A little double entendre in the title.  I want to write briefly about sermon series.  But this is also another in the series of posts started yesterday.  In that post I suggested that we shouldn’t be overly dogmatic about whether we project the text or not.  I have my opinions, obviously others have theirs too.  But my point was that this is not the main point (even though we are prone to make any preference into a definitive conviction).  So today I’ll raise the subject of series, and again I’ll suggest that there are different perspectives, and perhaps again we’ll hear some readers share their reasoned positions.

Should we always preach through Bible books, or sections of books?  Some would say absolutely yes.  God gave us sixty-six books, He did not inspire a thematic table of contents.  A balanced diet will best be found by sequential exposition that therefore does not and cannot shirk the tough subjects, tricky texts and the whole scope of the canon.  The “whole counsel” is a term often coined in these discussions.  It does diminish the time wasting that can go on in selecting sermon texts, or the personal hobby horses that regularly gallop through some pulpits.

But others would critique this approach for a variety of reasons.  Some would suggest that while “all Scripture is God-breathed and useful” – not all Scripture is equally useful to all listeners all of the time.  At a certain level we would probably all agree with that (you would be disappointed to take a friend to an evangelistic event and have the preaching text announced as Nehemiah 7).  Some would suggest that varying the preaching text allows for a broader scope of biblical exposure than being tied into a very long series through a book.  Others might point out that it is perfectly possible to preach expository sermons without being tied into consecutive passage selection (which must not become a defining feature of “expository” preaching).

Perhaps, again, there is a place for balance.  Perhaps sequential series are a good staple diet, but recognizing some of the dangers of overzealous commitment to the practice (i.e. you might not be able to pull off a decade long series like your hero did in a different time and culture, and your listeners might actually get bored and lose interest!)  Perhaps there is a place for series of non-sequential but related texts that allow an important theme to be reinforced repeatedly.  Perhaps there is a place for stand-alone, non-series messages, pastoral or “prophetic” responses to specific situations or crises.

Where do I stand? I’m a gentle proponent of consecutive series through books or sections, but not exclusively.  I suppose I’m probably in favour of the perhapses of the last paragraph.  Again, instead of becoming overly dogmatic in our commitment to one “methodology,” perhaps we should make sure we keep the more important issues more central – like how we handle whatever text we preach, how we look to and lean on the Lord as we serve in the privilege of preaching His word, how we care for the people to whom we preach, how we make sure our preaching is theocentric and the gospel is clearly presented, etc.