Some thoughts on preaching

I've been doing a fair amount of preaching lately and have a few speaking engagements coming up as well. As I've been studying for these messages I've been thinking a lot about the art of crafting a sermon (otherwise known as "preaching.") I like phrasing it that way because I truly do think the sermon is an art form. I remember in college sharing with a girl that I wished I was artistic and she challenged me to think of the act of preaching as being art. I think she was right, and that is cool because I've secretly always wanted to be kind of artsy and so I guess I kind of am.

When it comes to this art there are several different approaches (some gross over-generalizations):

Topical: Focus on a specific topic and use several different prooftexts to help support your claim regarding that topic. (Note: it is possible to be topical and use one central text as well)

Inspirational: Many moving and inspirational stories and little depth and exegesis of Scripture.

Expository: Pretty self-explanatory. A central text that is dissected and exposed. Low on inspirational stories, high on depth and exegesis of Scripture.

Narrative: The preacher is a storyteller. Not so much in the sense that she is telling inspirational stories, rather that she communicates Scripture as a great story, a scene in a larger meta-narrative.

My purpose in this post isn't to assert one approach over the others (although I tend to have my preferences). I think there are values and dangers in each approach. There are two approaches I observe today of which i want to point out some dangers.

On one end of the spectrum there is the topical preaching that runs rampant in many evangelical churches today. I like to call it "self-help baptized with a little Jesus." These sermons are often very polished, very organized, and demonstrate the using of Scripture to support one's claims. This kind of preaching really took off with the whole "seeker" movement as a way of making biblical truths more accessible to the common unchurched person. My concern with this style of preaching is that it results in good and moral Christians with little understanding of the Bible and its claim on the life of a Christian.

Yet on the other end of the spectrum there is something happening with younger postmodern preachers and that is a return to expository and narrative preaching. I like to call this "let me drop my seminary knowledge on you." These sermons are often very deep theologically, take into account the context, and sound more like the presenting of an exegesis paper. Some can effectively communicate this in such a way that anyone can understand, but many cannot. While I believe in the importance of exegesis and context my one little concern is, "does anyone know the preacher is saying?"

I don't think that preaching at its best is one of these approaches or the other, or even a balance of the two. Rather effective preaching is when the artist/preacher can take deep theological, scriptural, and exegetical truths and convey them in such a way that the hearers can understand. I think this is why Jesus spoke in parables. Instead of saying, "Let me explain to you the three methods of evangelism and church growth," he said, "it's like a farmer who goes out to sow some seed..." Jesus conveyed a deep truth in a way that his hearers could understand. The artist created something on a canvas that when the beholder saw it he said, "I get it," and his soul was stirred.

This is more rambling than anything and not well developed, but I think it highlights some of what's going on in the preaching art-form today. What is the preacher trying to accomplish with the sermon? What is your approach? What are the values/dangers attached to it?

Super Bowl Pick: Colts 34 Saints 31 (but I hope I'm wrong. Go Saints!)