Dullness and disorder
In his book Setting Hearts on Fire, the Sydney evangelist, John Chapman, counsels preachers to do six things for every point in their sermons:
- State the point
- Show where it’s from in the Bible
- Explain the point
- Illustrate the point
- Apply the point
- Restate the point.
Of these, our explanations are often the most dull and unexciting parts of the sermon. Illustrations are relatable, illuminating, and often humorous; applications are concrete and practical. When preachers explain the text, however, we wish they’d just get on with it and tell us what to do; it feels like a hoop we have to jump through in order to get to the good stuff.
This problem is compounded by preachers who seem disordered and unclear about what they’re explaining and why. As I listen to the preaching of others (and, regrettably, some of my own older talks!) I’ve heard sermons that are indistinguishable from Bible commentaries, explaining every conceivable detail of the text. Others meander from idea to unrelated idea, leaving both the preacher and his audience confused, or jump quickly to the preacher’s favourite hobby horse.
I’d like to suggest in this article that these twin problems of dullness and disorder can be addressed by Explaining for impact: taking note of the aspects of our text that lend themselves more naturally to convincing, persuading, and motivating God’s people to love and good deeds – not just merely informing them.
Explaining for impact
When we think of “explaining the text,” we often think of giving the context of the author and recipients, defining difficult theological terms, drawing out logical links between ideas, and explaining who’s who in parables and apocalyptic visions. I’d loosely categorise these as explaining for understanding: giving enough background detail that a person in our audience could read the text again and know what’s going on.
Explaining for understanding is absolutely necessary, but it’s not sufficient. Preachers aim, not just to inform, but (in the power of the Holy Spirit) to persuade (2 Cor 5:11), encourage (1 Cor 14:31), reprove and rebuke (2 Tim 4:2). In other words, we want our people not just to think, “This is what God’s Word says,” but also, “I agree with what God’s Word says… I want what God’s Word says.” In other words, we’re looking to explain for impact.
Often impact is left to the illustration and application parts of the sermon, but our explanations can also aid the impact of our sermons. The following is not an exhaustive list, but here are four aspects of a passage to look out for that lead naturally to impacting our audiences:
- The emphases of the text. Is there an idea that runs all the way through our text, through repeated words, phrases, or ideas? It’s our job as preachers to give those ideas as much prominence as the text itself does—and for those ideas to have equal prominence in our minds and hearts. For example, Romans 3:9-12 repeats the words, “None,” “no one,” or “not one” six times; a preacher might emphasise this by saying, “How many people in our world are righteous? None. How many live their lives with understanding and godly wisdom? None. How many seek God? None. How many do good? None… so how can any of us think that God is pleased with the way that we live our lives?”
- The emotions of the text. Preachers should be sensitive, not just to the meaning of the text, but also the emotions behind the text. How does the author (both the human and divine author) feel about the recipients, or other people or groups mentioned in the text? This can help to encourage us to love what God loves and hate what God hates. For example, A preacher might note Paul, Silvanus and Timothy’s joy and pride at the Thessalonians’ faith, hope, and love in 1 Thessalonians 1:1-10 and then ask, “Do we have that same kind of joy, when we see people walking in faith, hope and love? What do we take joy in?”
- The intentions and goals of the writer. Everyone who speaks has some sort of goal in their speaking; a good interpreter doesn’t just ask the question, “What is this person trying to say?” but also, “What is this person trying to do?” This can lead a preacher to call their audience to have similar goals. For example, Paul’s desperation that the Galatians embrace the gospel of grace and disconnect themselves from those who preach circumcision is evident in Galatians 6:11-16; a preacher might draw this out and ask, “Do we have that same concern, when we see people straying from the gospel? When they fall into pride, exclusivity, or judgementalism?”
- The enemies of the text. Conflict is interesting to an audience and also unavoidable when speaking the truth; whenever we say something is true, we’re also implicitly saying that the opposite is false; every ‘yes’ to something is a ‘no’ to something else. Our texts often have ‘enemies,’ whether actual (e.g., specific sins, false teachers, or heresies) or implied (e.g., idols, priorities, feelings, and ideas that are at odds with the text). Our sinful natures love the enemies of Scripture; preachers can show this and present the Christian alternative. For example, after giving the meaning of a text, a preacher might show how we naturally incline more to the Pharisee than the tax collector, more to a gospel of works rather than a gospel of grace, or more to thinking we are sovereign as opposed to God being sovereign.
The fish John West reject
Preachers can explain both for understanding and for impact – and finally, I’d want to suggest that a preacher do this and no more in their explanation: too many ideas clutter a sermon, confuse an audience, and dilute impact. In a previous post, David Cook has mentioned the importance of aeration of ideas, letting them sink in; John Stott also encourages preachers to be “ruthless in discarding the irrelevant.” An old advertisement for John West tuna shows a fisherman aghast that John West would reject fish of such great quality, but the advertisement ends with the tagline, “It’s the fish John West reject, that makes John West the best.” May the preachers in our churches also be so focused, that they reject good things in order that the best things might breathe and impact their audiences.
Michael Leong