yesterday’s message wasn’t as bad as you thought it was. Someone in the congregation was spiritually fed, so rejoice in that.

Yesterday’s message wasn’t as good as you thought it was. There were some things that would have made your message more clear and more precise and more connected to the people you spoke to. So work on that.

You get another chance next week, so stop fretting and get busy. Don’t get to Saturday and wish you had started on Monday. Start on Monday, even if it’s only a small start.

All the things you wish you had said yesterday? Say them next week, or trust the sovereignty of God even over our speech.

All the things you wish you hadn’t said yesterday? Forget it because everyone else already has forgotten it. Have more self-control in your speech next, and trust the sovereignty of God even over our speech.

Spiritual growth does not stem from a single incredible meal. It is the result of a lot of ordinary meals over the course of years. So don’t evaluate your ministry on the basis of one message, however good or bad you thought it was. Just get a solid meal ready for next week.

Houston and the Subpoena of Sermons

Word is going around that the city of Houston is issuing subpoenas for sermons to see if they criticize homosexuality.

Is it true? Who knows. It could be. It might not be. Like a lot of stuff on the internet, it might be overblown. Like a lot of the stuff on the internet, it may be entirely true.

But here’s the question: Why is Houston using court resources and tax payer resources issuing subpoenas for things that are publicly available?

If they want the content of these sermons, can’t they just show up at church? Or download them from the internet?

But it seems like Christians like a persecution complex and tend to go into crisis mode at the drop of a hat. So it’s a great time to note that the end of the world is almost here.

I think if I were a pastor in Houston, I would invite the people charged with this task to come to church and hear it first hand. I speak publicly several times a week, and to be frank, a lot of what I say is not in my notes, and a lot of what is in my notes never gets said. So getting my notes is no guarantee that you will get what was actually said. Not to mention that my notes often contain the opinions of people that I don’t actually agree with. In a nutshell, my notes are quite often useless for anyone other than me.

However, you are welcome to come, record (or just use our recording), take notes, just sit and listen, or whatever, so long as you do it peacefully and quietly. We will even give you some coffee.

Here’s another thought: If this is actually true, then the government of Houston must be run by a bunch of second-graders. Or the Detroit City Council. Seriously. This is like (insert whiny second grade voice here) “Johnny said something mean about me.”

You know what, kid. Get over it. Move on. Go swing on the swings, or slide down the slides.

Can the mayor of Houston really not endure a few pastors saying things about her lifestyle? She’s a politician. Surely this can’t be the worst thing ever said about her, can it? Why is she so insecure in her lifestyle?

When you embrace a lifestyle (whether homosexual, Christian, vegan, video-game lover, etc.), expect that people will think you are strange, weird, wrong, stupid, silly, etc. If you like your lifestyle, then go on with your life. If avoiding criticism is that important to you, then change your lifestyle. But don’t whine because someone disagrees with you. You are not smart enough and don’t know enough to demand complete agreement.

And why are pastors in Houston, or anywhere else, naming names of political officials when they are supposed to be preaching the Bible? What verse does that come from? Seriously, if we are supposed to preach the Bible, that should limit us to things God actually said. And there is more than enough of that.

Here’s what I think I would do: First, I would invite any interested person to come to our services. Come for six or eight months to every public meeting. Listen, engage your mind, engage with the people around you. Let’s have some conversations together over coffee or lunch. You might be surprised at what will happen.

Second, I would also complain that the city of Houston is using taxpayer resources to issue subpoenas for things that are publicly available. Don’t waste my money on this nonsense. If you want it, come and get it firsthand, every week.

Third, I would let the legal process play out. I don’t know if I would turn anything over. On what biblical grounds could I? I don’t know. I think this will be challenged in court and overthrown. So I think, in the end, it will be much ado about nothing.

But Christians, let’s embrace the fact that people don’t like Christianity. We shouldn’t have a conniption over it every time we see it.

Sure, let’s use the courts and resources available to fight it, but let’s not be scared of it. Let’s go on about our business, Let’s do what we have been called to do.

Is There a Difference Between Preaching and Teaching?

Short answer: Biblically, no; practically, perhaps.

Long answer: The public ministry of the Word is sometimes divided into preaching and teaching, with various ways to distinguish between them. Adams (Adams 1982, 5‑6), Zuck (Zuck 1998, 39‑40), and Dodd (Dodd 1980, 7‑35) distinguish between preaching (κηρύσσω and eὐαγγελίζω) and teaching (διδάσκω) in terms of the audience. In this view, preaching is evangelistic activity among unbelievers while teaching is the work of moral or ethical instruction among believers. For Dodd, in particular, the distinction is related to the content, rather than the act of preaching itself (Dodd 1980, 7‑8). Singley (Singley, III 2008, 45‑46) and Prime and Begg (Prime and Begg 2004, 125; cf. Anderson 2006, 93‑94) distinguish between preaching and teaching in terms of intent or goal. In this conception, teaching has as its goal the communication of knowledge whereas preaching has as its goal the movement of the will and emotions to respond to the truth communicated.

While these distinctions may have practical value, it seems doubtful that they can be rigidly sustained from Scripture since the various words used do not fit neatly into the categories of preaching or teaching. Frequently, the words preaching and teaching themselves are not used precisely. For instance, the public ministry of the word is described by using preaching (κηρύσσω or εὐαγγλίζω) and teaching (διδάσκω) alongside each other (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 11:1; Acts 5:42, 13:35, 28:31). The context of these passages do not lend themselves easily to a distinction between preaching and teaching, whether by audience or content, or by goal or intent. They seem to describe the public ministry of the word as a whole rather than as distinct parts. Teaching (διδάσκω) is used for gospel preaching to unbelievers in Acts 4:2, 5:21, and 20:20, and it is used for teaching believers in passages such as Acts 11:26, 18:11, and 1 Tim 4:11. Preaching (κηρύσσω or εὐαγγλίζω) is used for evangelistic work among unbelievers in passages such as Acts 8:4 and 25, and 1 Cor 1:23 and 2:4, and it is used for teaching believers in 2 Tim 4:2. In addition, there are passages in which the spiritual state of the audience for either preaching or teaching is not clearly distinguished.

To use a specific example, in Acts 20:17-35, Paul recounts his entire ministry among the Ephesians “from the day he set foot in Asia” (v. 18) with various terms. He uses proclaiming (ἀναγγέλλω), teaching (διδάσκω), and solemnly testifying (διαμαρτύρομαι) to describe the gospel proclamation of “repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (vv. 20-21). He further describes his ministry among them as “preaching (κηρύσσω) the kingdom” (v. 25), “declaring (ἀναγγέλλω) the whole purpose of God” (v. 27), and “admonishing (νουθετέω) each one with tears” (v. 31). Here, there seems to be no consistent division between gospel preaching and ethical teaching. The various terms describe the entire ministry of Paul.

In Thessalonica and Athens, Paul reasons (διαλέγομαι) with unbelievers in the synagogue (Acts 17:2, 17), which is the same word used to describe his ministry with believers at Troas (Acts 20:7, 9). This same word (διαλέγομαι) is used for ministry both with believers and unbelievers in Ephesus (Acts 19:8-9). In Athens at Mars’ Hill, Paul “was preaching (εὐαγγλίζω) Jesus and the resurrection” which led the hearers there to inquire more about “this new teaching (διδαχή) … which [he was] proclaiming (λαλέω)” (Acts 17:18-19). Here, the teaching was being preached. In 2 Tim 4:2, κηρύσσω, a key word for preaching to unbelievers, is used for preaching to believers.

In light of these instances in which the same words are used to describe ministry both to believers and unbelievers, and seeing that no clear distinction is consistently apparent between goal or intent of preaching, the distinction between preaching and teaching seems to fade into the background. The full picture of the ministry of the Word is better seen in the totality of the words used to describe it. Greidanus helpfully says, “Preaching can be seen as an activity with many facets—facets which are highlighted by such New Testament words as proclaiming, announcing good news, witnessing, teaching, prophesying, and exhorting” (Greidanus 1988, 7).

The distinction in content or emphasis between the ministry of the Word to unbelievers and believers is a valid one since the two groups often need to hear different messages. Likewise, the distinction between teaching as informing the hearer of truth and preaching as appealing to the will and emotions to respond to the truth is helpful. Yet these distinctions seem borne more out of practicality than out of the words Scripture uses for the preaching task. Again, Greidanus is helpful: “Although one facet or another may certainly be accentuated to match the text and the contemporary audience, preaching cannot be reduced to only one of its many facets” (Greidanus 1988, 7).

A distinction between preaching and teaching may be useful when considering the various speaking opportunities in the church. There are occasions where the particular forum will involve more teaching (communicating truth) than preaching (persuading). There are also occasions where the audience will include unbelievers in needed of gospel proclamation, and other times where it will be mostly believers in need of ethical and moral instruction. The wise pastor will be sensitive to these occasions and adjust both his content and his intent accordingly.

What Else Baxter Said

Richard Baxter is famous for his couplet, “I preached, as never sure to preach again, and as a dying man to dying men.” This couplet is often quoted to press home the urgency of the task of preaching.

What you have probably never seen is what else Baxter said on either side of his couplet. It is well worth the effort it takes to read this older poetry. It is taken from Baxter’s Poetic Fragments which was published in 1821. Baxter apparently used no versification in his poetry, so the formatting here is his (or whoever typeset this edition of Baxter’s poetry).

The frequent sight of death's most awful face,
Rebuked my sloth, and bid me mend my pace!
Thou knew'st my dulness needed such a spur;
So prone was I to trifle and demur.
Who dare his soul for gain or pleasure sell,
That lives as in the sight of Heav'n and Hell ?
This call'd me out to work while it was day;
And warn poor souls to turn without delay:
Resolving speedily thy word to preach,
With Ambrose, I at once did learn and teach.
Still thinking I had little time to live,
My fervent heart to win men's souls did strive.
I preach'd, as never sure to preach again,
And as a dying man to dying men!
O how should preachers men's repenting crave,
Who see how near the church is to the grave!
And see that while we preach and hear, we die,
Rapt by swift time to vast eternity!
What statues, or what hypocrites are they,
Who between sleep and wake do preach and pray!
As if they feared wakening the dead I
Or were but lighting sinners to their bed!
Who speak of Heav'n and Hell as on a stage!
And make the pulpit but a parrot's cage?
Who teach as men that care not much who learns;
And preach in jest to men that sin in earns.
Surely God's messenger, if any man,
Should speak with all the seriousness he can;
Who treateth in the name of the most high,
About the matters of eternity!
Who must prevail with sinners now or never,
As those that must be saved now, if ever

Chapell on Preaching

“At some point in your preaching career, you must make a decision: Will you preach to people, or will you preach for preachers? The latter may win you acclaim, but the former will far more likely win souls. Deep thought, plainly expressed, most clearly exposes a pastor’s heart” (Christ-Centered Preaching, p. 341).

A Foundation for Preaching Christ from the OT

The OT should be preached from the perspective that it is part of the Word of God to us from an earlier stage of progressive revelation, that reveals part of the one Story of God in which he pursues his glory through his reign over his creation, a reign that will be brought about through the redemption and reconciliation that is found in Jesus alone of which we are now made aware even though OT saints were not fully aware, and which redemption and reconciliation we must preach since Jesus is the necessary and sufficient Redeemer of all mankind.

A Brief Thought by Luke (Actually Me) on the Authority of the Word

At least twice in the gospel of Luke, Luke shows how the Word is to be preferred to a sign.

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, while the rich man suffers in hell, he begs Abraham to send a risen Lazarus to warns his brothers, arguing that “If someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent” (LUke 16:30).

Father Abraham says, “Nah, they have the Old Testament. That’s enough. Signs will do no better” (Luke 16:31; my paraphrase).

Later, when Jesus encounters the two men on the road to Emmaus who are mourning the death of the one they thought (based on the OT) was to be the redeemer, Jesus could have very easily opened their eyes immediately to see him, the resurrected Savior. Surely such a sign would have been the best and most direct route to faith for these two men.

Yet Jesus instead points them to the OT (Luke 24:27), to the words that they had believed only a part of (Luke 24:25). In fact, it is not until he leaves that they understand, “That was him.”

In this day when people are desperately seeking signs as reasons to believe, we should follow the example of Abraham and Jesus. Point people to the Word.

It’s not that signs don’t work. John reports that Jesus did many signs in order to bring belief.

It’s rather that the Word does work, and it needs nothing else. We need not live in an age of miracles in order to see the gospel spread. We need not be able to call down fire from heaven, or bread or healing or any other thing from heaven.

We need to take seriously the Word given to create life and bring belief in the lives of those who hear it.

Three Relations of Biblical Preaching

Preaching is not, or at least it should not be, a “one-size fits all” type of endeavor. Preaching should have variety, not just in content, but in its total package. The cultivation of intentional variety will likely improve most preaching calendars in the local church. Or to put it differently, if the only thing different about your sermon from week to week is the text and the content, you may be depriving your flock of great opportunities for spiritual growth.

Here, I suggest three relations of biblical preaching to encourage pastors to consider some of the different ways you can preach. A given message will likely choose one from each category, though it may involve two (or rarely more).

Preaching as it relates to the text:

1. Topical
2. Textual
3. Textual-Topical
4. Expository*
5. Lectio Selecta
6. Lectio Continua
7. High Altitude
8. Low Altitude

*Expository as a method of preaching is different than expository as a method of handling a text. The main text (or texts) of a sermon should always be handled in an expository manner, even if the sermon itself is topical or textual. Supporting texts or illustrative texts may not necessarily be handled expositorily, though one should exercise great care here.

Preaching as it relates to the theme or focus of a message:

1. Theological/Doctrinal/Catechetical
2. Ethical/Pastoral/Topical
3. Biographical
4. Apologetic
5. Evangelistic

Preaching as it relates to the presentation or delivery:

1. Inductive
2. Deductive
3. Declarative
4. Dialogical
5. Pragmatic
6. Narrative
7. First Person Monologue

Quotable on Great Sermons

“Great sermons are not prepared. At least they do not become great by preparation. They are great because they issue from a preacher whose littleness has dissolved in the immensity of God; from such a life nothing that is little or without consequence can spring forth. … Great sermons are not born in illustration books but in the needy lives of preachers. Here, where the preacher’s inwardness is fashioned by yearning and desperation, is the womb of important preaching.”

Miller, Marketplace Preaching (1995), 9–10

Hirsch, Meaning, and Hermeneutics – Part 3

In two previous posts (part 1 and part 2), I have proposed that the traditional two-fold structure of meaning and significance, be made made a three-fold structure of meaning, implication, and significance.* (Hirsch included implication in meaning as do many, but a new book by Robert H. Stein reviewed here apparently makes this same three-fold distinction that I have offered.)

In a nutshell, meaning is what the human author intended to communicate. Implications are those things which are inherently connected with the author’s intention, but outside of his conscious thought and intention. Significance is the application of meaning and implication to any situation to which it might relate.

So here’s why I think this matters.

In Hirsch’s two-fold division, you end up with human authors “meaning” things that they have no knowledge of, much less intention of. In other words, an author “speaks better than he knows;” he has an unintentional intention. The passage’s meaning is then no longer subject to exegesis based on intent, since the meaning cannot be drawn out from the words the author used to communicate his intended message. If it’s in the words, it is separate from the author’s intent in context, in which case normal exegesis cannot draw it out, and which opens a rather large barn door to a text meaning anything at all (since the author’s intent is no longer controlling; future implications are of the reader’s world, not the author’s). The historical part of literal-grammatical-historical interpretation has reduced significance (no pun intended).

This problem has been answered in a number of ways, primarily some form of sensus plenior, the idea that there is a “deeper meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, that is seen to exist in the words of Scripture when they are studied in the light of further revelation or of development in the understanding of revelation.”[1]

While there are a number of problems with sensus plenior, but a major one is that it removes the possibility of exegesis of a text to arrive at the complete meaning, because the meaning is no longer in the words as the author used them to communicate to his readers. The fuller meaning is found in later words by different authors in different historical contexts, which which the original readers would not have had, and could not have known. Typically, this fuller meaning is found in the canonical context, which means the whole text of Scripture.

This is where the category of implication is helpful. It allows for there to be truth in a text that is not part of meaning. These implications are seen in later revelation, but they are not what the author meant his original readers to understand and respond to (which is what meaning must be connected to: what did the original author intend his original readers to understand, believe, or do in their lives at that time as a result of this text, including antecedent revelation).

Simply put, this means that God, the divine author (who knows all implications exhaustively) inspires the human author (who knows much less) to write a particular message to a particular audience. The human author then writes with a particular goal of informing or persuading his readers based on a truth that he is communicating. By intending something, he is not intending other things, and he is intending to not communicate still others things.

The divine author, aware of all the truth inherent in a given message (implications), also knows the full canonical context prior to the writing of the entire canon. He knows how the text lays a foundation for later revelation. In other words he knows what the implications are because he (and he alone) knows how those words will be used in generations to come.

So acknowledging a category of implication—those things which God knows and which the human author is not consciously intending—protects the integrity of the text and the author from “speaking better than he knew.” It also protects the later understanding of the text by showing how something can have truth that is ‘hidden.’ It also means that the human author and divine author can have the same meaning.

With this three-fold distinction, we can actually exegete the passages based on the traditional literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic. This takes into account what the original author intended his original readers to understand, based on the language and syntax he used at the time of writing. We can focus on what it says, rather than what else it might say.

Having done the exegetical work, we can then turn to the canonical context to see what implications this passage might contain that later come to fuller flower. We can also speak of how the truth of the text lays a foundation for later revelation in the canon of Scripture yet to be revealed, or how the text might be typological or analogical. These implications can then be preached as eternal truth because of the canonical context.

Having then done the exegetical and canonical, or biblical-theological work, we can turn to the homiletical work of application, of presenting the “world in front of the text” that the listener should inhabit having listened to the text (cf. Kuruvilla, Text to Praxis, esp. 24ff.)

So we can preach what the text meant in its original context. We can preach how the truth of text lays the foundation for the work of God in subsequent history. And we can apply the the text to the hearers by using both the meaning and the implications as the ground of significance.

---

[1] Raymond E. Brown, “Hermeneutics,” in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, and Roland E. Murphy (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1968), p. 616.

*

The Pastor as a Generalist

The exegete has to find the meaning of the text and its witness to an event and for this the tool is grammatical-historical exegesis. To relate it to other events recorded into the Bible is the task of the biblical theologian and historian; to relate it to the modern Christian experience is the task of the preacher.

This is from an article by David L. Baker entitled “Typology and the Christian Use of the Old Testament” (Scottish Journal of Theology 29 (1976), 155).

Though there is much about this article not to like, this is helpful.

Good preaching (by which I mean biblical preaching that engages both the ancient text and the modern audience) must do all three things. It must engage the text itself to find it meaning, it must relate that text to the rest of the revelation of God (the canonical context and redemptive-historical context), and it must also relate both the text and its place in the canonical context to the life of the person listening.

Failure to do the first (exegesis), but only the second or third, might result in a message based on something God never said or did.

Failure to do the second (place it in its canonical and redemptive-historical context), but only the first or the third, might result in moralistic, “Be” preaching that ignores the redemption on which “Be” preaching should be based. (Remember Chapell’s comment that "Be messages are not wrong in themselves; they are wrong messages by themselves" (Christ-Centered Preaching, p. 294).

Failure to do the third (relate it to the modern Christian experience), but only the first and second,  might result in messages with lots of information, even interesting stories, that fail to be the voice of God to the individuals.

This means that the pastor has to be a generalist of sorts. He must be able to do all three, each week.

A Word on Video Preaching

While I am here, a good word on video preaching.

Preachers and churches buy easily into the concept of personality-driven ministry. Many evangelicals have, perhaps unknowingly, embraced the rise of the self and combined it with consumerism, resulting in a parade of powerful personalities of every theological persuasion who set the tone for church ministry, hawking their books and sermon series [and I add preaching DVDs]. Their offerings replace the need for the local pastor to assess prayerfully and thoughtfully his or her life and the life of the congregation and then preaching his or her flock to maturity. God has called you to love and nurture the people where you are, and he wants you to do it! The danger of buying into the hype of personality-driven ministry is that pastors can bypass their responsibility of determining what their congregation really needs. …

Haddon Robinson wisely observes, “Today many more ‘kings’ rule the homiletical landscape. Media preachers are some of the most gifted, and they enjoy extra advantages like researchers, audio and video engineers, and freedom from the drain of everyday pastoring.”[ 93] The truth is, the communication kings don’t know your church. You do. People may be impressed with this celebrated personality or that evangelical icon, but the evangelical luminary doesn’t have a clue about your church, what they need, and what God wants you to communicate to them as they move toward maturity in Christ. And that’s good!

Gibson, Scott M. (2012-03-01). Preaching with a Plan: Sermon Strategies for Growing Mature Believers (pp. 61-62).

Haddon Robinson’s quote is from Haddon W. Robinson, “Competing with the Communication Kings,” in Making a Difference in Preaching, ed. Scott M. Gibson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 109.

A Word from the Spirit

In one of the synods of the Evangelical Church in Germany a young minister testified that he never prepared his sermons, but trusted the Spirit to put the right words into his mouth. When the turn came for an older man to speak, he said, ‘We heard our young brother say that he did not need to prepare his sermons because the Holy Ghost would speak to him and tell him what to say. As for me, the Holy Ghost never spoke to me in the pulpit. Yes, I remember, he did speak to me once. When I was going down the pulpit steps after a poor sort of sermon, the Holy Ghost spoke to me. He said only three words, and what he said was, “Heinrich, you’re lazy.”’”

Gibson, Scott M. (2012-03-01). Preaching with a Plan: Sermon Strategies for Growing Mature Believers (p. 43).

Around the Horn

At first, Michael Horton writes on pastoral task of study and preaching. He warns against farming out one of the primary tasks of preaching, the task of study. Perhaps there’s a fine line between paying someone directly to do research (“Here’s $X; give me a paper on this passage”) and paying someone indirectly (pulling a commentary off the shelf). But as pastors, we need to guard ourselves against the tendency towards shortcuts by preaching other people’s study.

At second, Phil Campbell at Matthias Media has a good piece on the preaching task here. It is well worth your time. A great many of us regular preaching pastors could stand to be tighter and more focused in our preaching. While you might not resort to manuscripting as Phil does, the thoughts he shares will help towards the much needed goal of clarity in preaching.

At third, a dissertation by Jason Allen comparing the “The Christ-Centered Homiletics of Edmund Clowney and Sidney Greidanus in Contrast with the Human Author-Centered Hermeneutics of Walter Kaiser.” It should prove to be a good read. Related to this is a blog article about the dissertation, which I post mostly for the lengthy comment section showing how people interact about the topic. I think what is highlighted there is a major issue—the difference between typology and allegory. While Greidanus and Clowney disavow allegory, I am not yet convinced that their method does not actually lead one in that direction. But I shall read this dissertation with interest. (When’s the last time you heard that line?)

Last, and well worth making it to the end, Thabiti Anyabwile posts about pastoral wisdom in a great little piece called Everything I Know About Pastoral Ministry I Learned Riding with Pastors. Which reminds me of this: The best wisdom and guidance for just about anything in life does not come from long expositions of ideas, but from short conversations with people who have “been there and done that.”

Around the Horn

At first, here’s an article by Jim Hamlett on preaching. It addresses the ratio between the Bible and the rest in contemporary preaching. I remember preachers growing up who were story tellers. I remember someone commenting on another preacher saying, “He could tell a good story.” Brother preachers, we need to give serious consideration to the place of the Word in our preaching. The text of the Bible must not be reduced to a mere foundation, or worse yet, a prop. It is the Word of God.

At second, since no sermon is done until you conclude, here’s a good short article on on sermon conclusions. Conclusions probably get less attention than they should. They are looser than they should be. They are probably more shotgun than rifle. And it’s all probably a lack of focus and adequate study. Enough said. (How’s that for a really bad conclusion.)

At third, here’s a funny and good piece on the language we use as Christians. Let’s face it, some of it is just weird.

Winding up, here’s an NPR piece on music which is fascinating. Ryan Martin originally pointed to this. It shows some of the easily overlooked issues in discussions on music. Let’s face it: there’s a lot of stupid stuff that is being said about music. This piece provides some good input.

Saturday Evening Gospel for Preachers

“Evangelism of the humorous type may attract multitudes but it lays the soul in ashes and destroys the very germs of religion.”

Robertson Nicoll quoted in Iain Murray,
The Forgotten Spurgeon, p. 38.

Planning for Easter

Easter is just five weeks away. It is traditionally one of the biggest Sundays of the year for most churches. It holds great potential for the gospel and the church.

So how do we plan our preaching for Easter?

In the beginning of my ministry, I did one of two things in my Easter message. I either concluded a series hitting the capstone on Easter (such as preaching four weeks through Isaiah 53), or I preached a standalone message and returned to a series or started a new one the next week.

In recent years I have changed my approach. Now, I begin a new series on Easter, and the reason is simple.

We have a guests on Easter Sunday.

If I am concluding a series, they will have missed all of it. Chances are, much of what I say will be tied to something I previously said, which they missed. They have no context for the final message. I send a subliminal message that this really isn’t for them. These first-timers, or first-time-in-a-long-timers will probably turn out to be only-timers.

If I preach a standalone message, I miss a great opportunity for a built-in reason to return. I also do something I don’t normally do (which is the downside of Easter programs, cantatas, etc.). My goal on Easter is to make it as normal as possible so that guests know what we are about and what to expect. I don’t want to create false expectations.

By beginning a new series, I give an explicit invitation to come back next week and hear some more. I tell them, “You got in on the ground floor. Now, let’s build it.” The goal is to see them come back to hear more and be confronted multiple times with the claims and the relevance of the gospel. This gives the chance for an extended development of the gospel as it applies to life.

These message series can be part of an expositional series, such as it was for me the year I was preaching in Hebrews. In providence, I saw that I was drawing near to Hebrews 11 around Easter. So on Easter Sunday, I laid a foundation of faith in God as real and a rewarder of those who seek him. Then I built on that foundation through Hebrews 11.

Another year, I began a series entitled “The Story of Life,” in which I took five weeks to preach through the whole Bible. I began with “Creation and Fall,” then “Fall and Effects,” “Redemption and Reconciliation,” “Church and Mission,” and “Return and Restoration.” This is a type of narrative preaching, where the story take center stage, and the goal is to see ourselves in the story. In retrospect, five weeks was too short (or the Bible is too long).

Another year, I began a series entitled “Real Life,” in which I developed various spheres of life from the perspective of the gospel and the resurrection. So I began with “I Don’t Want Your Pity” from 1 Corinthians 15. Then I addressed “Living with Yourself,” “Living with Others,” “Working for a Living,” “How Jesus Meets Us in Real Life,” and “Putting It All Together.” I tried to show each week how the gospel is more than something for Sunday; it changes our real lives, you know, the ones we live between Sunday at noon and the next Sunday at 9:30 a.m. This is a kind of topical preaching, in which I tried to apply the gospel directly to areas of life to show how it changes the way we view things.

This year I am beginning a series entitled “Urban Legends: Is That Really True?” Each week, we will take a commonly believed religious idea and turn it inside out looking for truth. We will address the resurrection, whether or not God helps those who help themselves, if religion really takes all the fun out of life, does Jesus love everyone, and a couple of others. This type of preaching is best categorized as apologetic preaching in which a defense of biblical truth is offered against a challenger.

You will have to decide your own approach and your own series. But I encourage you to give some thought to starting something on Easter.

It gives people a reason to come back, and it maximizes two things that are going to happen anyway: You are going to preach and guests are going to show up.

Three Shaping Factors in Sermons

Pastors, as we approach our weekly sermon preparation, let me suggest three factors that should shape every message.

First, the text itself should shape the message. The text sets boundaries for a message. A biblical message always accurately explains the text, and is limited by the text. The text draws boundaries around the possible sermon subject and themes. If you don’t know what the text says, and what it means, then you aren’t ready to move on yet.

Second, the “big idea” should shape the message. Any given text only has one meaning. But it may have multiple implications, and almost unlimited applications. We should recognize that we cannot say everything that could be said about a text in a single message (or at least should not say everything that can be said, though I have heard a few attempts, and probably committed that sin a time or two). It is necessary to single out a theme and a big idea, and then preach that. That means some things are going to be left unsaid, at least for now. We must be willing to leave some stuff on “the cutting room floor.” On the upside, it may mean that you can use the same text and the same exegetical work next week to preach a different theme and a different big idea. For instance, a message on Exodus 3 might focus on the faithfulness of God in his character. It might focus more on the response of people to the faithfulness of God. It might focus on God’s sovereign control over history. A single message should not focus on all three, however. Focus on one idea. Save something for later. As Bryan Chapell says, “How many things is a message about? One thing.” As Larry Rogier says, “I am going to be here next week anyway, so I will preach that then.” (Only one of those sayings is worth writing a book about though.)

Third, the audience should shape the message. In the course of preparation, you need to imagine the audience that will be sitting in front you. That’s right, the actual audience. See faces. See couples. See families. See enemies. See guests. See people you saw in the coffee shop, the park, or the diner who might show up. Think of conversations you have had. Think of conversations you need to have. Think of conversations you would like to have. Think of the questions they would ask. Think of the things that would cause them to crease their brow and cock their head to one side. Think of the things that would cause them to say, “No way.” Anticipate their unbelief, and then address it. As a general rule, I am thinking in terms of preaching to “just below the midline.” I am not trying to impress the most knowledgeable, though I might have something in there for them. I am not trying to impress the least knowledgeable, though I want to be clear. I am trying to preach to the majority of people. That means I am going to assume a mid-line of maturity and understanding, and then stay around there or just to the simpler side of it. If you do that, you will probably find (as I have found) the greatest impact.