In recent weeks, I have become a student of preaching. At some point while at seminary I will take at least one preaching course, but I have become much more attentive to preaching style and technique. In the past week, I have heard two sermons which followed very different approaches to Scripture. Both tackled difficult passages in profoundly opposite ways.
As a competitor on Hillsdale College's forensics team for 4 years, I am aware of how persuasive people can be after years of rhetorical study. I was amazed at Pastor Eric's faith in Scripture. His sermon expressed a conviction that Scripture is sufficient. The Bible does not need extra help from a persuasive pastor. The preacher of the gospel does not need to use all the tricks of an orator.
In contrast to Pastor Eric's approach, I heard a second sermon this week. This speaker had impeccable credentials reflecting years of spiritual education and experience. He, however, employed an opposite method. His text was Genesis 38, possibly the most difficult passage in Genesis. This story involves Judah fathering a child on his daughter-in-law after she married three of his sons successively following the custom of Levirate marriage. The preacher spent the first section of his sermon establishing the context and reading the passage. He then transitioned into a hermaneutical discussion about authorial intent, and how we should read this passage as a contrast between Judah and Joseph. To explain how we should not be quick to judge Judah as bad and Jospeh as good, he spent 15 minutes telling the story of a German Jew who first developed the process of nitrogen soil enrichment but later invented mustard gas for the Germans during WWI. The preacher's point was that we cannot simply declare this man good or bad, since he had both positive and negative contributions to the modern world. He then concluded his message by pointing out that Christ came from the tribe of Judah.
As my recounting of his sermon may reveal, I was underimpressed with his handling of a difficult passage. What I want to emphasize, however, is his presentation. Throughout his sermon, this preacher used impeccable poise, gestures, voice inflection, and emphasis. He had the entire chapel enthralled with his emotional stories, and is the only preacher I have yet witnessed at Southeastern to sit down to fervent applause. His treatment of Scripture, however, was not thoroughly gospel-centric. He did not, in my opinion, do justice to the difficuly of this passage. His use of rhetoric, however, covered for superficial analysis. I walked away from his message understanding more about how mustard gas came to exist than how Genesis 38 ties into the overall narrative of the gospel.
In these two different messages, I see two opposite approaches to preaching Scripture. The first preacher made a conscious effort to preach difficult doctrines and let them stand on their own. He did not cover them in sermon illustrations but rather created an environment where the Bible could speak for itself. The second preacher chose a difficult passage, and his credentials formed an expectation that he would offer a deep analysis of a problematic passage. His sermon is memorable not for the scripture he preached but for his emotional illustrations and excellent rhetoric. As I train to someday pastor a church, it is my hope that I will be remembered for preaching scripture, and not for my own rhetorical skill.
While home in Hampton Roads this past weekend to register my wife's car with the DMV, I heard Dr. Eric Thomas preach from John 6:41-58, where Jesus describes himself as the Bread from Heaven come down to satisfy men's souls eternally. This passage contains some very difficult doctrinal statements, including Jesus' statement that "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." Pastor Eric preached one of the most blunt sermons I have ever heard from him. Towards the end of his message, he told us that he intentionally did not employ any specific rhetorical devices to improve his persuasion. As a PhD with over 25 years of preaching experience, Pastor Eric can preach persuasively. With this message, however, he wanted to let the text speak for itself. He presented the gospel of Christ as Scripture did, illuminating the doctrines of election, eternal security, depravity, and grace as they were found in the text. If people felt compelled to respond, they could. He did not want anyone to make a decision about the call of Christ because of clever rhetorical tricks.
As a competitor on Hillsdale College's forensics team for 4 years, I am aware of how persuasive people can be after years of rhetorical study. I was amazed at Pastor Eric's faith in Scripture. His sermon expressed a conviction that Scripture is sufficient. The Bible does not need extra help from a persuasive pastor. The preacher of the gospel does not need to use all the tricks of an orator.
In contrast to Pastor Eric's approach, I heard a second sermon this week. This speaker had impeccable credentials reflecting years of spiritual education and experience. He, however, employed an opposite method. His text was Genesis 38, possibly the most difficult passage in Genesis. This story involves Judah fathering a child on his daughter-in-law after she married three of his sons successively following the custom of Levirate marriage. The preacher spent the first section of his sermon establishing the context and reading the passage. He then transitioned into a hermaneutical discussion about authorial intent, and how we should read this passage as a contrast between Judah and Joseph. To explain how we should not be quick to judge Judah as bad and Jospeh as good, he spent 15 minutes telling the story of a German Jew who first developed the process of nitrogen soil enrichment but later invented mustard gas for the Germans during WWI. The preacher's point was that we cannot simply declare this man good or bad, since he had both positive and negative contributions to the modern world. He then concluded his message by pointing out that Christ came from the tribe of Judah.
As my recounting of his sermon may reveal, I was underimpressed with his handling of a difficult passage. What I want to emphasize, however, is his presentation. Throughout his sermon, this preacher used impeccable poise, gestures, voice inflection, and emphasis. He had the entire chapel enthralled with his emotional stories, and is the only preacher I have yet witnessed at Southeastern to sit down to fervent applause. His treatment of Scripture, however, was not thoroughly gospel-centric. He did not, in my opinion, do justice to the difficuly of this passage. His use of rhetoric, however, covered for superficial analysis. I walked away from his message understanding more about how mustard gas came to exist than how Genesis 38 ties into the overall narrative of the gospel.
In these two different messages, I see two opposite approaches to preaching Scripture. The first preacher made a conscious effort to preach difficult doctrines and let them stand on their own. He did not cover them in sermon illustrations but rather created an environment where the Bible could speak for itself. The second preacher chose a difficult passage, and his credentials formed an expectation that he would offer a deep analysis of a problematic passage. His sermon is memorable not for the scripture he preached but for his emotional illustrations and excellent rhetoric. As I train to someday pastor a church, it is my hope that I will be remembered for preaching scripture, and not for my own rhetorical skill.
