"It should be noted in passing that this is an important purpose in an announced or printed sermon title -- to help upset the equilibrium. Most titles tend to do the reverse. They appear to be drawn from the sermon's conclusion (the scratch rather than the itch). As a result, the preacher has to move backward from the announced title in order to arrive at the beginning of the sermon itself. A title known in advance of a sermon should itself be ambiguous -- making listeners wonder what the sermon will be about" (Lowry, The Homiletical Plot, p. 31).
What do you guys think? According to this, my titles have been pretty boring (usually a basic statement of the subject of the sermon). For example, here are my next four sermon titles as we work our ways through Romans 3:9-18:
Total Depravity - III
Total Depravity - IV
Total Depravity - V
Total Depravity - VI
Pretty creative, huh?
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Sabbatarianism?
I will soon be preaching a series on the Ten Commandments. In my preliminary preparations I have been considering the fourth commandment especially, the command to remember the Sabbath.
I got a hold of Al Mohler's book on the Ten Commandments, "Words from the Fire." In it he presents a seemingly strong case for the non-sabbatarian view, what he calls "Lord's Day observance."
Basically his arguments are
1) there is no universal recognition among peoples around the world of a Sabbath pattern like in Israel (ie. it is not written into the law of nature as are the other commandments),
2) the Sabbath as a day of rest emerges only in the Mosaic period,
3) the observance of the Sabbath is similar to that of circumcision, which was used to indicate the otherness of Israel,
4) worship is added to the Sabbath only in the NT times,
5) Jesus declared the he was the fulfillment and Lord of the Sabbath,
6) the practice of the NT Christians was not to observe the Sabbath, but to gather for worship on the Lord's Day (Sunday) in connection to the resurrection,
7) the NT church gathered for worship on the Lord's Day although they probably would have worked at other parts of the day (per Roman culture),
8) in Christ fulfilling the Sabbath, "whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his" (Heb. 4:9-10),
9) the practice of Christians for this new day, the Lord's Day, is primarily fulfilled in gathering together as a church to worship, devoting the day to its namesake.
What do you think? What's your view? What are some articles/books/publications that give strong evidence for sabbatarianism or non-sabbatarianism?
I got a hold of Al Mohler's book on the Ten Commandments, "Words from the Fire." In it he presents a seemingly strong case for the non-sabbatarian view, what he calls "Lord's Day observance."
Basically his arguments are
1) there is no universal recognition among peoples around the world of a Sabbath pattern like in Israel (ie. it is not written into the law of nature as are the other commandments),
2) the Sabbath as a day of rest emerges only in the Mosaic period,
3) the observance of the Sabbath is similar to that of circumcision, which was used to indicate the otherness of Israel,
4) worship is added to the Sabbath only in the NT times,
5) Jesus declared the he was the fulfillment and Lord of the Sabbath,
6) the practice of the NT Christians was not to observe the Sabbath, but to gather for worship on the Lord's Day (Sunday) in connection to the resurrection,
7) the NT church gathered for worship on the Lord's Day although they probably would have worked at other parts of the day (per Roman culture),
8) in Christ fulfilling the Sabbath, "whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his" (Heb. 4:9-10),
9) the practice of Christians for this new day, the Lord's Day, is primarily fulfilled in gathering together as a church to worship, devoting the day to its namesake.
What do you think? What's your view? What are some articles/books/publications that give strong evidence for sabbatarianism or non-sabbatarianism?
Friday, February 18, 2011
Multisite?
I'm sure you've all looked into the pros and cons of multisite churches. I have gone back and forth on the issue myself. As of today (and for the past year or so), I have not been in favor of multisite. My understanding of preaching in the life of the church has caused me to think it's not best. This morning I read Kevin DeYoung's thoughts here. Since I was already leaning this way, this seemed to cement my thoughts even more. I like that he is quick to say it's not sin to have multisite, and that there may be appropriate times for them, but certainly not his preference. What are your thoughts?
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Interesting Article on Expository Preaching
Dr. Iain Murray argues that verse-by-verse preaching may not be best for many preachers. He says that...
1. Preachers have different gifts and some work better from selected texts (a la Spurgeon) rather than working slowly through chapters or books.
2. The verse-by-verse approach too often becomes all about conveying as much information about the Bible as possible, but preaching should be as much about stirring up and awakening people as informing and instructing them.
3. Historically (in Scotland), the verse-by-verse approach was used mainly in lecture settings and not in the main worship service of the church.
4. Verse-by-verse preaching may not be the most helpful to our people, especially if we allow our preaching to become something of a dry, dull running commentary.
5. Evangelistic preaching doesn't fit well with the verse-by-verse model.
Your thoughts?
1. Preachers have different gifts and some work better from selected texts (a la Spurgeon) rather than working slowly through chapters or books.
2. The verse-by-verse approach too often becomes all about conveying as much information about the Bible as possible, but preaching should be as much about stirring up and awakening people as informing and instructing them.
3. Historically (in Scotland), the verse-by-verse approach was used mainly in lecture settings and not in the main worship service of the church.
4. Verse-by-verse preaching may not be the most helpful to our people, especially if we allow our preaching to become something of a dry, dull running commentary.
5. Evangelistic preaching doesn't fit well with the verse-by-verse model.
Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)