Category Archives: rhetorical analysis

Posted on

“most powerful arguments”: What I’m Learning from Reading Jonathan Edwards’s Earliest Sermons

by

Edwards’s, The Value of Salvation

The second sermon recorded by Kimnach in his tenth volume of The Works of Jonathan Edwards is, “The Value Of Salvation.” The text is Matthew 16:26

“…what is a man profited, if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul…?”

It is clear that Edwards followed God’s lead in creating a sermon full of “most powerful arguments” for making one’s soul utmost priority.

I learned from the way Edwards described our tendency to get earthly things: “If he hugs them [bags of gold and silver] ever so close, he must leave them forever and ever when once he leaves the world” (p. 313, emphasis added).

Then, as I’m seeing so many times in his sermons, Edwards is a master at creating powerful images to illustrate truth. Speaking of Alexander Magnus [The Great] when he was dying:

“he whom the whole could not contain must at last be confined to only a narrow grave. A few square feet of ground is large enough for him now, whom the earth was not broad enough for before” (p. 314)

Ouch!

When he turns to the inestimable worth of salvation, among several statements he wrote,

“They shall be perfectly delivered from sin and temptation. The saved soul leaves all its sin with the body; when it puts off the body of the man, it puts off the body of sin with it. When the body is buried, all sin is buried forever, and though the soul shall be joined to the body again, yet sin shall never return…” (p. 323)

Anyone in the house that realizes their sinfulness will surely smile at the thought of our bright, sinless future.

Edwards begins to wrap up the sermon with these these exhortations:

“We have now heard the most powerful arguments in the world to persuade us [to] take care of our souls….let us take no thought for this present any otherwise than as the means of the good of our souls.” (pp. 329, 330).

Finally, speaking of the Christian life in terms of a race or fight, “men don’t use [to] stop sometime and run sometime when they were upon a race; men, when they are engaged…in a battle, don’t use to stand still now and then to rest when their enemies are about them, for if they so do they are in danger every minute of being killed” (p. 333).

I hope that these excerpts from Edwards will fuel your desire to preach and teach God’s Word so He receives glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21).

Randal

Posted on

Your Search for the Interrelationship Between Ideas in your Preaching Portion

by

It’s not too late for you to check your sermon notes and see how you have done connecting the dots in your preaching portion. I am learning that this might be the most significant exegetical skill for an expositor. It’s the ability to trace the argument of your text. Or, you might see it as showing how each major thought block in your text interrelates. This means we are looking for meaning beyond the sentence level.

I have been up to my neck in this aspect of discourse analysis for several weeks and months. Most recently, I had the privilege of teaching a Doctor of Ministry cohort (From the Study to Pulpit) at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Here’s a look at that fine group:

A couple of weeks before that it was my privilege to talk about connecting the dots in apocalyptic literature with another D.Min. cohort at GCTS (Preaching the Literary Forms of the Bible):

And then, months ago, I was blessed to spend time talking about the importance of tracing the author’s argument with a group of Master’s level students at Lancaster Bible College/Capital Seminary & Graduate School (Advanced Homiletics).

In every case, we were amazed to see how meaning is formed in the Bible through the interrelationship between ideas in a selected preaching portion. Nothing makes us better expositors than starting by tracing the argument of a text. That is possible with the following steps:

  1. identify the major thought blocks in your text
  2. summarize each identified block in one sentence
  3. write out the logical transition that causes the writer to move out of block one into block two, etc.

In Luke 15 this might look like:

#1 Religious leaders grumbled because Jesus was eating with sinners (vv. 1-2)

Transition: So Jesus told them a parable to correct their grumbling about Him eating with sinners

#2 Jesus told the parable of the lost sheep to correct their grumbling (vv. 3-7)

#3 [you can finish it…]

And, because you understood the interrelationship between the opening narrative and the three-fold parable, you know you would end your sermon focused, not on the prodigal, but on the older brother! And that would drive your primary application away from calling prodigals home.

May our Lord receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3;21) as we identify and communicate the interrelationship between ideas that exist in our preaching portions each Sunday.

Randal

Posted on

Experimenting With Sermon Design: What I’m Learning From Reading Jonathan Edwards’s Early Sermons

by

Kimnach’s general introduction to Jonathan Edwards’s preaching in volume 10, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, contains fascinating information about Edwards’s sermon manuscripts. He summarizes:

“Edwards became a master of his inherited sermon form…” (p. 41, emphasis added).

This made me think about the sermon form that I “inherited” from those who modeled preaching for me and those who taught preaching to me. Take a moment to think about how you were formed into the kind of preacher you are. Who influenced the way you preach and the forms your sermons take?

Then, Kimnach writes, “…but in the 1730s, at the zenith of his mastery, he began experimenting artistically with the sermon. He apparently did everything he could do without actually abandoning the old form entirely, and the only possible conclusion one can draw from the manuscript evidence of his experiments is that he was searching, consciously or unconsciously, for a formal alternative to the sermon itself.” (p. 41, emphasis added).

I can relate to that.

From the early days of my training I have not been a fan of sermons. And now, closing in on having preached almost 2000 sermons, I am still not a fan of the traditional sermon form.

Through the years the form of my sermons have changed with the goal of trying to find out what works best for me with the gifts God has given me, including the people God has given to me.

How about you? Do you ever think about experimenting with some “formal alternative to the sermon itself”? If so, what might it be.

Of course, this kind of analysis begins with thinking about what aspects of the sermon might not be working as well as it could be. And, then, how might you change it? Is anything keeping you locked into your current form?

I am hoping that our Lord will continue to receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21) as we continue to tinker with the task of communicating God’s on Sunday mornings in the most effective way possible.

Randal

Posted on

How To Structure Your Sermon (part 2): What I’m Learning From the Early Sermons of Jonathan Edwards

by

These posts are designed to give us a look at how Jonathan Edwards crafted his sermons. You can compare this to the way you do it.

Last week I began with Edwards first major sermon section, explication. This week we move to his second section, confirmation. Edwards confirmed the truths he explicated by:

positive proofs from Scripture or reason and also by providing solutions to some major doubts and questions that arise from the text. (cf. Kimnach, p. 30 for more details, including the weird spelling below).

Edwards divides his time between what he called “notionall”, “doctrinall” and “practicall” truths. His powerful logic works thr0ughout the sermon to convince his listeners that what God says is true. And since his third major sermon section is application, you can see that the “practicall” truths he presents already bleeds into the application section.

Edwards is relentless in his attack of the mind of his listeners to grasp the meaning, proof, and implications of Scripture. He literally argues with his audience and their thought-patterns along the way in his second major section of the sermon.

So, before Sunday, see if you have some places in your message where you can confirm the faith and challenge to the doubts and questions of your listeners. See if you are taking them on a logical journey that is impossible to deny (provided they start with your presuppositions about Scripture, God, and the plight of sinful man, of course).

My mentor, Haddon Robinson, used to say that there were only three things you could do with an idea: explain, prove, or apply. These three certainly piggyback onto Edwards distinct Puritan sermon form of explication, confirmation, application.

May our Lord receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21) due to the way you structure your sermons.

Randal

Posted on

How You Structure Your Sermon: What I’m Learning From Reading Jonathan Edwards’s Early Sermons

by

I didn’t know Cox’s book existed, but virtually everyone has heard about sermons crafted with three points and a poem. It’s almost always said in jest (and that’s no slam on Cox).

One of the things I’m learning from reading Jonathan Edwards’s early sermons is what Kimnach refers to as “the seventeenth-century Puritan sermon” (p. 27). Edwards loosely followed a three-point structure of explication, confirmation, and application, borrowed from a seventeenth-century author, Wilkins (Ecclesiaastes, Or, A Discourse Concerning the Gift of Preaching as it falls under the Rules of Art (London, 1646)).

Kimnach provides a detailed look at each of the three and I will summarize the first one, explication, in this post (p. 29). He writes,

“Explication is either of the text…or of the doctrines deduced from it.”

If you decided to develop your sermon from the text, then that would include three things:

First, an “Unfolding [of the] difficulties” of that text. This involved unraveling the difficulties of a phrase, the circumstances surrounding that text (to whom it was written), and the Analogy of Faith (other similar Scriptures).

Second, “Distinguishing ambiguous…words [and/or] phrases.”

Third, “dividing of the Text, which must not be…Needlesse [sic.] [or] Obscure.”

If you decided to develop your sermon from the doctrines within your text, then you would:

One, Clearing their inference (meaning, I think, that you make a clear connection between your text and the doctrine you are expounding).

Two, “Showing the latitude of every…Truth [or] Duty…According to their severall [sic.]…Branches [or] Degrees.”

Let me quickly say two things that might help our own sermon development.

First, Edwards (through Wilkens) did not divide the Text needlessly. That means he only showed divisions that were important for establishing meaning and application. Before Sunday, check how you’ve divided the text and eliminate any unnecessary divisions (those that do not highlight critical flow of thought/argument).

Second, from the second, Two, above, Edwards has made me realize I need to spend more time meditating on the range that a particular doctrine has in life, both truth and duty. Before Sunday, see if you have explored the far-reaching effects of your doctrine.

And may God be glorified in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21).

Randal

P.S. Next time, Lord willing, we’ll explore the confirmation and, then, application sections.

Posted on

Securely Fasten Your Congregants To Scripture

by

Along with passing along insights I’m learning from reading Jonathan Edwards’s early sermons, I’m also highlighting Carrell’s findings from surveying hundreds of sermon-hearers. Her book, Preaching That Matters: Reflexive Practices for Transforming Sermons, has helped me think about churchgoers hear sermons.

For instance, chapter 4 (Exegeting, then Organizing) listed poor sermon organization as the number one “listener-identified characteristic” (p. 72). I discussed our tendency to ramble several posts ago.

In light of my experience listening to masters and doctoral student sermons, Carrell’s next observation didn’t surprise me. When you hear it, hopefully you will think: “Well, duh!”

She writes, “Listeners also describe disorganized sermons as those without clear connections to Scripture, even though preachers who are perceived as disorganized often claim to be structuring content in a way that is especially biblical” (p. 73, emphasis added).

And, as noted above, my experience listening confirms this. I am often reminding preachers-in-training to keep us connected to the text during their sermons. Several minutes go by without directing our attention to verse ___.

You and I can help our listeners by keeping them connected to the Scripture being expounded. And, according to Carrell’s findings, our listeners will consider this a part of effective organization.

You might think that simply doing good exegesis will alleviate the problem of losing connection with Scripture. But, think for a moment about how many minutes can go by in a sermon while you explain the finer points of exegesis. The sheer volume of words contained in those minutes can create a disconnect from the very Text you’re explaining.

So, before Sunday, as you’re preparing your notes–you are manuscripting, right?–keep reminding yourself of the need to remind your listeners where you are in the Text.

And may our Lord receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21) because of your efforts to exegete and organize.

Randal

Posted on

Using Analogies To Add Clarity: What I’m Learning from Reading Jonathan Edwards’ Early Sermons

by

One of Jonathan Edwards’ favorite rhetorical reasoning tools is an analogy. Here’s an example from his sermon, Christian Happiness. Edwards is arguing that a godly person does not need to be afraid of any troubles on earth.

First, “what need a man be afraid of storms and tempests without, that has so good a shelter?” (Kimnach, p. 301) Edwards is referring to a Christian having God and Christ watching over him.

Then, “And is there any man here present that would be at all afraid of the pain of the prick of a pin for a minute, if he knew that after it he should enjoy a life of–suppose–seventy years of the greatest prosperity imaginable, without the least molestation?” (pp. 301-302). Edwards is referring to suffering a little during one’s earthly life versus enjoying eternity pain-free.

Those are two quick examples of how Edwards gains clarity and adds strength to his arguments. And he does this a lot.

Me, not so much. But I’m learning.

I’m learning that analogies are a great way to explain and argue for the truth of Scripture. Analogies like the second one above force the listener to say:

“No person in their right mind would ever allow their fear of a little needle stick to keep them from getting a vaccine that would save their life.” (That was my quick attempt to create a variation of Edwards’ analogy)

And that’s what we want to happen in our listener’s minds. We want the force of our argument to force our congregants to agree with God’s Word.

Finally, I was thinking that Edwards’ analogies are functioning like a kind of illustration. Usually, illustrations in sermons can take a while. What I like about Edwards’ version is they don’t take up lots of message minutes, but they are effective.

Anyway, before Sunday see if your Scripture and sermon can use the help of an analogy to add clarity and strength to your argument so God receives glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21).

Randal

P.S. Merry Christmas!

Posted on

Taking Time To Reason: What I’m Learning From Reading Jonathan Edwards’ Earliest Sermons

by

Have you ever tracked how you use your sermon minutes? This series of posts presents some of my findings of how Jonathan Edwards used his. For instance, in his sermon, The Value Of Salvation, Edwards spends 15 and a half pages explaining why the soul is more valuable than the whole world.

His text was Matthew 16:26 “For what is a man profited, if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul, or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”

After placing this verse in the previous context, Edwards begins to explain the Doctrine:

The salvation of the soul is of vastly more worth and value than the whole world.

I think you can see how Edwards moved from Scripture to doctrine.

To develop this doctrine Edwards begins to reason with his listeners. He goes to great lengths to explain why the doctrine he has presented is true, why the soul is worth more than anything else. He stated:

I. Because all world good things shall have an end.

II. The whole world shall have an end with respect to every particular person at death. I found this point to be very similar to the first one, but from a slightly different angle. You can see that from the next sentence, “When a man dies, the world has an end with respect to him: all worldly pleasure, profits and honors, with him are come to an end.” (p. 313)

III. Worldly good things are very uncertain, and oftentimes come to an end before death.

How does Edwards reason this way? At times he uses Scripture, such as in the first point where he cites from 2 Peter 3:10, Matthew 24:35, and Rev. 20:11 which speak of the earth coming to an end.

That sets off a series of questions: “…and then where will be all the fine cities of the world, with which the earth prides herself? Where will be….What then will become of….Where will be the…?” By the end of the section all his listeners with ears to hear say, “God is right. Nothing is more important than the salvation of my soul.”

Next time we’ll see that Edwards doesn’t only reason from direct Scripture.

Before the first Sunday of Advent, see if there are any places in the development of your sermon that could use some additional reasoning. And may our Lord receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus because of your Spirit-driven efforts (Ephesians 3:21).

Randal