Some Thoughts On Pulpit Methodology

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Interesting article on systematic preaching through texts (ala Lloyd-Jones and Calvin) vs. Spurgeon's methodology of using isolated texts based on the perceived needs of the congregation.

Find the article here.

 

[AThornquist]

Thanks for the link. I see benefits to both methodologies and trust that if the Word is preached faithfully and circumspectly before the Lord it will be fruitful for God's people.

 

[py3ak]

The DPW seems to nail it:

Ordinarily, the subject of his sermon is to be some text of scripture, holding forth some principle or head of religion, or suitable to some special occasion emergent; or he may go on in some chapter, psalm, or book of the holy scripture, as he shall see fit.

 

[TomVols]

From the blog:

At last, I know that I am committed to two things: to a stand-alone sermon, and to a Christ-exalting sermon. The first is necessary because it is just possible that someone may wander into church, not having heard the gospel before, and hearing it now for the first and last time. In that case, it will not do simply to refer to last week's sermon, or anticipate next week's. Each sermon must be a study in itself, a complete unit, which can be transported out of the church and into the life of the hearer.

I've never understood why SCEOTS (Systematic Consecutive Exposition of the Scriptures) is a system that seems to preclude sermons that are sermons in and of themselves, or as the author wrote, "stand-alone" sermons (Iain Murray made a simlar argument). Sermons that aren't "sand-alone" can be preached whether the preacher is preaching through a book or if he's randomly choosing texts. In other words,, the determinig factor of whether or not a sermon's content is based upon the content of the Bible and a text's intended meaning as a whole is not where the previous sermon came from or next Sunday's sermon will be, but what the preacher did with the text upon which the sermon was based.



There are a couple of other quotes I just can't gloss over.

it is possible that we de-emphasise the authority of Scripture by concentrating over-long on sequential exposition.

Why must SCEOTS undermine the authority of Scripture? I understand that we should not neglect any part of Scripture. But to say that sequential exposition could swipe at the moorings of Biblical inspiration and authority is just silly and begs the question.

And - most seriously of all in my view -it is possible that by being determined to preach through a whole book we actually end up not preaching at all, but giving an extended commentary on Bible passages. If all Scripture is inspired - including the very word choices and grammatical constructions - are we doing it justice by preaching on successive blocks of material, rather than concentrating on texts-in-context?

To pit preaching texts "in context" vs systematic exposition is a bifucation, pure and simple. This is a reach.

I could critique more, but I'll leave it at that. This seems to be a fallacious critique against a caricature/strawman of what or why or how expository preaching may be practiced by some. To try to demonize the lectio continua method is just as fallacious as demonizing lectio selecta.

 

[goodnews]

From the blog:

At last, I know that I am committed to two things: to a stand-alone sermon, and to a Christ-exalting sermon. The first is necessary because it is just possible that someone may wander into church, not having heard the gospel before, and hearing it now for the first and last time. In that case, it will not do simply to refer to last week's sermon, or anticipate next week's. Each sermon must be a study in itself, a complete unit, which can be transported out of the church and into the life of the hearer.

I've never understood why SCEOTS (Systematic Consecutive Exposition of the Scriptures) is a system that seems to preclude sermons that are sermons in and of themselves, or as the author wrote, "stand-alone" sermons (Iain Murray made a simlar argument). Sermons that aren't "sand-alone" can be preached whether the preacher is preaching through a book or if he's randomly choosing texts. In other words,, the determinig factor of whether or not a sermon's content is based upon the content of the Bible and a text's intended meaning as a whole is not where the previous sermon came from or next Sunday's sermon will be, but what the preacher did with the text upon which the sermon was based.



There are a couple of other quotes I just can't gloss over.

it is possible that we de-emphasise the authority of Scripture by concentrating over-long on sequential exposition.

Why must SCEOTS undermine the authority of Scripture? I understand that we should not neglect any part of Scripture. But to say that sequential exposition could swipe at the moorings of Biblical inspiration and authority is just silly and begs the question.

And - most seriously of all in my view -it is possible that by being determined to preach through a whole book we actually end up not preaching at all, but giving an extended commentary on Bible passages. If all Scripture is inspired - including the very word choices and grammatical constructions - are we doing it justice by preaching on successive blocks of material, rather than concentrating on texts-in-context?

To pit preaching texts "in context" vs systematic exposition is a bifucation, pure and simple. This is a reach.

I could critique more, but I'll leave it at that. This seems to be a fallacious critique against a caricature/strawman of what or why or how expository preaching may be practiced by some. To try to demonize the lectio continua method is just as fallacious as demonizing lectio selecta.

I'd have to agree with Rev. Tom here. Lectio Continua preaching assures that the whole witness of Scripture is being taught. And it doesn't get in the way of preaching to your folks right where they are. During times of trial a short series from Habakkuk or I Peter would more than suffice, or a more extensive study through Job, for example. And while going through the longer books of Scripture there's nothing stopping you from doing a short, thematic type of series (like spending July preaching about the Biblical notions of freedom) in order to keep thing fresh. I've read a lot of Spurgeon sermons and wouldn't condemn him for a second. But for the average preacher (like myself) I think using the lectio continua format, as a general rule, is best. Just my

 

[CharlieJ]

Lectio Continua preaching assures that the whole witness of Scripture is being taught.

I too am a big fan of lectio continua, but I have recently dropped this argument, or at least had to modify it significantly. First, I'm not sure that "the whole witness of Scripture" means "preaching using all the words of Scripture as your texts." Usually, I've seen this concept pulled from Acts 20:27 - "For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." I see no reason to assume that means that Paul preached messages to the Ephesians from every sub-unit of Scripture. It equally (more?) likely means that he covered all the doctrines of the Christian faith during his time there.

Second, I have never seen the lectio continua method actually result in the whole Bible being covered. Perhaps you are different, but most pastors I've known that preach using this message tend to cover somewhere between a paragraph and a chapter per sermon. Even if you were to preach on a whole chapter every sermon, which seems unlikely, there are 1189 chapters in the English Bible. I doubt most pastors are going to preach through more than a fraction of that their whole lives. So, I actually see a danger in the exclusive use of lectio continua. You could go through your entire pastoral ministry, and consequently your parishioners could go through their entire Christian lives, without any preaching on certain parts of the Bible.

So, I'm not convinced that either method really accomplishes more exhaustive coverage of Scripture.

 

[goodnews]

Lectio Continua preaching assures that the whole witness of Scripture is being taught.

I too am a big fan of lectio continua, but I have recently dropped this argument, or at least had to modify it significantly. First, I'm not sure that "the whole witness of Scripture" means "preaching using all the words of Scripture as your texts." Usually, I've seen this concept pulled from Acts 20:27 - "For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." I see no reason to assume that means that Paul preached messages to the Ephesians from every sub-unit of Scripture. It equally (more?) likely means that he covered all the doctrines of the Christian faith during his time there.

Second, I have never seen the lectio continua method actually result in the whole Bible being covered. Perhaps you are different, but most pastors I've known that preach using this message tend to cover somewhere between a paragraph and a chapter per sermon. Even if you were to preach on a whole chapter every sermon, which seems unlikely, there are 1189 chapters in the English Bible. I doubt most pastors are going to preach through more than a fraction of that their whole lives. So, I actually see a danger in the exclusive use of lectio continua. You could go through your entire pastoral ministry, and consequently your parishioners could go through their entire Christian lives, without any preaching on certain parts of the Bible.

So, I'm not convinced that either method really accomplishes more exhaustive coverage of Scripture.

You make some very good points. And i certainly don't think the Scriptures warrant one methodology over another. But, I began my preaching ministry by presenting weekly whatever seemed interesting. Granted, I did so prayerfully and according to what I thought was best for my congregation. But after a few years I began to see a lot of the same in my preaching when I would review my former sermons (as difficult as that is to do). Now, others may do better with that than I did. My point was that lectio continua preaching helps prevent that from happening. As to your point regarding Paul I think it would be right to say that since much of the Scriptures we are talking about were written through him he would have covered most if not all that is pertinent in the Scriptures. And For what it's worth, I've noticed that some lectio continua preachers seem to try to cover a chapter every Sunday (Earl Palmer, for instance). Personally, I let the text dictate to me how much I preach on, but that's a personal conviction. I don't want to condemn someone else's convictions. And, As I said above I've found it useful to break up the long books of the Bible with short-thematic series. Otherwise, I've found that my folks really learn the flow of thought in the books I preach from when I use lectio continua, much more than they remember when I jump around from text to text.

 

[Curt]

When one preaches through books he is less likely to skip the hard teachings. No matter what method a preacher uses it is unlikely he will cover the entire Bible in his lifetime. I preach mostly through books, but I do stop on occasion to ponder a topic that may need discussion.