Notthemama1984
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Should a pastor have an application in his sermon? If so, what does it look like?
Application
- Thread starter Notthemama1984
- Start date
- Status
Absolutely.
You can listen to any of my sermons to hear how I attempt to make application: Christ Church PCA
Andres
Puritan Board Doctor
I will give my thoughts since I sort of brought this up in the other thread...First, I am not a preacher so I am happy to be corrected by those more experienced and learned than myself. It is my understanding that the preaching of the Word is supposed to be the minister expounding on the Word of God. He is the mouthpiece of God proclaiming the Word and as such he should not add anything to the Word, such as his own thoughts, ideas, opinions, etc. This would include application. He should explain the texts of scripture to the congregation using good exegesis.
In my opinion you would be gravely incorrect.
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
With Fred, I agree - this is, I think, quite seriously incorrect. You seem to be arguing that a pastor should expound the text, while saying he ought not to be doing so using any ideas or opinions of his own. Apart from what I believe is a grave error (i.e. application should not be made) I honestly cannot see how a pastor can expound the Word of God without venturing into the territory you argue he shouldn't. How can he explain the text without doing so as a fallible man offering his "best read" according to his education, and the blessing of God's Spirit upon his study? His own ideas and best understanding is going to be offered, and ought to be offered, with God's help. That is all he can do (and what he must do, including bringing the text in a particular way - i.e. discuss application - to His flock according to their station and needs).
There are several different methods on this. My pastor usually will expound the passage and then add applications at the end of his sermon. I think this is more of what the Puritans did. I could be wrong on that though. When I preach, I include applications all throughout my exposition instead of at the end. On each section I will say what the passage means and then how it applies to us. For me, it makes sense to do it that way because we have such short attention spans. If I don't apply it when I am on that particular point some people have already forgotten some of what I talked about when I come to the end. Just my thoughts. Definitely not a rule.
A great way of putting it. I think that when some read "application" they assume that means an imperative "do this". It may even be an indicative passage ("you are this in Christ").
As an example, if one were to look at the Book of Romans, you can see Paul taking little breaks along the way to have the reader pause to consider the implications of things. We are often told to stop and "consider" certain things and it is the job of preaching to cause the congregation to consider the implications of the text.
The Westminster Directory for Public Worship (1645) on Preaching says the following about application:
He is not to rest in general doctrine, although never so much cleared and confirmed, but to bring it home to special use, by application to his hearers: which albeit it prove a work of great difficulty to himself, requiring much prudence, zeal, and meditation, and to the natural and corrupt man will be very unpleasant; yet he is to endeavour to perform it in such a manner, that his auditors may feel the word of God to be quick and powerful, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart; and that, if any unbeliever or ignorant person be present, he may have the secrets of his heart made manifest, and give glory to God.
This has always been a highly regard exposition of Puritan preaching, though Old for some reason thinks it weakened the Reformer's practice for going through books.
Andres
Puritan Board Doctor
okay, I see that many disagree with me and I fully expected that to be the case. Again, I have had no formal homiletics courses or any formal training in preaching so obviously you men who do have this learning and experience have vast knowledge over myself and I sincerely appreciate your contributions to this thread. You have given me much to think about and study. I would however like to express some of where I was coming from with my view. Again, I know that not everyone agrees with it, but I think it only fair to the man who taught it to me to properly present his side. He is a respected minister in the OPC, so if you do not agree with him that is fine, but I am sure everyone here has courtesy to disagree respectfully. So here is what he emailed me because I asked him to help me explain this more clearly:
I also have some articles here that explain this view.
Redemptive-Historical Preaching
Some Thoughts on Preaching
Bridges or Ladders?
Preaching and Application: A Review
Book Review of Bryan Chapell's Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon.
I also have some articles here that explain this view.
Redemptive-Historical Preaching
Some Thoughts on Preaching
Bridges or Ladders?
Preaching and Application: A Review
Book Review of Bryan Chapell's Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon.
nicnap
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Andres,
I think you should read The Imperative of Preaching by John Carrick. Also, Evangelical Eloquence by Dabney. Thirdly, The Preaching of Jonathan Edwards, by Carrick. Each show how/ why application is necessary; without it, you do not have a sermon. I know this is brief and not an answer to any particular post, but I think these would help your understanding.
I think you should read The Imperative of Preaching by John Carrick. Also, Evangelical Eloquence by Dabney. Thirdly, The Preaching of Jonathan Edwards, by Carrick. Each show how/ why application is necessary; without it, you do not have a sermon. I know this is brief and not an answer to any particular post, but I think these would help your understanding.
Andrew, I think most of us agree with this pastor's feelings about what is common in modern preaching. However, this quote shows that this minister is not addressing the same thing we are addressing here. Spurgeon was not an expository preacher -- He would start with a single verse and preach topically on the topic mentioned in the verse. He had enough knowledge of the Scriptures as a whole that he could do this fairly well, but he did not simply exegete a text. The kind of application we are discussing is telling the hearers what their response to the text should be -- Should they draw comfort from it? Repent in response to it? etc. It can be done after or while expositing a passage, which is a step closer to what you are calling for than what Spurgeon did.
In other words, I think you are confusing application with sermon illustrations and cute stories. They are not the same.
Andrew, if you equate "application" with "anecdote," I might agree with you. But, Spurgeon himself was a master of application.
Here are excerpts of one of his sermons I picked at random:
The link to the full sermon is here: Christ the Conqueror of Satan
Of course one must be careful in the application, but bringing God's Word to his people demands that it become real in their lives, which I think is what your pastor friend seeks to do as well. Commonly, and historically, that is called "application" as far as I understand.
Here are excerpts of one of his sermons I picked at random:
The link to the full sermon is here: Christ the Conqueror of Satan
Of course one must be careful in the application, but bringing God's Word to his people demands that it become real in their lives, which I think is what your pastor friend seeks to do as well. Commonly, and historically, that is called "application" as far as I understand.
Don Kistler
Puritan Board Sophomore
William Perkins' book on preaching shows that there are normally 7 groups of people that need to be addressed in each sermon. We obviously can't do individual application, but we can address groups. An example would be, "To those of you who are convinced that Christ could not forgive a sin such as you have committed, the doctrine preached today would apply to you in this way...."
"To those who are under conviction of sin today, let the doctrine encourage you to..."
The typical Puritan sermon consisted of 3 things: The text explained, the doctrine stated, and the doctrine applied. So the hearer would know what he had to do with what he heard.
"To those who are under conviction of sin today, let the doctrine encourage you to..."
The typical Puritan sermon consisted of 3 things: The text explained, the doctrine stated, and the doctrine applied. So the hearer would know what he had to do with what he heard.
Perhaps the confusion is in the meaning of the word 'application'. Here is Perkins on the word 'application'.
William Perkins:
Application of doctrine is the means by which a shepherd fulfills his mandate of teaching, reproving, exhorting, admonishing and consoling. Application is the means by which the hearer takes ownership of the doctrine. "The Lord is my shepherd" is not comforting until the 'my' is you.
William Perkins:
Application of doctrine is the means by which a shepherd fulfills his mandate of teaching, reproving, exhorting, admonishing and consoling. Application is the means by which the hearer takes ownership of the doctrine. "The Lord is my shepherd" is not comforting until the 'my' is you.
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
This quote from Perkins is excellent - and explains exactly why I think that listening to a sermon audio sermon isn't the same as listening to the pastor of your flock preaching... I love what I'm able to listen to online, but we always have to remember that those sermons that we hear online do NOT carry the same blessings to us as do sermons from the undershepherd tasked with caring for the flock that includes us, assuming he is doing his work from the perspective of a shepherd of the sheep (which admittedly not all do). The pastor we have over us is our God-ordained shepherd, and when preaching should be gearing his message to his own flock. Thus not only for reasons of style, but also for reasons of perspective, depth and application, will a dozen sermons on John 6:44 look different. When I'm listening to a pastor online, I'm listening to a shepherd preaching to HIS congregation... it's not quite the same thing, as instructive, edifying and encouraging as it might be. Our pastors ought to take care to deliver the message to the sheep they've been given care of - and not aim in the first place for some objective standard of beauty and eloquence (or even some objective of theological correctness and confessional integrity, though those are absolutely important). Rather, they are feeding THEIR flock - and this MUST flavor what they say and how they say it.
Don Kistler
Puritan Board Sophomore
In Jeremiah, when God promised that He would give the people shepherds after His own heart, He said that they would feed the people with knowledge and understanding. In the Puritan understanding, this was teaching and application,
what to know, and what to do with what you know.
what to know, and what to do with what you know.
Andrew,
I don't want to pile on here but just want to point out that you're not going out of your mind if you have seen some suspicion of the appropriateness of application from some corners.
Now, first of all, I'm a proponent of sound Biblical Theology and Redemptive Historical preaching. That said, there are some in our circles who might be referred to as "hyper-BT" who have taken certain ideas to an extreme.
When I was a member of the OPC in SoCal in the early 2000's, there was a minister was trying to push for the Redemptive Historical approach to be the only appropriate approach to the Scriptures within the SoCal Presbytery. He not only wanted RH-preaching to be the only appropriate preaching but his version of RH preaching that completely excluded application or imperative. I remember speaking to one of the ministers who noted that this minister did not believe that a Pastor should give any application whatsoever but that the Holy Spirit ought to provide the application. Furthermore, the only appropriate kind of preaching was the indicative - in other words, only preach what Christ has accomplished for the believer and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.
It took me a while to decipher some of the complaints I was hearing from some of my fellow Church members at the time about our own Pastor. They would complain that he preached the law too much. The reason is that they were infected by this view that any application or any injunction is somehow "law" and not Gospel.
I guess it all depends on where you fall down on this issue. It's clear, from the Confessional standpoint, that there is not the clean wedge between application/injunction/exhortation and the simple announcement of Christ's finished work that some claim. The more thoughtful proponents of the newer view have at least listed their exception to practically the whole of WCF 19. In fact, I would prefer that those that seek to get rid of all application would be more systematic and draw these cleaner lines so we could be clearer about where we are today in some camps as many are straddling between two views without even realizing it.
I remember as I was sort of cutting my teeth on this issue back in the early 2000's I wasn't so much involved in the debate as much as I witnessed an obvious irrationality in the patterns of the lives of parents who, on the one hand, wanted no imperatives but, on the other hand, couldn't live their lives like that with their own children. Though we all believed our children were disciples, they did not simply give indicatives to their small children, reminding them that Christ had been a perfect Child for each of them, and then allowed the Holy Spirit to make the application in each of their tiny lives. God forbid. They told them when to go to bed. They told them not to put their fingers in light sockets. They provided all manner of loving instruction. Why? Because law in the context of a father-son relationship is of a significantly different character than law in the context of a judge-convict relationship. Every parent understands that according to the light of nature. The problem is that we get this crazy idea in our heads that we are not "children" any more just because we can wipe our own behinds and cross the street without somebody holding our hands. Elders are not called elders for no reason.
As I said before, this is not a recipe to turn every passage into some sort of "action plan". If I'm exhorting on Christ as the just and the justifier of sinners in Romans 3, I'm not going to turn it around as to what we are supposed to do to make true something that we already are. Application is often making something that is far away very close to the hearer. We have cultural, time, and language "distances" from the writers of the Scriptures and the task of the preacher is often to bring these truths "close" so the hearer does not think of them as timeless truths but as living and active and vibrant Words that change and/or convict. Consequently, when the Word announces that we are something then we underline it to the hearer and when the Word reproves, exhorts, or instructs we bring to bear what the Word says to this particular outpost of the Kingdom of God that His will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
We were taught at RPTS to preach using a "three-fold" method. Exposit the text , illustrate the text , apply the text always using an introduction, a homiletical point (stated in the sermon) and a conclusion. It depends on the Scripture (narrative, etc...) how this works with a given text. Sometimes it is "read v. 1-2" follow three-fold method...."read v. 3" follow three-fold method, etc. Other times it is "read the whole text" then follow three-fold method. Like I said depends on the text.
Rich - exactly!! We don't want cute stories or anecdotes, or stories that are made to fit into a sermon without any real connection except that it is a "good story." But we don't want a dearth of imperative in preaching either. Just look at some of the sermons reporting in Scripture and you will see that application is essential (here calls to repent):
[BIBLE]Acts 3:17-21[/BIBLE]
and
[BIBLE]Acts 51:53[/BIBLE]
Andres, I would also be very wary of using Lee Irons as a model for preaching. You would also benefit from a wider perspective than Kerux.
TomVols
Puritan Board Freshman
Andres, I too do not want to pile on because I hear where you are coming from and you are not alone. John MacArthur has been an outspoken critic of application in the sermon so the anti-aplication movement is not tied to RH. I would encourage you to read Chapell's book on preach as well as John Broadus's book "On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons" (just make sure it's either his first edition or the second revision. The third and 4th are too far gone from Broadus's own thoughts.) You have a desire to uphold the preaching event, and this is more than commendable. However, we need not bow to the fancies of the felt-needs crowd in order to be faithful to the Word. We can be applicatory and exegetical. I've never gotten a good answer from the anti-application folks on this: if we aren't to apply the sermon because that might usurp the work of the Spirit, why explain the sermon? Wouldn't we mess that up, too? Why not just read the text and go home? Even Jesus, in my estimation, used application.
At any rate, I don't want to be uncharitable because I know you come from a perspective (I trust) of upholding the preaching event. I don't believe application kills the whole edifice, however, and I think once you read the great divines on homiletics, you'll find you feel the same way. Just my humble opinion, my friend and brother.
At any rate, I don't want to be uncharitable because I know you come from a perspective (I trust) of upholding the preaching event. I don't believe application kills the whole edifice, however, and I think once you read the great divines on homiletics, you'll find you feel the same way. Just my humble opinion, my friend and brother.
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
If every Christian is to receive scripture in this manner, how can we not expect our pastors to preach it in this manner? As Paul elsewhere told Timothy the pastor:
"Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching."
And Titus:
"For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you."
If every Christian is to receive scripture in this manner, how can we not expect our pastors to preach it in this manner? As Paul elsewhere told Timothy the pastor:
"Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching."
And Titus:
"For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you."
Andres
Puritan Board Doctor
thank you for your comments. I appreciate them. I do have Chappell's book and I do plan on reading it. Would you agree to read something of my suggestion? It's this critique of Chappell's book - Book Review of Bryan Chapell's Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon.
My issue is not neccessarily with application itself, but rather how this application often plays out. When the majority of preachers speak of application (not putting words in anyone here's mouth) they are refereing to how the application is extracted from the text. Here is an excerpt from that article:
Joseph Scibbe
Puritan Board Junior
I think you would be very wrong. This seems like more of a lecture than a sermon. A sermon is supposed to bring the Word to the people and teach them how to change so application is mandatory. All Scripture is God breathed and profitable... It is a ministers job to show how so.
Andrew,
I read the review. I'll be short and to the point, since this is my day off, and leave it to others to flesh out my thoughts (Bruce?!). I think that Chapell's method has weaknesses as well. I do not think that the Procrustean bed of the "Fallen Condition Focus" is the-end-all-be-all. But the reviewer here falls into the same mistake. His Procrustean bed is the Redemptive Historical Theological model of Vos. Every sermon must somehow fit into the "already-not yet" mantra. In one little statement:
the reviewer completely throws out the second and third uses of the Law. There are very legitimate applications of Scripture that are not first use of the Law related. Not everything is "I am a sinner, Christ is my Savior, FULL STOP." This is the problem with the unbalanced Redemptive-Historical approach (which is part and parcel of kerux, Lee Irons and the like). What place does "Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.
(Ephesians 4:28)" have in the Kerux rubric? What place does a passage like this have: "But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth" (Col. 3:8)? I will tell you from experience - none to very little.
This view of "application" results in a severely truncated Bible, and a lackadaisical congregation.
I read the review. I'll be short and to the point, since this is my day off, and leave it to others to flesh out my thoughts (Bruce?!). I think that Chapell's method has weaknesses as well. I do not think that the Procrustean bed of the "Fallen Condition Focus" is the-end-all-be-all. But the reviewer here falls into the same mistake. His Procrustean bed is the Redemptive Historical Theological model of Vos. Every sermon must somehow fit into the "already-not yet" mantra. In one little statement:
the reviewer completely throws out the second and third uses of the Law. There are very legitimate applications of Scripture that are not first use of the Law related. Not everything is "I am a sinner, Christ is my Savior, FULL STOP." This is the problem with the unbalanced Redemptive-Historical approach (which is part and parcel of kerux, Lee Irons and the like). What place does "Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.
(Ephesians 4:28)" have in the Kerux rubric? What place does a passage like this have: "But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth" (Col. 3:8)? I will tell you from experience - none to very little.
This view of "application" results in a severely truncated Bible, and a lackadaisical congregation.
Wannabee
Obi Wan Kenobi
A sermon should always call people to make a decision. Are they going to obey God or not? The preacher strives to expose their hearts to God's in such a way that they either have to rebel against him or their hearts conform more to His. This is application. First, text is exposited (exposed) and then it is exhorted (applied). Much of the work of applications attempts to help people to see themselves more clearly in contrast to God's holiness. Who is guiltless? None of us are. So application strives to show each person that they are guilty so that they can become more like Christ. It strives to eradicate people's comfort in sin. Sure, simply teaching what God's Word says and means in its historical context can do that. But people are very good and fooling themselves. And anyone who fools themselves is a fool on two counts. We need to help them/us to see through that. This too is application.
Notthemama1984
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Is this not the job of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8)?
- Status
