# Numbering the Sermons in a Series



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 7, 2015)

I have been to a couple of churches where they use Roman numerals to number the sermon in a preaching series. For instance in the bulletin at one church I visited, the sermon title read like this:

*“TAKE HEED TO YOURSELVES”
CXXIX. Expositions of the Gospel According to Luke​*
My question concerns the practice of numbering the sermons in a series this way. Do any of you follow this practice? Where does it come from? 
It's just something that I found rather curious and hoped someone on the board could speak to.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 7, 2015)

I"m not sure but if it is a long series isn't it a natural thing to number them? Or, do you specifically mean the use of Roman numerals? I should think that was a matter of taste rather than convention. But if you aim to best the Puritans, whose works often number the sermons, it can get unwieldy and I should think it less common using Roman numerals today.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 7, 2015)

I just noticed this same format being used in a couple of churches and didn't know what if any historical significance it had. I don't typically number the sermons I preach in a series. I just print the text and the title.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 7, 2015)

Same with my church; he goes until he's done with the book. But they are not recorded so perhaps that may influence the decision as well.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 7, 2015)

I have nothing to offer on the topic, but an insignificant observation that 129 sermons up to what I assume is Lk.17:3 (in context) seems like about twice as many as my own ongoing Luke series--which coincidentally has progressed through the same general location (mine have been presented in two separate iterations). Only a month ago or so, it seemed as if Fred (from the PB) was also very nearby to this passage in his Luke series.

A curious set of providences, that's all.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Apr 8, 2015)

All I'm going to say is this, and it is blunt: Using Roman numerals requires a level of comprehension that many churchgoers might not have. Utterly unneccessary and offputting.

If you want to number a series, then go to it: But you might be giving some people a reason to flag ... "130 sermons? How many more are there going to be??"


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Apr 8, 2015)

JonathanHunt said:


> Using Roman numerals requires a level of comprehension that many churchgoers might not have



Indeed, but it is a useful thing to learn. Many of my favorite old commentaries require such knowledge because Scripture citations are given using Roman numerals.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 8, 2015)

I thought it was an odd way of doing it. But then after seeing it in more than one place, I wondered if it was a practice more widespread that I was just ignorant of. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one a little confused by this.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 8, 2015)

Numbering one's sermons using Roman numerals = making things harder than they need to be.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 8, 2015)

It's hard now; but if you are going to read anything older than mid 19th century (maybe?) you need to be able to figure it out to navigate at the very least. And the old guys didn't even do Romans the modern way I was taught in school gradeschool. Happily there's an app for converting them. Search for Roman Arabic converter.


----------



## Kaj (May 4, 2015)

I've had to relearn Roman numerals to be able to follow the Puritans' works as well. I suppose it's hard work that my normal church goer isn't going to do very easily. If one has to number, the modern way would me more helpful and even less distracting.


----------



## jwithnell (May 4, 2015)

The puritans popped to my mind too -- perhaps it's trying to identify with them? My personal preference is to have the text identified as clearly as possible. The place in a series, a clever title, they don't tell me much.


----------

