Integrative Model for Preaching Series by Dr. Kenton Anderson

The following is taken from the appendix of "Preaching with Conviction".

My daughter and I had a disturbing conversation a few months ago. It was a typical father/daughter discussion. She wanted to do something I thought might be inappropriate and I said so with all the fatherly tenderness and respect I thought necessary for such an occasion. She was quick, however, to sense the nature of my rebuke. "Dad, I don't need to hear a sermon," she said as she turned her back on me and walked away. She was nine years old.

Her response stung, given that I make my living preparing and delivering sermons. Unfortunately, it is not only my daughter who has decided that listening to sermons has become unnecessary. It would appear that the whole culture has concluded that preaching is anachronistic, that it is at best a relic of bygone times and at worst an arrogant abuse of religious authority.

I have concluded, however, that the Lord has not revoked my calling and that he still expects me to preach. Still, it seems to me that preaching in these days might demand some fresh thinking and an alternate form.

Principles: Theology and Theory

Authority: "Oh yeah, who says?"
There are two primary issues relevant to the task of preaching. The first is the matter of authority. Anyone who wishes to persuade must provide warrant for his or her claim. It may have been in distant times that listeners would attend sermons in an agreeable and docile frame of mind, unquestioningly receiving whatever the preacher cared to suggest.

Those listeners have long since been replaced by a newer more skeptical group who listen with one finger on their mental remote control, challenging the preacher to prove that this sermon is worth the investment of their time and energy.

"Love one another," the preacher says, "be good to your enemies."

"Oh yeah," the listener responds, "who says?"

"Well, God says," the preacher answers. It is a good answer, but for many it may not be enough. Listeners today come ready-built with their own authority. They could choose to daydream or close their mind. They could get up and walk noisily out, shaking their fist as they do. The listener has power in the transaction known as preaching and they are not afraid to use it. The preacher, then, must make an authority level choice between text and today, between divine authority and human authority.

                authority
text----------------------------today

On the one hand, the case is made on the basis of God's revealed Word. Thus saith the Lord, settles the question.

On the other hand the point is established upon the foundation of the listeners own preset assumptions and experiences. "Sounds about right," the listener says, processing the message through their inborn authority system.

Apprehension: "O.K. How Do I Say It?"
The second primary concern for the preacher is to discover the most effective means of helping the listener own the truth. Apprehension, is the taking hold of a truth, like a constable apprehending a suspect, or a student taking hold of a book. It is the preacher's desire that the listener 'get a grip' on the message being offered.

There are two primary approaches a preacher could choose. The first is by means of explanation and the second is by means of experience.

                        apprehension
head -------------------------------------heart

Traditionally, preachers have emphasized the cognitive path, explaining the propositions of the text and sermon, making things clear and making things orderly. The idea is that if the truth is made comprehensible to the mind, the listener will be compelled to respond and the preacher will have done his or her job.

More recently, preachers have been rediscovering intuitive experience as an avenue to listener apprehension. Gripping stories and emotional appeal compel a listener to want to respond to the message on offer. Whether the propositions can be explained is less important when a listener feels a need to respond.

Integration: "Refuse to Choose."
The recent history of homiletics has tended to describe a spasmodic lurching from pole to pole in the struggle between text and today, explanation and experience. Cognitive forms of exposition square off against more intuitive narrative sermon forms. Text based authority structures stand against listener based "seeker" forms or preaching. In the end, however, such polarized approaches might not be helpful.

Integration describes the bringing together of seemingly contrary options in such a way that the integrity of each substance remains uncompromised. Is it possible that preachers could integrate text and today, explanation and experience? Is it possible that preachers could refuse to choose?

Overlaying the two continuums, authority and apprehension, creates an interesting opportunity for preachers to integrate these seemingly opposing concerns.

Move 1: experience (apprehension) of the text (authority)
Move 2: explanation (apprehension) of the text (authority)
Move 3: explanation (apprehension) of today (authority)
Move 4: experience (apprehension) of today (authority)

God endorsed integration as a means of communication in the incarnation of his son, Jesus Christ. The Word become flesh is more than just an analogy of the preaching task. It is the substance of the preacher's message.

Process: Discover, Construction, Assimilation, and Delivery

First Stage: Discovery (the Message)
The first stage in the preparation of a sermon, then, is discovery . Specifically the preacher seeks to discover the message, which is "what God wants to say through this text to these people at this time." It is an unrepeatable, virtually unpublishable moment in time when the people encounter the voice of God through the Word of God for their unique moment and place in history. The message can be discerned by four simple questions corresponding to the above four integrative moves.

Move 1: What's the Story?
Move 2: What's the Point?
Move 3: What's the Problem?
Move 4: What's the Difference?

What's the Story? (Experience of the Text) Even in the book of Hebrews, there is always a story. There really were Hebrew people with a story. Identifying that story can help the listener see the humanity in the text, creating an experiential encounter with the message that will not easily be shaken off.

1. What's the Point? (Explanation of the Text) The Bible, while not exclusively propositional, is conceptual in its makeup. The Bible offers truth that can be examined, detailed, ordered, and for the most part, understood. The preacher need not shy away from offering points, well explained and carefully put.
2. What's the Problem? (Explanation of Today) The problem with biblical propositions is that they are not so easily accepted. The Bible is profoundly counter-cultural. If a preacher offers biblical truth with honesty and integrity, there will be inherent conflict in the engagement with contemporary listener presuppositions. Acknowledging the problem from the perspective of the thinking human will be important if we care about listener comprehension and assent.
3. What's the Difference? (Experience of Today) Of course, head knowledge without heart response is hardly worth the effort. Every text intends a difference in the life response of the listener as they grow in obedience to the God who created them.

Answering these four questions will lead the preacher to know what it is that God is saying to these people through this text at this time.

Second Stage: Construction (The Sermon)
The second stage in homiletic presentation is construction. What is to be constructed is the sermon, which is simply a framework sufficient to communicate the message. Just because a preacher has an understanding of the message does not mean that he or she is ready to preach. The preacher needs a sermon, a vehicle that will help the people hear from God.

The preacher is wise to begin by seeking to get the listener involved (engaged) in the message. It is no longer wise to assume that the listeners will invest the energy needed to engage themselves in the experience. Having gained the listener's involvement in the process the preacher can declare the propositions offered by the text (teaching). From there, the preacher ought to work to convince the listener of the truth of the teaching.

Finally, the preacher needs to motivate the listener to a reckoning with the implications of the message. The preacher is looking to encourage a response.

The concepts chosen by the preacher need to use appropriate language and argumentation in order to address the following important listener issues:

Move 1: "so what" (tell the story)
Move 2: "what's what" (make the point)
Move 3: "yeah, but" (engage the problem)
Move 4: "now what" (imagine the difference)

"So what?" In the first move the preacher seeks to convince the listener of the relevance of the message. The listener needs to be given a reason to listen. Usually, this is most effectively achieved by getting the listener emotionally involved, connecting their own story with that of the biblical text.

1. "What's what" In the second move the preacher makes the point overt. This is the place for explanation - only so much explanation as necessary to inform the listener's mind without bogging him down with confusing details. The challenge is to be clear and intellectually stimulating.
2. "Yeah, but..." In the third move the preacher acknowledges the listener's objections, seeking to overcome the inevitable reticence the listener will harbor. Minds don't change wihtout a fight. Preachers that can get under the surface and deal with the real cognitive objections of the listener will speak powerfully.
3. "Now what?" In the fourth move, the preacher offers the possibility of a tangible alternate future according to the call of the gospel. Biblical texts intend substantive life-change. Our sermons must intend no less.

Stage Three: Assimilation (Unction)
Many preachers having discovered their message and constructed their sermon understand their task to have been completed, but there is another stage that is essential to powerful, biblical preaching. This is the stage in which the preachers seeks the "unction" of the Holy Spirit, the empowering passion that makes a sermon live. The preacher must be filled with the message from God by the Spirit of God. Assimilation involves three concerns, spirit, word, and life .

Spirit refers to the power of the Holy Spirit that gives the sermon it's impact. Preaching intends eternal impact for spiritual purposes. Spiritual business cannot be accomplished without the Spirit's power. This kind of power is only accessed through prayer - much fervent prayer . While it is important that the preacher bathe the entire process of preparation in dedicated prayer, it is helpful at this stage in the process to engage in a protracted time of intentional prayer. One is not prepared to preach until one has truly met with God.

Word refers to the practical business of choosing and assembling the language of the sermon. Whether the preacher chooses to sit down at a computer and write the sermon or rather to go on long walks to consider how to say what needs to be said, the preacher needs time for " working it out ". Wrestling with the language of the sermon is an important use of time and energy at this point in the process. The preacher needs to struggle at " locking it in ", striving not so much to memorize the words, but to grow comfortable with the language, perhaps committing key phrases and transition points to memory.

The process of assimilation is an attempt to embed the sermon in the mind and character of the preacher prior to preaching.

To that end, the concept of life is most crucial. The preacher ought to look intentionally towards ways to obey the message of the sermon. Obedience to the claims of the text on the part of the preacher is important to win the approval of the listener. Further the effective preacher will pursue identification with the life and experience of the listener. The congregation needs to sense that the preacher understands their lives and that the sermon is more than theoretical.

Stage Four: Delivery (The Event)
The sermon event is a unique moment in time when people hear from God. Virtually unpublishable, the sermon event is much more than just the worlds that are uttered. It is a dynamic event inw hich people are able to hear from God by means of the preacher. An inviting physical style coupled with conversational passion and a minimum of obstacles (including even pulpits and notes) will enhance the possibility that the listener will be drawn into the presence of the Lord.

One of the mysteries of preaching is that God would use a human instrument at all. Human preachers are tempted to get in the way of the task, fearing men (which leads to debilitation) instead of fearing God (which offers motivation). Yet God, for his own good reasons has chosen to integrate the human with the divine in the process of making his word known. God uses preachers!

A few years ago while attending a conference on preaching in Boston, I returned to my hotel room late in the evening and turned on the television. Much to my delight, they were broadcasting a hockey game between the Boston Bruins and my beloved Vancouver Canucks. I confess, however, I spent most of the time thinking more about preaching than hockey. I noticed as the team was returning to the ice from the dressing room for the second period, a motivational saying that was embedded in the carpet in the hallway out toward the ice. This was the last thing the players saw before stepping out onto the playing surface and it struck me that while it was good advice for hockey players it was even better advice for preachers. It said, "Master technique, but let the Spirit prevail.'

We do the best we are capable of to master the various theories and techniques of the homiletical task, but in the end the power belongs to the Spirit of God. We do our part, but if anything of eternal importance and value is going to happen in the sermon event it will be his doing.

Master technique, but let the Spirit prevail!

5 Things We Do Today Instead of Preaching the Word

5 Things We Do Today Instead of Preaching the Word:

—Excerpted from a talk given at the Acts 29 Lead Pastors’ Retreat in 2011--

by Pastor James McDonald

I wish I could tell you that most pastors are preaching the Word. I can’t—some are not. Here are five things we may choose to do instead of preaching the Word.

1. Entertaining
“Music, drama, and video, felt needs, topics, more stories”

None of those things are wrong—unless they displace the preaching of the Word of God. Some teachers will tell you that you need to tell stories in your sermons or you will bore people. I’m not bored. If you’re not bored, no one is going to be bored. Can you take hold of the Word of God and take hold of a group of people and make them listen because you have something to say?

Are you bored? The greatest sin in ministry is to bore people with the Bible. Martin Lloyd Jones said, “Preaching is theology coming through a man who is on fire. A man who can speak about these things dispassionately has no right whatsoever to be in a pulpit; and should never be allowed to enter one.”

You have to get the word of God, let it grip you heart by the power of the Holy Spirit and drive over to church with something to say.

Now if a story fits in, I might tell you a story before I sit down, but don’t make that your thing. If people come up to you afterwards and say, “I love that story you told,” it should make you crazy. Really, that’s what I am? I’m a story-teller? The Gospel is the main story that you should be telling.

2. Sharing
“There are some things I just want to share with you today…”

Since when is the man of God some Dr. Phil and Oprah combo? You’re supposed to proclaim a message. If you’re not preaching, glory is not coming down. You have got to preach the glory down—people have to hear a Word from God.

3. Wooing
“Careful, careful, don’t offend, always comfortable, never pressured, just a pinch of truth, when they’re ready to handle it”

The preaching of the gospel has become so watered down that the non-elect can’t even reject it. If you don’t have people walking away from your ministry saying, “This is a hard word, who can accept it?” then you don’t have a ministry like Jesus had.

I just hate this notion that we can be so clever and sophisticated that we can remove the offense from the gospel. It is foolishness to those who are perishing; it is the power of God to those who are being saved. It is the aroma of death to those who are perishing; it is the aroma of life to those who are being saved.

Listen, preacher: If you don’t want to be the aroma of death to those who are perishing, you can never be the aroma of life to those who are being saved. That’s why preaching is hard work.

4. Intellectualizing
“I’ve been thinking and researching this in the original languages…”

We’re supposed to love God with our heart, soul, mind and strength. And preaching that stops at the shoulders is defective preaching. It has to move me—it has to call me to action—mind, emotions, and will. If you’re just preaching your theological construct, you’re blowing it.

Stop preaching the scaffolding around the Bible and preach the Word—what God actually says.

John Calvin said, “God deigns [considers it proper] to consecrate to himself the mouths and tongues of men in order that his voice may resound in them.” Your preaching is at its best when your people have forgotten that you’re even standing there, and God’s Spirit is moving through you. I am afraid that we’ve lost sight of this.
5. Abbreviating
“Twenty-minute sermons”

I don’t know how it works at your church, but for us it takes 5 minutes to set the rig up and another 5 or 10 minutes to take it down. If you’re only preaching for 20 minutes, that gives you 5 minutes to drill. You’re not going very deep, are you? It takes some time.

Luke 10:16—Jesus said, “He who hears you, hears me.”

“He who hears you,” Jesus said, “hears me.”

Yet there’s no pridefulness, is there? It’s so humbling. It’s a crushing weight, isn’t it? I tell people the weekly message preparation is the crucible of my sanctification. Never get in a habit of getting up in the pulpit when things aren’t square everywhere. That by itself will keep you going in the right direction. “He who hears you, hears me,” Jesus said. I love that challenge—to be that person.

—Excerpted from a talk given at the Acts 29 Lead Pastors’ Retreat in 2011

Inclusiveness and Evangelical Boundaries

Does Inclusivism Fall Within the Boundaries of Evangelicalism?:
In each issue of Credo Magazine we feature “From the Horse’s Mouth” where we ask a pressing question to notable pastors and scholars. In the January issue of Credo Magazine, “In Christ Alone,” we asked: Does inclusivism fall within the boundaries of evangelicalism? Our responders included: Paul Helm, Richard Mouw, Stephen Wellum, and Terrance Tiessen. Find out what they had to say!

Open publication – Free publishing

To view the magazine as a PDF Click Here

The January issue argues for the exclusivity of the gospel, especially in light of the movement known as inclusivism. This issue will seek to answer questions like: Can those who have never heard the gospel of Christ be saved? Will everyone be saved in the end or will some spend an eternity in hell? Must someone have explicit faith in Christ to be saved? Contributors include David Wells, Robert Peterson, Michael Horton, Gerald Bray, Todd Miles, Todd Borger, Ardel Caneday, Nathan Finn, Trevin Wax, Michael Reeves, and many others.

Preaching With or Without Notes - Biblical Preaching by Peter Mead

by Glenn Leatherman on Thursday, June 11, 2009 at 4:34pm

I preached with notes for a decade, sometimes extensive, sometimes brief. Three years ago I switched to preaching without notes. I would not go back. ... There are more important things than whether you preach with or without notes. It’s more important to be Biblical, to have clear big idea, specific purpose and relevance. So I would not make a definitive case for no notes as opposed to with notes or with manuscript preaching (although to be honest I have yet to see someone who can read a manuscript effectively in preaching). However, this issue is important since delivery is a key element in preaching.

So why do I advocate and encourage no notes preaching? Preaching without notes increases eye contact beyond belief! Greater eye contact increases the sense of connection and intimacy between listener and speaker. We are living in a day when people are increasingly resistant to “pre-planned” speeches. While my preaching is completely pre-planned, it feels more authentic and relational because I am not following notes. For eye contact alone, it is worth it for me.

But there are other benefits. Preaching without notes forces you to make sure the outline makes sense. As Haddon Robinson says, a good outline remembers itself. An outline on paper can be deceptive, giving the impression of logical ordering, but an outline that does not flow or make sense will be very hard to internalize for preaching without notes. Preaching without notes also forces you to tie the message as directly as possible to the text. The text is your notes, so the message needs to logically flow from the text. Furthermore, you are more likely to stay put in the text you are dealing with rather than skipping all over the canon (a good habit to get into for many reasons!)

So that’s the “why?” In the next post I will explain the “how” of no notes preaching . . . and it is not about memorization!

http://biblicalpreaching.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/notes-or-no-notes-part-1/

 

 

In part 1 of this post I presented the “why” of no notes preaching from my perspective. The relational connection through increased eye contact is the biggest reason for me. Also the side effects of less complicated messages, more text-related messages, and staying-put-in-your-text messages, these are all positives as well.

So, how? Well, it is not by memorization. Trying to memorize 30-45 minutes of material is a sure way to achieve the following negative results: performing like an actor, freezing like an amateur actor, and failing to have any relational connection because you seem aloof (trying to remember the next “line”). It is probably worth memorizing the big idea, perhaps the statements of each move or point if you are going to state them explicitly, the opening few lines and the concluding few lines. Beyond that, it’s all about internalization.

Having studied the text as fully as possible, you then prepare a message that fits closely to that text and makes good sense. If possible, it is worth typing out a full word-for-word manuscript. This manuscript allows you to work carefully on specific word choices and phrasing. The work of giving close attention to the manuscript is surprisingly effective at internalizing the wording so that it comes out again when you practice the message and/or deliver it.

In the busy schedule of ministry life, typing a full manuscript is not always possible. So writing out a full outline and then preaching through the message out loud also serves to internalize the message.

Preaching without notes is not about special memory skills. It is about full preparation that leads to the preacher being very at home in the preaching text. It is about prayerful preparation that allows the message to soak into the very fiber of the preacher’s life.

For many preachers the fear of forgetting where they are, or freezing during delivery, hinders them from trying no notes preaching. I thank the Lord for my preaching professor that took away all other options when I had to preach in class. Maybe you should find someone to require no notes preaching of you?

http://biblicalpreaching.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/notes-or-no-notes-part-2/

 

 

Stephen commented on part 1 of the “no notes” post. Please read his comment there. He referred to the fact that some famous speakers carry a manuscript into the pulpit. “The defense of using a manuscript I have been told is to ensure every thought is well developed and theologically sound.” Thoughts on the issue of the manuscript:

1. If possible, fully manuscript your message. I totally agree with these reasons for writing a manuscript - every thought should be fully developed and theologically sound. There is no excuse for preaching undeveloped thought or unsound concepts. This is why I avoid the phrase “extemporaneous” preaching, since people understand that to mean “spontaneous” preaching rather than “prepared, but without notes” (the dictionary gives both meanings). This is also why I encourage the writing of a full manuscript. It allows for both developed thought and doctrinal soundness. It also allows for attention to the details of style, precision in the choice of individual words, use of rhetorical devices, avoidance of unhelpful reduncancy, injection of deliberate aids to oral clarity and so on.

2. Don’t take your manuscript into the pulpit. I would guess that some of the big name speakers who advocate manuscript preaching do not actually read their manuscript verbatim. I’ve yet to hear someone preach from a manuscript effectively - although some who have a manuscript treat it as notes rather than a script. I find when I type a full manuscript that a lot of the extra work will show during delivery (the work of manuscripting internalizes the message, even specific wording). I prefer the connection I feel with the listeners now I preach without notes, but the real issue is the listeners, what is the most effective way to communicate with them?

3. Write your manuscript for the ear. If you are going to write a manuscript, it is important to write as you will speak. We have all learned to write for the eye. We place high value on succinct, clear and varied content. But we need to write for the ear. This means using restatement, sometimes repetition, short sentences, consistent terminology, very deliberate transitions, and so on. A thoroughly effective sermon, when transcribed, requires editing before it reads well. When going in the other direction, we need to pay careful attention to our style. The question is not does it look good on paper, but does it communicate when people can’t see it? Listeners cannot look back and reread a sentence, nor hear the underlining of a section title, so we must not speak in written English! Is it written for the ear?

4. Preaching requires a commitment both to the Bible and to the listener. As a preacher you must give yourself to diligent study of the text and thoroughly biblical content. At the same time, preaching involves maximum connection and effective communication with the listener. Write a manuscript, but preach without notes - in my mind this approach achieves both!

http://biblicalpreaching.wordpress.com/2007/06/17/i-believe-in-manuscripts-no-notes-part-3

Basic Training For Defending The Faith

Watch and learn as the late Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen teaches you how to think as a Christian. God didn't call us to be secret agents; He demands our minds, as well as our hearts, and expects us to be able to give a reasonable defense for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). Dr. Bahnsen reveals that our job as Christian apologists is not to change unbelieving hearts, but to simply close the mouth of the unbeliever. This 5-part video series will show you how.

The Mith of Neutrality (Part 1)

Introduction to Worldviews (Part 2)

Worldviews in Conflict (Part 3)

Defending the Christian Faith (Part 4)

Problems for Unbelieving Worldviews (Part 5)

(click on the above titles to watch, listen, and learn)

Review by Nathan Pitchford
The responsibility of Christians to proclaim and defend their faith reasonably and intelligibly, in the face of worldviews and philosophies that are antagonistic to Christianity, is a serious biblical concern. So how do we go about equipping ourselves for the task? In order to defend the faith adequately, must we be current with the prevalent philosophies and epistemologies of the day, and eloquent enough to mount a persuasive argument within the confines of those philosophies? In other words, must we be skillful enough thinkers to beat the atheists on their own playing field? No, Dr. Bahnsen would insist; although understanding philosophy and epistemology may be useful, ultimately, if we would be successful apologists, we only need to learn to think as Christians. And in this clear, scriptural, penetrating series of lectures, he demonstrates exactly what that means, and how it can equip any Christian to be a biblical and competent apologist.

What is the goal of apologetics? Is it to persuade men to embrace Christianity, to out-reason unbelievers into the Kingdom? Bahnsen would suggest, on the contrary, that while conversion is the ultimate goal, that end is properly the work of the Holy Spirit; our task is just to stop the mouths of unbelievers, to leave them without excuse, and let the Spirit work as he will in a heart whose self-deception has been uncovered. And make no mistake, the unbeliever is self-deceived. His problem is not that he's an unbiased, reasonable man who just doesn't have enough evidence for the existence of God; his problem is that he hates God and suppresses the truth, so that he can justify his pursuit of ungodliness. He claims that he wants to examine evidences for Christianity from a neutral platform; but if there's one thing we must know about apologetics, it's that he's not neutral, and we shouldn't be. To attempt to meet him on his terms, to enter his anti-God worldview in order to convince him of what he already knows but suppresses in ungodliness, is to lose the battle from the beginning; it's to justify him in his presuppositions, which are utterly opposed to the message we have to give him.

So then, how do we go about the task of defending the faith to unbelievers and atheists? Bahnsen would suggest that we simply take those Christian truths which even the unbelievers cannot give up – things such as moral absolutes, human dignity, the existance of universals, the one and the many, the uniformity of reality – and show how, on the basis of their own presuppositions, they are impossible, unintelligible, self-contradictory. Those things about which they express moral outrage, whether it be the abuse of children, the war in Iraq, or any other issue, demonstrate that they do not actually believe what they say they believe about reality. In fact, they must borrow from the Christian worldview even to advance those opinions. Really, the basic “proof” of Christianity is that, without it you cannot prove anything.

Of course, this is essentially just a presentation of the principles of what is called “presuppositional” (in contrast to “classic,” or “evidential”) apologetics. And as Bahnsen walks through scriptural principles and examples, he builds up a compelling case that the approach of presuppositional apologetics is uniquely faithful to the biblical witness. It is unique both in its refusal to compromise on the non-negotiable tenets of the Christian worldview and in its ability to “shut the mouths” of unbelievers, and make clear their inconsistency and self-deception.

The field of presuppositional apologetics has a reputation for being heady, difficult stuff (after all, was not its “father” the brilliant and sometimes obscurely erudite Cornelius Van Til?); but in reality, the basic approach is simple and liberating to any believer largely unschooled in philosophy or complex argumentation. It only requires that he learn to think consistently as a Christian, and to show how even non-believers are forced to think as a Christian in certain inconsistent ways. And with lucid teaching, adept illustration, and helpful exemplary anecdotes, Bahnsen shows just how possible it is for the unphilosophic believer to be a truly Christian apologist in any situation.

Especially geared for prospective secular college students, but highly recommended for all believers!

Good Conversation on Sermon Preparation

Here is a Great Discussion on Sermon Preparation:

*|vimeo:http://player.vimeo.com/video/19044695|*

Sermon Prep from Harvest Bible Chapel on Vimeo.

More and more I believe that it is important that one develop a robust Biblical Theology that can inform one's systematic theology which ultimately informs ones expositions of Scripture

Listen to Mark Dever do this in one exposition from all of scripture:

9Marks at Southeastern 2010 - Biblical Theology: Session 1 from Southeastern Seminary on Vimeo.

Preaching from Genesis through Revelation, Mark Dever unfolds the beautiful plan of God, evident in Scripture from beginning to end.

The Law of Christ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1WspTQ956o

*|YOUTUBE:p1WspTQ956o|*

Chrous vs. Stanza - Difference between C.S. Lewis and Rob Bell

I appreciate Michael Patton's explanation here because I have always had problems with C.S. Lewis's theology while loving some of his books. His denial of substitutionary atonement and the Biblical doctrine of inerrancy is a problem for me, but to hear Michael differentiate between what was C.S. Lewis' chorus from his stanzas is helpful for me. while I don't know how he can emphasize the Gospel while denying some things like substitutionary atonement.  I complete believe that Scripture and Gospel mission is denied by C.S. Lewis' inclusivism or "wider-grace" view of salvation apart from the knowledge of Christ.  As a pastor these views would probably make me deny a person the opportunity to teach in a local church community.  

Michael describes C.S. Lewis' aberrant theology in the following quote:

... he had some non-”evangelical” leanings. Besides not believing in inerrancy, he also believed in the theory of evolution, denied substitutionary atonement in favor of a “ransom to Satan” view, bordered on a Pelagian idea of human freedom, seemed to advocate baptismal regeneration, and regularly prayed for the dead. To top it all off, he held out hope for the destiny of the unevangelized, believing that Christ might save them outside of direct knowledge of him (inclusivism).

Should we accept Michael's analysis that the difference between C.S. Lewis and Rob Bell is one of focus or emphasis in that one publicly focuses on defending Christianity and the other focuses on question Christianity.   He states that he fully embraces and endorses the ministry of C.S. Lewis, but he does not endorse or embrace the ministry of Rob Bell.  Here is his reasoning for his support for C.S. Lewis and rejection of Rob Bell's work:

You see, while C.S. Lewis has a great deal of theological foibles, his ministry is defined by a defense of the essence of the Gospel. The essence of who Christ is and what he did are ardently defended by Lewis, saturating every page of his book. His purpose was clear: to defend the reality of God and the Lordship of Jesus Christ. . . .   However, with Rob Bell, the essence of who Christ is and what he did seem to be secondary. One has to look for them as they weed through his defense of non-traditional Christianity. Whereas Lewis’ ultimate purpose is to define and defend “mere” Christianity, Bell’s “mere” Christianity is but a footnote to a redefined Christianity. 

Again, should we make a distinction between a chorus and stanza as one of emphasis?  Here is his this framework in one paragraph that I am questioning:

Another way to put this is to say that in the ministry of C.S. Lewis the central truths of the Christian faith are the chorus of his song with an occasional problem in the stanza. However, with Bell, the chorus of his song is filled with challenges to tradition Christianity and if you listen really close to the stanza, you might get an occasional line of orthodoxy.

I believe that one's theology and worldview is holistic, complete, or comprehensive and wrong beliefs will affect and change Biblical beliefs one holds to over time.  Of course God uses people with imperfect theology - God uses crooked sticks to draw a straight line.    The question is it better to have people read more orthodox or Biblical books.   We must remember that it takes discernment to read anything by a man or woman.  So for growth, I believe that this paradigm is helpful to see the core of anyone's worldview and theology.  I think it is generally helpful to read people who have a Gospel centered focus, but know that some of the Stanzas may be a point of departure from the truth of Gospel and Scriptural emphasis and truth.   In the end I would have people read C.S. Lewis (but not Rob Bell - except for a understanding of false teaching), and could teach from one of his books because I could frame it well, and it would help people understand the central tenants of Christianity.

Read Michael Patton's article at: 

Why Do We Love C.S. Lewis and Hate Rob Bell ? | Parchment and Pen

What do you think?  How would you handle a book or someone who may have some problematic doctrines or beliefs that you consider unscriptural or unhelpful?   Where do you draw the line of what books, videos, etc. that you would use in training others in the Christian faith?

John Frame - Five Views of Apologetics (Part 1 of 6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHjUiQt9U8Q

*|YOUTUBE:nHjUiQt9U8Q|*

Good Resources on Biblical Worship

Good Resources on Biblical Worship:

Over at his blog, Between Two Worlds, my friend Justin Taylor has posted links to a number of messages on worship that were given at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. Speakers include David Peterson, John Frame, Kevin Twit, Harold Best, Keith and Kristyn Getty, Michael Card, Jason Harms, and yours truly. Over 50 messages, all with links.

Check out the lectures here.

How to Think on Your Feet

You will not be able to extemporize good thinking unless you have been in the habit of thinking and feeding your mind with abundant and nourishing food. Work hard at every available moment. Store your minds very richly, and then, like merchants with crowded warehouses, you will have goods ready for your customers, and having arranged your good things upon the shelves of your mind, you will be able to hand them down at any time without the laborious process of going to market, sorting, folding, and preparing. . . . Take it as a rule without exception, that to be able to overflow spontaneously you must be full.

How to Think on Your Feet:
Charles Spurgeon:

The Formula Problem

Here is a good article that demonstrate why formulas don't work in ministry.  It replaces form for function. It trades purpose for a vehicle which one is unable to adapt to ministry changes.  Here are some questions I think we all need to ponder:

1. How have we left the Gospel when require a certain formula in our evangelism because it brings about some results that we want?
2. Is having a 'common language,' a 'common experience', a "common ritual,' necessary or should it be a desired result of our evangelism?
3. Where is our tradition anti-scriptural or anti-Christ?
4. Do we trust in our ritualistic services rather than our Risen Savior?  If so, why?
5. How do we diminish the power of the Cross when we trust in our own means in ministry?

Read more about this in the article:

The Real Problem in the SBC is Formulaic Evangelism that is Cultish and Not Christian by Wade Burleson

How to Evaluate a Church by Jeff Keeney

How to Evaluate a Church:

by Jeff Keeney of 

Gospel Centric

With a church on just about every corner in many parts of the U. S. and very few churches in other parts of the country, how do you know which church to attend? Why do people go to a specific church? Is it because of the building, or the programs or people? Is it because of correct doctrine, or solid gospel-centered preaching? Or maybe its just convenient? Maybe some of these questions seem silly, but what do people that are looking for a church to call home look for in a church? How do you evaluate a church?
While there are some great resources that are now available to help people find a Bible preaching, teaching and believing church, a quick evaluation can frequently be made based on the philosophy of ministry. What is a philosophy of ministry? This is the guiding principle that will influence and ultimately shape how the church – does church. It will guide the church in their preaching, teaching, worship, service and outreach – even the design of the building and parking lot.
A comparison of foundational philosophies of ministry:

Attractional vs. IncarnationalAttractional approaches to ministry are very popular today. Mega churches like Saddleback and its pastor – Rick Warren, and Willow Creek and its pastor – Bill Hybels, have exerted a tremendous influence on the Evangelical landscape in America. These churches, while differing in many ways, frequently take the basic approach that if we make our building, preaching and programs attractive – then people will come. The idea that drives this approach is that if you can just get the people in the doors, you can keep them there. However, this frequently leads to many problems – how do you preach and teach on sin, hell and the wrath of God? How do you practice church discipline? How do you handle church membership? The attractional model leads to a slippery slope where the clear teaching and application of Scripture must be either ignored or modified in order for this model of church to continue and flourish.

Many churches prefer to view things not from an attractional, but incarnational perspective. Instead of having the church focused on attracting people, many of which are unchurched or non-believers, this approach takes the ministry to the people. Like the Son of God condescending to leave His heavenly home and dwell among those whom He loved, this church wants to be known for their willingness to take the gospel from within the walls of their building to affect the lives of those they come into contact. The focus is on keeping Jesus high and lifted up, in the preaching, teaching, and worship, as well as in the application of members living gospel-centered lives in the community and work place.

Width vs. DepthIn polling various churches, the vast majority cite numeric growth as their driving evidence of success. Success is measured by quantifiable numbers of weekly attendance, small group attendance, Sunday school attendance, etc. Achievement is determined by the number of people with whom the message is shared. The Bible understands a primary purpose of the local church is to make disciples. Not mere attendees or even converts, but disciples – mature followers of Jesus Christ. In the end, the “Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be [Christ’s] disciples.”

Marketing vs. MissionSome churches exercise a marketing approach to ministry in which they hope to create a brand name to fit in a certain niche. Perhaps they are the church with good music, or a great drama team or a really excellent children’s ministry. Like the attractional approach, the hope is to market the church to bring people in. The problem that we see with this approach is that it is generally true that “what you win them with is what you keep them with.” If you win people with lights and smoke, then next year you need more lights and more smoke. You are always forced to better your resources and marketing of those resources to distinguish yourself. The challenge is that the culture is always changing and when you market a specific segment or ministry, then you inevitably teach that your church is not for everyone.


The missional church hopes to win people by the gospel of Jesus Christ. If they can do this, then all they have to do to keep them is continue to preach the gospel — what they should be doing anyway. They hope to accomplish this through challenging their people to have a missional perspective as they live a gospel-centered life. So, the church will experience growth because of mission rather than marketing.

Entitlement vs. Sacrifice
A deep and pervasive sense of entitlement exists in much of the evangelical community. Those who have such an attitude, though they might not articulate it, assume that the church exists merely to meet one’s own felt needs. Therefore, the church that caters to such an ideology is forced to create thousands of different programs to meet those ever-changing desires.

The Bible teaches not that the church exists to meet your needs, but rather that you exist to meet the needs of others. A heart of humility does not say “meet my needs,” but instead “do not cater to me. I am here to serve.” In the end, the greatest need, felt or not, is for the gospel. If we spend our time meeting peripheral issues, all we have done is dealt with symptoms without addressing the disease. Certainly we recognize the legitimacy of needs and are here to serve those in need, but an attitude of entitlement and true service are at odds.

Theology influences philosophy which in turn determines practice. The hope and expectation is that the church’s practice lines up with those beliefs.

- thanks to the Village Church for many of these points

Additional Resources:
IX Marks of Healthy Church

How Not to Grow a Healthy Church

Gospel Polemics, Part 1 – The Gospel Coalition Blog

Gospel Polemics, Part 1 – The Gospel Coalition Blog:

Archibald Alexander, the first faculty member at Princeton Theological Seminary, was given the title “professor of didactic and polemic theology.” That seems a bit startling to us, because the term polemical in our day has an almost purely negative connotation. However, in the original plan of Princeton seminary, polemical theology was seen as a discipline separate from the positive exposition of systematic theology.

Alexander taught this as a distinct course that distinguished orthodoxy from all opposing views. If you look at the list of the subjects he covers, it is striking how much effort was given to help students discern and refute theological error. It is also striking that Alexander included in his course a lecture on “the evils of theological controversy.” In other words, he was concerned about two opposite errors—either refraining from polemics altogether or conducting it in an ungodly manner.

George Gillespie was a Scottish minister, a member of the Westminster Assembly, and a prominent controversialist, contending for Presbyterianism as the biblical model for church government. And yet in the forward to The Presbyterian’s Armoury he wrote, “I have often and heartily wished that I might not be engaged into polemic writings, of which the world is too full already.” Again we see neither a shrinking from polemics nor any relish in it. Indeed, Alexander and Gillespie indicated that anyone who enjoys theological controversy, who makes it their main purpose and who feels virtuous as they do it, is in a bad spiritual state.

Trouble in Your Soul

D. M. Lloyd-Jones once had a memorable encounter with T. T. Shields, the pastor of Jarvis Street Baptist Church in Toronto, and a leading defender of orthodoxy against the growing liberal theology of the churches in Canada. Shields regularly attacked other church leaders in both his preaching and his writings. Lloyd-Jones shared virtually identical theological positions with Shields, but he believed “that the Baptist leader was sometimes too controversial, too denunciatory, and too censorious. Rather than helping young Christians by the strength of his polemics against liberal Protestants and Roman Catholics, Lloyd-Jones believed that Shields was losing the opportunity to influence those whose first need is positive teaching.” (I. Murray, D. M. Lloyd-Jones: The First Forty Years, p. 271). We should recall that Lloyd-Jones was quite willing to engage in polemics himself. He and John Stott clashed publicly over whether evangelicals should remain in the Church of England. (Lloyd-Jones said they should not.) And yet Lloyd-Jones opposed making polemics a major part of one’s ministry, and challenged Shields.

In their meeting, Shields asked Lloyd-Jones if he enjoyed reading the works of another contemporary defender of orthodoxy. Lloyd-Jones said that he seldom read the author, because “he doesn’t help me spiritually.” Shields asked, “Surely you are helped by the way he makes mincemeat of the liberals?” Lloyd-Jones responded, “You can make mincemeat of the liberals and still be in trouble in your own soul.”

This touched off an extended debate. At one point Shields said that he was only doing what Paul did to Peter—contradicting and opposing him. Lloyd-Jones responded, “The effect of what Paul did was to win Peter round to his position and make him call him ‘our beloved brother Paul’ [2 Peter 3:15]. Can you say the same about the people whom you attack?” For this Shields had no answer. The simple fact was that his polemics were really designed simply to stigmatize and marginalize his opponents, not persuade them. Suddenly the younger Lloyd-Jones appealed to Shields in a bold way. In the 1920s, Shields had expected an appointment to McMaster University, but theological liberals blocked it. Lloyd-Jones pointed out that from that time it had changed the tone of his ministry.

Dr. Shields, you used to be known as the Canadian Spurgeon, and you were . . . but over this McMaster University business in the early twenties you suddenly changed and became negative and denunciatory. I feel it has ruined your ministry. Why don’t you come back! Drop all this, preach the gospel to people positively and win them! (Murray, p.273)

Part of Every Curriculum

On the lips of someone else, this could be seen as an appeal to “just preach Jesus” and not care about sound doctrine. But it is hard to accuse Lloyd-Jones of that. Rather, Lloyd-Jones was standing in the tradition of Gillespie and Alexander. Polemics is medicine, not food. Without medicine we will surely die—we can’t live without it. This is why polemical theology must be a required part of every theological curriculum. Yet we cannot live on medicine. If you engage in polemics with relish and joy—if polemics takes up a significant percentage or even a majority of your time and energy—it is like trying to live on medicine alone. It won’t work for the church or for you. That was Lloyd-Jones’s message.

I fear that we are in a period in which many in the Christian church are dividing into extreme positions over the very conduct of polemics. On the one side there are seemingly more people than ever, especially through the internet, engaging in polemics, and yet it looks to me like there is a large number of younger Christians leaders who are reacting to this as if polemics is a pure evil. We want “conversation,” never argument or apologetics.

In the next post I’ll give some ideas for a way that I hope could help some avoid the polarization that is occurring.

Editor’s Note: This is a cross-post from Tim Keller’s blog at Redeemer City to City.

Tim Keller is the senior pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Manhattan, New York. He is also co-founder and vice president of The Gospel Coalition. For more resources by Tim Keller visit Redeemer City to City.