Evaluating your preaching

[Notthemama1984]

For those who preach, what do you do to accurately evaluate your sermons?

I currently record my sermons and do my best to see where I think I am deficient, but am thinking there has to be other ways as well.

 

[Kevin]

If you are married & have an intelligent and educated wife try this. Ask her to listen to the Bryan Chapell lectures from Cov Seminary on Prep & Del. She can then offer very good feedback.

I know many guys whose wives consider every word out of their mouths to be the Second Coming of Spurgeon. Although it seems to be great for the ego, I doubt that these women could offer effective feedback.

However if you try this, be ready for a reality check! If your wife understands how it should be done, be prepared to learn how you are missing the mark.

Best thing I ever did for my preaching was take Preparation & Delivery from Covenant on-line. Second best was to have my wife listen to all of the lectures along with me.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I will skip forward to those lectures today!

 

[Romans922]

What if you think Chapel is deficient in his view of preaching, then what do you do?

As your elders are also shepherds of the flock. I would ask them for advice and help. Then ask other trusted Pastors to listen and give feedback.

 

[py3ak]

What if you think Chapel is deficient in his view of preaching, then what do you do?

Substitute a reading of the relevant sections of Preaching and Preachers?

 

[Notthemama1984]

So far I am batting 1.000 I have the lectures, have the book, and my associate pastor is listenig to my sermons periodically and giving feedback.

 

[Kevin]

What if you think Chapel is deficient in his view of preaching, then what do you do?

As your elders are also shepherds of the flock. I would ask them for advice and help. Then ask other trusted Pastors to listen and give feedback.

You mean you disagree that preaching is the process of presenting the scripture, in an understandable way, so that the gospel can can convict people, of specic sins, and turn them to Christ?

 

[Romans922]

No I disagree with Chapel's philosophy of preaching.

 

[Curt]

 

[Kevin]

No I disagree with Chapel's philosophy of preaching.

and you would define that how?

 

[Romans922]

NOT PURITAN-esque

 

[Kevin]

Whatever.

 

[Herald]

NOT PURITAN-esque

What exactly is PURITAN-esque preaching?


Sent using my most excellent Android device.

 

[py3ak]

NOT PURITAN-esque

Whatever.

Rarely have I been so illumined or edified by an exchange!

 

[SolaScriptura]

No I disagree with Chapel's philosophy of preaching.

Like what, his belief that he should have a point? Or that he shouldn't put people to sleep? Or that sermons should be Christ-centered?

Help me out here, please, because there's a lot of room for interpretation with your remark...

 

[Guido's Brother]

Our consistory has a sermon-evaluation discussion every three months. My elders sit together and discuss my preaching without me in the room for about 30 minutes or so. Then I'm invited back in and offered constructive feedback. This is a fairly common practice amongst the Canadian Reformed Churches.

 

[fredtgreco]

No I disagree with Chapel's philosophy of preaching.

and you would define that how?

The "fallen condition focus" and over-emphasis on the redemptive historical method. Generally speaking, Chapell's method is weak on application. Christ Centered Preaching (his book, not as a philosophy) has its good points, but it is insufficient in my view. It produces a weak pulpit ministry in my opinion. And my opinion is based not on theory, but in practice.

 

[SolaScriptura]

No I disagree with Chapel's philosophy of preaching.

and you would define that how?

The "fallen condition focus" and over-emphasis on the redemptive historical method. Generally speaking, Chapell's method is weak on application. Christ Centered Preaching (his book, not as a philosophy) has its good points, but it is insufficient in my view. It produces a weak pulpit ministry in my opinion. And my opinion is based not on theory, but in practice.

So... a little too much gospel and too little law for your blood?

 

[Romans922]

What exactly is PURITAN-esque preaching?

Fred hit the nail on the head, sorry I wasn't right on top of the responses.

I was going to say that Chapell comes from the camp that is more of a Redemptive-Historical preaching method rather than a historical-grammatical method with pointed application.

But Fred brings up a point that I didn't think about in this conversation and that is in the long run it leads to a weak pulpit ministry.


Perhaps Chapell's 'sonship' view should be in this conversation as well.

 

[fredtgreco]

No I disagree with Chapel's philosophy of preaching.

and you would define that how?

The "fallen condition focus" and over-emphasis on the redemptive historical method. Generally speaking, Chapell's method is weak on application. Christ Centered Preaching (his book, not as a philosophy) has its good points, but it is insufficient in my view. It produces a weak pulpit ministry in my opinion. And my opinion is based not on theory, but in practice.

So... a little too much gospel and too little law for your blood?

Not exactly - although I think it is weak on the third use of the law. I would say it is weak on the gospel's ability to change the believer's life and actions, sort of classic application.

 

[KMK]

For those who preach, what do you do to accurately evaluate your sermons?

I currently record my sermons and do my best to see where I think I am deficient, but am thinking there has to be other ways as well.

Here is a Sermon Application Rubric that I use to make sure I am covering all the bases from month to month.

 

[greenbaggins]

I have found Chapell to be somewhat weak on explaining the text. Take his Ephesians sermons for instance (published in the Reformed Expository Commentary series). They are long on illustrations (many of which are only tangential at best to the main point), and short on explanation of the text. The liberal scholar Ernest Best is FAR better at explaining the meaning of the text than Chapell is. One of the dangers of the redemptive-historical method is that the forest is emphasized at the expense of the trees, if it is not done correctly. Now, in this context, I am referring to the redemptive-historical method not in the sense of preaching Christ from all the Scriptures (which I would hope we all agree needs to be done), but in the more negative sense of having Christ pop out of the box in an artificial way, and having the text refer to Him, and therefore not to us. Furthermore, I don't think that illustration can take the place of application. All too often it does in Chapell's preaching. I won't deny that Chapell often preaches decent sermons. He does. However, I have seen too many graduates of Covenant who have weak preaching. I know an elder, in fact, who claims to know right away whether a guy is a Covenant grad or not on the basis of his preaching.

 

[AThornquist]

At my church the pastors are active in evaluating and giving feedback to one another whenever needed. If that means every week for a certain preacher, then it's every week. If that means it's needed only occasionally, then it is given appropriately as well. The point is, they are active in helping one another in terms of their ability to feed the flock, which is also the practice of our pastoral mentoring group that gathers several times a month for instruction from the pastors and preaching from men of the church, especially from pastoral students; afterward there is a time of evaluation and encouragement regarding the sermon. If at all possible, have a discerning handful of people do likewise with your preaching. Other advice in this thread is helpful as well, but there is much to be gained from wise counsel that cares for you and desires for your ministry to flourish and that can personally hear you preach.

 

[KMK]

I hate to contribute to the off-topic discussion of Chapell, but do his critics level the same against Clowney? It seems that Chapell and Clowney are engaged in a struggle against moralistic preaching and must be understood in that context.

 

[Herald]

For those who preach, what do you do to accurately evaluate your sermons?

I currently record my sermons and do my best to see where I think I am deficient, but am thinking there has to be other ways as well.

Here is a Sermon Application Rubric that I use to make sure I am covering all the bases from month to month.

Ken, I like your rubric. Thanks.

Sent using my most excellent Android device.

 

[greenbaggins]

I hate to contribute to the off-topic discussion of Chapell, but do his critics level the same against Clowney? It seems that Chapell and Clowney are engaged in a struggle against moralistic preaching and must be understood in that context.

I agree that they were opposed to moralistic preaching, as am I. The redemptive-historical focus and consummation of history in the person and work of Christ not only acts as a guide and fence to application; but also is the point of the Bible. That being said, I would not level the same criticism against Clowney. For one thing, Clowney injected quite a bit more straight exegesis into his sermons than Chapell does. For another thing, Clowney was also quite a bit more inventive when it came to how the text applies to us.

 

[KMK]

I hate to contribute to the off-topic discussion of Chapell, but do his critics level the same against Clowney? It seems that Chapell and Clowney are engaged in a struggle against moralistic preaching and must be understood in that context.

I agree that they were opposed to moralistic preaching, as am I. The redemptive-historical focus and consummation of history in the person and work of Christ not only acts as a guide and fence to application; but also is the point of the Bible. That being said, I would not level the same criticism against Clowney. For one thing, Clowney injected quite a bit more straight exegesis into his sermons than Chapell does. For another thing, Clowney was also quite a bit more inventive when it came to how the text applies to us.

So criticism against Chapell is not criticism against the RH model in general, but against a lack of honest exegesis?

 

[greenbaggins]

I hate to contribute to the off-topic discussion of Chapell, but do his critics level the same against Clowney? It seems that Chapell and Clowney are engaged in a struggle against moralistic preaching and must be understood in that context.

I agree that they were opposed to moralistic preaching, as am I. The redemptive-historical focus and consummation of history in the person and work of Christ not only acts as a guide and fence to application; but also is the point of the Bible. That being said, I would not level the same criticism against Clowney. For one thing, Clowney injected quite a bit more straight exegesis into his sermons than Chapell does. For another thing, Clowney was also quite a bit more inventive when it came to how the text applies to us.

So criticism against Chapell is not criticism against the RH model in general, but against a lack of honest exegesis?

I think some here would criticize Chapell and by extension the entire RH model. I think Chapell can be criticized on more than one front with regard to preaching. As to the RH model, I think that there are some salutary emphases in the movement, while I would not go to the extremes that many in the movement take it.

 

[Pergamum]

Are we talking about the content of the delivered sermon or more about the delivery of the preacher in this OP?

 

[Notthemama1984]

Delivery