Andy Stanley, pastor of North Point Community Church, made a passing comment about lazy preaching in an interview with Preaching magazine. He was talking about his desire to come up with a statement, a takeaway point in a sermon. His stated goal was that a listener could come back to the same passage of Scripture later and say, “I know what that means. I know what that’s about.” Because of that goal he does not like to say, “Paul said” and “John said that again” and so on. Here are his words, reprinted in Preaching with Power edited by Michael Duduit:
I hate sermons like that. When I listen to them, I just turn them off. I think just one passage that says it is all we need. Just help me understand the one passage – please don’t proof text every point with a verse. I think that’s lazy preaching. It would be easy to develop sermons like that.
I tend to agree. There are reasons to go to other passages, but far fewer legitimate reasons than many of us think. When we have the opportunity to preach a passage, let’s do the hard work and really preach that passage. It’s easy to skip all over the canon, but if there isn’t a genuine reason for doing so, it’s lazy preaching.
Biblical Preaching 
I like this. I have never heard the “pack it with cross references” style called lazy preaching. Topical sermons are bad about this. Most preachers who spend little time preparing run to the lazy method. They replace exegesis with cross reference that does not help, especially in application. Preachers who don’t have a big idea will do the lazy method because the parameter for preaching is a topic and time slot instead of a central idea from the text.
I agree that it is lazy preaching to make a point and support it with 35 cross-references, but I think that there is room for good use of other texts when preaching from a primary passage. One thing that it does is show the unity of Scripture. Another thing is that it follows the pattern of the Apostles themselves, who quoted extensively from the OT and sometimes apparently from each other.
I’m preaching through a series of sermons on the big picture of Revelation (no identifying of the Antichrist!), and being able to go outside of the text to show help the people understand what is being spoken of is not only helpful, but almost essential if I’m going to do a good job explaining the text.
I’m surprised to see this type of preaching framed as lazy. I preach in a milieu in which it’s considered lazy not to link the passage to related points in the canon. It actually takes quite a bit of work to both preach a given passage and bring in the points of contact with others. Perhaps that kind of linking is ineffective, but lazy it isn’t.
I agree to a point. I think that so many preachers use the topical method as their primary method because it is easier to develop and better recieved by the hearers and as Peter Bogert pointed out the Apostles did use this method in their preaching to prove Jesus as the Christ.
Yet on the other hand, digging a little deeper demonstrates growth in both the preacher and the congregation where he preaches.
rick
Peter,
I think your examples are exceptions to the rule. When done right and with a purpose, I can see the benefit. I think we have to say at the end of the preparation, “Do I need this or does it take up time explaining what’s explained when I should be applying?”
Milton,
I get your point to an extent. However, much topical preaching doesn’t explain the context of what we are calling “cross references.” I can turn to Ps. 37 and prepare a “how to” sermon in 20 minutes. Use a computer and print out 3 cross references for each point in another 20. To explain the cross references in context, how much preaching time do I have? And do I actually need them or should I be applying?
Good points. Thanks. It’s got me thinking.
Does not one run the risk of ‘imposing’ on the text your desire to extract one point?
Should not the number of point(s) be driven by the text in question?
Great point. It makes sense to me.
I guess what I am seeing is a similarity in topical preaching and the useless use of cross referencing. What the apostles did at least ended inductively with Jesus Christ. I agree with that. The challenge is with many preachers who preach topically. They don’t usually have a central idea. They have a topic. The best topical preachers in the end are 1) biblical and 2) use homiletics and communications skills. I think at the end of cross referencing and preaching topically we need to ask, “Was the message clearly biblical and clear?”
I appreciate the interaction. I am presently doing research on topical preaching.
I find that preaching that sticks int he primary passage as much as possible tends to be less shallow thatn ths sort that flits all over the place. I have used both methods and find that preaching the text is more challenging to the preacher and for the listener. Never thought of th other sought as lazy but it is agood description.