Bob asked some helpful questions on yesterday’s post.  Generally an expository sermon will have “back then” and “today” stances because by definition an expository sermon needs to both explain and relevantly apply the text. So at a certain level the progress will typically go from then to now (allowing for the sermon to start in the present before moving back in order to create need). Within a sermon point, you would often include both.

However, there is a nuance that I intend here. It is possible to explain a text either with our feet firmly planted in the present, or by travelling back to Bible times and getting into the mind and situation of the writer. Also it is possible to apply the text from “back then” or from a “today” stance.

Perhaps first-person preaching is the best explanation of this. When you choose to preach in character, you have several choices to make. One key choice is whether your character is visiting today, or whether the congregation is visiting back then. I recently preached Nahum as Nahum, but I decided to have Nahum visit contemporary England to give the message. This allowed him to make more specific applications to my listeners than if they had been transported through time to Nahum’s day. However, if I had chosen to take them back there, I would have been able to explain the text more vividly. Instead of referring back to what happened all those centuries ago, I would have been able to engage imaginations more directly and create a sense of fear at the Assyrians who live over there, etc. In first-person preaching, a “back then” stance is stronger for explanation and weaker for application (because it can only be hints that people have to translate into their own world). But a “today” stance is often weaker on explanation while allowing more in application.

In normal preaching it does not have to be either/or. We have the freedom to select the stance throughout the sermon. If we are aware of the strengths of both, perhaps we will do better at selecting the most effective means of preaching the Word. Perhaps taking a few minutes to “experience” through imagination exactly what the writer is meaning by his words would be worth it for better understanding (rather than just making explanatory comments from two-thousand years away). But then you want to clarify the relevance of that understanding, so you switch back to today and address people in their contemporary life situations. Application is usually better when direct, clear and vivid. Explanation is usually better from a closer perspective.

This may seem obvious, but I have heard a lot of preachers choosing the wrong stances. I’ve done it myself. It is easy to analyze the text from a distance, sitting very comfortably in the 21st century. And then somehow we hope that vague applications in the terms of the 1st century will hit home. How much better to get us back into the 1st century to understand the passage, but then vividly apply in contemporary terms. Be aware of the basic concept of preaching stance and evaluate your sermon accordingly. These are not hard and fast rules, but perhaps a helpful insight.