In his book The Seven Laws of the Teacher, Howard Hendricks refers to an English bishop who said, “You know, wherever the apostle Paul went, they had a riot or a revival. Wherever I go, they serve tea.” (p165.)
While it would be wrong to try to stir response, either riot or revival, in our own strength, we should be preaching for response. This is why it is so important to have a clearly defined purpose for a message. We often hear about the importance of the main idea of the sermon. But for an effective sermon, you also need a clearly defined purpose – the specific response you prayerfully expect to occur in the life of the listeners.
(Peter has responded to a comment on this post)
Biblical Preaching 
Of course, those pesky listeners may not get it.
Does the hard working preacher on a schedule have much time to fret about the response? I mean, for many engaged in this craft a new message is required in 7 days (minus 1 hour), in addition to all the other responsibilities they have. I know from my own experience (in the distant past) I didn’t feel like I had time to fully respond to a message I had prepared, much less worry about how others might respond.
Peter has responded, see next comment.
The realities of a busy schedule are felt by most preachers. So for many the preparation of a message can become like a race for the fast approaching deadline. Two thoughts.
Firstly, if I am not thinking about the response of my listeners, in what way am I thinking about them? If my main focus is on understanding the passage and “getting a message,” then I am at risk of doing what John Stott described as a common error among conservative preachers – failing to earth my message in the lives of my listeners (a bridge that starts in the text and goes straight up into the air). Preaching must include the Biblical study elements, but also the applied idea for my specific audience. Determining the author’s purpose in writing a text is crucial to understanding the text, and determining my purpose in preaching a message in light of my listeners’ needs is a crucial element of sermon preparation. Haddon Robinson describes the Big Idea as an arrow, and the sermon’s purpose as the target. Both are critical.
Secondly, in regard to the last line of your comment Hank, I would suggest changing the preparation schedule to allow time for a message to make a difference in the preacher’s life first. Instead of preaching a message and then rushing to prepare the next, the preparation can be overlapped. When a preacher knows the series of messages that is coming up, he can be in the text weeks or months in advance. That text can then start its work in the heart and life of the preacher. From week to week, with discipline, it is possible to do some initial preparation on the message that is still, say, 10 days away. Then focus on the forthcoming message, then as this one passes and the message approaches, take some time to do some early work on the subsequent message, and so on. Using a ten day lead in to a message instead of a five or six day lead in can make a huge difference. Preaching was described by Phillips Brooks as “truth through personality” – a preacher will struggle to preach with any integrity if that message has not first permeated his own being. And if a preacher therefore decides to preach without purpose, what happens then? Defining the purpose for a message needs to be included in the irreduceable minimum of preparation steps.
The above idea of taking more of a lead-in by overlapping preparations sounds good, and, like you’re saying, allows for more soak-in-to-the-preachers-own-life time.
Apart from more soak-in time, how else can we as preachers be better at applying texts to our own lives, allowing it to change us first, and therefore modelling good response to the text?
My only thought is that, just as when I preach it would be good to be specific and concrete in application, so I must specifically and concretely apply the text to my own life, by saying ‘what one, or two, or three things am I going to do differently as a result of this?’
Any thoughts from Peter, or Mike, or anyone else? How can we do this apply-to-me-first thing better?
First, let me say I just found you via Pastor-to-Pastor in Yahoo Groups. Interesting site.
To not preach for a response is like creating a product and not thinking about whether people will buy it or producing a TV show now considering whether peopel will be entertained. The whole purpose of preaching is to garner some sort of a response. If you don’t know what response your sermon is supposed to have then please do not preach it.
A couple of things:
1. Preaching for a response is OK, but can be easily corrupted. There is another thread here on manipulation vs persuasion. I think it is more reasonable to consider my personal response.
2. I entirely agree with the idea of overlapped preparation and long lead times. However, I am also coming from a perspective of not doing this as my job; it is more on the order of a hobby. I have a day job that requires a substantial part of my time; and a family.
3. I don’t get to choose the book for study, or the passage to preach. It is assigned to me by an elder. I find out what is going to be studied about the same time as anyone else. And it is all I can do to keep up with the study in order to participate in the weekly study group. This is another aspect of the hobby angle. I am not a professional preacher or Bible student. My circumstance may be somewhat different from others reading this blog.
4. I most certainly agree we should have a purpose to our preaching. And I also agree a boring theological lecture that is not earthed is worse than death. I am only saying I have far greater insight into my own needs and responses that I do for some idealized other.
Here’s a question which relates to this but is slightly different, maybe more of an example of preaching with purpose:
I’ve been trying to preach with purpose more, and concretize my applications to real life. But I’m pretty stuck with this one – circumcision in Paul’s letters.
This seems to have been such an issue in NT times – in Galatians, Colossians, etc. – an issue which related to legalism, possibly nomism, and also racial divisions.
But I feel that to preach this I’m in big danger of
either a) leaving this historical and abstract
or b) preaching an amorphous not-concrete freedom
or c) using this to preach freedom from whatever is my current bee-in-the-bonnet.
But what current concrete issues – touching on legalism, nomism and racial divisions – are there? Surely if this was so important then it must be now, but where and how?
Any thoughts?
I’m influenced by those who understand preaching with a purpose to mean preaching whatever the biblical pericope’s purpose is, not only centrally but its implications viewed from a canonical perspective. For instance, circumcision represented an attempt to “get to God” in some manner that was outside of what God did through Jesus. The text addresses the human tendency, (Christian or not) to seek God in a manner that fails to believe that God has already found us. Christ is with us, God with us (via the Holy Spirit) on a very personal level. One might have a purpose for a sermon regarding circumcision to have the parishoner think of ways they are trusting in God that are their own inventions and are not dependent upon God’s grace and love that are ours in Christ Jesus.
Preaching for emotional response can easily be corrupted. And it’s too easy to do. The response I try to illicit is a crack in the armor. If people leave happy, sad, angry, confused, I want them to leave wrestling not just settling.
Rico Tice of All Souls was a guest preacher a few days ago here in Charleston SC. The Monday after he preached to us, I received a phone call from a Jewish man who has been attending services with his girlfriend (a Christian) he wants to talk to me about becoming a Christian. Maybe my sermons have been wearing him down. Maybe my relationship with him has been building to a point of influence. But it was Rico’s sermon that found the chink in his armor and broke it open.
I’ve found that to preach like this I can’t be tired all week and I must marinate on the word for a few days before any ink hits the paper.
Here’s Rico’s Sermon
http://i.b5z.net/i/u/613378/m/Rico_Tice5-13-07.wma
I do agree that we should plan our sermons with some result or response in mind — a call to a specific commitment. But I also agree that the issue is much larger. Consider, is the sermon what you proclaim, or what people hear? What if people do not hear what you proclaim? Sometimes that may be the work of God. How many times have we had the experience of thinking we did a poor job on a particular sermon only to discover that the Holy Spirit was able to do wonders with it in someone’s life. Also, it may produce results you neither foresaw nor intended. When we work faithfully and trust in the grace of God we will see God at work. If we only trust in ourselves and our own efforts then we slide into manipulation.
God bless you for asking thought-provoking statements.
I’m sure many of us have seen God work despite us, He is a great big God with great big grace! But I’m always hesitant to allow an excuse into my thinking that would reduce my sense of responsibility in preparation. Without prayerful thought and preparation a sermon will produce results you didn’t intend. As preachers it is our job to understand the passage and develop a message from that passage, that when delivered to the best of our ability, is intended to achieve specific life change. When God works around us or despite us, praise Him. But I do not want to have to answer for a sermon fired off without thought of its intended target (any more than I want to answer for a gun fired off without thought of its intended target!) We must do all that we can in preparation and presentation and fulfill our responsibility to the max, but may we never trust only in ourselves at any stage of the process! Thanks for engaging with this stuff!
Good question re:circumcision language. One option might be to reframe it in the direction of circumcision of the heart (ref. Deuteronomy and Romans)
Jennie and Denton, thanks for some thoughts on circumcision.
I was in Galatians 5 recently, and so ‘circumcision of the heart’ didn’t really fit that passage (although I can see it might fit others). Here’s what I went for (Galatians 5v1-12):
‘Stand firm – it’s not about what you do, it’s about what Jesus Christ has done’. I tried to paint a picture of the Galatians receiving the gospel at first and then how the false teachers had come in saying ‘This Jesus-stuff is a good start, but if you really want to walk with God you need to get into circumcision, Jewish calender, Jewish food laws.’
As far as application I tried to concretely apply it, a) to believers who are struggling with huge guilt over a past action – ‘Stand firm – it’s not about what you have done – it’s about what Jesus Christ has done in His death and resurrection’; b) to Christians who are plate-spinning in their relationship with God, that is, feeling they have to do this and do that and do the next thing, to hold it all together, in order to be OK before God; and c) to non-Christians, that any restless longing in their hearts for a non-performance-based relationship points towards longing to know God on the basis on what Christ has done rather than on the basis of them getting everything right and sorted.
Was this ok? I welcome your comments/criticisms. My own thoughts are that this wasn’t great but was ok. On the good side, I was pleased to be able to apply it to real life. Also, I think (I hope!) I understood and communicated the Galatian situation properly.
On the other hand, a) I don’t think I connected the rest of the passage and the real life application very well. Paul seems to be showing how serious this circumcision-error is, and, this is where my applications fall down. Am I really suggesting that people struggling with plate-spinning, or guilt-feelings, have fallen from grace? Definitely not. So what Paul is talking about and what I’m on about are different. b) Also, my applications are quite pietist, all about me and my inner world, almost a bit psychological. The situation in Galatia was far broader.
I tried hard to apply this circumcision-stuff to real life, rather than leave it abstract, and to a certain extent I think i managed, but I’m still left wondering about this circumcision-stuff. If it was crucial then mustn’t it be crucial now – but where, and in what form?
Thoughts?