Preaching With Purpose - A Textbook for Pastors & Seminary Students

INTRODUCTION In my opinion, there has not appeared in the English language a significant textbook on preaching since John Broadus, a New Testament scholar, wrote his landmark book, The Preparation and Delivery of Sermons. I make that statement advisedly after studying and teaching preaching inte...

INTRODUCTION In my opinion, there has not appeared in the English language a significant textbook on preaching since John Broadus, a New Testament scholar, wrote his landmark book, The Preparation and Delivery of Sermons. I make that statement advisedly after studying and teaching preaching intensively for over 25 years. Many good books on preaching have been published. Each is helpful in its own way, but none has done for contemporary preachers what Broadus did for his fellow ministers in his day. “Perhaps Broadus’ work was enough; why attempt to move ahead of him?” someone may wonder. I only wish that were the case. If it were, it would save us all a great amount of anguish and effort, and instead of writing this book I could devote my time to other tasks. But it isn’t. Broadus’ approach, his style, etc., were helpful to those who were called to preach in another era, not like our own. He codified for his generation, and the one that followed, much of the best that had been said thus far. But his approach to preaching hardly begins to meet the problems ministers must face today, and certainly not in a form that is pertinent to the contemporary scene. Moreover, in all candor it must be said that, like those who preceded him, and many who have followed, Broadus by-passed a number of important matters and, at the same time, retained much of the scholastic approach, which has served to weaken rather than strengthen the preaching of those who have adopted it. Scholasticism, Rome’s dubious legacy to Protestantism, was mediated to us through the English Puritans, who took a number of wrong turns in preaching—some of which have brought us to the present sorry plight in which the evangelical church finds itself. That last statement points up a major reason why I have been impelled to assume the task that has produced this book. My goal has been to develop a textbook on preaching for pastors, seminary students, and other Christian speakers that, I hope, will make an impact in our day significant enough to change preaching substantially. That, with few—and I mean very few—notable exceptions, preachers need to change what they are doing is not a point that I shall argue. If you are of the mind that, on the whole, preaching in America is tolerably good (or, for that matter, even tolerable), then you and I are on such entirely different wavelengths that I don’t think I could convince you to see it otherwise, no matter how hard I tried. So I won’t. But if you are among those who recognize the great deficiencies that exist and would like to do something significant about the situation, even if it might mean taking radical departures from your present practices, then I believe this is the book for you. This book is not a mere restatement of past ideas and practices in contemporary language. It takes a new turn. As there was a need for a definitive change in Christian counseling when I wrote Competent to Counsel, so too is there a need for such change in all areas of the practical field—in administration, Christian education,1 pastoral work—but especially in preaching. I have been a consumer of thousands of sermons in my lifetime—far more than the average person, since at seminary I often listened to well over a hundred sermons each semester—and while I must say I have heard some good preaching, in all honesty I must say also that there has been much, much more poor preaching. My experience has not been isolated to novices, however; I have heard conference speakers, seminary professors, pastors, and just about every other sort of preacher there is, from every sort of background and denomination. Yet the story is the same: poor preaching predominates. Everywhere I go I hear the same complaint from laymen: “Why don’t the seminaries teach men to preach?” The question is not just a part of the typical griping that goes on all the time; it has a solid basis in fact. And it is asked most frequently by those who are most sincere in their faith, not as an excuse to cover irresponsible behavior, but as a genuine, heartfelt cry. Men and women (and especially young people) are being turned away from Christ and His church by dull, unarresting, unedifying, and aimless preaching. The question about seminaries is a legitimate and live one. “Well, why don’t the seminaries do a better job?” That question haunts homiletics departments everywhere. Part of the answer will be found in the inadequate structure of seminaries themselves, part in the failure of the church leadership to take the matter of ministerial selection and ordination more seriously, and part in the almost unbelievable willingness of congregations to put up with mediocrity or worse. At any rate, the present crisis in preaching need not, indeed must not, be permitted to continue. Something must be done about the situation. While I do not expect to see great changes in the structure of theological education in the near future (there are too many persons with too many vested interests of various sorts who are too deeply entrenched for that), there is one place from which I think I can realistically hope for change—from faithful, concerned pastors and seminary students. And, because homiletic professors in particular, as well as practical theology professors in general, are so often considered a breed apart by other teachers in the seminary, there is hope that they too may find it easier to break the chains of tradition that so tightly bind most other theological academes. Over the last few years I have had the opportunity to work with thousands of Bible-believing preachers and theological students both in this country and abroad. While there are numerous exceptions, of course, I find them to be an overwhelmingly genuine group of men. They are anxious to please Christ, willing to listen to new ideas and approaches (provided they can be shown to be biblical), and dedicated to personal improvement. As a whole, they seem far more acclimated to change than do their counterparts in educational and administrative posts. They have been the hapless recipients of an education that they, by bitter experience, have learned is deficient in any number of ways and that, as a result, has failed to equip them for their ministerial tasks. They are embarrassed and hurt, and find themselves scrambling for whatever help they can get (just look at all the pastors’ conferences they attend!). These pastors have experienced the problems one faces on the battlefronts of Christian ministry. They know that, in many cases, they were required to spend inordinate amounts of time studying what now seems to have been the esoteric interests of professors who, themselves, at this point in their careers are so far removed from the battlefield (if they were ever on it at all) that they are out of touch with the pastor’s needs. Sometimes, from the abstract, “scholarly” and “academic” ways in which these instructors run their recruits through basic training, one wonders whether they have not lost sight of the fact that they are there to train good soldiers of Jesus Christ rather than more trainers like themselves. Too often teachers require of students what should be required only of those who, themselves, will become teachers. Of course, I do not wish to make a wholesale indictment; there are great, notable exceptions to what, sad to say, is the rule. This is no place to discuss all of the reasons for the failure of the theological seminary to train good preachers. Part of the problem, as I said, is conceptual and structural, part pertains to curriculum, part is a matter of content, and part is rooted in methodology. Elsewhere I have set forth a plan for theological education that is designed to solve these and other problems.2 Nor shall I discuss the church’s failure to properly recruit, select, and nurture students for ministerial training (I have also addressed that vital issue in “Design”—see footnote 2, supra). My present desire is to do whatever I can to help the average preacher who is out there on the front line, struggling daily because, as he knows all too well, his training and resources have proved woefully inadequate for the task. He longs for help; he buys and devours every new volume on preaching that appears; he attends pastors’ conferences, but he finds little that is new and virtually nothing that will make any significant changes in his preaching. Such men are hungry for something to sink their teeth into. One pastor at such a conference (every time he passed me in the hall) said, “Please write that book on preaching!” While pastors (and congregations) have proved that they can survive on bread and water, they deserve something more nutritional. It is for these men and their congregations especially that this book has been written.3 Preaching with Purpose may be used by an individual or in a class. The class assignments at the conclusion of chapters are designed for teachers to use in formal situations, but individual readers also may wish to adapt them for their own personal benefit. My hope is that this textbook on preaching may be even more influential in its area than Competent to Counsel has been in counseling. There is every bit as great a need for a change in preaching as there was in counseling. Class Assignments: 1. Interview at least five pastors. Ask them about their training in homiletics. Find out if they think it was adequate, what they have done to supplement it and whether they would even now welcome help in preaching. Ask if they have read this book and if they have followed its teaching. If so, find out if they think that doing so has helped their preaching. 2. Write out a paragraph expressing your current ideas concerning the purpose and place of preaching. Be ready to discuss this topic in class. 1. In another book, aimed at foundationally changing Christian education, I have attempted to do the same thing. That book is Back to the Blackboard (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1982). 2. See my article, “Design for a Theological Seminary,” in The Journal Pastoral Practice 3, 2 (1979): 1. All issues of this journal are available and may be obtained by writing to C.C.E.F., 1790 E. Willow Grove, Laverock, PA 19118. This article also is reprinted in the appendix of my book on Christian education, Back to the Blackboard. 3. Of course, some homiletics professors will welcome the text. Students in seminary, on the whole, do not know the problems in the pastorate and are inclined to discount practical theology for “the real courses.” Later, they find themselves among the starved. 1 THE CENTRALITY OF PURPOSE “Why the title of this book—Preaching with Purpose? Why a book on this subject at all?” There are reasons, good reasons. Let me mention several. First, there is a need to examine and to stress purpose because there is so much purposeless preaching today in which the preacher has only the vaguest idea of what he wants to achieve. The members of congregations who are subjected to this sort of preaching for any length of time, as a result, both individually and corporately, themselves, become aimless and confused. Secondly, the amazing lack of concern for purpose among homileticians and preachers has spawned a brood of preachers who are dull, lifeless, abstract, and impersonal; it has obscured truth, hindered joyous Christian living, destroyed dedication and initiative, and stifled service for Christ. But of greatest concern in my choice of the title for this book is a basic consideration that lies behind all others: I am convinced that purpose is of such vital importance to all a preacher does that it ought to control his thinking and actions from start to finish in the preparation and delivery of sermons. It is my purpose in this book, therefore, to make the reader aware of this all-important role of purpose in preaching and to demonstrate to him that he must be aware of it from now on in all of his preaching endeavors. That is how basic purpose is. Yet, so unaware of the centrality of purpose is the average homiletician that you can hardly find a discussion of the subject in homiletics textbooks, let alone discover a book in which purpose is set forth as the central or controlling factor in preaching. This lack of concern about purpose, along with an emphasis on competing concerns about “central ideas,” “themes,” “topics,” “subjects,” etc., that deflect one’s thinking into wrong channels and debase preaching to little more than a lecture instead of the life-transforming experience that God intended it to be, is at the bottom of the problems in preaching to which I referred in the introduction. And, even in those rare instances in which the preacher becomes aware of the role of purpose in preaching, so often the purpose he adopts is his own purpose rather than the purpose of the Holy Spirit underlying the biblical preaching portion. This sad state of affairs must be remedied if we would enter a new era in preaching. Our thinking about preaching, along with our methods of preparation and delivery, needs a complete overhaul. More is in order than the usual oil- change-and-grease-job that the average book on preaching offers. Even when discussing such narrow questions as, “Should I announce my points to the congregation?” and, “Is there a need for an illustration here?” a focus on purpose is altogether essential to reach more than the usual unsatisfying, arbitrary answers. In response to those questions, a third—a purpose question—also must be asked: “What would be the purpose of announcing your points?” or, “What purpose would an illustration serve here?” Purpose, as you can see, gets back behind the surface discussions to fundamental issues—something that we have largely failed to do in the teaching and practice of preaching. My reason for focusing on purpose, then, is to show its basic and central place in preaching. It is only when we purposefully make the requisite changes that a transformation in preaching can occur. Purpose is the central issue. The preacher’s purpose in preaching, the purpose of the text, the purpose of the sermon content, of the organization, of the style, of the illustrative materials, of the type of delivery used—all of these and much more are crucial to good preaching. Yet, ask the average preacher, “What purpose did you have in mind when you used that example?” and he may be hard-put to tell you. Ask him, “What was your purpose in presenting the material in that order?” and he may be at a loss to respond. Indeed, ask some preachers, “What was the purpose of that sermon?” and they will reply, “What do you mean, ‘What was the purpose’ of my sermon? My purpose was to preach, of course. It was Sunday morning, and I am paid to hold forth every Sunday morning—in case you don’t realize it!” Of course, few would put it quite so crassly; surely you wouldn’t! But, ask yourself, how often have you not found yourself doing just that— preaching because it is expected of you, because the time to preach had rolled around once again? Whether you realize it or not, when you did so your basic purpose was to fill a slot in a weekly service allotted to preaching; your purpose was to “do your duty,” to fulfil your contract. While the fulfillment of a contract is a worthy purpose, it certainly is not an adequate one for preaching. Pastor, what is your purpose in preaching? Or, take a different sort of question: Why did you use the illustration that you used under point III-A-1 in your sermon last week? That is to say, what was your purpose in using it? Did you use it because it was the first to come to mind? Did you select it from among a number of others because its tone, as well as its thrust, seemed appropriate to what you were trying to say? And, for that matter, what was your purpose in using an illustration in that part of the sermon? Did you think that it was about time for another illustration? Did you believe a truth needed to be clarified? Was it necessary to emphasize, particularize, show how to implement and/or integrate some truth into life?— or what? All of these questions about purpose, not to mention hundreds of others that might have been asked, are getting at one thing: Whatever you do in a sermon, you should do consciously and deliberately to achieve some purpose. In other words, everything should have its objective, and you ought to know what that is. That is to say, just as you expect an automobile mechanic to know the purpose of every part of your car, and just as you expect him to have a clear and correct purpose in every adjustment or repair that he makes, so too should your congregation expect at least as much of you. After all, you are not tinkering with automobiles; your preaching will affect lives, for good or for ill—for eternity. How much more important it is, then, for you to be a craftsman, well informed about and skilled in the work of preaching—“a workman who won’t be ashamed!” (II Tim. 2:15). Because it is vital for you to plan and execute everything that you do in preaching according to a well-understood, clearly articulated, and biblically justifiable purpose, you must be willing to consider all of preaching from the point of view of purpose. I know of no better way to think basically about preaching. Therefore, I shall lead you through the field of preaching, stopping here and there to ask, in one way or another, “What purpose does this serve?” And we shall settle for nothing less than biblical and biblically derived answers. As that question is posed again and again in every sort of context, I trust you will become more and more concerned about the rationale for doing whatever you do in preaching. And as I attempt to give fundamental replies, I trust that these will orient you correctly and will give you such a thorough and basic understanding of preaching that you will be in a position to evaluate and improve upon your preaching for the rest of your ministry. Class Assignments: 1. Make a list of at least 25 practices commonly associated with preaching. Ask of each, “What is the purpose for this?” and next to it write your answer. Bring these to class to discuss. 2. Determine how many of the 25 (if any) cannot be said to be grounded on a biblical base. 2 WHAT IS PREACHING? Strictly speaking, the principal biblical words translated “preaching” do not correspond exactly to that activity to which we affix the label. They are somewhat narrower in scope. These words, kerusso and euangelizo, are used in the New Testament to describe “heralding” and “announcing the gospel.” They refer to evangelistic activity. The former always has to do with public proclamation of the good news, while the latter may be used to describe making the gospel known to either unsaved groups or individuals (cf. Acts 8:35). On the other hand, the word didasko, translated “to teach,” more nearly corresponds to our modern use of the word preach,1 and has to do with the proclamation of truth among those who already believe the gospel (cf. I Cor. 4:17). This distinction follows naturally from the background of two of the words. The Greek city-state was composed of three classes: citizens (a distinct minority), slaves, and freedmen (the latter two classes constituting the vast majority of the population). Whenever there was a vote to be taken, or the citizens were required to assemble for some other purpose, the kerux (“herald”) went about the streets of the city proclaiming the fact. As he did, he summoned the citizens to come out from among the total population so that this ekklesia (“assembly” or “church”) of “called out ones” might gather to transact the business of the city. Similarly, God’s heralds of the gospel go about preaching the good news, and those persons who respond in faith assemble as God’s ekklesia (“church” or “called out ones”) to transact God’s business as citizens of His heavenly kingdom. They are called out of the world and called to be “saints.” Heralding the gospel (kerusso), then, is an evangelistic enterprise just as surely as is “announcing the good news” (euangelizo, the word from which our word “evangelize” comes). Whatever speaking is carried on in the church after it has assembled, though never divorced from the gospel message, is didaskalia, or “teaching” (cf. I Tim. 4:16; 5:17). It also may be called simply “speaking” (lalia) as it is in I Corinthians 1:6. Both didaskalia and lalia, among other things, include paraklesis (“aid, assistance, advice, exhortation, encouragement, urging”), paramuthia (“comfort, cheer”), and nouthesia (“counsel, admonition”) as well as instruction (cf. Titus 2:15). There are, then, two kinds of preaching (because of a deeply impressed use of the English word I shall use the term “preaching” to cover both evangelistic and pastoral speaking): evangelistic preaching (heralding, announcing the good news) and pastoral or edificational preaching (teaching). While I shall try to distinguish between the two often enough to make it perfectly clear in any context what I am talking about, I also shall use simply the words “preaching” and “preacher” for either activity, whenever there is no doubt about which activity is in view. Because this book more largely treats pastoral preaching (“teaching to observe”—Matt. 28:20), I shall most frequently have that in mind when using the word “preaching” without any other qualification. There are several elements in preaching (of both sorts) that may be distinguished. Phillips Brooks defined preaching as “truth through personality.” In that definition he distinguished two elements: truth (which we must modify to read “divine truth” or “God’s truth”) and personality (the preacher). But, as elegant as Brooks’s definition may be, it surely must be rejected as inadequate. For one thing, it fails to mention the occasion, which at times (e.g., on the day of Pentecost, when Peter preached) may be important. And of greater significance, it says nothing of the audience or congregation (too often preachers have prepared and preached sermons that had little relevance to those who came to hear). But the greatest deficiency of all is Brooks’s failure to include the presence and work of the Holy Spirit, apart from whom preaching is worthless, indeed, injurious. So then, preaching necessarily involves: 1. Content, in the form of a biblical message; 2. A preacher; 3. An occasion (in which I include time and place); 4. Listeners; 5. The Holy Spirit. A proper understanding of and attitude toward preaching always requires the proper purposeful relationship of each of these five elements to the other four. Whenever any one or more of them is neglected, ignored, or is otherwise out of sync with the rest, problems arise. Of all, of course, the fifth element is most essential. When He wishes to do so, the Holy Spirit may bless our preaching in spite of poorly exegeted and constructed messages, even when given through preachers whose lives are out of tune with the revealed will of God (cf. Phil. 1:15-18), in seemingly inauspicious circumstances (II Tim. 4:2), and in the lives of persons dead in trespasses and sins. “Why then,” you ask, “should we concern ourselves about the other four elements? If, after all is said and done, the Holy Spirit is the operative factor in preaching, aren’t the other elements merely window-dressing and actually non-functional?” No. Absolutely not. While it is essential for successful preaching (i.e., preaching that meets God’s requirements all around, regardless of visible results), to have the blessing of the Spirit at work in both the preacher and the listener, it is the message, delivered to an audience by the preacher, on a particular occasion that He uses to bring about that blessing. He does not bless in the abstract; He has chosen to use means. And, while the Holy Spirit, on occasion, may bless in spite of failures at any point, ordinarily He does not do so.2 He puts no premium on sloppy efforts. Regardless of what the Spirit determines to do, when and where and how He pleases, He requires the best of a preacher, to whom He says, Do your best to present yourself to God tried and true, a workman who won’t be ashamed, rightly handling the Word of truth with accuracy (II Tim. 2:15). Clearly, God will hold preachers responsible for doing a good job as workmen in the Word. That is one reason “preaching and teaching” are viewed as laborious activities, and why God tells His church to pay double wages to those who do a good job (I Tim. 5:17, 183). That is also why the Holy Spirit instructs the preacher to “pay attention to yourself and to your teaching” (I Tim. 3:2) and why He limits the office to those who are “competent to teach others” (II Tim. 2:2) and “able to teach” (I Tim. 3:2). It is also why He warns them, “Let each one watch how he builds” (I Cor. 3:10b).  “All that may be well and good, but,” you may yet protest, “I didn’t think that preachers are supposed to try to become orators. Surely books and courses on preaching are unnecessary if oratory isn’t what God wants. Paul certainly didn’t seem enamored with oratory when he wrote, ‘And I did not deliver my message or preach in persuasive words of wisdom, but with proof and power provided by the Spirit, so that you might not place your faith in human wisdom, but rather in God’s power’ (I Cor. 2:4, 5), did he? Why, then, should I study preaching?” What Paul was conscientious to avoid was the bag of rhetorical tricks and gimmicks used by the Greek sophists—the same sort of thing that Socrates rejected with disdain in Plato’s Apology (see, e.g., II Cor. 2:17; 4:2; I Thess. 2:3, 5). Moreover, you are right in supposing that Paul was not interested in oratory. He cared nothing about praise for his brilliant speech. Rather, his great concern was to make the message as clear as possible (Col. 4:3, 4). He wanted to be sure that he did not obscure it (I Cor. 2:2, 3) and that the faith of those who believed rested on the proper foundation (I Cor. 2:5; 3:11). And that also is exactly what any correct instruction in homiletics ought to be all about—learning 1. how to remove all obstacles to preaching the truth; 2. how to make the message as clear as possible; 3. how to point the listener to Christ alone as the foundation for his belief and actions. Books and courses in homiletics that stress oratory and eloquence err. Throughout this volume I shall attempt instead to do the above three things. My purpose is to help you become a more faithful and more effective preacher of the Word so that men will not praise you for your speaking ability, but will praise only the Christ whom you preach. It is because of that purpose that I am taking you on an excursion into the fundamentals of preaching from the perspective of purpose. The emphasis on purpose itself will tend to lead us away from the many superficial and trivial matters that so often find their way into books on preaching. Our focus throughout will be on the basics.4 Class Assignments: 1. Study the use of the word euangelizo, kerusso, or laleo in relationship  to preaching in all its occurrences in the New Testament and summarize your findings, illustrating each point by concrete examples. Write out a report to be handed in or given orally. 2. Study the use of didasko in relationship to Christ’s preaching. Be ready to discuss your findings in class. 1. Though at times didasko seems also to be limited to evangelistic speaking, and occasionally it is possible that kerusso may refer to preaching to the saints (cf. II Tim. 4:2). 2. Ian Maclaren wrote: “... believing that as the blessing of the Divine Spirit will only rest on the outcome of hard, honest work, the more thorough and skillful that work is, the more likely is it to be crowned with prosperity.” The Cure of Souls (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1896), p. 8. 3. “The elders who manage well should be considered worthy of double pay, especially those who are laboring at preaching and teaching. The Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while he is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker is worthy of his wages,’ ” 4. In this book I have omitted many matters often included in homiletics books, not because they all were wrong or useless, but because, in reflecting on basic questions that have been neglected, I do not want to stray into by- paths. 3 THE PURPOSE OF PREACHING What is the purpose of pastoral preaching—why should a pastor preach? Why did God ordain that this activity should be carried on in His church? A proper answer to the second question must be the same as the correct answer to the first. Unfortunately, in the minds of many pastors these answers do not always closely correspond to one another. Surely a preacher must not preach merely to fulfil a weekly obligation. That his task involves such an obligation is plain, and for him to want to fulfil that obligation faithfully is neither wrong nor unimportant. But it isn’t enough, and it isn’t basic enough. He must know what is required of him when he arrives on the scene to preach. Even before that, he must know what he must achieve when he plans and prepares in his study. He must know what God expects him to do if he is ever to accomplish it. In short, he must know plainly what the purpose of pastoral preaching is. The people of God come together by God’s command (Heb. 10:251) on the first day of the week not only for fellowship or mutual encouragement, counseling, and admonition, but also to hear the explanation and application of the Word from those who “labor at preaching and teaching” (I Tim. 5:17). There is a preaching task in view. To achieve these purposes—the explanation and application of Scripture—God ordained regular preaching in His church. That is why a preacher should preach. But what is the essence of a faithful fulfillment of that task? That is the question. The pastoral preacher must be prepared at each gathering of the saints to use the Word in some way in order to “equip” them for their work of ministry. That is paramount. To honor God (the ultimate objective of all that a believer does), the preacher’s purpose must be God’s purpose. There can be no doubt that the pastoral preacher is obligated to meet that need: “And He gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists and some as shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for a work of service leading to the building up of Christ’s body” (Eph. 4:11, 12). Pastoral preaching is a prime means for doing so. Faithful fulfillment of his weekly task, then, entails edificational preaching. The minister of the Word is a mason who goes to church each week to lay block. He builds on a foundation, and to be faithful he must build that which will be able to withstand the fires of testing (I Cor. 3:10-15). This obligation to build is met, in part, in the weekly assembly, when the “whole church” of God’s people “comes together” in order to “meet together” (I Cor. 11:20; 14:23, 26). According to I Corinthians 14:3, the specifically stated body-building purposes of preaching are “edification” itself (i.e., the building up of the body and each of its parts), “assistance” (paraklesis = standing by another to offer whatever aid necessary) and “encouragement” (paramuthia = comfort, cheer).2 But, because the word “edification” runs throughout the chapter (and elswhere) as a summary term, seemingly including the other two, I also shall use it broadly to include all that is envisioned in the New Testament as the goal of pastoral preaching. The purpose of preaching, then, is to effect changes among the members of God’s church that build them up individually and that build up the body as a whole. Individually, good pastoral preaching helps each person in the congregation to grow in his faith, conforming his life more and more to biblical standards. Corporately, such preaching builds up the church as a body in the relationship of the parts to the whole, and the whole to God and to the world. The important fact to grasp here—a fact too often overlooked in any such discussions—is that in the Bible edification is viewed both as an individual and as a corporate matter: individuals must be “edified” (Rom. 14:19; I Thess. 5:11), and the church as an entity must be “edified” (Eph. 4:11-16; I Cor. 14:4, 5, 17, 26). Therefore, both the pastor who ignores the forest for the trees and the one who neglects the trees for the forest err. They must always have both concerns in view. Their sermons certainly must focus on individual change, but not for the sake of the individual alone; how that change honors God by blessing the whole is equally important. Likewise, their sermons may address congregational concerns, but not in ways that would by-pass individual responsibility. In order to “build up,” both the command to love God and the command to love one’s neighbor must be held up. An either/or approach to pastoral preaching (except as a step toward a both/and result) is always unscriptural and therefore deficient. Probably today there is much less emphasis on the corporate aspects of edification (the upbuilding of the entire body, as body) than there ought to be. In America, at least, we still wade around in the foam of a mighty wave of “rugged individualism,” as it has been called. It is possible, however, that the tide is beginning to turn and that in the near future we may find ourselves drenched by an emphasis on corporate responsibility that is of tidal wave proportions. It is the preacher’s task to keep a careful watch on the sea, not that he may go surfing on whatever waves come rolling in, but rather that he may maintain a good balance in spite of (and often in the face of) current surges that threaten to engulf his congregation. Building the Church The admonition, “... be sure that everything builds up” (I Cor. 14:26), has to do with all of those activities that are carried on in the assembly of God’s people, including the preaching of the Word.3 But how is the church “built up,” individually and corporately? The answer that the Bible gives everywhere is through the teaching of truth. Jesus set forth the edificational program for His church immediately before His ascension when He said, “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). Those commandments are all recorded in the Scriptures. They are of two sorts: 1. Commands that build up love for God; 2. Commands that build up love for neighbors.4 Roughly speaking, these two commandments, which embrace all others, correspond to (1) the edification of the individual and (2) the edification of the body. In them is “all” that Christ commanded. So, then, in order to discover what teaching builds up the church, one must locate and understand all that Christ commanded. These commands, of course, may be found not only in the Gospels, but also in the God-breathed Epistles and in the rest of the New Testament as well. It is precisely that sort of teaching that we find in the Scriptures themselves. In the Epistles (cf. Rom. 12:14-21 with Matt. 5:39, 44, for instance) we see the apostles both making their readers aware of what Christ taught (“teaching”) and pressing these commands on them (“to observe”). Note carefully the twofold thrust of Christ’s words: (1) “teaching” (2) “to observe.” It is not the naked proclamation of truth that He had in view but rather truth translated into life. Accordingly, in the pastoral letters, (I, II Timothy and Titus) the key word of command is “teach.” Yet, it is clear that along with instruction about facts, “truth” is given in order to promote “godliness” (Titus 1:1). That is why such words as “urge,” “reprove,” “rebuke,” “insist,” “encourage,” “appeal,” etc., also appear in these letters as apostolic injunctions to preachers. These terms have to do with observance of commands. To “observe” is to keep Christ’s commands and transform His truth into godly living and ministry. Both as individuals and as a body this must take place. Together, then, truth observed is the goal or purpose of pastoral preaching. In order to be faithful to his task, therefore, the pastoral preacher must know not only the truth but how to communicate it effectively. Again, he must learn not only how truth should affect life but how to help his listeners knead that truth into life—individually and corporately lived. Class Assignments: 1. From biblical study determine 20 ways that a congregation might need to be edified and 2. Decide how you might do so by preaching. 3. Be prepared to discuss these in class. 1. “We must not abandon our practice of meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but rather, we must encourage each other, and all the more as you see the day drawing near,” 2. Notice, the fundamental purposes of teaching in the assembly do not include evangelism. That conversions, nevertheless, may occur under such preaching is understood (cf. I Cor. 14:24, 25). That is because pastoral preaching relates everything to the redemptive work of Christ; the gospel is in every message. But evangelism proper is to be carried on outside the assembly. In Acts, a treatise on evangelism, no one is said to be converted in a Christian assembly. 3. Note that in I Cor. 14:26 “teaching” is specifically mentioned. 4. “And He replied, ‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. The second is just like it: You must love your neighbor as yourself. On those two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.’ ” 4 THE PURPOSE OF BIBLICAL PREACHING What is the purpose of preaching from a scriptural passage? Why not just preach? The apostles didn’t always use a text; why should we? Is this some pious practice, arbitrarily developed in the course of church history? First of all, we must recognize that the apostles were the recipients and the earthly source of special revelation; indeed, they themselves were writing Scripture! We are not. That makes quite a difference. Moreover, we have no record of an apostolic address given in a Christian assembly. But we do see Jesus, “as was His custom,” entering the synagogue and preaching from the biblical portion assigned for the day: Then He went to Nazareth, where He had been brought up, and, as was His custom, He went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day. The book by Isaiah the prophet was handed to Him. He opened the book and found the place where it was written, “The Lord’s Spirit is on Me because He anointed Me to announce the good news to the poor. He has sent me to preach release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are downtrodden, to preach the Lord’s year of favor.” Then He closed the book, returned it to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everybody in the synagogue were fixed on Him. Then He began to speak to them: “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” And everybody spoke well about Him, and they were surprised at what gracious words came from His mouth. And they said, “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” And He said to them, “Doubtless you will quote this proverb: ‘Physician, heal yourself; do here in your home town  the same things that we have heard you did at Capernaum.’ ” And He continued, “Let Me assure you that no prophet is accepted in his home town. As a matter of fact, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah when the sky was shut up for three and a half years and there was a great famine over the whole land. Elijah wasn’t sent to any of them but only to a widow in Zarepta, in the land of Sidon. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, yet not a single one of them was cleansed, except Naaman the Syrian.” When they heard this they were all filled with rage and rose up and threw Him out of the city, and led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, in order to throw Him over. But He passed through the midst of them and left. He went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee. And He taught them every Sabbath. They were surprised at His teaching, because what He said had authority (Luke 4:16-32). In the synagogue there was a reading desk or raised platform in the center. The teacher stood to read and then sat to teach. That is what Jesus did. This teaching consisted of exposition of the portion read, and exhortation growing out of it.1 When Jesus taught in the synagogue, therefore, He clearly identified Himself with synagogue teaching forms and structures. So when the Christian assemblies began to meet, they too carried on the same practices. This is what they must have understood Jesus to mean, at least in part, when He ordered His followers to “teach” converts “to observe” His commandments: And Jesus went to them and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples from all nations, baptizing them into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and remember, I will be with you always, to the close of the age” (Matt. 28:18-20). They could have understood Jesus’ order “to teach” in no other way; this is the way He taught in assemblies, so this is how they taught. The identity between the synagogue and the Christian assembly was so close that James even called the latter a “synagogue” (James 2:2). Who else would provide the teaching model for Christian gatherings if it were not Jesus, whose favorite title for Himself was “teacher”? There seems to be a reference to this teaching format inherited from the synagogue in I Timothy 4:13, where it is stated that it is a part of the pastor’s task to read the Scriptures publicly, to teach what the Scriptures mean, and to exhort the congregation to follow the teaching. The most fundamental purpose in preaching from a Scripture portion is to obey Jesus and follow His example. Today we can “teach” Christians to “observe all” that Jesus “commanded” only by turning to the pages of the New Testament on which those commandments are found. So, again, as in Old Testament times, we must turn to the Scriptures as the sole source of what we teach. And, according to synagogue practice, Jesus’ example, His order to teach all He commanded, and the task of the pastor recorded in I Timothy 4:3, we must publicly2 read a portion of the Scriptures, explain its meaning, and apply it to the congregation. The basic current practice in Bible-believing churches is fundamentally correct in these respects, but the way in which it is pursued often leaves much to be desired. The purpose for grounding one’s teaching on the Scriptures is also clear: the passage from which you preach serves as your authoritative source of truth. The authority of the apostles was in their apostolic commission; it had to be—the New Testament had not yet been written. They could speak, at times, without basing their remarks on the Bible. That was not only because the apostles were the recipients of special revelation but also because they were given a unique ability to infallibly recall what Jesus had said (John 15:26; 16:4) and could preach from His oral teachings even though those teachings had not yet been codified in the Gospels. We are not apostles, and the promises in John 15 and 16 are not for us, but we can preach from the same source because the apostles and prophets not only taught truth orally, but they have given us Christ’s teaching in the New Testament books (cf. II Thess. 2:15). Like them, we too base our teaching on the same authoritative source: God’s Word. So, like them, we too can preach with authority. For them, that Word (given after the Old Testament writings) was oral; for us, it is written. But both alike are God’s inerrant Word. It is in obedience to God’s command, therefore, to “preach the Word” (II Tim. 4:2) that we preach what is in the Bible. Today we have no Word to preach other than the inspired written record of that Word that the apostles preached. To be sure of the apostolicity of what we say, we must ground all of our teaching on the written Word.  Preachers today have no authority for preaching their own notions and opinions; they must “preach the Word”—the apostolic Word recorded in the Scriptures. Whenever preachers depart from the purpose and the intent of a biblical portion, to that extent they lose their authority to preach. In short, the purpose of reading, explaining, and applying a portion of Scripture is to obey the command to “preach the Word.” In no other way may we expect to experience the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in our preaching. He did not spend thousands of years producing the Old and New Testaments (in a sense, the Bible is peculiarly His Book) only to ignore it! What He “moved” men to write3 He now motivates us to preach. He has not promised to bless our word; that promise extends only to His own (Isa. 55:10, 11). Since, as we have seen already, there is no genuine preaching where the Spirit of God is not at work (He is the one who changes the lives of His people; that change is called the “fruit”—that is, the result of the work—of the Spirit), we may say that the fundamental purpose behind preaching from the Bible is simply that, in any genuine sense of the word, we may preach at all! Thus, the purposes of preaching from a Scripture portion may be summarized as follows: 1. To obey God; 2. To preach with authority; 3. To preach with power; 4. To preach effectively; 5. To preach at all! Class Assignment: Make an exegetical and historical study of Christ’s use of a Scripture passage in Luke 4:15ff. Write up your conclusions about the matter in a five- to ten-page paper. 1. But, according to Acts 13:15ff., 27, other topics could be addressed. 2. That is what the word in I Tim. 4:31 means: “public reading.” 3. II Peter 1:16-21 makes it clear that the “prophetic Word” is more solid than experience because it was inerrantly inspired by the Holy Spirit, who “carried along” the speaker-writers as they revealed His prophecies to men. That is why he bids us to “pay attention” to it “as to a lamp shining in a dismal place” (v. 19). The Word was embodied in Scripture for pastoral teachers of all ages to be able to do so. 5 DETERMINING THE PREACHING PORTION But how do you know what Scripture to choose for a sermon? And, even if you can decide upon a general area, how do you determine how much of that area to use as a preaching portion? Again, the answer lies in purpose. “Do I begin with the preaching portion or the congregation?” The answer to that very important question is that you must begin with both, but with an emphasis on the congregation. If you are selecting individual Scripture portions that are not in succession—a very legitimate way to preach when done properly—then you must always have the congregation in mind. You do not merely preach about whatever may happen to intrigue you. That is not a legitimate purpose in preaching.1 Remember, your purpose is to honor God by building up His church. It is their needs, failures, opportunities, etc., that should impel you to choose as you do each week. Your purpose in preaching is to edify the flock. On the other hand, if you are preaching consecutively through a Bible book, or through a long section (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount), then you do not make weekly selections (though you will have to determine how much you will consider each week of what remains); the very course that you have set for yourself determines that. Yet, even here you should keep in mind that when you originally selected this long section or book, your selection should have been made on the basis of the congregation’s needs. There is a seemingly “pious” approach that says “I’ll take a book and, in that way, let God tell me what to preach.” Fine. There is certainly nothing wrong with preaching through Bible books; indeed, there are quite a few advantages in doing so. Probably this way of preaching ought to comprise the bulk of one’s preaching. But it is no more “pious” or “spiritual” to use that method than to select, on your own, a new preaching portion for each sermon. After all, who selects the Bible book? Some of the worst mistakes of all are made in this way (e.g., Revelation for Sunday morning, Daniel for Sunday night, and Ezekiel for Wednesday hardly provide a congregation with a balanced diet!). When you are stuck with a whole book, unwisely selected, you are really stuck! Once chosen, if the choice is bad, it commits a preacher to a long course of error and failure.2 However, having wisely chosen a series of studies in a book, then it is easier to bring up difficult or delicate matters as the book does so, it is easier to avoid riding one’s own personal hobbies, and it saves you the hard work of finding passages on a weekly basis. That in itself can become a frustrating chore.3 “Well, then, if I must always begin with a consideration of what will edify the congregation, choosing (at least) the Bible book from which I intend to preach in the light of their needs and circumstances, that requires me to analyze my congregation with accuracy. How do I learn to do that?” That is an important question that must be deferred until a later chapter. For now, we must discuss the matter of the preaching portion in depth. Let us assume, for simplicity’s sake, that you have selected a longer portion from which to preach—a Bible book or a unit of a book large enough that you won’t be able to preach on the whole in one sermon. In such a case, the question naturally arises, “How do I divide it into preaching-sized portions?” Is division an arbitrary matter? Is it determined by the clock on Sunday morning? No. Absolutely not.4 “Well, then, how do I single out a ‘preaching portion,’ as you seem to prefer to call it?” Again, you must make your divisions of the book or unit strictly on the basis of purpose. Telic Cues The entire Bible, and any book or portion thereof, may be viewed from the perspective of its telos (the New Testament word for “purpose, end, goal, objective”). As a whole, the Bible has a purpose: speaking ultimately, we know that its telos is to glorify God.5 Less ultimately, Jesus said that the Bible’s purpose is to help men to love God and their neighbors properly. These purposes, fulfilled, lead to the ultimate one. More proximately speaking, we may mention the purposes (tele) detailed in II Timothy 3:15-17; these purposes, fulfilled, cause men to love God and neighbors. These overarching tele must be kept in mind at all times when considering the telos of any Bible book or lesser portion from it. Every message preached ought to have its relationship to the greater telos or tele in which the preaching portion is found. This process of discovering, recognizing, and using tele within tele continues downward until you select the preaching portion itself:  1 Telos 2 Sub-telos 3 Sub, sub-telos 4 Sub, sub, sub-telos 5 Preaching Portion6 Each Bible book has its telos and its tele. For instance, the Gospel of John was written with an overall evangelistic telos: Now Jesus did many other signs in the disciples’ presence that aren’t written in this book, but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, God’s Son, and that by believing you may have eternal life in His name (John 20:30, 31). On the other hand, its sequel, I John, was written for an edificational purpose (to bring assurance to converts): I have written these things to you who believe in the Name of God’s Son that you may know that you have eternal life (I John 5:13). Jude tells us the telos of his book in verse 3. It is interesting to note how Jude discusses purpose. Originally, he tells us, he had an entirely different telos in mind when he thought of writing. But news of false teachers and the effect they were having on the church motivated him to change his telos. The telos or tele of a Bible book is not always spelled out so clearly by the writer. Often you must discover these for yourself. For instance, John doesn’t say in so many words that the telos of his second letter is to warn against extending hospitality to false teachers, or that the telos of the third letter is to encourage Gaius that he has been right in extending hospitality to true teachers, despite Diotrophes’ words and actions, but a study of these two writings makes this clear. On the other hand, a careful study of Philippians indicates that there were at least four major tele behind the writing of that letter: 1. To thank the church for its gift; 2. To ease their concern over Epaphroditus’ health; 3. To explain Paul’s imprisonment;7 4. To deal with the split in the church. When preaching from Philippians, then, you must keep not only the general purposes of the Bible before you, and the more proximate ones, but the particular one of the four purposes in which your preaching portion is found. That means, for example, that the great christological passage in Philippians 2 ought never be preached in the abstract, totally unrelated to the practical issue of unity of which it forms a part. And even that matter of unity must be oriented to the larger tele to which the whole Bible addresses itself (that is to say, unity is not to be urged because it is pleasant, or better for all concerned, but because of its effect on God’s church, which in turn has an effect on the honor of His Name). Determining the Spirit’s telos of a passage is one of the most important obligations in preaching, perhaps the greatest of all, about which I shall have more to say in the next chapter. But, for now, let me say that a failure to do so constitutes an affront to the Holy Spirit. Now, let us see how purpose (telos) is the determining factor in the selection of the preaching portion. All arbitrary factors in selecting the amount of Scripture from which to preach a given sermon must be abandoned. Blackwood, for instance, used to say, “Preach on a paragraph.” While you may often find yourself doing so, that is not what you will always be doing, nor is it a good rule even most of the time. It is too arbitrary. In the historical books, you may find that you must preach on a chapter—or even two! When preaching in Proverbs, you will often preach on a verse. What, then, is the determining factor? Purpose. You may preach on any purpose unit—regardless of its length. Purpose is what defines a preaching unit. If the Holy Spirit has determined to do something specific by means of a unit of material devoted to that particular purpose, then it is clear that it may (must) be preached in order to achieve that very purpose. Because a purpose, or telic unit, determines the preaching unit, it is possible to preach on the telos of an entire book or on any sub-tele; sub, sub- tele; sub, sub, sub-tele, etc. So long as a portion of the Scriptures is defined as a unit devoted to producing a particular effect (i.e., achieving a specific purpose), it is proper to preach on it. Often homileticians have stressed unity as important to a sermon, but, again, they have done so arbitrarily, by fiat. The reason why a sermon ought to treat one major subject, thus creating and preserving unity, is not for literary reasons—balance, symmetry, and the like—but in order to focus on and remain true to the purpose or intention of the Holy Spirit. When you get a hold on some purpose that He had in view, and make that the purpose of your sermon, it is the Holy Spirit’s intention that brings unity to the sermon, not some extraneous, arbitrary factor or rhetorical canon. “But,” you may ask, “when you speak of a telic, or purpose, unit, just what are you talking about?” The answer to that crucial question will take us into the next chapter. Class Assignment: Divide the Book of Jude into preaching portions according to tele. Be prepared to show how each portion you have isolated is a telic unit. Relate each sub-telos to the overall telos of the book. 1. But, of course, the study of a passage of Scripture itself may alert you to a congregational need; indeed, there is no other way to determine what congregational needs are than by discovering them in the Scriptures. A good place to begin studying is Rev. 2, 3. 2. However, if a preacher errs in making such a selection, and later recognizes the fact, he should not persevere in his error out of pride or stubbornness, but simply acknowledge the error to the grateful congregation and make the necessary change immediately. 3. Yet, even that problem can be greatly lessened by following the six- month study-and-preparation program that I shall advocate infra. 4. As a matter of fact, beyond reasonable limits, the clock should be ignored. There is no reason why every sermon should be half an hour or three quarters of an hour long. The preacher should take as long as it requires to preach any given message, whether one week he preaches for 20 minutes or the next for an hour. The passage should determine the sermon length.  5. That idea isn’t a pious platitude when properly understood. For a discussion of the biblical concept of doing things to the glory of God, see my book, Back to the Blackboard (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1982), a book that deals with a biblical approach to Christian education. 6. Of course, at any stage, a sermon could have been preached. Stages one to five could each have been considered a preaching portion since each constitutes a telic unit. 7. For more on this point, see my book, How to Handle Trouble. 6 DETERMINING THE TELOS There are few deficiencies in preaching quite so disastrous in their effect as the all-too-frequently occurring failure to determine the telos (or purpose) of a preaching portion. The passage, and therefore the Word of God itself, is misrepresented, misused, and mishandled when its purpose has not been determined, with the direct result that its power and its authority are lost. For the preacher we may say, “Get the telos; in all your getting, get the purpose.” You must never preach on a passage until you are certain you understand why the Holy Spirit included that passage in the Bible. When you have grasped His purpose, what He intended to do to the recipient of His message, then—and then only—do you have the purpose for your sermon, and then— and then only—do you know what God wants you to do to your listeners through it. Everything in the sermon—the organization of the material into an outline, the style (language usage), the delivery (use of voice and body)— should contribute to, and therefore be conditioned by, the purpose; everything must further the Holy Spirit’s intention in the passage. When I speak of the purpose or the telos of a preaching portion, I refer to the purpose that the Holy Spirit had when He “moved” the writer to pen the words of that passage. That purpose was broader than the immediate purpose in the writer’s mind when writing to a particular person or church. Paul himself makes this point when he uses Old Testament passages in New Testament contexts: Now these events happened as examples for us so that we might not desire evil things as they did (I Cor. 10:6). Now these events happened to them as examples and were recorded as counsel for us who live at this late date in history (I Cor. 10:11). Note also his words in I Corinthians 9:9, 10:  It is written in Moses’ law, “Don’t muzzle an ox when it is threshing.” It isn’t about oxen that God is concerned, is it? Isn’t He really speaking about us? It was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes he should do so in hope of having a share of the crop. Paul himself determined that the telos of the Holy Spirit was broader than the situation to which the passage in Deuteronomy 25:4 originally was addressed. He saw that the Holy Spirit’s intention in it was to teach a principle that was of greater value than when it was originally applied to oxen. The principle, stated in verse 10b is that the one who works at a task ought to share in its benefits. He clearly applies it to his day, when, in his own words, he writes in verse 14: In the same way the Lord gave orders that those who announce the good news should live by announcing the good news (I Cor. 9:14). So, it must be understood that when I say that the intention of the Holy Spirit must be discovered, I do not mean merely His intention in its limited application to an event at the time when the passage was written, but any and all valid applications that He intended to make from any principles that may be generalized from the basic thrust of the passage. The Holy Spirit does not intend for us to use a passage allegorically—finding hidden meanings in every word and generating all sorts of unintended principles from any given passage, but neither does He want us to landlock a principle so that it may be used only when a situation of exactly the same sort occurs in our day. No, it is only when a situation arises to which the telic principle (i.e., the one, and only the one, that the Holy Spirit had in mind in relationship to His purpose) applies that it is to be used. I shall have more to say on this matter. The thing to be avoided at all costs is to impose your own purposes on the passage. You must be extremely careful not to allow this to happen. Plainly, the history of preaching and sermon analysis shows that this is what has been done again and again. More often than not, if a sermon has a discernible purpose at all, that purpose turns out to be the preacher’s purpose rather than the purpose of the Holy Spirit. What you must work for is to make His purpose your own. To be just to any human writer, his purpose in a given writing must be considered, and purposes that he did not have in mind should not be attributed to him. This book, for instance, should not be used to set forth my views on pastoral counseling; it was not written for that purpose, and it would be misused and I would be misrepresented by anyone who was foolish enough to do such a thing. I have written extensively on counseling; my views on the subject should be gleaned from those books, not from this one. I do not expect someone to treat my writings that way; you would not think of doing that—it would be foolish and would yield strange and perverse results. And yet, that is precisely what preachers do with the writings of the Holy Spirit—not merely human writings—all the time! If you carefully abide by the canon of using a purely human writing for the purposes for which it was intended, how much more careful should you be when using the writings of God? Because you are working in such sacred territory, be careful what you do! The Holy Spirit, using human authors with the peculiarities of their style and vocabularies (providentially developed, to be sure), preserved them from error in order to set forth the truth that He would use to achieve various purposes He had in mind. That is why it is our duty to become expert exegetes who learn how to determine His purpose in every passage before preaching it. Historical-grammatical exegesis is essential, but not enough. Biblical- theological and systematic-theological studies of the passage likewise are important but, again, are insufficient. Rhetorical and literary analyses (areas themselves rarely acknowledged and so usually ignored) are also significant but still do not go far enough. The result of all the work done in these six ways will be uselessness, leading at length to frustration and to all sorts of possible harm if you do not go on to discern, from all those efforts, the telos of the passage. Indeed, all six of these important and essential efforts in studying the passage should be made telically. That is to say, there should be purpose in doing what is done. That purpose should be not merely to “understand the passage,” if by that you mean to understand what the words mean, but should include the purpose of discovering purpose. It is only when a preacher knows he is saying what the Holy Spirit said, for the purpose of the Holy Spirit in saying it, that he speaks with power and with authority. This, in part, is what made the difference between Christ and the Pharisees: And the result was that when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at His teaching since He taught them as an authority and not as their scribes (Matt. 7:28, 29). All through the preceding Sermon on the Mount, Jesus corrected the faulty use the scribes (religious teachers) had made of Old Testament Scriptures. That is what He was doing when He said, “You have heard... but I say.” He was not setting His teaching over against Old Testament teaching; no, exactly not that. He was setting the true telos of the Old Testament passages that had been misused by the scribes over against their false interpretations and the wrong purposes for which they used them. A good example of this is found in Matthew 5:31, 32. The Holy Spirit’s purpose in Deuteronomy 24 was not to teach that a bill of divorcement must be given, as the false teachers said. Rather, it was to control and discourage divorce and make clear that divorce on the wrong basis would set up conditions for committing adultery.1 The issue was the intention or purpose of the passage. Christ, unlike the scribes, revealed the telic import of Deuteronomy 24; in contrast, they had used the passage for their own ends. This matter of purpose is such an important consideration in preaching that if your wife were to awaken you on Sunday morning at 4 o’clock and ask, “What is the purpose of this morning’s message?” you ought to be able to rattle it off in one crisp sentence, roll over and go to sleep again, all without missing a single stroke in your snoring! Indeed, I think it would be advisable for you to write out at the top of every sermon outline (I’ll discuss the other purposes of the outline later) a one-sentence purpose statement. Until you can capsulize the purpose of the sermon in one crisp sentence, you probably do not yet have it clearly enough fixed in your own mind—even if you think you do. Fundamentally, there are three general purposes in view: to inform, to convince (to believe or disbelieve), or to motivate the members of the congregation in ways that will bring glory to God’s Name by building up His church. Here is a typical purpose statement that might appear on the outline: “My purpose is to convince the congregation that Christ is at work in trouble for good.” Of course the three general purposes may converge in a message, but when they do, one of the three will be uppermost. The specific purpose is what, specifically, the congregation should learn, believe/disbelieve, or do. How are you to discover the Holy Spirit’s telos in a passage of Scripture? Having done your work, you must ask, “Now, what does all this amount to?” More often than not, when you develop a telic concern, you will find yourself discovering the telos while you are involved in doing the exegesis. All along, at each step during every aspect of the process of preparation, you ought to have some such thought as this in mind: “Now, I wonder just what the Holy Spirit is up to in this passage?” If you do, the telos will come clear, usually during, but if not, almost always at the end of, the process of preparation. Then too, quite frequently you will discover in the passage what I like to call telic cues. These are cues to the purpose of a book or a passage that appear in the passage itself. Once you become aware of these cues to the purpose of a passage, you will begin to see them everywhere. Look at the telic cue in I Thessalonians 4:13: “Now, we don’t want you to be ignorant, brothers, concerning....” Clearly, that cue indicates a desire on the part of Paul/the Holy Spirit to inform. But, to provide information is not the sole purpose of the passage. We know that from the additional telic cue appended at the end: “... encourage one another with these words.” That shows a motivational concern. Let’s consider Luke 15, a passage that has commonly been misused because those misusing it have failed to recognize and take their cue from the telically oriented words at the outset (vv. 1-3): Now the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to Him. But the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This person welcomes sinners and eats with them.” So He told them this parable. You can see that the parables that follow are designed to expose the sin of those who grumbled over Christ’s loving concern to save the outcasts of society. His purpose in Luke 15, though closely related to His evangelistic effort, was not to do evangelism, as so many have thought. It had to do rather with hindering the witness to the lost and the assimilation of new converts into the church. It is wrong to preach each of these parables separately because, as the context shows, they all hang together and because, together, they make an impact that can be made in no other way. Note, a similar pattern runs through each of the three parables: 1. Something is lost (a sheep, a coin, a son); 2. A search is made; 3. The item is found; 4. Everyone rejoices. Surely the listeners could do nothing other than agree that that is how it is and, indeed, how it ought to be. But just as the Pharisees and the scribes were nodding assent for the third time, Jesus threw them a curve. He extended the third parable to reveal the sinful, selfish attitudes and actions of the elder brother, who, against all reason and love, was totally out of accord with the appropriate response. This brother, of course, represented the grumblers mentioned in verses 1-3, who had been complaining about the kind of people Jesus was associating with. They complained, “This person welcomes sinners and eats with them” (v. 2). The power and intent of the passage is lost when the parables are pried apart and, apart from their intended purpose, are used for evangelistic purposes. Surely, the gospel is in them as Christ “seeks and saves that which is lost,” but that isn’t the prime thrust. Convicting those snobbish and self- righteous parishioners who have problems in welcoming previously notorious and unkempt converts into the church would provide a much more appropriate use of the passage that lines up with its telic principle. It is possible, of course, to preach on sub-tele so long as (1) there are sub- tele in the passage (there do not seem to be any in Luke 15), (2) you do so in a way that recognizes the larger telic thrust of which it is a sub-category, and (3) you do not distort the telos or tele of which the sub-telos is a purpose unit. In using it you must show how it relates to and contributes to the telos or tele of which it is a part. It is possible to spend the major portion of a sermon informing the congregation about the coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead who go out to escort Him as He returns, but it would be altogether wrong to lose sight of the purpose of such explanations—to comfort and encourage grief-stricken and confused believers. For more on telos in preaching, see my two articles on the subject in a book of essays on preaching, Truth Apparent, as well as the discussion on the subject in What to Do on Thursday, a book on the practical use of the Scriptures, and Lectures on Counseling, pages 198-203. All these books are published by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey 08865. Class Assignments: 1. Read and report on the materials on telos in one of the three books mentioned above. 2. Find the telos of five passages of Scripture and write them out in a telic statement.  1. For more on the specific issues involved, see my book, Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. 7 ANALYZING THE CONGREGATION We have already seen in chapter 5 that the prime purpose in analyzing a congregation is to select just those passages and books that will come closest to meeting the needs of the congregation. These will vary from congregation to congregation because of dissimilar backgrounds and unique current problems, opportunities, and influences. So, it is essential for a Bible- believing pastor to know how to analyze and adapt his preaching to each congregation in particular.1 There are three principal ways in which a faithful pastoral preacher may analyze his congregation: 1. by means of informal contacts; 2. by means of counseling contacts; 3. by means of formal contacts. All three should be used since they tend to supplement one another. Informal Contacts The informal contact is the fundamental and basic source of information from which congregational analyses may be made. Contacts of this sort are made while rubbing shoulders with members of the congregation as, together, you are involved in church work, but also, and indeed especially, as you do things together in even more informal contexts. The preacher who remains in his study day and night, and who emerges only to attend some formal function of the body, may think that he knows his people, but, as far as knowing their needs, he is really out of touch with them. It is one thing to speak to people at board meetings, in prayer meetings, and after church services; it is quite another to chat during a ball game, at a picnic, or when painting a building. A different side of the individual shows in these two kinds of contexts. Moreover, it is one thing to observe a member in action on church turf but quite another to watch him in his home, in his office, or at a school board hearing. To put it simply, in order to preach to people as they really are, you must see and hear them as they really are. So much of what they do and say while on the church premises is what they think is expected of them; how they are elsewhere often may more nearly approximate their actual inward state. Time spent informally with the members of one’s congregation, then, is not wasted time. Hours of conversation, of work or pleasure spent together with members of the congregation, for the man who rightly uses them, can be among the most valuable ones in the week when it comes to gathering the materials that are necessary to make good choices for future sermons. However, the preacher must be careful to get around to large numbers of his members (all, in time) and not confine his contacts to a small group of persons. Otherwise, he will distort the general picture by limiting his sample to an unrepresentative minority. If there is no other way, he can at least invite various persons to his home for a treat following the Sunday evening service. Of course, these contacts should not be made merely to gather information for congregational analysis; the pastor should genuinely try to get to know each person as a friend. The material for analysis will arise naturally; he will not need to “pump” people. Such material comes best when not sought, but when the preacher is alert and always ready to receive what is freely offered. It is easy to get a distorted view of the congregation by limiting one’s contacts. This readily happens because there are people with whom you will find that it is much easier to make friendships, while there are others with whom that is a very difficult thing to do. You will enjoy spending time with some; it will be hard to spend time with others. But a faithful minister of the Word himself will be a friend of all. He will be aware of the temptations and difficulties, guard against failure, and make every legitimate effort to break through barriers. Counseling  People come to pastors with problems. When you discover an inordinate number of instances in which the same or a similar problem occurs, you should investigate the matter thoroughly to discover the reason. Perhaps there has been erroneous, insufficient, or inadequate teaching in the past; perhaps there is a lack of church care and discipline at this point; possibly there are perverse influences at work among the members of the body. Moreover, as you counsel members, patterns will emerge. Not only will you discover the original areas in which problems are commonly arising, but you will also notice the futile, sinful, unbiblical ways in which your people attempt to solve these problems, ways that, instead, serve only to complicate, deepen, and extend them. And you will begin to note the unbiblical sources to which they have been turning for help and what pernicious damage has been done by following them. All this—and much more—will emerge in counseling and will provide insight in determining what you ought to be preaching about. The preacher who does not counsel makes a grave mistake. Not only does he fail to fulfil his dual commission to be a pastor-teacher, but his teaching also will be adversely affected. Paul elsewhere fused the two-pronged ministry of the Word together when he spoke of teaching “publicly and from house to house” (Acts 20:20). The public proclamation of the Word was accompanied by its private application to individuals and families in counseling. Paul also quite firmly linked the two in Colossians 1:28 when he wrote: Whom we announce, counseling every person and teaching every person as wisely as possible, so that we may present every person mature in Christ. To “present every person mature in Christ” requires both public preaching and private counseling. But it is not the mere fact of the unity of the one ministry of the Word in both its more general and its more specific aspects that I wish to note. In addition, I want you to see that, being a unity, the two manifestations of this ministry cannot be split apart without injury to each; they function properly when they function in tandem. Counseling requires preaching just as preaching requires counseling. One reason why counselors who do not preach fail to become as biblical as they might is that they are not required to do exegesis on a regular basis. That means they can limp along (that is to say, they think they can) with whatever biblical knowledge they have or may glean from weekly church attendance. Time that a pastor would devote to the biblical exegesis counselors often spend studying counseling literature and for lack of biblical understanding, adopt into their practice ideas that conflict with God’s truth. Because of life’s pressures, because of the laziness of sinful human beings, and because of the many temptations to do otherwise, most counselors need the enforced discipline of having to prepare sermons each week to keep them studying the Bible regularly in an intensive way. The counselor who preaches each week will grow as a counselor. He will gain new biblical insights from his weekly study that he will incorporate into counseling, and he will develop the assurance and sure-footedness that is necessary to counsel with biblical authority. Many counselors who do not have a growing biblical underpinning to their counseling naturally adopt a non-judgmental, non-directive approach. If they tried to be directive, they would hardly know what to say with any true assurance. But the pastoral preacher also benefits from counseling; and that is our present concern. If he is not truly a pastoral preacher—i.e., one who meets the needs of the flock, giving individual attention to the sheep—he will not preach well. If he spends his time during the week with commentaries alone, when he preaches he will sound like a book. But the man who puts his exegesis to work, not just on Sunday in the pulpit, but all week long in the counseling room, ministering the Word to those in trouble, will rattle his people’s windows when he preaches. They will say to themselves, “He understands!” And they will come for help. Each activity feeds the other. Moreover, the counseling preacher can work preventively. What he regularly sees in the study he can warn against in the pulpit. What he learns about people, and his people in particular, he can use (properly, of course— no confidences will be disclosed) to the advantage of all. Nothing enables a preacher to ring the bell in a Sunday sermon like knowing that in counseling he has already helped five persons with what he is about to say. It is questionable whether you are ever ready to preach from a passage until you have already used the passage (or one with the same telos) successfully in your own life and in counseling others. Passages preached after successful use elsewhere are preached differently from those preached de novo.2 You will find that such use puts a patina on your preaching of truth that can come only from loving wear and tear.  Formal Analysis In a sense, you are always analyzing congregational members if you love them and care for their welfare. You develop a sensitivity to congregational needs akin to the sensitivity that a mother has for her baby’s needs. That, of course, is in accord with the idea that leaders are to “keep watch” over the flock (cf. Heb. 13:17).3 At all times you will be alert to the attack of the wolves that stalk the church, to the spiritual diseases that spread among the sheep, to the whereabouts of sheep that are prone to wander, and to all of the many other untoward situations into which a flock can come. From these normal functions of pastoral care, a growing understanding of the congregation’s welfare will develop. But these informal analyses, as valuable as they can be, must be supplemented by regular, formal check-ups to discover the state of things. How can stated, formal analyses of a congregation’s growth, or lack of it, best be made? First of all, let me suggest that on your arrival at a new pastorate, as soon as all your books are on the study shelf, you should make an initial analysis, especially of the preaching that has been done in the recent past. Look for a record of what has been preached over the last three years. Sometimes the church bulletins are bound and kept in the church library. A study of these will tell you a lot (about the preaching and much more).4 No such book? Then inquire around. You will find a little old lady somewhere who has collected bulletins going back to the First World War. Borrow the recent copies in her collection and survey the menus from which the congregation has been eating. Former pulpit chefs, you may discover, have placed an over- emphasis on sermon salads to the neglect of preaching proteins—or it may be the other way around. You may want to schedule your early preaching to balance out the starchy diet on which your congregation has been subsisting, and you may want to begin to look around among the members for any cases of spiritual rickets that may have resulted from this poorly balanced meal. Moreover, periodic checks on the state of things at six-month intervals, at the time of your semi-annual planning and preparation effort (I’ll discuss this later), will provide just the sort of information you will need to select the books and passages that will fit your congregation most snugly. “But how do I go about making a formal check or analysis of the congregation?” Of course, there are many sorts of steps you could follow. I shall suggest but a few. First, review your counseling notes for the past six months. See any patterns? Trends? Are you reminded of any needs? Next, visit with a representative group of persons: a couple of teenagers, a young married couple or two, one or two older singles, some retired persons, businessmen, housewives. Find out how they see the situation from where they sit. Put together all the information you have gathered and then evaluate it. Again, any trends? Any deep concerns? What does the information tell you? Thirdly, call a “state of the union” meeting of the elders and discuss the question with them. Probe them deeply. It is their task to know what is going on (Heb. 13:17); assume that they do, let them know that you will hold such a meeting every six months, and you probably will begin to notice a growing incisiveness in their responses. They should have much information to contribute. Finally, go over each name on the roll prayerfully and thoughtfully. Try to evaluate each person’s situation as best you can. What does he need most from you during the next six months? What are his immediate requirements? Answer as fully as you can. Failure to be able to do so will point up to you how much (little) you know about your congregation and especially about particular members of it. This should also lead to plans for deeper contacts whenever these are necessary. Put down in writing everything you have found. You will have more than you can handle during the next six months if your work has been thorough. So you’ll want to begin with this list when you come to your next six months’ evaluation. Also, review of the list at that time will enable you to check up on any progress or the lack of it, and the list, during the next six months, will provide a prayer guide for you. You will probably want to plan for a few days of isolation every six months to work on these matters. What are you looking for when you make such analyses? What you want to find are the areas in which you can build up the church. These will include neglected areas, areas in which failure is occurring, etc. If, according to the construction analogy lying behind the word “edify,” you look at the church as an uncompleted building, a building on which at times inferior workmanship has been done, and a building that from time to time has been vandalized while under construction, in most cases you will not be far from the right track. You are a builder, supervisor, construction worker, and guard, all rolled into one. You must do, or subcontract to others to whom you delegate the work, what needs to be done. Much of the construction work that lies ahead will have to be done through your preaching and your follow-up on it.  There is one other matter worth mentioning here. You may ask, “Does a pastor decide to preach about a subject, or in an area of concern, simply because it constitutes a majority problem?” What I have said thus far might lead you to believe that I think so. However, there are other considerations. One of the chief of these is the greatness of the danger of a potential problem. If some threat to the congregation looms large on the horizon, the preacher may elect to preach about the matter regardless of how few persons (if any) have actually been affected by it. False ideas abroad in the community, whether they be heretical teachings, secularizing and humanistic movements, or the corrupting influences of the media, may trigger sermons launched from their pad like protective, preventive satellites. It is true, then, to say that whatever builds up the church, and whatever will preserve what has already been built, is what the pastoral preacher looks for. Class Assignment: Analyze a congregation in depth with the permission and help of its pastor. Hand in your results in a major paper and provide a copy for the pastor. 1. For information on how Paul adapted his preaching to different audiences—even in one-encounter evangelistic contexts—see my book, Audience Adaptation in the Sermons and Speeches of Paul. 2. This is only another reason for the six-month study-preparation program that I shall present in chapter 13. 3. See also I Thess. 2:7, 8, 11. 4. Be sure you leave one. 8 THE PREACHER’S STANCE I write you a letter asking you to help me to obtain the position of associate pastor in your church. You read the letter closely, noting exactly what each word and phrase means. You find out all about me and the circumstances under which the letter was written. Then, after all this effort, and much more like it with which I shall not bore you, you say, “Well, I’ve finally got it. I understand what this letter is all about: Adams wants to be my associate pastor.” And that’s it; that’s where it all ends! Strange? Of course. Absurd? Naturally. We don’t ordinarily do things like that. I expect a certain kind of response to my request, and you, surely, would give me one. The purpose of the letter was to elicit a yes or no response, which would lead to further action on my part and might also lead to further action from you and from the church. The letter could cause a number of changes. We are continually concerned about the lack of change that preaching brings about. One of the reasons there is no more response is the stance the speaker takes toward the Bible and his congregation, and the stance he urges them to take toward the Bible. When his stance is wrong, he can expect theirs to be wrong too. No wonder so little change takes place; much so-called “preaching” does not require it. Much “preaching” is every bit as inappropriate as your hypothetical response to the letter mentioned above. The preacher does a good job of considering the historical-grammatical exegesis of the preaching passage, considers it theologically and rhetorically, and then—simply tells his congregation what it means. His response, and consequently theirs as well, is to say, “Well, now I understand it,” and that’s that! That is not preaching. True preaching does all of the above, but it also identifies the telos (purpose) of the passage, builds the message around it, and calls on the congregation for a response that is appropriate to it. It works for change. Preaching that stops short of asking for change that is appropriate to the Holy Spirit’s letters to His church is not preaching at all; at best, it is lecturing. The lecturer speaks about the Bible; the pastoral preacher speaks from the Bible about the congregation. He tells them what God wants from them. These are two distinct stances. Let me see if I can set these two distinct stances over against one another so that the contrast between them will be even more apparent. I shall first set them out in diagram and chart form; then I shall discuss them with you. LECTURE STANCE PREACHING STANCE Lecturer talks to cong.: Preacher talks to cong.: —about the Bible, —about themselves from the Bible, —about what God did long ago —about what He is doing and and far away to the Israelites, they ought to be doing, —in 3rd person (he, they), —in 2nd person (you) —in unemotional, uninvolved —in an emotionally involved reporting style. but controlled style. Everything that the lecturer says may be quite true, but if that truth doesn’t come to grips with the congregation in such a way that it can change their lives in accordance with the purpose of the Holy Spirit, it may be lecturing, but it isn’t preaching. What makes the difference between lecturing and preaching? Stance, as I have said. Well, then, how do the two stances essentially differ? First, the preacher searches for and discovers the telos in his preaching portion and makes the Spirit’s purpose his own. The lecturer need not ever discover the telos, but if he does, he will not make it his own. It is enough for him to point out that this is what the Spirit had in mind (for the Israelites, David, Paul). The Holy Spirit’s purpose in I Thessalonians 4 may be to encourage grief-stricken, confused Christians whose relatives have recently died by presenting facts concerning the coming of Christ, but the lecturer’s purpose is simply to recount those facts to his listeners. If he goes so far as to indicate that the Holy Spirit wished to encourage and comfort the Thessalonians, he will go further than many, but he will still not preach those facts in an encouraging way that is designed to comfort. That is because his purpose is not to comfort but to relate facts. The lecturer has but one purpose: to inform. Rarely, if ever, do the Scriptures merely inform. As we have seen, information about the Lord’s coming is given a motivational twist: “Encourage one another with these words.” When they are used to encourage as well as to inform, that is preaching; when they are used simply to inform, that is lecturing. Too much lecturing passes for preaching. Look at the diagram and the chart. In the typical lecture stance, the lecturer and the congregation stand over against the Bible, in an “objective,” uninvolved way. Their stance is apart from as well as over against. The Bible has become an object of interest and analysis. Their concerns are about what happened in Bible times, not about what happens today. They take the historical viewpoint. Consequently, the language that they use abounds in “he,” “she,” and “they” constructions. And the past tense predominates. On the other hand, the pastoral preacher, the congregation, and the Bible are all bound together in a here-and-now fashion. All three are wrapped up in something that is taking place at the moment, or ought to take place in the near future. There is involvement in the facts. Because the preacher’s concern is not to communicate facts but to produce change by facts, he will speak largely in the present tense to the congregation, about God and themselves on the basis of what God said and did to others and to them in Bible times. The true preacher will be no less concerned about what happened to Israel and to the Amalekites than is the lecturer. Nor will he take any less care in exegeting the passage and in explaining it to his congregation. But he will do so, from start to finish, with the understanding that this pertains to them, not just to Israel and the Amalekites. The lecturer speaks about the Bible, and about David; so does the preacher. But the preacher does so to demonstrate to the congregation that this is the basis and authority he has for what he is saying about God and them. And, whereas the “scholarly” lecturer stands aloof from the data as a reporter of facts, never allowing the data to touch him, the pastoral preacher is willing to enter into the full weight of its emotional impact for himself and for his people. Preaching engages the whole person, not the intellect only. The lecturer is concerned about literary analysis; that is why he thinks in terms of the “central idea” or “theme” of a passage rather than about its telos. The preacher is concerned about people; that is why he is oriented toward what the Holy Spirit intends to do for them through preaching that passage. It is for that reason that preachers today, like those in the Book of Acts, so frequently use the second person. Until your stance toward the Bible, God, and your congregation is proper, you will never really preach as you should. This is a vital issue. Try as you may, you will find it as impossible to do so as if you were to take a pitcher’s stance while up at bat. It is all a matter of stance. Stance has to do with how you orient and address yourself toward something or someone. The purpose of learning to develop a correct stance, then, is to enable one to do well what he wishes to do. Some would-be preachers have been more concerned about their golf stance and how they address the ball than about their preaching stance and how they address their people. So, if stance is all-important, as indeed it is, then be sure that your stance is a preaching stance and not a lecturing stance. To preach with ease and with power in a manner that fully honors the Spirit and His Word requires it. Class Assignment: Analyze three printed sermons for their stance. Be prepared to report on and discuss one. 9 A PREACHING OUTLINE “Why are you considering outlining before you focus on content?” Because we are preachers of the Word, not rhetoricians. Our basic content comes from the Bible and not from other sources.1 Of course, it might be appropriate to discuss exegesis and hermeneutics for several chapters, but that is beyond the purpose and scope of this book. I must assume (and I know this is a very large assumption) you know how to exegete according to proper hermeneutical methods. Having assumed that and, further, having assumed you have successfully completed the study of a passage, let us consider what you will do with your findings. First, let us ask, what do you have at this point? Perhaps, following your exegetical study, you now have in your possession something like the following: 1. Notes on the meaning of the passage, with cross references, word studies, etc. You may have made your own translation of it. All this is recorded on several sheets of paper, note cards, or in a notebook. 2. Jottings of various sorts, including a. ideas suggested by the exegetical study; b. initial outlines, or bits of outlines, that occurred to you during the study;