Your homiletics preferences and peeves?

[ALAYMAN]

We’ve discussed preaching methods at length on the FFF over the years. Some people like the yelling stuff, others prefer the methodological plodding exegesis of Piper types. Some prefer the camp meeting’ histrionics and love the Tennessee Windsuckers or comedic value of Tony Hutson and bombast of Larry Brown. Some like personal anecdotes while others only want illustrations that are derived from Scriptural narratives. So
two (or 3) questions….

1) What are your musts AND preferences in the crafting and presentation of a sermon?

2) How do you feel about the idea of reading other sermons, commentaries, devotional, etc during a sermon?

 

[subllibrm]

We’ve discussed preaching methods at length on the FFF over the years. Some people like the yelling stuff, others prefer the methodological plodding exegesis of Piper types. Some prefer the camp meeting’ histrionics and love the Tennessee Windsuckers or comedic value of Tony Hutson and bombast of Larry Brown. Some like personal anecdotes while others only want illustrations that are derived from Scriptural narratives. So
two (or 3) questions….

1) What are your musts AND preferences in the crafting and presentation of a sermon?

2) How do you feel about the idea of reading other sermons, commentaries, devotional, etc during a sermon?

1. In general, exposition yes, topical no. I prefer a revelatory teaching style over a loud preaching style. Passion incorporated in the former is welcome but often seems manufactured in the latter.

2. Any and all are welcome if they help to properly explain and apply the principles of the subject matter. All preaching is derivative IMO so I would rather have the original source credited when possible.

 

[Ekklesian]

No theatrics.

 

[Bob Jones VI]

We’ve discussed preaching methods at length on the FFF over the years. Some people like the yelling stuff, others prefer the methodological plodding exegesis of Piper types. Some prefer the camp meeting’ histrionics and love the Tennessee Windsuckers or comedic value of Tony Hutson and bombast of Larry Brown. Some like personal anecdotes while others only want illustrations that are derived from Scriptural narratives. So
two (or 3) questions….

1) What are your musts AND preferences in the crafting and presentation of a sermon?

2) How do you feel about the idea of reading other sermons, commentaries, devotional, etc during a sermon?

1. It must come from someone who is serious and has had the word change them first.
2. I have no problem with it in small doses. But the bulk should be your own discoveries and exegesis.

 

[Ransom]

1) What are your musts AND preferences in the crafting and presentation of a sermon?

None, apart from it being text-centric. My church has been gifted with some very good expository preachers while I've been here, as well as some prominent guest speakers known for their expertise in homiletics (e.g. Haddon Robinson, D. A. Carson). Their styles and delivery clearly vary, but they always stuck to the text under examination.

2) How do you feel about the idea of reading other sermons, commentaries, devotional, etc during a sermon?

Do it sparingly. It's a sermon, not a term paper. But if it supports a difficult point, go right ahead.

 

[ALAYMAN]

None, apart from it being text-centric. My church has been gifted with some very good expository preachers while I've been here, as well as some prominent guest speakers known for their expertise in homiletics (e.g. Haddon Robinson, D. A. Carson). Their styles and delivery clearly vary, but they always stuck to the text under examination.

Nice guest speaker lineup.

Do it sparingly. It's a sermon, not a term paper. But if it supports a difficult point, go right ahead.

I think I follow, but could you flesh out a little of what you mean by “supports a difficult point“?

 

[Ransom]

I think I follow, but could you flesh out a little of what you mean by “supports a difficult point“?

What I was thinking of was a minority opinion or something else that might be difficult for hearers to accept readily. In which case, citing a credible authority on the text would support the preacher's argument--he's done his homework and isn't just pulling a novel interpretation out of thin air.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Everyone has their own particular teaching and preaching style. Trying to mimmick another preacher is nonsensical (looking at all you HAC grads here).

I often think of Doug Fisher (my old pastor - Lighthouse Baptist, San Diego) and his method of delivery. What strikes me is the uniqueness of his preaching style - he is definitely one of a kind! I cannot think of a single time in which I had nodded off during one of his sermons. Not even after having stood a "mid-watch" (Navy) the night before! The main reason being was the way in which he engaged his audience as if he was communicating directly "with them" rather than just delivering a sermon "to them." Consider this for a moment or two! Far too often you have pastors yelling and screaming but not really "connecting" with their audience! I lose count of how often I nodded off during such sermons and got my wife's elbow in my ribs!

This is something that I have been trying to incorporate in my own teaching and preaching style. What this entails is the involvement of those you are speaking to, asking thought-provoking questions, soliciting feedback, etc. There are times when I do get "excited" or "animated" but only when it seems natural to do so.

As for my preferences while sitting in a pew, listening to a podcast, or whatever, I prefer expository preaching that is scripturally and theologically rich where it is obvious that the preacher is adequately prepared and makes application to text for which he is preaching. These days, I have a very low threshold of tolerance for foolishness behind the pulpit.

I have no problem with a preacher citing other sources so long as it is relevant to the topic and he gives credit to the source. Polly-parroting someone else's material is pure laziness and is deserving of our contempt.