Why Can't Ministers Keep Their Finger on the Text When they Preach?

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Check out the email on a handy tool every preacher needs to challenge themselves on here.

Also, use the special code in the ad below on Puritan Publications Print books HERE.

 

[psycheives]

Interesting. I skimmed the article - forgive me, I didn't have time to read the 10 pages. Is this "keep your finger on the passage" only a general guideline to break the habit of going to 30 passages?

Therefore, is going to 2-3 okay? Or 5? Or to mention the passage but not instruct the church to "go to" that passage? What makes it "incorrect hermeneutics and homiletics"?

What has been the practice of our Reformed pastors? When Spurgeon is preaching on 1 Kings and he refers to Jonah, is this correct hermeneutics and homiletics?

Thanks for your clarification, brother

 

[Bill The Baptist]

So would you disagree with Spurgeon's assessment of Puritan preaching when he said;

"Puritan men had a scant supply of other literature, but they found a library enough in the one Book, the Bible. And how they did read the Bible! How little of Scripture there is in modern sermons compared with the sermons of those masters of theology, the Puritan divines! Almost every sentence of theirs seems to cast side lights upon a text of Scripture; not only the one they are preaching about, but many others as well are set in a new light as the discourse proceeds"

I would certainly agree that padding a sermon with excessive Bible passages is to be avoided, but it is certainly appropriate to reference other passages that are pertinent to the text at hand. This should in no way distract from the main text, but rather serve as an inspired commentary on the main text. In this way, the minister fulfills his obligation to preach the whole counsel of God, In my humble opinion.

 

[Hamalas]

Looks like Paul in Romans 9 and the writer to the Hebrews would have both failed this little test.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Interesting. I skimmed the article - forgive me, I didn't have time to read the 10 pages. Is this "keep your finger on the passage" only a general guideline to break the habit of going to 30 passages?

Therefore, is going to 2-3 okay? Or 5? Or to mention the passage but not instruct the church to "go to" that passage? What makes it "incorrect hermeneutics and homiletics"?

What has been the practice of our Reformed pastors? When Spurgeon is preaching on 1 Kings and he refers to Jonah, is this correct hermeneutics and homiletics?

Thanks for your clarification, brother

Yes, it would help 1) break the habit, and 2) make those who are ill prepared to preach relatively uncomfortable because they are not prepared.

1, 2, 5 quotes on a difficult portion of Scripture would be fine.
There is nothing in Scripture that says we are only to quote 1, 2, or 5. It does say we are to "preach", so it is important to understand the difference between running bible drills and actually preaching. I can preach, and have a central text, and quote 4 other texts in passing. But if I rely on quoting Scripture alone, I've not done my job. One preacher said to me, "One Sunday I'm just going to get up and read the book of Romans, from beginning to end, then pray, and then sit down. That will be my Sunday Sermon." I said, if you do that, you're not preaching, you're reading, and your being irresponsible since God told you to "preach the word."

There is also a difference between the Analogy of Scripture, and using too many texts to fill up the sermon without ever REALLY explaining it. Any preacher needing to bolster their text to specifically prove a difficult point is warranted.
(Bill, I would agree with the quote, but keep in mind most puritan manuscripts were repenned after the sermon, and many of them (most) would add great numbers of point to "further fill it out").)

Spurgeon quoting Jonah is fine. But Spurgeon would never be able to say much if he quoted 38 Scriptures, read them, made a comment on them, and then tried to "tie it all together" at the end. That's not preaching in a 40 minute sermon (or less - Spurgeon sermons are often very short. If you read any of his sermons, they would take you about 20 minutes. He wouldn't be able to "read" 20 texts and comment them in that time frame.). If a minster had 4 hours, maybe, ok. But today's listener would never sit through a 4 hour sermon, and deal with 38 texts responsibility applied by the minister.

Romans and Hebrews, as letters, don't apply to the proper hermenuetics and homeletics stated in the article. We don't really have any of Paul's sermons, perse. Some "think" Hebrews is a sermon. Maybe. Maybe not. But I think the Holy Spirit is capable of teaching in a particular manner for Scripture in the way the writer of Hebrews wrote. I don't think Romans or Hebrews, or any other NT letter or book, warrants ministers to neglect studying a passage enough, and think its OK to rework the sermon around simply running bible drills because of ill preparation. That's irresponsible if God has called us to preach the word.

Keep in mind that this "little test" is not really a test. It's a challenge for preachers to do the work they need to do to rely on the text of Scripture God gave them to feed the people of their congregations for that week. When they run Bible drills week after week without much substance, they need to stop that, or get out of the pulpit. Let someone else up there who can 1) read and explain the text, 2) draw doctrine from the text, and 3) apply the text.

Bible drills are a waste of corporate worship time. Those are things Christians can do with the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge on their own, in their own time, or with a systematic theology book when they are are running all over the Bible looking to see what it says about heaven, or hell, or angels, etc.

Preaching is different than teaching a systematic theology course during Sunday school.

Its REALLY HARD to take one text and stick to that text throughout the whole sermon. Oftentimes, I personally found, in listening to a variety of preachers, that you can tell when they are trying to get ideas out of their own head, convolutedly using 30 texts and proving a point, and the preacher who has his information down well with his one text and "screws the truth into the head" of his congregation.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Interesting. I skimmed the article - forgive me, I didn't have time to read the 10 pages. Is this "keep your finger on the passage" only a general guideline to break the habit of going to 30 passages?

Therefore, is going to 2-3 okay? Or 5? Or to mention the passage but not instruct the church to "go to" that passage? What makes it "incorrect hermeneutics and homiletics"?

What has been the practice of our Reformed pastors? When Spurgeon is preaching on 1 Kings and he refers to Jonah, is this correct hermeneutics and homiletics?

Thanks for your clarification, brother

Yes, it would help 1) break the habit, and 2) make those who are ill prepared to preach relatively uncomfortable because they are not prepared.

1, 2, 5 quotes on a difficult portion of Scripture would be fine.
There is nothing in Scripture that says we are only to quote 1, 2, or 5. It does say we are to "preach", so it is important to understand the difference between running bible drills and actually preaching. I can preach, and have a central text, and quote 4 other texts in passing. But if I rely on quoting Scripture alone, I've not done my job. One preacher said to me, "One Sunday I'm just going to get up and read the book of Romans, from beginning to end, then pray, and then sit down. That will be my Sunday Sermon." I said, if you do that, you're not preaching, you're reading, and your being irresponsible since God told you to "preach the word."

There is also a difference between the Analogy of Scripture, and using too many texts to fill up the sermon without ever REALLY explaining it. Any preacher needing to bolster their text to specifically prove a difficult point is warranted.
(Bill, I would agree with the quote, but keep in mind most puritan manuscripts were repenned after the sermon, and many of them (most) would add great numbers of point to "further fill it out").)

Spurgeon quoting Jonah is fine. But Spurgeon would never be able to say much if he quoted 38 Scriptures, read them, made a comment on them, and then tried to "tie it all together" at the end. That's not preaching in a 40 minute sermon (or less - Spurgeon sermons are often very short. If you read any of his sermons, they would take you about 20 minutes. He wouldn't be able to "read" 20 texts and comment them in that time frame.). If a minster had 4 hours, maybe, ok. But today's listener would never sit through a 4 hour sermon, and deal with 38 texts responsibility applied by the minister.

Romans and Hebrews, as letters, don't apply to the proper hermenuetics and homeletics stated in the article. We don't really have any of Paul's sermons, perse. Some "think" Hebrews is a sermon. Maybe. Maybe not. But I think the Holy Spirit is capable of teaching in a particular manner for Scripture in the way the writer of Hebrews wrote. I don't think Romans or Hebrews, or any other NT letter or book, warrants ministers to neglect studying a passage enough, and think its OK to rework the sermon around simply running bible drills because of ill preparation. That's irresponsible if God has called us to preach the word.

Keep in mind that this "little test" is not really a test. It's a challenge for preachers to do the work they need to do to rely on the text of Scripture God gave them to feed the people of their congregations for that week. When they run Bible drills week after week without much substance, they need to stop that, or get out of the pulpit. Let someone else up there who can 1) read and explain the text, 2) draw doctrine from the text, and 3) apply the text.

Bible drills are a waste of corporate worship time. Those are things Christians can do with the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge on their own, in their own time, or with a systematic theology book when they are are running all over the Bible looking to see what it says about heaven, or hell, or angels, etc.

Preaching is different than teaching a systematic theology course during Sunday school.

Its REALLY HARD to take one text and stick to that text throughout the whole sermon. Oftentimes, I personally found, in listening to a variety of preachers, that you can tell when they are trying to get ideas out of their own head, convolutedly using 30 texts and proving a point, and the preacher who has his information down well with his one text and "screws the truth into the head" of his congregation.

Dr. McMahon,

Thank you for fleshing out your position. You certainly make some good points and pastors would be wise to heed them. I have often felt like I shouldn't ask people to turn to a passage and that I should simply reference it instead, however I have had many in my congregation tell me that they want to turn to the passage and see it for themselves. Regardless, surely there is a balance to be struck.

 

[whirlingmerc]

If a pastor chooses to preach topically they will jump around.
Maybe there's a feeling topical preaching is more interesting or easier to make relevant to modern people?

In the long run, a really good preacher will be teaching a congregation how to study the Bible as they listen to sermon after sermon
and it will be easier going through sets of ad hoc topics to do that

I don't have a feel for how endemic the problem is... my current pastor is pretty good at sticking to the passage and if he's topical preaches seems to fairly reflect the referenced passages,

 

[matt01]

As with Psyche, I didn't have time to read the entire article, but this part stuck out: "If you are a preacher who week after week runs through countless passages to give your congregation a systematic theology..." There are many weeks when I have no idea what the message was. We start off with a text, but then jump to 8 or 9 othe passages to show how it all relates. Sometimes, it would be nice to just focus on the subject text, and what it actually means.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

If a pastor chooses to preach topically they will jump around.
Maybe there's a feeling topical preaching is more interesting or easier to make relevant to modern people?

In the long run, a really good preacher will be teaching a congregation how to study the Bible as they listen to sermon after sermon
and it will be easier going through sets of ad hoc topics to do that

I don't have a feel for how endemic the problem is... my current pastor is pretty good at sticking to the passage and if he's topical preaches seems to fairly reflect the referenced passages,

Yes, topical preaching is going to systematically deal with lots of texts. But it still does not have to be overwhelming in its homilectic structure. There was one preacher I listened to who would cite and make us turn to 5 or 6 passages on a topical sermon, but then simply quote and pass through other texts to bolster the topic. So most of his texts were used in the progression of the sermon material. He used the 5 texts to keep us on our toes and sticking with him as he went through the sermon.

Topical preaching is sometimes VERY necessary. Let's just be sure it is still preaching.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

As with Psyche, I didn't have to read the entire article, but this part stuck out: "If you are a preacher who week after week runs through countless passages to give your congregation a systematic theology..." There are many weeks when I have no idea what the message was. We start off with a text, but then jump to 8 or 9 other passages to show how it all relates. Sometimes, it would be nice to just focus on the subject text, and what it actually means.

Yes brother, I feel that. That was the point of the article.

And just think, keeping one's finger on the text is free. It doesn't cost the minister anything but a little focus. He already owns the tool itself, and simply needs to apply its use.

 

[DE Shoregirl]

Hi everyone,
I'm the new kid on the block around here, but thought I'd jump into the discussion. My pastor refers to 20+ passages each week. I know this because I type all of the overhead slides to be projected during the sermon. His style is fantastic. It keeps us grounded in scripture. And for the passages we all ought to have committed to memory, he begins it, pauses, and we as a congregation finish saying it aloud together. For instance, he will say, "We all know that the wages of sin is ___" and everyone says "death" in unison. Keeps the kids engaged, keeps the older folks awake, and is a great teaching tool. And once in awhile he even says one wrong just to see if we are listening. An example would be that "we are to lean on our own understanding" and we all say "not!" I believe there is never too much scripture in a sermon!