For no reason other than curiosity, I recently went back to some of my notes from seminary on sermon-writing. The notes that were most interesting to me were not those from my preaching classes, but those from a class called “Advanced Biblical Exegesis.” At RTS¹, it’s kind of a hodgepodge class for third-year students that covers a random assortment of topics. In Charlotte (in the mid-2000s) it was co-taught by Drs. Bob Cara² and Dick Belcher.

I’m posting this because I realized in reading the notes how much better my preaching would be if I’d follow this more intentionally. It’s also not a bad standard to use for evaluating the preaching you’re under each week. (Do so with humility and grace, please.) It could also be very helpful to anyone out there who ever needs to write a sermon and doesn’t really know where to begin.

Pre-work: Determine the text, the circle of meaning³, and what within that circle you are going to emphasize. Even if the sermon will be topical, start with a text.

Sermon Outline

• Introduction
  • Present a modern existential problem⁴ or interesting intellectual question⁵ that is neither obvious nor so generic as to be useless.
  • Give a brief introduction to the text so that the congregation has some idea of what it’s about when you read it to them.
    • Historical background – who is the audience and what is their situation
    • Literary background – what has happened prior to this point in the book⁶
    • Logical progression – how is this text organized or where it falls in broader organization
  • Read the text. How you read it should give the flow and emotional tenor of the passage.
• Exegesis⁷
  • Progress through the text, using the logical progression to break it into sections, and making exegetical comments and explanations along the way.
  • Get “top of mind” problems out of the way quickly. Do not let potential problems (absolutes, contradictions, etc.) become a distraction to hearers because you ignore or put them off.
  • Give a detailed exegesis of the original meaning – how your main sermon point connects to the text. This is the whole ballgame. If you don’t prove that the authority for the original meaning is from God in the text itself, your modern application doesn’t have a chance. Bring in other sections of Scripture, as needed, to expand the point that you are making from this text.
• Application⁸
  • Focus on the modern meaning and theologize on the implications of the exegesis section.
  • Go through several modern examples to show how the text applies to them. Use “think, feel, do” and apply this to various categories of people and situations.
  • In general, make up real-life situations instead of using illustrations.⁹
• Conclusion
  • Bring back the initial problem and give, what is now, the obvious Scriptural solution.

Personal Note

I think the outline above is a great way to organize a sermon as it’s being written. If you write it that way and preach it “as-is,” you’ll be fine.

There is an opportunity however to get a bit next-level with the outline on your final draft. Instead of making Exegesis and Application discrete sections offered in serial, figure out how to weave them together in parallel. I’ve found (on the rare occasions I can do it well) that it helps your listeners to stay engaged throughout rather than dropping in and out.

1. Reformed Theological Seminary ↩︎
2. The notes below are almost entirely ripped off from one of Dr. Cara’s lectures. ↩︎
3. what the text means is not a ‘dot’ but a circle ↩︎
4. why aren’t I more joyful ↩︎
5. how does God as creator impact our environmental views ↩︎
6. what’s its overall purpose? ↩︎
7. this section should be shorter than you think ↩︎
8. this section should be longer than you think ↩︎
9. When you do use illustrations, they should be short, memorable, and obviously connected to an important point. ↩︎

Why were all of Jesus’ thoughts and actions pleasing to God while so many of ours are not? How is it that Jesus’ emotional outbursts were always appropriate and mine frequently involve sin? Scripture commands us to “walk as he walked,” to “be imitators” of him, and to have our minds conformed to his – but where do we even start?

The answer, Scripture teaches, is with our affections. Learning to love what he loves and learning to hate what he hates is the starting point for having thoughts, words and even emotions that are pleasing to God. This semester I’ll be teaching a class considering what happens in a Christian life when we begin to act out of love for God, others, and justice rather than love for self, comfort, and stuff. We’ll also talk a great deal about hate: what we should hate, why we should hate, and how that hate should be expressed.

The audio is available here: http://soundwords.us/library/conform-affections/
And the Podcast feed is: http://soundwords.us/library/conform-affections/all.rss

I recently ran across an article in the London Telegraph reporting on a survey debunking the popular myth of “Catholic guilt.” Combined with several other articles and interviews I’ve heard of late – many filled with opinions about what the Roman church should look for in its next Pope – this got me thinking about how far the concept of “ultimate authority” has fallen in the past decades. Continue reading →

Today a friend and I met to talk for a couple of hours. We talked some about church history, current local church dynamics, specific individual and family situations, as well as several Bible passages that came up over the course of our discussion. Regardless of the particular topic we were pursuing, a common thread emerged throughout: that people (us included) love to run away from grace and toward law whenever possible.

It takes a lot, nothing less than a work of the Spirit, to convince us that we cannot save ourselves and need, through grace, the righteousness of Christ. Unfortunately, the battle against works doesn’t stop there. Having been saved through grace, we still find ways to sneak works in the back door. We judge ourselves on the basis of our performance and, having so judged, give in to sorrow or pride accordingly.

Continue reading →

Earlier this week Eric Metaxas, noted biographer and evangelical rock-star, posted an opinion piece in the Christian Post on the subject of how pastors ought to respond to the ongoing redefinition of marriage debate. Metaxas’ article was in direct response to the news that both John Piper and Leith Anderson have publicly declined to endorse the amendment.

It will become clear that I believe Metaxas’ position is in error, but a discussion of the marriage amendment is not my primary reason for entering the fray. My greatest concern with Metaxas’ article is not the position he takes on the marriage issue but the rhetorical techniques he employs to defend it. These unhelpful techniques are not unique to Metaxas but are commonly employed by many of us and we ought to be careful to avoid them. What follows is an attempt to facilitate careful consideration of what I consider to be linguistic slight-of-hand tricks.

Continue reading →

A rather obvious, but important, lesson to learn is that people are wired differently. These differing personalities result in different ways of handling similar situations. We see this a lot in the ministry: godly and wise men, when faced with similar circumstances, can come to a wide variety of conclusions about the right course of action.

Some men make decisions quickly while others spend more time coming to their conclusions. It can be sinful to be too hasty just as it can be sinful to delay a decision irresponsibly. Yet neither is right or wrong every time. Some men are wired for (godly) confrontation, while others have perfected the “honey, not vinegar” approach. Each has its place. I trust few would dispute this much.

Continue reading →

The stars seem to have aligned for me to do a great deal of thinking and reading about the sovereignty of God this week. I’m preparing for a Lead with Character trip and God’s sovereignty is a major teaching point for the level 1 trips. I’m also preparing the evening sermon for next Lord’s Day on the topic as we work our way through Arthur Pink’s book The Attributes of God.

I’ve certainly spent a fair share of time studying this subject in the past. My initial exposure to this doctrine was one of the major events that lead to my taking hold of a more mature faith in college. Hearing Dr. Terry Eves’ explanation and biblical defense of that doctrine, against the objections of a room of undergraduate skeptics, began the process through which I came to recognize the intellectual respectability of the Christian faith. The ability of Christianity to withstand legitimate intellectual inquiry was something I hadn’t known before.

Continue reading →