Since we started this conversation in the comments section of the last post, I wanted to give it a post of its own. We're discussing preaching methodology, and whether one should follow the Piper / Lloyd-Jones philosophy of taking several years and hundreds of sermons on a single book, or the Dever / Cov. Life philosophy of covering a book in a few sermons. Here is what has been said so far:
THE QUESTION: "Since several pastors read this blog, let me ask you all, which method do you think is best and why? What are the pros and cons? And those of you who aren't pastors, which would you prefer from your pastor?"
THE ANSWERS:
1. (From Randy) I have a hard time preaching more than a few verses at a time. I have thought about preaching chapters or longer passages, but I never have been successful. I am not opposed to the style of Dever, but my preference is more like Piper. However, I am not nearly as smart or experienced as either of them, so I take full advantage of learning from them both.
2. (From Justin C.) One of the important aspects of Dever's preaching that we need to think deeply about is his emphasis on communicating the main point of the passage.When we take just a few verses each week, we may be missing the point of the entire text. In other words, we are in danger of missing the forest by focusing on individual trees.
Dever tries to break passages up so that the author's entire argument is communicated.I think there has to be a balance. When we preach just a few verses at at time, we must labor to make the connections to the entire flow of thought.
Here is a question for pondering: Could we be mishandling the text when we take too few verses?
I love D. Martin Lloyd-Jones. However, I often find his preaching to be lacking. He would break a text apart and do an entire theological treatise on each word. His sermons are great for systematic theology, but not good if you want to know what Ephesians is all about.
With all that said, I lean toward smaller passages. I try to make sure I connect each message to the main point of the passage/book.
3. (From Randy) That is very true. I can say that I have found myself guilty of this on more than one occasion as I preach through books of the Bible. I think it is good to preach smaller portions of Scripture, but not at the expense of missing the forest. Thanks for the reminder brother.
4. (From Justin N.) I agree to a point. However, there is often as much glory to see by looking at a particular tree than at looking at the whole forest. Moreover, there are many wonderful truths in the Bible that never make an appearance as the "main point".
For me, however, the main thing is helping my people to see how rich with truth the Bible is. When we spend a couple of weeks on a single verse, the congregation begins to realize just how much their is to learn and meditate on in the whole canon of Scripture. They are taught not to skip over words or phrases they don't understand, but to spend time meditating on them and trying to find answers.
Justin C. is right - it is possible to lose the forest for the trees. So those of us who choose to move slowly through a book need to always keep the main point central. But the good thing about moving slowly is that you get to hold up that main point for several weeks in a row, exploring it from several different angles. Since I tend to learn by repetition and hearing things more than once, this is attractive to me.
Just some thoughts
SO, what do you think?
Allow me to make one more point: that the way we preach should probably differ according to the genre of the book we're preaching. When we're preaching narratives, such as we find in the OT histories or the NT gospels / Acts, it makes sense to take longer chunks as your preaching text. When you are preaching epistles - particularly complex ones like Romans or Galatians - it makes sense to take a much smaller chunk (in my opinion). In a book like Revelation, for example, taking too small a chunk could actually lead you into all sorts of troubles (i.e., speculation about the meaning of a symbol and then building a whole sermon around that speculation.)
THE ANSWERS:
1. (From Randy) I have a hard time preaching more than a few verses at a time. I have thought about preaching chapters or longer passages, but I never have been successful. I am not opposed to the style of Dever, but my preference is more like Piper. However, I am not nearly as smart or experienced as either of them, so I take full advantage of learning from them both.
2. (From Justin C.) One of the important aspects of Dever's preaching that we need to think deeply about is his emphasis on communicating the main point of the passage.When we take just a few verses each week, we may be missing the point of the entire text. In other words, we are in danger of missing the forest by focusing on individual trees.
Dever tries to break passages up so that the author's entire argument is communicated.I think there has to be a balance. When we preach just a few verses at at time, we must labor to make the connections to the entire flow of thought.
Here is a question for pondering: Could we be mishandling the text when we take too few verses?
I love D. Martin Lloyd-Jones. However, I often find his preaching to be lacking. He would break a text apart and do an entire theological treatise on each word. His sermons are great for systematic theology, but not good if you want to know what Ephesians is all about.
With all that said, I lean toward smaller passages. I try to make sure I connect each message to the main point of the passage/book.
3. (From Randy) That is very true. I can say that I have found myself guilty of this on more than one occasion as I preach through books of the Bible. I think it is good to preach smaller portions of Scripture, but not at the expense of missing the forest. Thanks for the reminder brother.
4. (From Justin N.) I agree to a point. However, there is often as much glory to see by looking at a particular tree than at looking at the whole forest. Moreover, there are many wonderful truths in the Bible that never make an appearance as the "main point".
For me, however, the main thing is helping my people to see how rich with truth the Bible is. When we spend a couple of weeks on a single verse, the congregation begins to realize just how much their is to learn and meditate on in the whole canon of Scripture. They are taught not to skip over words or phrases they don't understand, but to spend time meditating on them and trying to find answers.
Justin C. is right - it is possible to lose the forest for the trees. So those of us who choose to move slowly through a book need to always keep the main point central. But the good thing about moving slowly is that you get to hold up that main point for several weeks in a row, exploring it from several different angles. Since I tend to learn by repetition and hearing things more than once, this is attractive to me.
Just some thoughts
SO, what do you think?
Allow me to make one more point: that the way we preach should probably differ according to the genre of the book we're preaching. When we're preaching narratives, such as we find in the OT histories or the NT gospels / Acts, it makes sense to take longer chunks as your preaching text. When you are preaching epistles - particularly complex ones like Romans or Galatians - it makes sense to take a much smaller chunk (in my opinion). In a book like Revelation, for example, taking too small a chunk could actually lead you into all sorts of troubles (i.e., speculation about the meaning of a symbol and then building a whole sermon around that speculation.)
4 comments:
Guys,
I think you've summarized the pros and cons really well. The genre point in the last paragraph seems crucial. Preaching through Leviticus or prophecies against Edom or Assyria verse by verse doesn't seem like the best use of time. Maybe the worst mistake would be preaching through Job in that manner since so much of what his friends say is just dead wrong at the end of the day.
I think one major benefit of the fast approach is that the congregation is helped to see how different portions of Scripture fit together. Along those lines, the fast approach lends itself to biblical theology rather than moralism or an excessive emphassis systematic theology.
Another issue is the demographics of the congregation. Dever and Mahaney have both preached to highly transient congregations, so there's something to be said for bigger chunks.
But of course, it's easier to cover more material when your average sermon is 60+ minutes long.
Obviously in this question is another question, "What are we trying to accomplish with our preaching?" I honestly feel very inadequate to even comment on preaching, but I am reminded of Ephesians 4:11, 12, "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ." So if our goal is to equip the saints, I think we need to preach slow and fast.
Dever's church normally has about a 4 year turn around in membership because of where they are located. With that being said, he would probably preach differently in order to equip them as much as possible in a short period of time.
On the other hand, many of us do not have that type of membership change. Therefore, it is probably more beneficial for us to preach slowly (when needed) to make sure our congregations are seeing what God has laid out for us in Scripture.
I whole heartily agree that there are particular genres of Scripture that would almost demand larger portions to be preached. However, it is also important to make sure that our people see the trees that make up the forest. I don't think I am really saying anything else, but we do need to be careful in how we preach because the salvation of us and our people is at stake. First Timothy 4:16 says, "Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by doing you will save both yourself and your hearers."
I have been thinking much about preaching lately and am very anxious to hear from you my dear friends. I truly do count it an undeserved joy to have you as co-laborers in the gospel.
As a side issue: I wouldn't put Piper and Lloyd-Jones in the same category.
Piper's Romans series was the only one he has done like that in all his years of preaching. The closest thing was 50 messages in Hebrews. MLJ did that for every single book he preached through.
Post a Comment