Tue 27 Jun 2006
As a preacher, I often struggle with preaching. Let me explain. I often try to listen to at least one or two sermons a week that are not my own. I try to listen to a wide spectrum of styles and approaches, continually being challenged in my own understanding of and growth in preaching.
By conviction, I preach expository sermons. That simply means that preach through an entire book of the Bible, verse by verse (or at least unit by unit as the text dictates). During my time here at Grace Community Church, I have preached through the book of Colossians and now we are in Genesis (and most likely will be for quite some time; we are just finishing chapter 8).
Adopting this style means that my primary objective is not set by me, it is set by the text. My job is to explain and apply the text. Bad expository preaching often ends up as little more than a running commentary on the text, but I’ve learned the hard way that there is a world of difference between teaching and preaching. Lord willing, I am becoming a preacher.
One of the things that I’ve thought quite a bit about is the actual writing/formation of the sermon. I do write out a complete manuscript, but I do not adopt an outline structure in putting everything together. Among some of the circles that I travel, it is quite popular to use acronyms and alliteration in the structure of the sermon itself (The Person, The Power, The Papayas, etc.). The common argument is that adopting this style helps the listener grab the key points much easier, remember them and, Lord willing, apply them.
Yet the more I deal with the text, the more I am convinced that this is a shallow and a false method. It encourages readers to look for formulas that simply are not native to the text itself. The text consists of historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, didactic (yet passionate) letters. In other words, it is relational and it is real to our experience. I don’t know about you, but I don’t speak in acronyms o
r alliteration, even when I’m trying to emphasize a key point. Scripture doesn’t adopt these methods either. As Donald Miller so keenly notes in his book Searching For God Knows What, “Apparently, Jesus had not heard of the wonderful tool of acronym.”
I worry that preachers who adopt these methods are slowly teaching their people that all Christianity may be broken down into simple steps to follow and that if we just look hard enough, there’s some hidden pattern in all of Scripture to help us remember it. Can this approach be done well? Absolutely, but I think that’s probably the exception rather than the norm and I worry that over-simplifying the text in such a way actually doesn’t over-complicate our people’s lives. In the end, are we creating unrealistic approaches to the text, and when the congregation isn’t able to break everything down into a cutesy little formula, have we actually set them up for defeat?
I will admit that I have tried this approach. More often than not, what ends up happening is that I formulate the main points of the sermon and then I’ll spend around five minutes trying to force these points into an alliteration, then I’ll realize that my time is actually better spent wrestling with the text rather than forcing it into an artificial formula.
I worry that this approach to preaching is simply indicative of a larger mindset that wants everything simplified and boiled down to the point that it will fit on the little plaque on your favorite Thomas Kinkade painting of light. Life, Scripture and the application of Scripture to life are rarely that easy.
- Read Preaching With Passion by Alex Montoya.
on 27 Jun 2006 at 12:54 pm 1.Rhett Smith said …
Brent,
Great post. I have not been a fan of the acronyms and alliteration at all. I especially am not found of the fill in the blank in the Sunday sermon…people anxiously waiting for the magic word to pop up so they can write it in. I’m struggling with preaching and teaching right now to be honest and I’m wrestling with what it all looks like and how to best communicate the word. So though I know how top put a sermon together, that does not equate to me being able to preach or teach. Learning.
Rhett
on 27 Jun 2006 at 2:15 pm 2.eldon said …
“Scripture and the application of Scripture to life are rarely that easy”
What a horrible ending to a nice comment… I disagree with that staement.
The problem is we try to complicate some scripture, then turn around and make it palatable. For instance, The Story of Noah in its dark “Deadliest Catch” horror is turned into a primary color Disney-esque eco-tale of cute critters. Then we try, as adults, to understand it’s meaning through that fairy-tale filter
But, back to the subject. i can’t defend it. I, as a designer, usually despise having to work with in art. My pastor uses it all the time. and I put up with it.
And i feel sorry for some of the letters in the alphabet that never get to be part of it. X, Z, Q, Y. How sad for them.
on 27 Jun 2006 at 2:57 pm 3.Matthew Wireman said …
Thanks, Brent for opening this oft-overlooked issue. When preachers are more concerned for their outline rather than letting the text make its own outline people become suspicious. Not only being trite (as you mentioned above) the alliteration alligator chomps off people’s ability to be hit with hard truth. The story of David and Bathsheba is relegated to: 1) Roof; 2) Rape; 3) Remorse. That’s what I go home with at the end of such a sermon. Yes, this may sound over-the-top for some. Give me some slack, this is a comment on a blog! I just want to make the point that there are ills we need to be aware of if we buy bulletin bougeois messages.
Also, I mentioned ’suspicious’ above. What I mean by that is both those familiar and unfamiliar with the Scriptures will think something is up when the Bible just so happens to fit nicely in a quaint outline with the same letter. One might ask, ‘Is the preacher doing something with the story to make this happen?’ Probably.
on 27 Jun 2006 at 6:23 pm 4.sofyst said …
Could you respond to this article by Jeremy Green,
Alcohol, Inerrancy and the SBC.
on 27 Jun 2006 at 8:20 pm 5.Brent said …
I thought I already did respond to that issue…it’s simply “pick and choose” hermeneutics ignoring key elements of Jesus’ first miracle (and other texts) and it’s not worth any more time or effort.
on 27 Jun 2006 at 10:22 pm 6.Brady said …
Great post. I agree with you, and the hard work of sermon prep is just that: wrestling with the text. Or should I say, wrestling with all my preconcieved ideas that happen to get in the way of the text and cloud the issues for me. My greatest struggle is not staying long enough with unanswered questions before I start writing a sermon. The longer I allow the questions that the passage of Scripture raises to remain “open” for discussion, the harder I have to work, in prayer and meditation with the Lord to hear his voice clearly. Not that He is unclear, but that I am so often unwilling to listen.
on 28 Jun 2006 at 8:20 am 7.sofyst said …
Brent, what I was moreso wondering about was his posits regarding the different words used for alcohol or wine. Are there such distinctions within the Scripture, as in the ‘hard drink’ being prohibited, but the ‘wine’ or the 2%alcohol being permissable…
I just wanted your thoughts on that.
on 28 Jun 2006 at 9:32 am 8.Brent said …
Regarding the alcohol content, Scripture does seem to make a distinction between “wine” and “strong drink,” but actually pretending that we know the aclohol content of these is just presumptuous. In addition, it all becomes a moot point when Psalm 104 is taken in conjunction with Jesus’ first miracle (which was not making the best grape juice they’d ever had) and Jesus being referred to as a drunkard (are we supposed to read that as saying He drank too much ‘lightly fermented grape juice?’ I don’t think so).
In the end, the real discussion is about the sufficiency of Scripture (at least to me).
on 28 Jun 2006 at 2:55 pm 9.Tim said …
Good post!
I’m preaching on the defeat of Jericho this Sunday. The title is “Struggling with Jericho.”
It’s more descriptive of my process than any alliteration.
I remember some strange statistic that 80% of the world learns by visual/tactile stimuli, while 20% learn auditorially. Which begs the question: is preaching the most effective means to communicate the Gospel? I love what I do. But, I often wonder if there isn’t a better way to do it. Preaching is a highlight of my week. I would hate to learn that God had something else in mind.
Also, I was with a group of Southwestern Grads. They commented extensively on how many “great” preachers came out of SWBTS. I asked if they knew any from Southern, and they drew a total blank.
I also asked about sermon prep. Most of these guys don’t use a manuscript. Also, they want to put their sermons in the easiest language as possible, so that they slowest/dumbest person in their congregation can understand it.
I was taught to preach by a graduate from Southern Seminary. He forced us to write manuscripts. He also read us the riot act if we dumbed down our sermon. When I asked someone else about the sermon prep being taught, who was a Southern grad, he said it was a geographical thing. He said that (back then) that is how they taught it at Southern. Manuscript sermons, assuming that your people are capable of understanding what you give them. While SWBTS was Outline, and you preach to the lowest common denominator of your congregation.
Now, I didn’t graduate from SWBTS, or SBTS. I’m a Truett grad, and I was a bible major at HPU (Baptist school in TX). My preaching proff at HPU was a Southwestern Grad. He taught us the “3 points and a poem” method. My Truett Proff was a guy originally from Southern…who made us type out 20 page manuscripts. So, I’ve kind of experienced from a teaching stand point. Also, I spent a year in Augusta, GA…under a preacher that went to Southern. I experienced his manuscript preaching, and it took me a while to get used to it.
Is it really that way? Or, am I just crazy???
Tim