Discussion of the proper form and function of preaching.

[ALAYMAN]

Was re-reading a book on Christ Centered Preaching by Brian Chappel and figured some of the excerpts might help fellow preachers, and serve as conversation for those who enjoy proper grace-oriented Christ centered <expository> preaching.  I'll post a new excerpt for discussion daily, if there is interest. 



I once had a preacher tell me that his one of his young congregants came up to him after the sermon and with a wry smile said "you really like to use psychology on people don't ya?"  But the truth is, knowing people and their <emotional, spiritual, physical, etc> needs is part of a good preacher's duty to make application that hits the mark.  The following quote from the book says it well...

Preachers minister with great zeal, confidence, and freedom when they realize that God has taken from their back the monkey of spiritual manipulation.

We don't have to manipulate people, but rather simply recognize that the word of God, properly placed by the Holy Spirit, does the work of convicting and empowering.  This also touches on the notion that we don't have to hunt for a new "topic" to present in a uniquely sensational way (like "communion and intercourse" ), but rather we only have to let the word determine the focus of our sermon.

Thoughts?

 

[Recovering IFB]

  But the truth is, knowing people and their <emotional, spiritual, physical, etc> needs is part of a good preacher's duty to make application that hits the mark. 

I thought that it was the pastors duty was to point people  in the congregation to Christ?

 

[ALAYMAN]

  But the truth is, knowing people and their <emotional, spiritual, physical, etc> needs is part of a good preacher's duty to make application that hits the mark. 

I thought that it was the pastors duty was to point people  in the congregation to Christ?

In what way would expositional preaching not do that?  Put another way, do you think that preaching Christ does not meet needs of the hearer in the process?

 

[Recovering IFB]

  But the truth is, knowing people and their <emotional, spiritual, physical, etc> needs is part of a good preacher's duty to make application that hits the mark. 

I thought that it was the pastors duty was to point people  in the congregation to Christ?

In what way would expositional preaching not do that?  Put another way, do you think that preaching Christ does not meet needs of the hearer in the process?

My point was(I guess I didn't convey it well enough) is that some pastors get caught up in other things that are not necessarily  Gospel driven, ie. politically motivated,standards; which I have heard alot of in the past. Shouldn't the pastor preach a sermon, on whatever he's preaching on, then bring it back to Calvary? I think that is what is missing the most in alot of sermons I hear.

 

[graceandtruth]

  But the truth is, knowing people and their <emotional, spiritual, physical, etc> needs is part of a good preacher's duty to make application that hits the mark. 

I thought that it was the pastors duty was to point people  in the congregation to Christ?

In what way would expositional preaching not do that?  Put another way, do you think that preaching Christ does not meet needs of the hearer in the process?

My point was(I guess I didn't convey it well enough) is that some pastors get caught up in other things that are not necessarily  Gospel driven, ie. politically motivated,standards; which I have heard alot of in the past. Shouldn't the pastor preach a sermon, on whatever he's preaching on, then bring it back to Calvary? I think that is what is missing the most in alot of sermons I hear.

My view is a little different.  The Scriptures are given to furnish us for all good works so that means all of life.  I believe that the Bible informs every aspect of our life and thinking as disciples of Christ.  I would differ from your view in that I believe the message should be preached "from" Calvary instead of "to" Calvary.  In other words, "Because of Calvary" this is the application of the text to your understanding of God, human relationships, civil duty, etc.  There will naturally also be messages that are evangelistic in nature because of the content of the text and these will go "to" Calvary instead of "from" Calvary.

 

[ALAYMAN]

My view is a little different.  The Scriptures are given to furnish us for all good works so that means all of life.  I believe that the Bible informs every aspect of our life and thinking as disciples of Christ.  I would differ from your view in that I believe the message should be preached "from" Calvary instead of "to" Calvary.  In other words, "Because of Calvary" this is the application of the text to your understanding of God, human relationships, civil duty, etc.  There will naturally also be messages that are evangelistic in nature because of the content of the text and these will go "to" Calvary instead of "from" Calvary.

Very good thoughts.

The sermon ought to immerse the hearer in the basis of a "law and gospel" dynamic.  God has commanded us to do...X, Y, and Z, ......but praise be to Christ for doing those things perfectly for us....now, by the power of the gospel we may not only be forgiven of our failures, but be equipped and empowered by the Spirit to go and do likewise.

 

[graceandtruth]

My view is a little different.  The Scriptures are given to furnish us for all good works so that means all of life.  I believe that the Bible informs every aspect of our life and thinking as disciples of Christ.  I would differ from your view in that I believe the message should be preached "from" Calvary instead of "to" Calvary.  In other words, "Because of Calvary" this is the application of the text to your understanding of God, human relationships, civil duty, etc.  There will naturally also be messages that are evangelistic in nature because of the content of the text and these will go "to" Calvary instead of "from" Calvary.

Very good thoughts.

The sermon ought to immerse the hearer in the basis of a "law and gospel" dynamic.  God has commanded us to do...X, Y, and Z, ......but praise be to Christ for doing those things perfectly for us....now, by the power of the gospel we may not only be forgiven of our failures, but be equipped and empowered by the Spirit to go and do likewise.

EXACTLY!  You saved me the trouble of a clarification post. 

 

[Mathew Ward]

I think the text in context should dictate the sermon, not the sermon the text.

I think making practical applications of the text are beneficial, but living out what you preach gives even greater weight to the sermon. 

But ultimately it is the Spirit of God working in the heart of each individual that matters most.

 

[Castor Muscular]

But ultimately it is the Spirit of God working in the heart of each individual that matters most.

It's the only thing that matters.  Everything else will be exposed for what it is and burned up. 

 

[christundivided]

My view is a little different.  The Scriptures are given to furnish us for all good works so that means all of life.  I believe that the Bible informs every aspect of our life and thinking as disciples of Christ.  I would differ from your view in that I believe the message should be preached "from" Calvary instead of "to" Calvary.  In other words, "Because of Calvary" this is the application of the text to your understanding of God, human relationships, civil duty, etc.  There will naturally also be messages that are evangelistic in nature because of the content of the text and these will go "to" Calvary instead of "from" Calvary.

Very good thoughts.

The sermon ought to immerse the hearer in the basis of a "law and gospel" dynamic.  God has commanded us to do...X, Y, and Z, ......but praise be to Christ for doing those things perfectly for us....now, by the power of the gospel we may not only be forgiven of our failures, but be equipped and empowered by the Spirit to go and do likewise.

EXACTLY!  You saved me the trouble of a clarification post. 

I see a fundamental problem with each of your views. The law was never given to make anyone righteous and Christ keeping the law didn't establish HIS righteousness. Also, it didn't it make Him, an acceptable sacrifice to the Father. Such views ignore a critical aspect of the Gospel.

Also, some of the best sermons that have ever been preached didn't have one thing to do with trying to explain the proper place of the law in the Gospel message. Some people could care less and there is not reason to preach freedom from the law when that person has NO understand of anything spiritual. For example, Stephen's sermon and Paul's sermon on Mar's hill.

 

[graceandtruth]

My view is a little different.  The Scriptures are given to furnish us for all good works so that means all of life.  I believe that the Bible informs every aspect of our life and thinking as disciples of Christ.  I would differ from your view in that I believe the message should be preached "from" Calvary instead of "to" Calvary.  In other words, "Because of Calvary" this is the application of the text to your understanding of God, human relationships, civil duty, etc.  There will naturally also be messages that are evangelistic in nature because of the content of the text and these will go "to" Calvary instead of "from" Calvary.

Very good thoughts.

The sermon ought to immerse the hearer in the basis of a "law and gospel" dynamic.  God has commanded us to do...X, Y, and Z, ......but praise be to Christ for doing those things perfectly for us....now, by the power of the gospel we may not only be forgiven of our failures, but be equipped and empowered by the Spirit to go and do likewise.

EXACTLY!  You saved me the trouble of a clarification post. 

I see a fundamental problem with each of your views. The law was never given to make anyone righteous and Christ keeping the law didn't establish HIS righteousness. Also, it didn't it make Him, an acceptable sacrifice to the Father. Such views ignore a critical aspect of the Gospel.

Also, some of the best sermons that have ever been preached didn't have one thing to do with trying to explain the proper place of the law in the Gospel message. Some people could care less and there is not reason to preach freedom from the law when that person has NO understand of anything spiritual. For example, Stephen's sermon and Paul's sermon on Mar's hill.

You must have read another post Castor.  Scripture teaches that the grace we have been shown in salvation and the grace that enables us to live in conformance to Christ is a result of the priesthood of Christ which was effected at Calvary.  I am quite aware that Christ did not have to keep a law that is a revelation of His moral character to humanity. 

I understand your concern for a salvation by works or righteousness by works paradigm.  That, however, is not what I am referencing.  We preach "from Calvary" because Christ's salvific work makes it possible for us to be made righteous through faith and that is the basis for our understanding of the change that has been effected in us through salvation and the change God is working in us with His word by His Spirit as we are conformed to the image of Christ.  The application of every text finds its genesis in "Christ died and rose" so now this is yours in Christ.  This is the basis of Stephen's sermon as well as Paul's and should be for ours as well.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I see a fundamental problem with each of your views. The law was never given to make anyone righteous and Christ keeping the law didn't establish HIS righteousness. Also, it didn't it make Him, an acceptable sacrifice to the Father. Such views ignore a critical aspect of the Gospel.

Also, some of the best sermons that have ever been preached didn't have one thing to do with trying to explain the proper place of the law in the Gospel message. Some people could care less and there is not reason to preach freedom from the law when that person has NO understand of anything spiritual. For example, Stephen's sermon and Paul's sermon on Mar's hill.

First, Christ's active obedience to the law laid the groundwork of acceptance for his passive sacrifice.

Second, the idea expressed as "law" by me is synonymous to the notion of our rightfully expected obedience to Christ's commands.  For instance, if we are told to "love our neighbor as ourself"
(ie, "the law" = love your neighbor) then what  is the result when we don't do that?  Hopefully our response to the sermon imperative is that we repent and ask forgiveness, then by faith trust Christ and the Holy Spirit in us to do what is expected of us. 

As far as <great> sermons that don't involve "the law", I'd say a sermon that is less devoted than normal to speaking about our responsibilities, but rather talks of God's attributes, falls short of the mark if the sermon does not identify where we fall short of the mark in "being holy as he is holy" (ie "the law").  In identifying God's great longsuffering and merciful nature towards us, it makes us grateful that he has shown us those blessings, but it is an inadequate sermon that does not direct us to identify those areas in our lives where we have NOT been patient and merciful to others in our lives.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I have no formal training in homiletics, but have listened to scores of different preaching styles, in person and via electronic media, and one thing that is noticeable is that some men fail to wrap their message up in a way that is compelling.  I was recently commenting to another preacher how some men fail to end their sermons with an energy that pushes the hearer to act on the message that was just revealed to them.  Today's excerpt is related to the OP tangentially, but deals with how to seal the deal on the conclusion of the sermon...

Manipulation of emotions with a story that does not drive home the principles that have been developed in a message ranks among the worst abuses of preaching.  But nearly as great an offense is committed by failing to engage the heart, stimulate the will, excite the mind, and elevate the soul concerning eternal truths at this most crucial stage.  Preachers who ethically use a human-interest story account to elicit honest emotions, stir genuine feelings, and provoke appropriate convictions are following biblical injunctions to urge, persuade, and encourage.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I think the text in context should dictate the sermon, not the sermon the text.

I think making practical applications of the text are beneficial, but living out what you preach gives even greater weight to the sermon. 

But ultimately it is the Spirit of God working in the heart of each individual that matters most.

Agree!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I have no formal training in homiletics, but have listened to scores of different preaching styles, in person and via electronic media, and one thing that is noticeable is that some men fail to wrap their message up in a way that is compelling.  I was recently commenting to another preacher how some men fail to end their sermons with an energy that pushes the hearer to act on the message that was just revealed to them.  Today's excerpt is related to the OP tangentially, but deals with how to seal the deal on the conclusion of the sermon...

Manipulation of emotions with a story that does not drive home the principles that have been developed in a message ranks among the worst abuses of preaching.  But nearly as great an offense is committed by failing to engage the heart, stimulate the will, excite the mind, and elevate the soul concerning eternal truths at this most crucial stage.  Preachers who ethically use a human-interest story account to elicit honest emotions, stir genuine feelings, and provoke appropriate convictions are following biblical injunctions to urge, persuade, and encourage.

I like that as well.

 

[Mathew Ward]

I have no formal training in homiletics, but have listened to scores of different preaching styles, in person and via electronic media, and one thing that is noticeable is that some men fail to wrap their message up in a way that is compelling.  I was recently commenting to another preacher how some men fail to end their sermons with an energy that pushes the hearer to act on the message that was just revealed to them.  Today's excerpt is related to the OP tangentially, but deals with how to seal the deal on the conclusion of the sermon...

Manipulation of emotions with a story that does not drive home the principles that have been developed in a message ranks among the worst abuses of preaching.  But nearly as great an offense is committed by failing to engage the heart, stimulate the will, excite the mind, and elevate the soul concerning eternal truths at this most crucial stage.  Preachers who ethically use a human-interest story account to elicit honest emotions, stir genuine feelings, and provoke appropriate convictions are following biblical injunctions to urge, persuade, and encourage.

Have you read Andy Stanley's "Communicating for a Purpose"?  You won't agree with everything but it does have some excellent points and will be a help.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Have you read Andy Stanley's "Communicating for a Purpose"?  You won't agree with everything but it does have some excellent points and will be a help.

Nope, haven't read it, but thanks for the recommendation.  The book I referenced in the OP is  flavored by presbyterian comments, but I chew the meat and spit out the bones, so I wouldn't mind doing the same with Stanley.  Truth be told, the bibliography in Chappel's book is so weighty and drops references to other preaching books/authors that I could spend lots of money with them (Vines, Lloyd-Jones, etc) before ever getting to more contemporary authors such as Stanley.

 

[rsc2a]

Have you read Andy Stanley's "Communicating for a Purpose"?  You won't agree with everything but it does have some excellent points and will be a help.

Nope, haven't read it, but thanks for the recommendation.  The book I referenced in the OP is  flavored by presbyterian comments, but I chew the meat and spit out the bones, so I wouldn't mind doing the same with Stanley.  Truth be told, the bibliography in Chappel's book is so weighty and drops references to other preaching books/authors that I could spend lots of money with them (Vines, Lloyd-Jones, etc) before ever getting to more contemporary authors such as Stanley.

The author is also the president of Covenant Theological Seminary. I thought it was an excellent book, and listening to him teach the homiletics class was definitly informative.

I'm curious: what bones are you referring to?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I see a fundamental problem with each of your views. The law was never given to make anyone righteous

Maybe not the Law itself but God does say something about obedience and faith:

When your son asks you in time to come,

 

[graceandtruth]

I see a fundamental problem with each of your views. The law was never given to make anyone righteous

Maybe not the Law itself but God does say something about obedience and faith:

When your son asks you in time to come, ‘What is the meaning of the testimonies and the statutes and the rules that the Lord our God has commanded you?’ then you shall say to your son, ‘We were Pharaoh's slaves in Egypt. And the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. And the Lord showed signs and wonders, great and grievous, against Egypt and against Pharaoh and all his household, before our eyes. And he brought us out from there, that he might bring us in and give us the land that he swore to give to our fathers. And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as we are this day. And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us.’

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

Smellin your second quote is inaccurate.  It cannot possibly be correct because it is penned by James not Jesus and is not the words of Jesus.  I will have to go with righteousness on the grounds presented in the Pentateuch.  Try this quote instead:

And he (Abraham) believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. (Genesis 15:6)

Unless you are practicing "buffet-hermeneutics" or "buffet-canonization"?  ;D