Category Archives: sermon conclusion

Posted on

What We Preach No Matter the Preaching Portion/Pericope

by

Abe’s new book is very helpful, especially in the discussion about theology and application.

I decided to select Abe’s new book, A Manual for Preaching: The Journey from Text to Sermon, as one of the required textbooks for my upcoming sections of PAS 513 Advanced Homiletics (Lancaster and D.C. locations of Lancaster Bible College|Capital Seminary & Graduate School).

Abe does an excellent job summarizing the preaching task with respect to what happens each Sunday in church. Think about your preaching portion from this morning or the one you will be preaching on this coming Sunday. Can you see your preaching fitting into the following description?

“So each pericope [the section you’ve selected to preach on] is God’s gracious invitation to humankind to live in his ideal world by abiding by the thrust/force of that pericope–that is, the requirement of God’s ideal world as called for in that pericopal world segment (e.g., listening to/obeying only God’s voice, from 1 Sam. 15 [where King Saul failed miserably!]. And as humankind accepts that divine invitation and applies the thrust/force of the pericope, week by week and pericope by pericope God’s people are progressively and increasingly inhabiting this ideal world and adopting its values” (p. 29).

If we’ve selected them properly, our preaching portions contain “God’s gracious invitation” to our listeners to inhabit “his ideal world.”

That happens when we urge them to be or do what the pericope is requiring (what Abe calls its “thrust/force”).

Sunday after Sunday the cumulative affect is growing more and more into the likeness of Christ (“inhabiting this ideal world and adopting its values”).

Can you see why it’s impossible for congregations composed of some with “ears to hear” not to grow into a mature Body?

I can’t think of anything more fulfilling than being the mouthpiece for God’s invitation to live in his ideal world. And as we do that each weekend, may He receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21).

Randal

Posted on

Do You Tend Toward “You” Or “We” Applications?: What I’m Learning from Reading Jonathan Edwards’s Early Sermons

by

For years I’ve practiced listening to or reading sermons, beginning with the concluding applications/exhortations and then going back to the beginning of the sermon. That’s because there is an organic connection between sermon application and meaning. Actually, during the application segment of a sermon you are finally telling your listeners what a pericope means as a whole.

Edwards’s earliest recorded sermons have a final section called, Use. The Use includes numbered Inferences and Exhortations.

When Edwards gets to his first exhortation he begins to lead them off with “You…” No listener could miss that Edwards was preaching directly to them. One of the helpful elements of Edwards’s preaching is how he clearly addresses various kinds of listeners in his church.

So, it made me wonder whether you consider yourself to be a “you” or a “we” kind of preacher/teacher.

I prefer to balance the “you’s” with the “we’s” for pastoral reasons that Edwards did not take into consideration: I want my faith-family to know that I am with them in their worship-response to God’s Word.

(Maybe that’s our biggest problem with “preaching at people”: we sound like we’re placing ourselves above the Word and, therefore, above them with respect to our need to submit to God’s Word too.)

However, like Edwards, I also want them to know God has called me to shepherd them. That’s where the “you’s” come in. Both the ungodly and the godly knew exactly what God was saying to them by the time Edwards was done! For instance, Edwards aims at the ungodly: “you have taken up, contented hitherto, with such a sort of pleasure as the beast enjoy as well as you.” (p. 305) Yikes!

And, even if you prefer the “you” version of applications, your non-verbal communication can continue to let everyone in the house know that you are with them in their response to God’s Word.

May our applications contribute to God’s glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21),

Randal

Posted on

Consider the Value of Faith-First Application

by

Image

Faith-first application is my term for sermon applications that call for Believers to believe some aspect of the Gospel before asking for life-change. This application approach is the result of reading the Gospels and Scott Hafemann’s book, The God of Promise and the Life of Faith. When you read the Gospels you hear Jesus asking in Luke 8:25, “Where is your faith?” In other places you hear Him address His disciples, “O you of little faith” (cf. Matt. 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; Luke 12:28). Jesus could have easily addressed other issues, such as their anxiety in Matt. 6:30 or their fear in Matt. 14:31. But He addressed their faith.

Scott Hafemann’s book helps show that faith in the promises of God leads to obedience. He also states, of course, that the opposite is true–that unbelief leads to disobedience. So, if it’s true that every act of disobedience is first and foremost an act of unbelief, then I must attack unbelief in my efforts to attack disobedience. And the opposite? I must urge faith first, before I try to urge righteousness. 

I know you know the connection between anxiety and little faith and between fear and little faith in our examples above. That’s the point. Jesus touches on our little faith because He knows that when faith grows, righteousness also grows. The story of Jesus calming the storm challenges our faith. Take a look at your sermon application in yesterday’s sermon or the one you’re creating for this coming Sunday. See if there is a way for you to feed the faith of your congregants. See if you can make a connection between their faith and applying their lives to your preaching portion.

There is a fringe benefit to this approach to application. Faith-first application eliminates commonly heard self-help moralism by connecting faith with practical application, making the latter distinctly Christian.

Posted on

Reasons why I don’t summarize my sermon in the conclusion

by

Image

One of my favorite definitions (or maybe description) of a sermon conclusion is by the late E. K. Bailey, long-time pastor of what is now called Concord Church in Dallas, TX. Bailey once said that “a great conclusion, like fine gravy, is made up of the same essence as the meat.” The description moves us away from the urge to insert new information in the conclusion. It does assume, however, that a conclusion involves a summarization. I agree that it’s not best to use the closing minutes of the sermon for new theology. I disagree with the thought of needing to summarize much of what has been said. Maybe you want to summarize or restate your main idea. But that’s all. Here’s my reasoning:

  • If they didn’t understand your main points in the message, they probably won’t gain a better understanding because you summarized them (and they may be too fatigued to be able to take in more explanation).
  • You’ve already given them enough to respond as an act of worship.
  • Sermon time is too precious to summarize at the end.
  • Land the sermon as another call to worship (meaning show them how their relationship with Christ causes them to be and/or do what the preaching portion says they should be and/or do).

Rather than spending precious minutes in reviewing the sermon details, help your congregants see how they can respond to the revelation of God through faith in Christ and the power of the Spirit. Some homileticians point out that the conclusion is a neglected part of sermon preparation. However, if the conclusion is one of the key times to apply our lives to the Bible, then I need to spend some time planning those meaning-full minutes.